Ammo For Sale

« « The soldier of the future | Home | @CamEdwards: winning » »

Hating the Wookiee Suiters

I’ve never understood the hatred toward libertarians, who mostly just want to be left alone and leave everyone else alone. I mean, sure you could point out their idealized version isn’t the way it works and it never will be. Or criticize their stances because you’re a ‘we must do something even if it’s the wrong thing’ sort. That’s cool. But just blind hatred? Never understood it.

Orrin Hatch has decided that radical libertarians should be punched in their mouths. I think a libertarian would agree that punching someone in the mouth should be illegal. Not sure exactly what his issue with small government types is since he claims to be one.

Meanwhile, John Stossel left ABC because it seems media is hostile to libertarian ideas. Shocking, right? I mean an industry that centers around drumming up outrage over malfunctioning brakes and the contents of ground meat in an effort to rally people into doing something is hostile to people who aren’t too keen on that? This is my shocked face.

You know who else hated libertarians? Hitler.

37 Responses to “Hating the Wookiee Suiters”

  1. Freiheit Says:

    I’d like to remind Mr. Hatch of the following clause from membership in the Libertarian Party, “To validate my membership, I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.”

    So go ahead and punch a Libertarian in the mouth, see what happens next.

    https://www.lp.org/membership

  2. Ian Argent Says:

    That right there is why the Libertarian Party fails. To be a member (not a office seeker endorsed by…) You have to forswear a political act. Yes, initiation of violence for political ends is almost always a Bad Thing. But the thinking that put thatcheck box right on the sign-up page is wanting to be Pure rather than Successful.
    The particulars of that check box means you’d rather be dead than impure. If you rule out initiation of violence (no matter how ignoble the cause), you have ceded the use of violence to your enemies.

  3. Bram Says:

    I disagree with that statement. I won’t foreswear the use of violence to achieve my goal – freedom.

  4. Paul B Says:

    Initiation of violence and the ability to deliver violence are two seperated things.

    Initiation means, and I agree, we would not start anything.

    However once started we would damn well finish it.

    As to freedom, violence there can be open to interpetation.

  5. Mike Says:

    My experience has been that people who express blind hatred (or outrage, or dismissal) of libertarian ideals cannot articulate any argument against them.

  6. John Farrier Says:

    But just blind hatred? Never understood it.

    I’ve wondered this, too.

    I think that it’s because libertarians deny everyone the opportunity to be masters. Conservatives and liberals may be able to get along, after a fashion, if they agree to take turns being rulers.

    For some people, the exercise of power over others is more important than the specific exercises undertaken. Libertarianism is a direct threat to this premise.

  7. Ian Argent Says:

    Trivial example where initiation of violence in support of freedom – shooting the man who says “your money or your life.” He hasn’t (yet) committed violence, but you’d be entirely justified in shooting first. Even if it turns out later he didn’t have a deadly weapon.
    We are lucky to live in a time and place where violence in defense of freedom isn’t required to be the first resort in most cases. That hasn’t been true even in the USA in the past, and is occasionally still true.

  8. Jack Says:

    One could make the argument that the threat of voilence is initiation. As in the person making the money or life demand is the one that started the altercation.

    Said event would not have occured without initiative on his part.

  9. NAME REDACTED Says:

    Libertarians want to prevent people from using coercion on others. Most people /really/ like being able to coerce by proxy.

  10. Bubblehead Les Says:

    I seem to recall having a few drinks with some Armed Libertarians in Pittsburgh last year. Don’t recall any of them wanting to throw Punches around, unlike a Senator from Utah who thinks he OWNS his Senate Seat.

  11. SGB Says:

    Hatch is a moron.

  12. Divemedic Says:

    Threatening force is a form of force: as in, there are only two ways to get a person to do that you want them to do: You can either reason with them and get them to agree, or you can force them to agree.
    Physical force is not the only type of violence. There are many.
    “Your money or your life.” is violence.

  13. Mr Evilwrench Says:

    Saying “your money or your life” implies violence, whether or not in fact you have the capacity to deliver it. If you are able to reinforce that implication through dress, body language, what have you, especially to a reasonable expectation that death or serious bodily injury are imminent upon failure to follow directions, then you have in fact initiated violence, and are fair game. You’ve just flipped the “deadly force” switch and should not be surprised at the result.

  14. McThag Says:

    Is droning on and on and on and on about the utopia that would follow the leapfrog an initiation of force?

    Of course I wanted to punch a fanatic in that case, not a libertarian.

    Perhaps the rage is that the only libertarians that most people notice are the fanatical ones who won’t shut up.

  15. Critter Says:

    i want to punch a hippie. does that make me Not a libertarian?

  16. Jeff Says:

    You just lost. Godwin’s Law

  17. Firehand Says:

    You also have the people who say things like “You should love the libertarian paradise of Sudan!” and other such idiocy. And actually believe it.

  18. Stormy Dragon Says:

    Not sure exactly what his issue with small government types is since he claims to be one.

    I can claim to be the King of France; that doesn’t make it true.

  19. Shootin' Buddy Says:

    “Iíve never understood the hatred toward libertarians, who mostly just want to be left alone and leave everyone else alone.”

    Got to be kidding me? The boots that Libertarians want to put on my neck may display the Star Fleet device but they are boots on my neck.

    Perhaps it because Libertarians want you to be free . . . to do exactly what they say. The Libertarians were the ones pimping the insurance mandates until just recently. To say that Libertarians want to leave people alone is utter bullshit. Libertarians want to tell people what to do just like everyone else.

    http://reason.com/archives/2004/11/01/mandatory-health-insurance-now

  20. comatus Says:

    Well, Shootin Buddy just hit somebody in his soft underbelly. Whether it’s the ‘real pure libertarians’ or (who knew it would ever come to this) some kind of Liberaltarian Establishment, may need to be worked out.

    I’d say this though: sure, Hitler [would have] hated them. But Alexander Hamilton was none too fond, either. That doesn’t get Hitler off the hook, but, stopping just short of Godwin I hope, it puts Alex in some dangerous company.

    About a whole generation ago now, I (shamefacedly and much the wiser) took off my big L for the old little one again. I couldn’t bear to profit, with Harry Browne, from the coming cholera epidemic.

  21. Jack Says:

    Damn.

    Well that goes into a couple interesting questions.

    What other products is it “Libertarian” to mandate purchase?

    And what is the “Libertarian” limit to health insurance regulation? Why can’t I buy a policy for a dollar a year with half a dollar of coverage per annum? Or is the government regulating the kinds of contract I voluntarily enter into suddenly Libertarian?

    Ahh… I see it’s about greater social responsibility. Well, glad that’s cleared up.

  22. nk Says:

    I don’t hate libertarians. It’s just that they’re so much fun to tease. BTW, it’s 11:18, up here. Anybody know of a good pot party with hookers? Just got out of the hospital and all those oppressive doctors gave was tranzine.

  23. bobby Says:

    Well, I just looked at the *modified* Libertarian Party platform …

    3.4 Free Trade and Migration … Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

    So, as long as someone does not pose “a credible threat to security, health or property” let them in?

    Well, let’s just say they’ve *massaged* their message since last I checked. Fuck them.

  24. Seerak Says:

    Libertarianism, even the “impure”, contradictory sort that #19 Shootin’ Buddy linked to, breaks the false political “alternative” of conservatism versus the Left. Leftists, conservatives and establishment Republicans like Hatch rely on that Trap to keep their racket going.

  25. nk Says:

    It’s just doesn’t work. We’re a communal species and we need to work together. We are also a species with words and we make them up to explain the world. And we are else a species with extremely varying intelligences. And we know when something says something smart and somebody says something stupid.

    Now, I think I know what categories some middle-aged, skinny-assed, drug-addicted, alcoholic adultress falls in. Your mileage may vary.

  26. NAME REDACTED Says:

    @ Shootin’ Buddy
    “The Libertarians were the ones pimping the insurance mandates until just recently.”

    Really, your memory seems faulty. It was /conservatives/ pimping it, not libertarians. Insurance mandates are more libertarian than socialized medicine, but they aren’t libertarian.

    Are you confusing libertarians with someone else?

  27. Bram Says:

    He is assuming that every article in Reason Magazine reflects some kind of pure Libertarian policy. Everyone who writes for Reason has their own opinions – which are frequently torn apart in the comments.

    Moderate Senator-for-life types like Hatch and Luger hate real conservatives and libertarians because we expose their fiscal waste.

  28. Greg Swann Says:

    Libertarianism is the politics of egoism. The reflexive hatred we see is an aversion to self-interest as the cardinal value in human lives. I think most libertarians could evolve a deeper understanding of the true interests of the self, but it’s not our politics other people hate, it’s our ethics.

  29. Valjean Says:

    I wouldn’t ever, *ever*, underestimate the desire of some individuals to exercise power over others. It’s an instinct libertarians wouldn’t understand — I know I don’t (yet) — but I’ve also seen it in action more times than I care to count. For my money, this is at the heart of the “hate”: it’s seeing people living their lives every day, that *you can’t control*.

    It’s also as ancient as mankind and the US — once — stood as a beacon in opposition to this type of mindset. It’s a rather sad commentary that this idea hasn’t penetrated the thick skull of, for example, a long-serving senator from a “conservative” state.

  30. Shootin' Buddy Says:

    “Really, your memory seems faulty. It was /conservatives/ pimping it, not libertarians.”

    My memory is faulty? LOL! Libertarians even have Memory Holes!

    I linked to the Reason magazine article. Reason, not The American Spectator, not National Review, Reason knowingly or intentionally ran that article. Reason may be run by 8th graders but it is the flagship of Wookieness.

    “He is assuming that every article in Reason Magazine reflects some kind of pure Libertarian policy.”

    If the Thou-Shall-Buy-Insurance article that ran in Reason had run in National Review, Wookies would be denouncing National Review even more than they do now.

    The notion that Libertarians are not only a good way to piss off mom and dad and not have to wear itchy church clothes on Sunday morning but represent some sort of purity that splashes on to its believers is utter nonsense. Oh, and the notion that they want to leave everyone alone is nonsense. Libertarians want a boot on my neck just like everyone else.

    As an aside, I cannot stand Hatch or Lugar and I relish my vote against Richard Lugar, the poster boy for term limits, in May. I loathe him so much I would vote for a leather-jacketed Reason editor or L. Neil Smith over Richard Lugar.

  31. Steve Says:

    “sure, Hitler [would have] hated them. But Alexander Hamilton was none too fond, either.”

    There were no libertarians in the time of Hitler or Hamilton. Libertarianism is a brand-spanking-new political theory, one which only came on the scene after WWII.

    The Founders in general were a long ways from being any sort of libertarians.

  32. Steve Says:

    >”Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.”

    “Demands”. Note that word again … “demands”.

    Do NOT tell me that the good and pure libertarians do not try to impose their own beliefs on others. They do that as much as any other group of people.

    On a completely separate note, their beliefs are stupid and/or insane.

  33. MJM Says:

    The traditional Republican misunderstands libertarian principles. The word may mean something altogether different to the hearer who has not been reading, or had his ears on, or who has been in DC too long. He still thinks “limited self government” just means fewer programs. To libertarians, that is a serious principle, and off we go on an imaginative, aggressive quest to find new ways we might be freed up from government.

  34. Saul Says:

    *sigh* This is my view of libratarianism

    Me: I believe in leaving people alone, and the minimal government necessary for the United States to function and maintain itself and it’s power.

    Dem: What about Socialized medicine to care for the old and the children?

    Me: While cold, Sorry no. I don’t believe in it and am happy to not cause expense to the rest of society with my end of life medical expenses. I prefer to die quickly and quietly, thank you.

    Dems: You’re Insane!! Evil!!!!!

    Me: No, I made a conscious choice and I simply draw different results from the same data-sets. Socialized medicine is a utter mess and needs to be trashed.

    Reps: Looks like you are on our side.

    Me: I consider you Statist Lite, so no. And that Patriot Act Abomination plus the TSA are the two biggest mistakes your party has ever made. Go away.

  35. JeremyR Says:

    While that Reason article advocating the health mandate is pretty awful, bear in mind that Reason is essentially a mouthpiece for a think tank, not the Libertarian party (or even most libertarians).

    I’m not even sure they are libertarian at Reason, they are the classic example of people saying they are libertarian but really just wanting to be liked by liberals

    Still, the mandate was touted years ago by the right as an alternative to a one payer system, so you had a lot of people on the right touting with it (or in Romney’s case, implementing it).

  36. Shootin' Buddy Says:

    “Iím not even sure they are libertarian at Reason, they are the classic example of people saying they are libertarian but really just wanting to be liked by liberals”

    I now we all want to run away from Libertarianism now that someone comes along and shows us that notion that Libertarians want a jackboot on our necks, but Reason magazine is the flagship libertarian magazine.

    From the website of reason.com:

    “Reason is a libertarian monthly print magazine covering politics, culture, and ideas through a provocative mix of news, analysis, commentary, and reviews.”

    http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=reason+magazine+libertarian&oq=reason+magazine+libertarian&aq=f&aqi=g1g-v1&aql=&gs_l=serp.3..0j0i15.2174l7334l0l7880l18l9l2l7l7l2l383l1354l5j2j1j1l18l0.&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=193b680415c1a72a

    They are here, they are libertarian, they want to tell you what to do, you better get used to it.

  37. Ian Argent Says:

    If we define down violence to include speech, then what? Anti-bullying laws that equate bad words to thrown rocks as far as punishing the user goes?
    Seriously, words != violence, as the school yard taunt says. They may justify the initiation of violence, but just as the US never would commit to a “no first use” policy on nukes or, really, any kind of military force, I’m not going to commit to a “no first use” policy on personal violence, not even to give someone money.
    That last is what really bugs me. It’s not a pledge for a candidate to sign, it’s a requirement to donate money. WTF, Libertarians? I don’t have to forswear premarital sex non-missionary position sex to give money to the Republicans, nor give up my firearms orchards ID card to give money to the Democrats. And while I can’t think of any Republican politician who avers that he had committed premarital non-missionary-position sex, there are plenty of politicians on both sides who quietly avoid their national party’s started position and get money from those nationals anyway.

After several weeks of taking Viagra, I got used to it and took the drug only on the weekends. Noticing the changes, my girlfriend started to ask me why I'm so active on weekends. I had to honestly confess everything. She was not upset but supported me. So thanks to Viagra, I made sure that I'm loved just like the way I am.