The Ron Paul Flap – Short Version

One thing that has been virtually absent from the whole Ron Paul Newsletter shitstorm is the simple fact that racism per se is not incompatible with libertarianism. That fact, brought to light when the newsletters were publicized, would have short-circuited weeks of yelling by both sides. So why hasn’t anyone prominent in the debate taken notice of it? The answer is that the public outrage to such a defense would be enormous.

Neither side in the newsletter flap cares to discuss this, because doing so would be very unpopular. Both sides would rather avoid unpopular truth – it’s of no use to them.

The Ron Paul flap basically boils down to two camps of liars, each of whom claims that the other is, well, …lying.

I’m slightly underwhelmed.

102 thoughts on “The Ron Paul Flap – Short Version”

  1. I’ve argued that the two are orthogonal in various places, but Google has been no help in finding them. I do think there is tension between them though. Ron Paul and others have claimed a libertarian cannot be a racist because libertarians are individualists. I think that is often but not necessarily the case. I myself am a rather introverted “atomistic individualist” as the cliche goes, but I don’t think libertarianism is only for such people. It is about the state, and if you are a communitarian who believes the state is harmful to the community you can still be a libertarian. You can hate various groups of people, but as long as you do not want to use coercion against them, you can still be a libertarian.

  2. I note Block said something like this years ago, and quite openly. I am certain that Block is also no racist. He also pointed out that “there are people who are Austrians in good standing, but they’re also Nazis. They see what the welfare state does, and because they’re so anti-semitic, they advocate it for Israel” (paraphrased from a lecture). Austrianism is unique in having that red flag built in…

  3. I’m not sure how a National Socialist could also be a libertarian… maybe that’s just lazy nomenclature and it’d be better to just say “anti-Semites who desire the welfare state for Jews,” but anyway, Roderick Long has covered the topic of racism amongst libertarians a few times at his blog, the Austro-Athenian Empire. Run a google search for the blog and the posts where he’s discussed it, I am much too lazy to dig up any links right now.

    However, if I remember right, he tried to argue that racism isn’t really congruent with libertarianism because it violates the NAP somehow. Basically, the various individuals in the group you hate never actually aggressed against you, therefore it’s unjust for you to hate them and deny them social interaction arbitrarily like that. I THINK that was his position, and if it was it was a bit more nuanced than I just made it. But I am also drowsy right now after having just woken up and this might not accurately represent what he said in the slightest!

  4. Racism per se is a moral vice, not a moral crime. The racist pays for his own irrationality. I don’t find racism more offensive than any other kind of irrationality. Endorsing democracy is considerably worse than denying service to blacks and mexicans in your restaurant.

    Obviously you can’t be elected president or grow the “movement” while admitting that.

    Paul may not be a racist but his position on immigration is worse than racism, it’s an endorsement of naked aggression. It’s evil even if Paul honestly thinks it isn’t. Deeds concern me far more than motivations.

  5. Racism per se is not incompatible with libertarian principles, but a police state is. Which is what the Mystery Writer happened to be promoting, at least as far as the Negroes are concerned. More or less all of the nastiest remarks directed against black folks in the late-80s/early-90s race-baiting articles were made in the context of articles directly calling for more aggressive and violent tactics by urban police forces.

    If I recall correctly, the article from 1992 that’s attracted so much notoriety (for the crack about welfare checks, and for the estimation that 95% of black men in D.C. can be considered “semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” whatever that means) also included, amongst other things, a charming extended passage defending the police beating the hell out of Rodney King.

  6. Taylor:

    However, if I remember right, he tried to argue that racism isn’t really congruent with libertarianism because it violates the NAP somehow.

    This is certainly not Roderick Long’s position.

    His position is that racism is (1) objectionable in its own right (as irrational and collectivist), and also (2) objectionable from a libertarian standpoint. (1) is a good enough reason to criticize racism; something doesn’t have to be criminal for it to be open to criticism as foolish or vicious. But he also argues (2), not because racism per se violates the nonaggression principle, but rather because of tensions between the two on levels other than that of logical entailment.

    Specifically, Long thinks that racist collectivism tends to interfere with the correct application of the non-aggression principle, that racist ideology will tend to causally undermine the implementation of libertarianism in the real world, and also that racism is logically incompatible with the broader underlying principles that justify the libertarian theory of justice. So the claim is that a libertarian could be a nonviolent racist without being inconsistent; but she could not do so reasonably, which is something different.

    For details, cf. Politics Against Politics, in both the post and in the comments.

  7. “I’m not sure how a National Socialist could also be a libertarian…”

    He was talking about Austrians, in particular. He was demonstrating the point that not all Austrians are libertarians, and then gave a (probably hypothetical) example. I can’t imagine an Austrian who actually advocated a totalitarian state, though; they’d have to hate everyone and want them all to suffer limitlessly. Their method of analysis leads inevitably to the conclusion that the state causes nothing but misery and the more powerful the state, the more miserable everyone is. It’s one reason why I have trouble believing that Austrian anarcho-capitalists who oppose affirmative action hate minorities those programs target, or those who are consistent in both are anything but decent, good hearted people.

  8. Rad,

    The I believe the Rodney King passage you’re thinking of was not in the newsletter. It was written by Lew under his own name:

    IT’S SAFE STREETS VERSUS URBAN TERROR;
    IN THE ’50S, RAMPANT CRIME DIDN’T EXIST BECAUSE OFFENDERS FEARED WHAT THE POLICE WOULD DO.
    March 10, 1991
    Los Angeles Times, Sunday edition

    By LLEWELLYN H. ROCKWELL

    If you offer a small boy one candy bar now or 10 tomorrow, he’ll grab the one. That’s because children have what economists call a “high time preference.” They want it, and they want it now. The future is a haze.

    The punishing of children must take this into account. One good whack on the bottom can have an effect. A threat about no TV all next year will not.

    As we grow older, this changes. We care more, and think more, about the future. In fact, this is the very process of maturation. We plan, save, invest and put off today’s gratification until tomorrow.

    But street criminals, as economist Murray N. Rothbard points out, have the time preference of depraved infants. The prospect of a jail sentence 12 months from now has virtually no effect.

    As recently as the 1950s — when street crime was not rampant in America — the police always operated on this principle: No matter the vagaries of the court system, a mugger or rapist knew he faced a trouncing — proportionate to the offense and the offender — in the back of the paddy wagon, and maybe even a repeat performance at the station house. As a result, criminals were terrified of the cops, and our streets were safe.

    Today’s criminals know that they probably won’t be convicted, and that if the are, they face a short sentence — someday. The result is city terrorism, though we are seldom shown videos of old people being mugged, women being raped, gangs shooting drivers at random or store clerks having their throats slit.

    What we do see, over and over again, is the tape of some Los Angeles-area cops giving the what-for to an ex-con. It is not a pleasant sight, of course; neither is cancer surgery.

    Did they hit him too many times? Sure, but that’s not the issue: It’s safe streets versus urban terror, and why we have moved from one to the other.

    Liberals talk about banning guns. As a libertarian, I can’t agree. I am, however, beginning to wonder about video cameras.

    Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, an economics think tank in Auburn, Ala.

    I’ve said that the newsletters don’t really sound like Rockwell’s writing. Upon reflection they sound a lot closer to his writing in 1991.

  9. Rad,

    “Specifically, Long thinks that racist collectivism tends to interfere with the correct application of the non-aggression principle…

    In that is it any more offensive or dangerous than a reverence for majoritarian democracy?

    Nobody gets atwitter about advocacy of democracy, so why should racism be any more alarming?

  10. Rad Geek,

    Thanks for clarifying that for myself and everyone else, as I was too lazy to do so. Now that I think back on it, I believe you are right, that he was worried about how racism might slowly undermine other aspects of libertarianism even if it wasn’t inconsistent with it “per se.” And I think there is some merit to Long’s point… sure libertarians can argue for all kinds of behavior/vices to be permissible from a simple logical standpoint, but the truth is that there are certain behaviors/vices which, if engaged in routinely under a “libertarian regime” would probably lead to that “regime’s” downfall over a time, slippery slope and all of that.

  11. Kennedy,

    Here’s the article from the Ron Paul Political Report. The passage about the Rodney King beating in particular starts about a third of the way down: Los Angeles Racial Terrorism.

    Along the way the Mystery Writer also tries to poison the well by mentioning that a couple months later the cops caught Rodney King picking up a prostitute (so what?) and that when he tried to get away, he allegedly came close to running down one of the poor ol’ vice cops who so righteously “intervened.”

    One of my favorite parts of the article, along the way, is when we’re referred to the testimony of “expert Burt Blumert” as to the role of commie splinter sects in the rioting. Not an “expert” on anything in particular, mind you; just an “expert,” ’cause he’s Burt Blumert. Goes to show that, in some ways, the LRC writing style hasn’t changed much in lo these many years.

  12. Kennedy,

    In that is it any more offensive or dangerous than a reverence for majoritarian democracy?

    Maybe more offensive; probably not more dangerous. How offensive a particular view is, on the whole, depends on a lot of factors, not merely how dangerous it is to individual rights. Vices aren’t crimes, but they are vices, and sometimes a vicious attitude merits taking offense.

    Nobody gets atwitter about advocacy of democracy, so why should racism be any more alarming?

    I don’t know what counts as getting “atwitter” or what domain you’re quantifying over when you say “nobody.” Most libertarian writers that I know are fairly contemptuous of majoritarian democracy. Off the top of my head, I can think of at least three libertarians whose criticism of Ron Paul (Micha Ghertner’s, Wendy McElroy’s, and Brad Spangler’s) has specifically revolved around how the campaign promotes the myth that freedom can come about through majoritarian democracy.

    As for Long, as far as I know, his position is not that racism is somehow worse or more alarming than political majoritarianism. The claim is just that racism is objectionable from a libertarian standpoint, not that it’s more objectionable than something else.

  13. Libertarian outreach by whom? By me in particular or by libertarians in general?

    If the former, then I would find libertarian outreach to leftists much more palatable for me to do than libertarian outreach to white supremacists, because I know how to talk to state leftists in a way that some small number of them will find convincing, whereas I don’t really know how to talk to white supremacists in general, let alone statist white supremacists in particular, and I think it would be extremely unpleasant to learn.

    If the latter, then I have much weaker preferences, because I think generally if people are going to do outreach they should specialize in what they are best at. But I would suggest that outreach to state leftists may be more likely to succeed in the long term than outreach to state white supremacists, because both of them tend to share the common cognitive or moral vices of statists (majoritarianism, legalism, constitutionalism, contempt for private property rights), but the state white supremacists tend to add some peculiar vices of their own on top of that (e.g. violent racism or xenophobia). Turning state leftists in an anti-state direction tends to produce anarchists, whereas turning statist white supremacists in an anti-state direction tends to produce paleocons at best.

    In either case, I’m not sure what this has to do with the question of whether racism or majoritarianism is (1) more offensive, or (2) more dangerous. I’d rather have dinner with a polite absolute-monarchist than with a very rude individualist anarchist. Not because I think that rudeness is worse than absolute monarchy, but rather because other factors enter into my decisions about who I should dine with. Similarly, decisions about who you should reach out to in your propaganda are not necessarily decided solely based on whose deviations from your position you consider to be the least dangerous or destructive.

  14. Rad,

    “One of my favorite parts of the article, along the way, is when we’re referred to the testimony of “expert Burt Blumert” as to the role of commie splinter sects in the rioting. Not an “expert” on anything in particular, mind you; just an “expert,” ’cause he’s Burt Blumert. Goes to show that, in some ways, the LRC writing style hasn’t changed much in lo these many years.”

    I’ll call your “expert Burt Blumert” and raise you “Criminologist Jared Taylor”.

  15. Rad,

    Specifically, Long thinks that racist collectivism tends to interfere with the correct application of the non-aggression principle, that racist ideology will tend to causally undermine the implementation of libertarianism in the real world, and also that racism is logically incompatible with the broader underlying principles that justify the libertarian theory of justice. So the claim is that a libertarian could be a nonviolent racist without being inconsistent; but she could not do so reasonably, which is something different.

    OK, so collectivist attitudes towards groups of people is sign that someone isn’t thinking straight, that’s fair. But how about other forms of collectivism besides racism – like a fear of immigrants? How about “cultural conservatism”? For that matter, how about those libertarians with a distaste for anarchists?

    Aren’t you saying that a good percentage of movement libertarians are as unreasonable as white supremacists?

  16. Lopez: Aren’t you saying that a good percentage of movement libertarians are as unreasonable as white supremacists?

    Sure, on at least some issues, many if not most movement libertarians are at least as unreasonable as white supremacists are on issues of race.

    For what it’s worth, I’d advise keeping minarchists, just to take one example, at arm’s length to much the same extent that I’d advise keeping paleocreep white supremacists at arm’s length. Even if white supremacist in question were professedly an anarchist, I prefer not to rely on the virtue or intelligence of people who demonstrate obviously stupid and evil ideas in other domains. And even if the minarchist were right-on on just about everything except for minimal statism, I prefer not rely on people whose political program will sooner or later involve shooting me.

  17. Brian N.,

    [Block] also pointed out that “there are people who are Austrians in good standing, but they’re also Nazis. They see what the welfare state does, and because they’re so anti-semitic, they advocate it for Israel”

    Brian, you are a lying sack of shit. I have never – NEVER! – seen an Austrian, a Misesian, or a Rockwellian who is a racist in any way. Ever. Over the past several years, I, as the RK (Resident Kike) of the LvMI have done all that is in my power to subvert these vicious attacks against my fellow Misesians. What hurts me most are the personal attacks leveled against my personal friend and hero Herr Professor Doktor Ganz-German Goppe, Ph.D. The man is not a racist; he simply observes that all commies happen to be Jews, fags, and spics, and vice versa. That’s all.

    Guys, I’d love to stay and chat, but I’ve just got a new assignment from Herr Professor Goppe. I’m going to apologize to Joesph Sobran for the vicious lies my people have been propagating about the so-called “Holocaust”. As we all know now, the “Holocaust” is as unestablished piece of crock as the theory of evolution, and it’s time our people understood that.

  18. That’s not even a plausible mockery of Walter Block. If you want to make fun of Block, you have to sound much too sparing to people; for example, that time he was on “our story” and didn’t jump on the host for trying to paint him as a racist. Well, there’s also that time in Canada he didn’t thump those bastards when he could have, including that little stuttering moral and mental midget he was up against at the debate panel.

    Just watch this and tell me he isn’t too nice to people who deserve the worst sort of intellectual beating…

  19. Brian N.,

    If you want to make fun of Block, you have to sound much too sparing to people…Just watch this and tell me he isn’t too nice to people who deserve the worst sort of intellectual beating…

    You’re not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, are you? The guy who pretends to be me (for I am the real Wilton Glock!) was making that very point, claiming that I am too nice to people like Goppe, Rockwell, and the rest, that I am a spineless weasel, a fawning, obsequious doormat, etc.

    That, of course, is a ridiculous allegation. How can anyone be too obsequious in the presence of intellectual giants like Herr Professor Doktor Goppe, Ph.D.? Haven’t you heard of his brilliant formulation of Argumentation Ethics?

  20. Mr. Lopez,

    THAT was your example of Prof. Block’s inability to face an argument?! I have no idea what the context was, but this immigration thing is a terrible wedge & it seems to me it needn’t be. If you already know all this & are merely using immigration to bludgeon Prof. Block, ignore the following where I’m about go into a racialist tirade, ha ha.

    In a truly free society all useful property would be private property, so all unwanted “immigration” WOULD be trespassing. Desired immigration would consist of an invitation. Massive “illegal” immigration today (here in the real world), given the nature of the welfare state is highly problematic & I have no idea why libertarians can’t even DISCUSS practical real time solutions without being tarred.

  21. I’ll invite an immigrant to my property right now for a glass of lemonade. There is no trespass when he visits me, yet Hoppe, Rockwell, Kinsella, etc. would forcefully interfere. How can any argument they make for such interference be construed as libertarian?

  22. The trespass is across the border which is said to be collectively owned by the citizens of the U.S. You can say such a notion is unlibertarian and I’ll agree. My opposition to open-borders is unlibertarian and results from my belief that libertarianism by itself is insufficient (call it post-libertarianism after Jeffrey Friedman if you will).

  23. The trespass is across the border which is said to be collectively owned by the citizens of the U.S. You can say such a notion is unlibertarian…

    It’s transparent nonsense.

    But I’m asking how Block can defend Hoppe, Rockwell, and Kinsella on the grounds that they make libertarian arguments against immigration. In fact they don’t.

  24. TGGP:

    The trespass is across the border which is said to be collectively owned by the citizens of the U.S. You can say such a notion is unlibertarian and I’ll agree. My opposition to open-borders is unlibertarian and results from my belief that libertarianism by itself is insufficient …

    Well, yes, I suppose that if one of your goals is to violently control who can or cannot pass through land that you’ve never even seen and that you’ve never done a damned thing in your life to earn a real title to, you will eventually find that libertarianism isn’t “sufficient” to meet those goals.

  25. I can’t really say it’s a goal in and of itself since I wouldn’t care that much if they were just passing through to Canada, but I don’t want them settling down and raising families here. Like the immigrants themselves, I prefer living in the U.S to Mexico.

  26. If they settle down and raise a family on my property how is it any of your business?
    Birthright citizenship, use of social services.

    And they might well prefer that you not live around here. Why should your preference have priority?
    I don’t expect me and the immigrant to come to any sort of disagreement. We have fundamentally different interests. The U.S government is however much less likely to kick me out than them, though if I were trying to get into Mexico the situation would be different.

  27. but I don’t want them settling down and raising families here.

    Who the hell cares what you want, moron?

    Birthright citizenship, use of social services.

    Ha? What?? What the hell does that mean? What are you trying to say, you incoherent asshole?

  28. Birthright citizenship, use of social services.

    My mexican guests have nothing to say about that. If someone is making you pay to provide them with any services then why isn’t your problem with that party?

    The U.S government is however much less likely to kick me out than them, though if I were trying to get into Mexico the situation would be different.

    So you can’t come up with any reason why your preferences ought to have priority?

  29. Who the hell cares what you want, moron?
    Me. I don’t expect others to care by virtue of that fact, but there are quite a large number of people with the same concerns. Most of them are idiots, but so are people in general.

    Ha? What?? What the hell does that mean? What are you trying to say, you incoherent asshole?
    “Birthright citizenship” refers to the granting of citizenship to people regardless of the status of their parents by virtue of the fact that they were born in the United States. “Social services” are taxpayer funded programs that consume more taxes as more people use them.

    My mexican guests have nothing to say about that.
    Indeed it is a shame. If there were something like Lant Pritchett’s proposed Gulf State style guest-worker system in which it would be assured such a thing could not happen then I would be fine with letting them in while denying them those things. As it is they cannot credibly commit to it.

    If someone is making you pay to provide them with any services then why isn’t your problem with that party?
    Who said I didn’t have a problem with them as well?

    So you can’t come up with any reason why your preferences ought to have priority?
    To me the entire of idea of “preferences that ought to have priority” doesn’t make any sense. There is no such thing as an impartial ideal observer that can make correct normative decisions nor any method for us to determine how such a creature would make decisions.

  30. I would be fine with letting them in while denying them those things…

    Your problem is with a band of thieves that charges you for projects you don’t like. I hear that, but how are immigrants the problem?

    To me the entire of idea of “preferences that ought to have priority” doesn’t make any sense.

    So suppose I’d prefer to knock your house down to improve my view but you’d prefer to keep it standing so you can live it. You’re saying there is no reason your preference ought to have priority to mine?

  31. TGGP:

    Birthright citizenship,

    The fuck do you care whether or not an arbitrary gang of usurpers, thieves, and swindlers does or does not issue an Official Membership Card for the children of complete strangers living on land that you’ve never even seen and have never done anything to earn a proprietary interest in?

    use of social services.

    The fuck do you care whether or not they use government-monopolized “social services”? If you’re concerned about your money being taken for purposes that you disagree with, why don’t you take that up with the people that are actually robbing you, rather than complete strangers who had nothing to do with it and couldn’t have stopped it if they tried?

    To me the entire of idea of “preferences that ought to have priority” doesn’t make any sense.

    I’m sure it doesn’t make any sense to you.

    Nevertheless, why should immigrants or anyone, really, other than yourself, give a damn about your personal preferences about whether or not they can pass through or exist on land that you’ve never seen and that you’ve never personally done anything to earn a title to? What do you think made it your business to go around telling them, or the landlord, what to do with it?

  32. Your problem is with a band of thieves that charges you for projects you don’t like. I hear that, but how are immigrants the problem?
    Like I said, I prefer living in America to Mexico. The former isn’t preferable to the latter because of some magic geography. As the inhabitants of the latter move into the former it will start to become like Mexico. Not all immigrants are the same, and hispanics are among the most unlibertarian. Even hispanic Republicans are more partial to tax & spend policies than non-hispanic white Democrats, and that’s a more market-friendly minority of hispanics. I understand a lot of them (the Republicans at least) are Cubans rather than Mexicans, but I don’t have more precise data.

    So suppose I’d prefer to knock your house down to improve my view but you’d prefer to keep it standing so you can live it. You’re saying there is no reason your preference ought to have priority to mine?
    I can give some sort of Coasean or rational choice argument on how we could come up with a compromise, but the short answer is that yes there is no reason any preference ought to have priority.

    The fuck do you care whether or not an arbitrary gang of usurpers, thieves, and swindlers does or does not issue an Official Membership Card for the children of complete strangers living on land that you’ve never even seen and have never done anything to earn a proprietary interest in?
    I care because of systematic differences in how they will vote, which will in turn change policies that I will live under. Whether I have some claim has nothing to do with whether I find the results of them voting desirable.

    Nevertheless, why should immigrants or anyone, really, other than yourself, give a damn about your personal preferences about whether or not they can pass through or exist on land that you’ve never seen and that you’ve never personally done anything to earn a title to?
    I don’t expect anyone to care about my preferences themselves, what I expect to persuade the immigrant is a fence and deportation.

    What do you think made it your business to go around telling them, or the landlord, what to do with it?
    Nobody made it my business, though I consider it of interest to me for the reasons stated above. The U.S government has made it very much their business, and still do today to a lesser extent. To ask who put them in charge is sort of silly since the only important thing is that they are in charge and aren’t going away any time soon.

  33. TGGP,

    I can give some sort of Coasean or rational choice argument on how we could come up with a compromise, but the short answer is that yes there is no reason any preference ought to have priority.

    Suppose you’d prefer to have more money and you have the opportunity to steal money from a stranger without getting caught. There will be no retribution against you and no one but you will know you stole.

    1. Is there any reason you shouldn’t satisfy your preference?

    2. Would you?

  34. Not all immigrants are the same, and hispanics are among the most unlibertarian.

    So you’re using unlibertarian arguments to prevent unlibertarian people from coming here. How does that make you a libertarian?

  35. 1. Is there any reason you shouldn’t satisfy your preference?
    No.

    2. Would you?
    Sure, why not.

    So you’re using unlibertarian arguments to prevent unlibertarian people from coming here. How does that make you a libertarian?
    Maybe I’m not a libertarian, but since that word does a pretty good job of communicating my political preferences I think I’ll still use it to describe myself. My guess is that on reality X in which they are prevented from coming here will feature less growth of government than reality Y in which they are not, but the ultimate standard by which I evaluate the scenarios is which I’d prefer to live in.

  36. Maybe I’m not a libertarian…

    So you’re not a libertarian, but you want to prevent people form coming here because they’re not libertarians. Hmm… Maybe you should be deported then… Are you, by any chance, a member of the LvMI?

    …but since that word does a pretty good job of communicating my political preferences I think I’ll still use it to describe myself.

    That word does a terrible job at describing you and at communicating your political “preferences”. Try fascist, xenophobe, nationalist, statist, socialist, or just plain scum – these will fit you better.

  37. I suspect I wouldn’t enjoy it, but until I’ve committed rape I can’t say for sure. Speculating further, I’d say if I was a necrophiliac and I knew it was against her wishes to violate her body after death, I wouldn’t have a problem ignoring those wishes. Further, if I had some sort of serious beef with her and had the objective of causing severe pain and anguish rather than merely sex, I think I’d do it.

  38. I think there would be negative consequences were I to say these things in meatspace, though I might to a stranger that I would never interact with again.

  39. Since I don’t think “evil” is a meaningful term, I won’t argue whether or not I’m an evil creep. I wonder how different I am from the average though. Kennedy brought up the example of rape since it’s the sort of gratuitously evil act hardly anyone would defend (kind of like baby-killing, or at least toddler-killing). Rape is frequently used to counter the idea of “eye for an eye” justice because though we kill murderers and seize the property of thieves there is no explicit sentence of rape for rapists. On the other hand most people support a prison system in which rape is fairly common and not only is there little clamor to get rid of it (compare anti-death penalty activists) but many people talk as if it is part of the punishment and undesirable to be eliminated. Do you remember all the people gloating about what would happen to Ken Lay in prison and then dismay that he got the “easy way out” by dying? What always struck me as screwed up about it was that the people getting the punishment of rape are those least likely to be violent whose crimes have been deemed worthy of less punishment while those who carry it out and can be considered “rewarded” are those more likely to be in for violent crimes deemed worthy of more severe punishment. If one seriously wished to incorporate rape in the penal system without disturbing our preference order over punishment it might be necessary to have something analogous to the professional executioner. That might sound outlandish but police with broom-handles occasionally perform a function similar to that unofficially.

  40. …example of rape since it’s the sort of gratuitously evil act…

    Rape is evil, but it is hardly gratuitously evil. It has very obvious evolutionary benefits.

  41. TGGP,

    I think there would be negative consequences were I to say these things in meatspace,…

    I think so too. Do you find this to be an obstacle where friendship and intimacy are concerned? I would think it would be since by your own admission you can’t afford to tell people what you really think if you intend to associate with them in personal life. Do you have any desire to be understood and appreciated in your personal life for what you really are?

  42. TGGP,

    Kennedy brought up the example of rape since it’s the sort of gratuitously evil act hardly anyone would defend…

    I don’t see that it’s any more gratuitous than theft. But yes, few will defend rape because people tend to have a visceral understanding of the proper priority of personal preferences where their genitals are concerned.

    Do you remember all the people gloating about what would happen to Ken Lay in prison and then dismay that he got the “easy way out” by dying?

    Yes, I see this all the time. I also see it all the time in movies and cop dramas on television. This kind of institutionalized rape, even the threat of it, is obscene.

  43. It has very obvious evolutionary benefits.
    In the past it did, but today there are things like morning after-pills and abortion that make it much less likely for a rape to result in pregnancy.

    I don’t think anybody tells other people what they truly think. Everybody lies even to themselves, and I see no reason why I shouldn’t also include myself there. I feel a great relief in that I have no need to fret over whether I “ought” to think certain things though.

    Do you have any desire to be understood and appreciated in your personal life for what you really are?
    No, but I enjoy discussing such things on the internet.

  44. In the past it did, but today there are things like morning after-pills and abortion that make it much less likely for a rape to result in pregnancy.

    Yes, but the evolutionary drive to rape still exists. It takes eons for evolutionary change to occur. That’s why most people are scared to death of snakes. Our minds, in many ways, are still those of the caveman, for whom snakes were bitter enemies.

    Kennedy,
    For some reason, my comment from yesterday is still stuck in moderation. How ’bout you release it?

  45. TGGP,

    Everybody lies even to themselves, and I see no reason why I shouldn’t also include myself there.

    The piece you cite on Overcoming Bias is really quite funny. It doesn’t leave any room for a self to lie or be lied to. The author really argues himself away.

    I feel a great relief in that I have no need to fret over whether I “ought” to think certain things though.

    Do you think one is better of for dispensing with fictional oughts?

    No, but I enjoy discussing such things on the internet.

    I gotta tell ya man, to know is pleasurable but to be deeply understood is exquisite.

  46. TGGP,

    Do you have friends? Lovers? I’m honestly curious.

    I certainly cannot say that I have always been abslolutely honest in everything I’ve ever said to my beloved. And yet she knows me so well that there is no hidden fact about me that could come to light that would much change her evaluation of me. It is my greatest pleasure to tell her everything I think because I am understood. I think I’m reasonably well aquainted with the pleasures the world has to offer and I’m confident there is none that compares with this. And I think it must be unavailable to you as you are, if you are as you profess.

  47. Kennedy,

    I gotta tell ya man, to know is pleasurable but to be deeply understood is exquisite.

    Are you serious? This is bullshit. What fortune cookie did you get that from? To know is pleasurable; to be understood is meaningless. Moreover, if what you know is of any substance, meaning, or importance, then you’ll never be understood by the overwhelming majority of people.

  48. I wouldn’t hang him, would you? That would be wrong.

    Sure, if he were actually a rapist. Then he should be left dangling in an iron cage until the ravens pick out his eyes and his rotted cadaver serves as a horrible example to all other would-be Stirnerites and consequentialists.

    Later on, his severed left hand, could be sold for many gold pieces or cattle, as the left hand of a hanged evildoer is useful for the preparation of the Hand of Glory by which treasures are revealed.

    S. suggests the “police” but then we’d be out all that buried treasure.

  49. “Take the right or left hand of TGGP who is hanging from a gibbet beside a highway; wrap it in part of a funeral pall and so wrapped squeeze it well [to get out all the blood]. Then put it into an earthenware vessel with zimat, nitre, salt, and long peppers, the whole well powdered. Leave it in this vessel for a fortnight, then take it out and expose it to full sunlight during the dog-days until it becomes quite dry. If the sun is not strong enough put it in an oven heated with fern and vervain. Next make it a kind of candle with the fat of a gibbeted felon, virgin wax, sesame, and ponie, and use the Hand of Glory as a candlestick to hold this candle when lighted.”

  50. Sabotta,

    Nobody claims he’s a rapist, so why would he be hanged?

    Then he should be left dangling in an iron cage until the ravens pick out his eyes and his rotted cadaver serves as a horrible example to all other would-be Stirnerites and consequentialists.

    To me that would reveal more about those who thought mutilating his corpse was a good idea.

  51. You seen to have missed the conditional in my statement, Kennedy.

    Kennedy…a Hand of Glory would reveal ancient hidden treasure!. Gold! GOLD!

    S. says “Maybe you could get Kennedy to talk (TGGP) out… of his hand! He seems like he’s got that gift of gab.”

  52. Do you have friends? Lovers? I’m honestly curious.
    A few friends, no girlfriend. I’m not an especially sociable person. A few minutes into a standard meatspace conversation and I’m glancing toward the exits.

    And I think it must be unavailable to you as you are, if you are as you profess.
    Perhaps. The double-identity thing is fun too and might be boring if I discussed this stuff with everyone all the time. It wasn’t that long ago that I stopped believing in God, so perhaps I might get bored anyway.

    Who is “S.”?

    I’d rather not be killed right now, but once I’m dead I really don’t care what’s done with my corpse. I’m not going to be around to mind, after all!

  53. There’s nothing exquisite about conversing with you.

    Sure, those with a diminished mental capacity have a hard time conversing with their superiors.

  54. Sabotta,

    I doubt I’m the only person who finds it bizzare that you feel the need to pass on these tidbits from an unnamed source. I’ve never seen anything like it. I don’t think you’re doing your friend any favors with this because the comments are totally unimpressive without an author to give them context. And if you think these snippets have a special ring to them then believe me it’s only in your head, where you have the context.

    This just makes you look really weird.

  55. TGGP,
    Not all immigrants are the same, and hispanics are among the most unlibertarian.

    The greatest strides in American “un-libertariamism” were taken by white politicians elected by overwhelmingly white electorates.

    Your argument is plain stupid on the face of it.

    Yet Sailer makes it and you parrot it and the cognitive dissonance doesn’t even register. Sailer at least has an excuse in that he’s making a pseudorational appeal to folks who are looking for something to bolster their prejudices with.

    But what’s your excuse?

  56. The greatest strides in American “un-libertariamism” were taken by white politicians elected by overwhelmingly white electorates.
    How libertarian were the strides taken by non-white politicians elected by non-white electorates? Not a large sample space in America. How about the rest of the world? In Latin America are non-white politicians (admittedly a small sample space including Chavez and Morales but excluding Castro) elected by non-white electorates more or less libertarian? You seem to believe that because white American voters and politicians are very bad (which is certainly the case) the alternative can’t be worse. It can and is.

  57. I’ll have to disagree with you there; you’re dealing with people who found such a climate intolerable, and so left. Are Hispanics in America the most unlibertarian voters? Is “most” even really all that important in this context?

    Further, can you cite some empirical evidence for your claim?

  58. I finally realize why British Columbia has commie car insurance, commie health care, an enormous welfare state and regulation / nannying up the wazoo.

    It’s all the fault of those fucking Mexicans!

  59. I’ll have to disagree with you there; you’re dealing with people who found such a climate intolerable, and so left.
    You are assuming voters realize what causes their problems and vote accordingly, which is simply not the case. Hispanics in Mexico greatly favor the nationalization of oil (the anniversary is a national holiday) and hispanics in America favor statism in every poll.

    Is “most” even really all that important in this context?
    I suppose “more” might be sufficient. What matters is if they will shift the electorate in a more statist direction, which they will.

    I finally realize why British Columbia has commie car insurance, commie health care, an enormous welfare state and regulation / nannying up the wazoo.

    It’s all the fault of those fucking Mexicans!
    I already noted that the existing electorate is quite bad. The question is what the effect of large-scale Mexican immigration will be. I would also note that functional welfare states like Canada and Sweden aren’t horrible places. They are preferable to Latin America (other than perhaps when it comes to climate).

    I already did.

  60. How libertarian were the strides taken by non-white politicians elected by non-white electorates?

    Essentially no elected politician is a libertarian because libertarian ideas are incredibly unpopular, across all racial and social demographics. Freedom doesn’t win elections, promising free shit of the public dime does.

    Look around: socialism has won on all fronts and continues to rack up landslide victories every two years. Libertarianism? Not so much.

    How about the rest of the world?

    As it turns out, “free shit on the public dime” is popular across all cultures. Again, libertarianism? Not so much.

    You seem to believe that because white American voters and politicians are very bad (which is certainly the case) the alternative can’t be worse.

    Things can get plenty worse. For instance, there was that country back in the 30’s that was a democracy (“Germindez” or some other Mex name), and then they elected this guy (“Hitlero”, wasn’t it? Anyway, some Mex guy) and then things just went to shit, and the government stopped holding elections and rounded up lots of white people and sent them to death camps and stuff.

    Only by voting for white people can this be prevented in America.

  61. In contrast:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Pro

    “Fr. Pro and his brothers were visited by Generals Roberto Cruz and Palomera Lopez around 11 p.m. on November 29, 1927. The next day, as Fr. Pro walked from his cell to the courtyard and the firing squad, he blessed the soldiers, knelt and briefly prayed quietly. Declining a blindfold, he faced his executioners with a crucifix in one hand and a rosary in the other and held his arms out in imitation of the crucified Christ and shouted out, “May God have mercy on you! May God bless you! Lord, Thou knowest that I am innocent! With all my heart I forgive my enemies!” Before the firing squad were ordered to shoot, Pro raised his arms in imitation of Christ and shouted the defiant cry of the Cristeros , “Viva Cristo Rey!” -“Long live Christ the King!”. When the initial shots of the firing squad failed to kill him, a soldier shot him point blank

    Compare this behavior with what can logically be expected from the likes of TGGP ( and most other of his fellow citizens, no doubt.)when faced with tyranny – bootlicking abject submission, no doubt.

    After all, compare this to what happened after Waco:

    The following day, August 4, in Sahuayo, Michoacán, 240 government soldiers stormed the parish church. The parish priest and his vicar were killed in the ensuing violence. On August 14, government agents staged a purge of the Chalchihuites, Zacatecas, chapter of the Association of Catholic Youth and executed their spiritual adviser, Father Luis Bátiz Sainz. This execution caused a band of ranchers, lead by Pedro Quintanar, to seize the local treasury and declare themselves in rebellion. At the height of their rebellion, they held a region including the entire northern part of Jalisco.

    And here, in the “land of the free”, what happened after Waco? One cowardly bombing, probably not even committed for the ostensible reason given by the lying perpetrator. Compared to the Cristeros, the stalwart American “militias” were nothing but a pitiable joke, cowards, backbiters, informers and fools.

    ¡Viva Cristo Rey! ¡Viva la Virgen de Guadalupe!

  62. I was going to wait until my comment held up for moderation got approved before saying anything else, but I’d like to add that the Cristero War didn’t really achieve much liberty and I would really prefer if such an event did not occur in the United States.

  63. I would really prefer if such an event did not occur in the United States.

    Of course.

    When the State says “jump” you’ll answer “how high?” and you’ll justify your vile cowardice with perfectly rational Stirnerite/egoist/”prudent predator” excuses.

    Self-preservation being your only law, you’ll proclaim that you’re only doing it for the sake of your sacred genetic inheritance as you vigorously suck on Barack Obama’s (or Hillary Clinton’s*, or John McCain’s) cock.

    No tyrant has anything in the slightest to fear from you, despite all your transgressive posturing. It’s easy enough to buy you off, but why bother? Even the most casual threat from anyone in power will be enough to send you cowering, scraping and bowing.

    And you know what? The problem isn’t that you are an atheist. Billy Beck’s an atheist, and he’d defy Hell itself for principle. John Kennedy is an atheist, and he defends love and common decency against your amorality. No, TGGP, your problem isn’t that you are an atheist.

    Your problem is that you admire evil in the mistaken belief that success is it’s own justification.

    *Strictly speaking, Hillary has a front hole, as opposed to a phallic appendage. But, you know, metaphor and all that shit.

  64. When the State says “jump” you’ll answer “how high?” and you’ll justify your vile cowardice with perfectly rational Stirnerite/egoist/”prudent predator” excuses.
    At least give me the credit that I would shirk, or engage in some of Kevin Carson and the Wobblies’ preferred methods of direct action. My real problem with these noble wars of liberation or whatever is that they didn’t actually work. The end result is generally less freedom. Sure, I might enjoy killing a few feds in the short-run (or maybe I wouldn’t, I’ve only hunted non-human animals so I can’t say) but a moment only lasts a moment and tyranny can last more than a lifetime.

    sacred genetic inheritance
    What? If I was obsessed with the propagation of my genes I’d be hitting the sperm bank regularly, or at least the bar scene. I prioritize myself over my genes. Maybe that will change in the event I do have children and maybe not.

    Billy Beck’s an atheist, and he’d defy Hell itself for principle.
    He does apparently refuse to pay his income taxes and my hat is off to him. I don’t know how he’s pulled it off for so long without getting caught. Karl Hess had to become a hermit or something. I don’t see how the rest of you are that different from me in your actions though, but maybe there’s something you’re doing (or not doing) I’m unaware of.

    Your problem is that you admire evil in the mistaken belief that success is it’s own justification.
    I don’t believe in the existence of any thing such as “evil”, and I may very well hate people who are successful.

    I am reminded of this, which I just found through the Hoover Hog.

  65. Church of Satan = nerds, geeks, SSI recipients = comic book fanboys, admirers of the “Sandman” series (with that adorable death gal you see plastered all over every fawking comic book shop in Seattle) = role-playing vampires who gobble Oreos = goths = Stirnerites = cash-machine Crowleyites = tweakers who are into Anton LaVey = people who quote Ragnar Redbeard and sell you bunk shit = people who fervently assert that Charles Manson is a political prisoner = Church of Satan.

    See? It’s all very simple.

  66. Sabotta: All the serious traitors … up here in Seattle ….

    “Traitors” to what?

    If you mean that the people you have in mind are “serious traitors” to the United States, or some other political fabrication, who cares? I hear that some dude wrote an essay demonstrating that so-called treason against non-consensual governments is no crime, indeed not even a vice.

    If you mean that they are “serious traitors” to liberty, or anarchy, or something like that, then I wonder how many of the people you have in mind really ever professed loyalty to liberty, or anarchy, in any way that matters. To betray you first have to be a friend. Most people in the world, and the worst exponents of statism in particular, never were friends of liberty, or anarchy, or anything of the sort, and never really claimed to be; to that extent they are not traitors, but open enemies.

  67. He does apparently refuse to pay his income taxes and my hat is off to him. I don’t know how he’s pulled it off for so long without getting caught. Karl Hess had to become a hermit or something.

    Well, what happened is that Hess was classified as a tax resister in the course of an already-existing audit in the mid-1960s. He had been targeted for a retaliatory audit by Lyndon Johnson for his time as a Goldwater speechwriter, and ended up getting pissed off enough with the process that he sent the IRS a “fuck you” letter along with a copy of the Declaration of Independence. At that point they reclassified his case as a “tax protest” case (not surprising, since they were already ill-disposed to him and he declared in the letter that he’d never pay taxes again), then seized nearly all his property and imposed a 100% lien against future earnings.

    The back-to-the-land and community technology stuff was mostly a matter of ideological preference and personal taste, which he started getting into later on, during the early 1970s. The most that harassment and persecution from the IRS contributed directly to that lifestyle was that he learned a craft (welding) and used barter to avoid generating taxable income. He said that the experience of learning a craft is part of what led him to think about community technology, and using barter to make a living probably made him more sympathetically inclined towards survivalist ideas and non-monetary forms of exchange than he otherwise might have been.

    I don’t see how the rest of you are that different from me in your actions though, but maybe there’s something you’re doing (or not doing) I’m unaware of.

    I could be mistaken, but my impression is that most of the bloggers here don’t disagree very much with Billy Beck about the attitude that you should take on matters of principle. What they disagree with him on is the specific content of the principles that he sticks on, especially the notion that individualists should feel obliged to confront the State over tax resistance.

  68. Ha, ha. You are pwned!
    I don’t remember that happening. Is it merely because I’m powerless and ineffectual? All of us here are “pwned” then.

    I could be mistaken, but my impression is that most of the bloggers here don’t disagree very much with Billy Beck about the attitude that you should take on matters of principle. What they disagree with him on is the specific content of the principles that he sticks on, especially the notion that individualists should feel obliged to confront the State over tax resistance.
    My attitude toward the State is similar to Beck’s: “Own will and the State are powers in deadly hostility, between which no “eternal peace” is possible.” My actions are similar to everyone else’s. I guess I’ll have to wait for Sabotta to respond again to see what gives.

  69. I’d explain the term “cash machine Crowleyite” but I’d have to cite S., who Kennedy apparantly hates, now.

    I don’t hate your friend Sunny Nelson and she’s quite welcome to post here. Why do you quote Sunny as if she were an Oracle though?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *