Comments

Bottom of Comments | Comment Form | Original Post

Rich indeed.

His credulous faith in the nonexistent abilities of the Federal government to keep Mexicans out of the US doesn’t do him much good, but more importantly it doesn’t do him much harm either: however much or how little thought he puts into this, he’ll get the same amount of Mexicans. Likewise with elk.

The premise of Mr. Lopez’s argument seems to be that you can argue all you want, since you have no responsibility in case you’re wrong. How ironic of a Libertarian to say that since the Libertarian philosophy has *never* been *successfully* implemented in human history, and a good thing too since it’s doomed to failure. Show me one example in human history where undefended gentle traders, who mind their own business, can survive when the neighbouring warlord (who doesn’t subscribe to the live-and-let-live philosophy) decides he wants their “stuff”.

The Libertarian belief that all humans are gentlemen rather than covetous scoundrels and fallen sinners is pure fantasy and makes it clear that the Libertarian absolves himself of responsibility when the philosophy fails.

Felix Estrella | 6/6/2006 08:38 AM CDT | #64488


I posted a reply over there.

Hellbilly | 6/6/2006 09:14 AM CDT | #64493


The tendency of so called libertarians to espouse pacifism and other utopian ideas is why I became disillusioned with their policy proposals.  Not all libertarians are pacifists, but the path from “no initiation of force” to “no use of force” seems to be a short one.  In practice, libertarians give too little importance to national defence and self defence.

I wonder if this guy would favor the libertarian approach of allowing landowners along the border to actually defend their Private Property against invaders.  Trespassing is, after all, an initiation of force and ought to be grounds for a response.  Illegal border crossers have also been known to destroy property and threaten other acts of violence.  A non-pacifist libertarian response to this would, unfortunately, be likely to get the landowner into legal difficulties

fast richard | 6/6/2006 09:37 AM CDT | #64502


Richard,

That’s an interesting point. Note that our Gummint refuses to allow landowners to do that—and for a sound reason: the minute our folks started shooting at illegals, the MexGov would send in their Army as reprisals.

It’s called “escalation”, and to prevent that, the FedGov is willing to risk alienating libertarians everywhere.

Kim du Toit | 6/6/2006 09:46 AM CDT | #64503


God forbid, that things should escalate to the point of acheiving an actual solution. Good Heavens, we wouldn’t want that!

*sigh* must be burr in my boots or something.

Fast_rope71 | 6/6/2006 09:50 AM CDT | #64504


The real question is when does “holding contradictory political ideas” become “thinking for yourself”?

Rustmeister | 6/6/2006 09:59 AM CDT | #64506


I would like to point out that Ms. Rand’s Objectivism is a bit closer to conservatism than it is to Libertarianism… and she’s about a million light years away from individualist-anarchism.

Note that our Gummint refuses to allow landowners to do that—and for a sound reason: the minute our folks started shooting at illegals, the MexGov would send in their Army as reprisals.

It’s called “escalation”, and to prevent that, the FedGov is willing to risk alienating libertarians everywhere. The thing that I don’t understand is why this doesn’t alienate conservatives, either. I mean, you do believe in property rights, and the military machine conservatives are so fond of is more than capable of defending against the Mexican Army, so where’s the problem?

Let people defend their property; if the Government has any legitimate function, it is to defend property owners in case of a reprisal by a foreign government.

Jac | 6/6/2006 10:34 AM CDT | #64515


Oops… messed up the quotation there. Imagine there’s a carriage return after Kim’s “escalation” sentence.

D’oh!

Jac | 6/6/2006 10:35 AM CDT | #64516


Jac,

Pragmatism wins.

...if the Government has any legitimate function, it is to defend property owners in case of a reprisal by a foreign government.

Nice thought. But they won’t. Geopolitical reasons and all that good stuff.

And since Kelo, you’ll forgive me for doubting that government has any real interest in individuals’ property rights…

Kim du Toit | 6/6/2006 10:42 AM CDT | #64519


HEY!

We’re not all anarcho-capitalists (read: morons).

Application of libertarianism in a practical manner gives you minarchists. “Pure” application of libertarian premises gives you...well...inanity.

Stiletto | 6/6/2006 11:52 AM CDT | #64528


Ah, pragmatism. Thanks, but you can keep it.

And since Kelo, you’ll forgive me for doubting that government has any real interest in individuals’ property rights…

‘Course not. But they have no real interest in gun rights, either, yet that hasn’t shut you up.

We’re not all anarcho-capitalists (read: morons).

Hey, now. Uncompromisingly idealistic, maybe, but all the ancaps I know are rather intelligent.

Jac | 6/6/2006 02:02 PM CDT | #64545


I think Kim is ranting against purists here.

People too pure to vote for a RINO, or too pure to vote at all, are the ones that will allow the Evil Party a victory.

Then you will just wish you were only dealing with a RINO, instead of Stalin-incarnate.

kbarrett | 6/6/2006 02:38 PM CDT | #64547


Many “libertarians” do seem to be anarchist, but not all.  And I think you are right on about the elk and the border. 

However, in your list under “Position Paper (3) - Conservatism”, I think you would get agreement from most libertarians on every issue except the marriage one.  Some would also disagree about the size of the military (defense only) but protection of private property (military and police) is important to libertarians.  As far as personal protection, I think libertarians would be a larger supporter of gun rights than the stupid party (no, I don’t have data to back this up).

Closet Libertarian | 6/6/2006 02:56 PM CDT | #64551


DuToit isn’t a philosopher and so has no inherent stake in making a correct analysis of the situation.

What the… (can I swear here?) What stake exactly does a “philosopher” have either? And what does he mean by “philosopher” anyway? PhD? Tenure? Toga-and-hemlock? What?

Whatever a philosopher is, I promise you any two of them will disagree about one thing or another; so much for the value of an “inherent stake”, whatever that’s supposed to mean (...unless you define a “philosopher” as “the one who turns out, in the long run, to have been right — which is circular).

What he has to say about what he calls “philosophy” boils down to an unsupported assertion that he’s always right because he’s a naturally superior being of some kind:

There are a very small number of people who tend strongly to manifest epistemic rationality even when their immediate survival does not require it. I call us “zero percenters” ...

I think we zero percenters are either born this way or else our nature is determined at an early age. ...

What a pompous, gibbering jackass. Is he about sixteen years old? That would excuse it, if he’s at an age where “moron” is normal. Very few people old enough to shave are still that excited about knowing what “epistemology” means.

Jac,

...all the ancaps I know are rather intelligent.

All the socialists I know are rather intelligent, too. They’ve got to work at being morons. Fortunately, they’ve got the smarts to do a thorough job.

Utana Melmoth | 6/6/2006 06:10 PM CDT | #64562


Only 28 hits on Google for ”burden of proof” at that site. I seem to recall that phrase used to be the customary identification signal of teenage libertarians on USENET, when they weren’t babbling incoherently about “epistemology”. Have they gotten smarter, or are they just mindlessly chanting some other equally retarded mantra now?

No, wait, I don’t actually give a rat’s ass. Never mind.

Utana Melmoth | 6/6/2006 06:22 PM CDT | #64563


We categorize; we classify; we pigeonhole; we (gasp!) discriminate. There’s no shame in it. We’re human; it’s what we do.

Overgeneralizing, however, is another matter. It never fails to rankle me when folks write off all libertarians as anarchists or pacifists. We are neither, dammit.

If y’all want to criticize libertarians, at least capitalize the term, because God knows the Libertarian Party has done its part to alienate me.

Boff's [widget] | 6/6/2006 06:27 PM CDT | #64564


Actually, “epistimology” is the big buzzword of the Randroids .... the outer fringe lunatics who think the big “L” purists are unprincipled compromisers.

Heh.

kbarrett | 6/6/2006 07:06 PM CDT | #64566


lol

Ayn Rand...her writing sucks, but there are enough good ideas scattered about (Objectivism has its useful bits) that I have to punch myself a few times to relieve the pain of agreeing with her.

Stiletto | 6/6/2006 07:41 PM CDT | #64568


Actually, “epistimology” is the big buzzword of the Randroids .... the outer fringe lunatics who think the big “L” purists are unprincipled compromisers.

Oh, God. They get worse?

I admit it. I’m an apostate! A sinner! A heretic! A strayer from the One True Path! I don’t use the word “epistemology” in everyday conversation, so I’m essentially no better than a fascist!

Yeah, they rankle me, too.

“Randroids,” hm? You’ve taught me a new word!

Boff's [widget] | 6/6/2006 09:59 PM CDT | #64574


“Overgeneralizing, however, is another matter. It never fails to rankle me when folks write off all libertarians as anarchists or pacifists. We are neither, dammit.”

Very well put. And true.
However, even I have generally stopped calling myself a “libertarian” (at least without qualification), even though I DID use that title for years. Every since a conversation between Kim and Connie, Chris Byrne, kbarret, John OC (have I forgotten anyone?) and myself, I have given more thought to (not) using the term than ever. I now think of my self as a conservative “Constitutional Republican” (GREAT term btw, Kim) with libertarian LEANINGS, than a full libertarian.

(I mention those present at that conversation, because I feel that credit should be given to those who were able to pound some seeds of logic, about the libertarian issue at least, into my VERY thick skull, than I can ever remember happening in a single conversation. Thanks...)

“If y’all want to criticize libertarians, at least capitalize the term, because God knows the Libertarian Party has done its part to alienate me.”

Absolutely. I have always REFUSED to actually JOIN the party, mostly for the reasons already discussed in this thread- I.E. their wimpy stance on the military in general, and its offensive/defensive uses in particular. Add to this their INCREDIBLY ludriculous stance on the immigration problem, and their impratical ideas on other issues, I’ve always resented their implication that they own/define the philosophy.

I did read a good number of Rand’s works in my (MUCH) earlier years, and though I still think she had many good things to say, she had at LEAST as may invalid ideas.
DEFINITELY haver understood how someone could consider themselves a true “Randian” (Randoid? Even better term, IMHO).

lvgunner | 6/7/2006 07:00 AM CDT | #64590


“Application of libertarianism in a practical manner gives you minarchists. “Pure” application of libertarian premises gives you...well...inanity.”

Oh… I also think the above is well put, and I think that “minarchist” is a great term too. I first became familiar with it when I discovered Chris Byrne’s blog (the AnarchAngel), and immediately decided it was very descriptive.

The main problem I have found with using it in a political discussion with the “average” (is there such a thing?) un/underinformed person, is getting them to even understand the term.

lvgunner | 6/7/2006 07:06 AM CDT | #64591


Classic case of inserting big words to sound more smarter.  “Philosophy,” outside of simple logic, has little to offer Border Control or Elk hunting.  Evangelism has even less.  What is apparent, however, is that this born-again Renee Duhcartes is talking out of his butt.

Both issues are dead simple:

The Goverment should not spend millions paying people to hunt Elk when there are citizens ready to pay the government for the privilege.  There it is, in one simple sentence.  Boo.  Yah.

Kim ‘naively’ expects the Government to control the border because, well, that’s its JOB.  Nobody else is supposed to be doing it, or is as well equipped to.  It is our job, as concerned citizens, to point out the cheapest, quickest and most effective way to build the damn fence.

I propose a fence design competition with a cash prize award.

Fence design should be graded on cost, and how they meet criteria for durability(to both tampering and weather), effectiveness and management(AKA sensors, cameras, etc.) Lowest cost that meets specs wins.  Designs must use off the shelf technology that is readily available.  As in, materials available at regular supply stores or thru mail order, so any builder in the country can potentially construct part of the fence.  Total up a per-mile or per-half mile price for materials and labor.  Then double it.  That is the BASE COST for each section.  Bid out on a per section basis; If the section is completed within the year, BASE COST will be paid to the builder.  within six months, BASE times 1.5.  Within three months, BASE times 2.  Oh, and every worker on the project must be either a US citizen or documented worker.  Any worker found to be illegal will be immediately deported, and the contractor fined $10,000, with a $500 bounty paid to the findee, who can be a border guard, construction inspector, worker, anyone at all.  Watch those Ps and Qs get minded!

Basically, open up the field so every little builder with a backhoe and a dream can participate, and provide monetary incentives for getting it done.  The funniest part of this, besides it likely working, is that there would be a sudden building industry push for a real guest worker program, so they can get the cheap labor to build the thing fast.

Electronicdaze | 6/7/2006 07:47 AM CDT | #64594


lvgunner:

You make a lot of sense. Maybe it’s time for me to quit being so defensive about my label and consider adopting another one. If Libertarians are going to be dominated by those who think that supporting the Iraq war and border control makes me just another scum-sucking statist, maybe I should just let them have the name. As the expression goes, “I didn’t leave them; they left me.”

Or to put it another way: “On second thought, let’s not go to Camelot. ‘Tis a silly place.”

Boff's [widget] | 6/8/2006 04:38 AM CDT | #64705

Add a comment

Bottom of Comments | Original Post | Back to Top

Out Of Left Field

Kim du Toit
June 6, 2006
6:49 AM CDT

Only a libertarian could highlight my failings as a philosopher by making an apples and oranges comparison between my stance on illegal immigration and my tongue-in-cheek suggestion for solving the elk problem in the RMNP. To whit:

I find it amusing that Kim DuToit can notice the fact that the US government can’t wrangle elk properly but naively accepts that the government is competent to secure 5000 miles of borders.

The reason for this is easy enough to explain: DuToit isn’t a philosopher and so has no inherent stake in making a correct analysis of the situation. His credulous faith in the nonexistent abilities of the Federal government to keep Mexicans out of the US doesn’t do him much good, but more importantly it doesn’t do him much harm either: however much or how little thought he puts into this, he’ll get the same amount of Mexicans. Likewise with elk.

But at least that is readable. Lopez [who?] then goes on to make statements like this one:

This is a capsule example of why rational evangelism doesn’t work. There’s no penalty for holding contradictory political ideas, there’s no apparent benefit from adopting a more consistent worldview. The goofiest bumpkin notion is equal to the finest philisophical idea, when they’re committed to ballots.

All of that seems to speak against logical argumentation in general: why bother if it isn’t going to get anyone anywhere? Why think about things if the most likely outcome of the matter at hand is that everyone maintains their state of rational ignorance?

Oy. All these condescending Plato wannabes make my nuts ache.

Somebody save me from the philosophical purists.

I suppose it matters not to these frigging anarchists that government is sometimes capable of doing some things reasonably well (not always to our satisfaction, but when your binding purchasing criterion is always to go with the low bidder… well).

What I do know is that Hitler and Tojo weren’t defeated by the League of Well-Armed Individualists, and somehow I doubt whether the Sri Lanka tsunami aftermath could have been ameliorated by the We’re All Individuals, Man Rescue Aid Society. Sometimes, nothing says “relief” like a U.S. Navy carrier group.

As for preventing the influx of illegal aliens across our southern border: well, I guess we could leave it up to Blackwater or someone to set up patrols—as long as their salaries and expenses could be paid by… whom, exactly? The border ranchers? Displaced native-born agricultural workers and housemaids?

Ponder that thought for a moment, and try to imagine how libertarians would address the illegal immigration issue. Why should my nuts be the only ones aching?

And I can’t let this one pass: “All of that seems to speak against logical argumentation in general: why bother if it isn’t going to get anyone anywhere?” Coming from a group which spends all its waking hours trying to further an impractical political philosophy which has never been implemented, and is doomed to fail anyway (despite Ayn Rand’s turgid predictions), this is pretty rich.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to repair my Irony Meter.