Q & A

Q: Why do you keep calling people "leftards?"

A: I debate politics endlessly on Facebook. Some of that also shows up here on the C-blog. But I deal with things a bit differently than others. I try to be humorous about it all because so much of it is utterly farcical.

People turn political arguments into moral arguments. Leftards harp endlessly about social justice and equality and fairness. Fasctards wave the flag and talk about patriotism and the duties we owe to our country and civilization. Even libertarians harp on and on about the law of non-aggression. This is really heavy shit, and it can feel damn oppressive at times as the discussion strains under the weight of these moral and philosophical discussions. Naturally, they go nowhere.

The purpose of all this moral arguing is to make the case that the other side is evil. I refrain from those judgments as much as possible. It isn't that I don't think there is evil there. The problem is that evil is relative to opinions. For instance, I think welfare is evil. Leftards think welfare is just and good. Who is right?

The goal that all these political people are aiming at is to assume some sort of moral high ground. Like Plato, they rationalize to some sort of transcendant standard of what is right and wrong. The problem is that this standard does not exist. Morality is relative. If you doubt this, try listening to the arguments that people make. For instance, a libertarian may argue that the civil rights act violates the property rights of business owners forced to serve people they don't want to serve. A progressive will argue that racism is wrong and needs to be stamped out. Who is right here?

To me, the only transcendant thing is reality. Reality is not relative. It is what it is regardless of your perception of it. For instance, no one argues whether or not bloodletting is right or wrong. This is because we know it doesn't work at curing any disease. Science has a strange way of rendering arguments moot. Likewise, consequentialist arguments have the same effect. You can argue all day about whether or not drinking is a moral sin. What can't be argued is that Prohibition works. I have yet to find any teetotallers who think we should go back and try that failed experiment again.

Reality should always be the basis of your points. Now, this does not automatically change people's minds. There are people who still believe the earth is flat. But no one says these people are morally wrong for this belief. We laugh at them and call them stupid.

I am much more comfortable calling people stupid instead of evil. This is because stupidity is funny. I would rather use mockery instead of demagoguery. This is why I call them "leftards." The ironic thing is that it makes others laugh, and it might piss off the leftard. But it is very effective, and it really brings down the heavy tone on all this shit.

There are other libertarians such as Stefan Molyneux that take the moral approach even urging people to disassociate themselves from statists. This may or may not be an effective approach. I don't know. It is simply not the approach that I take. I associate with a wide variety of people with different and even opposing backgrounds. The irony is that they seem to like me even as they argue against others in my friend pool on Facebook. People that disagree with me still remain friends with me for some odd reason. But I think it has to do with the way I argue and approach the issues.

I respond to facts and make jokes lampooning moral arguments. It doesn't mean that I don't have morals, but I think all morality should be subject to question and review. Morality is subordinate to reality. When you show the repeated failings of the welfare state and Marxism, no one but a fool can argue for it. I would love to see poverty eradicated, but this is not the way it will be done. Responding to this reality, leftards have embarked on "social entrepreneurship" which is just a rebranding of the free market philosophy to assuage whatever cognitive dissonance they are feeling. But it shows people do respond to facts and change.

People that use moral arguments seek nothing less than religious conversion. I am not like that. I simply spur people to evolve a bit in their thinking. Even theists have adapted their theology to accomodate science. The changes that really happen are found in these incremental steps. Ultimately, freedom is relative. I doubt the entire population will become libertarian, but they clearly are softening up on things like marijuana as they are presented with the evidence. I think this consequentialist approach is a winning strategy. If you disagree, you are a poopyhead.

Posted in: