Worse than Useless

Pastor Douglas Wilson observes something which all libertarians have thought if not screamed.

Gary Johnson “plainly does not understand how libertarianism works.”

Unfortunately, Wilson doesn’t fully understand it, either (bold emphasis added)

There is much to admire in principled libertarianism, particularly in the forms represented by Judge Napolitano or Rand Paul. But its perennial danger, and the one to which it has now succumbed, is the danger of turning libertarianism into libertinism, where the principles of economic liberty and free association go up in a haze of pot smoke. The current Libertarian ticket of Johnson/Weld is a statist joke. Johnson wants the state to have authority over conscience in the market place, religious liberty be damned, supports continued funding for Planned Parenthood, and Weld endorsed Obama and supported an assault weapons ban.

In short, were Johnson and Weld to make their way to positions of authority, we would only find out what impact THC might have on policy prescriptions.

I am not a libertarian, but I am more of one than the current Libertarian ticket.

Principled libertarianism doesn’t lead to libertinism. Degenerates hijacked the movement for their own ends.

Libertarianism as a movement didn’t fall apart because the adherents were too pure. It’s because it was too tolerant of leftist reject interlopers that came in, kicked out all the right-wingers (who became Alt. Right) and then turned it into a more fiscally restrained progressive party.

Johnson is worse than useless. He’s dangerous, not because he might get elected but because of what he’s done with the spotlight attention the media has given him. Rather than promote libertarianism as a viable, alternative to one form of statism over the other, he’s all but fighting to undo all the hard work and effort Ron Paul put into the movement in 2008 and 2012.

It’s not mere incompetence. This is intentional.

There are thousands, perhaps millions of people whose impression of libertarianism is based on Johnson’s description of Hillary Clinton as a “wonderful public servant.” Other than ‘muh weed, what else do people know about libertarian beliefs?

The philosophy has received the most free publicity it might ever have and yet the names of Ludwig Von Mises and Murray Rothbard aren’t even mentioned. It’s bad enough these intellectual giants were ignored in their lifetimes. It’s a crime they are ignored now when they should be celebrated most.

When a non-libertarian like Wilson understands and appreciates authentic libertarianism more than you do, you should not be running for president of the United States as a libertarian or speaking on behalf of those who actually have a grasp of the philosophy.

Posted in libertarianism, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Real Reason Why Socialism Doesn’t Work

Mises Institute Fellow Jonathan Newman writes about Ludwig Von Mises’ devastating critique of socialism for its lack of pricing (bold emphasis added):

With private ownership of the means of production, entrepreneurs hire laborers and purchase capital and natural resources based on their contribution to the productive process as measured by consumers’ willingness to pay for the final output. Anticipated revenues from the sale of output guide production and investment decisions. Any deviation from the consumers’ wishes results in lower profits or even losses.

Under socialism, in which the private ownership of the means of production is abolished, there can be no meaningful prices of the inputs to production processes. Production decisions are merely “groping in the dark,” as Mises put it in Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth. Mises showed that there is no forward-looking way to compare anticipated revenues to the costs of production and there is no way to retrospectively measure the success of any production process. Economic calculation, essential to any growing and flourishing market economy, is impossible.

I’ve written previously on why socialism doesn’t work using rather simple analogies, but I think pointing out the lack of pricing is just as effective and easy to understand.

Socialism doesn’t work because it rejects this fundamental aspect of a functioning market economy.

If you can’t set prices, you can’t determine the actual value of products or goods, and therefore you can’t prioritize where or how to allocate resources. The exchange of goods and services cannot occur in any meaningful way.

Pricing is essential to the natural market regulation of supply and demand.

What most people think of as “socialism” is in reality an economic model whereby the government meddles in private sector industry via regulations, but does not actually manage the means of production the same way it does in truly communist countries. This allows prices to be set, though they can still be manipulated and warped as we saw with the dotcom bubble, the housing bubble, and now the student loan bubble.

Socialism is just a form of economic statist LARPing in which we are forced to pretend things are worth as much as our wise overlords say it is.

In his piece Newman starts off talking about the Federal Reserve, which engages in quantitative easing and artificial credit.

Both of these are a form of statist LARPing within the economy.

Unfortunately, people can pretend indefinitely but the market does not, which is why you get shortages whenever you implement price controls. And with the boom always comes the bust.

The market will always correct itself sooner or later.

Posted in capitalism, Central Government, central planning, communism, Crony Capitalism, economics, federal reserve, free market, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Who Can’t Handle the Truth?

You can’t handle the truth!

Chances are you’ve heard this line from a famous scene in the 1993 film A Few Good Men. Conservatives love to use it against liberals, or the line “you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall.” It’s considered a go-to line when justifying unjustifiable military actions (ironically, the military is becoming more and more of a social justice warrior club, so this may change if conservatives ever snap out of their Stockholm Syndrome).

A brief context to this scene: Kaffee (Tom Cruise) is defending two Marines accused of murdering a fellow soldier in their barracks at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Marines claim they were ordered to give the soldier, Santiago a “code red” (hazing ritual) by their commanding officer. Kaffee and his colleagues believe Jessep (Jack Nicholson) ultimately gave the order himself.

Prior to this speech/rant, Kaffeee has been doing his best to get underneath Jessep’s skin; deep down, he knows the colonel wants to admit he gave the order and hates having to pretend otherwise.

The reality is that Jessep did give the “code red” order against Santiago, who was suffering from health problems that were the true cause of his death. The officers had dismissed his condition as a sign of poor morale.

Similar to my analysis of Charlie Chaplin’s Great Dictator speech, I thought it’d be interesting to analyze his speech from a libertarian perspective and show how applicable the philosophy is when interpreting the fictional events.

Jessep’s dialogue is in italics. Mine is in regular text.

You can’t handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg?

The world does have walls. And often walls are needed to protect a country. However, the wall you’re referring to is not along your country’s border. It is located within Cuba, a foreign country whose people do not want you there. You and your entire military outfit is there against their will. So you are not defending a wall as much as you are maintaining an illegal occupation of another people’s nation.

Clearly whatever lesson there was to be learned from your tour of service in Vietnam, you ignored.

I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know — that Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.

Santiago died unnecessarily because he shouldn’t have been in Cuba in the first place. It was also unnecessary because you didn’t bother to investigate whether his inability to carry out his duties had anything to do with a physical problem rather than a bad attitude. The doctor who gave him a clean bill of health and failed to diagnose his condition is also responsible.

Speaking of responsibility, you have a responsibility to assume liability for your decisions. You ordered the code red, yet when it resulted in two Marines’ arrest, you said nothing. You were silent. Worse, you lied about it and committed fraud to cover it up.

Your order cost a man his life and destroyed the reputation of two soldiers acting under your orders in good faith. You didn’t save lives because there is no need for you to be in Cuba. Even if you were stationed along a border wall with a hostile neighboring country, it wouldn’t have changed the fact that you lied about what happened.

You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall — you need me on that wall.

No, we don’t want you on that wall any more than the East Berliners wanted the Stasi on the Berlin Wall. You just need to think you’re wanted to reassure your own conscience that your immoral actions were justified.

We use words like “honor,” “code,” “loyalty.” We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line.

Pure projection. You “honorably” let two Marines take the fall for your decisions. You showed your “loyalty” to them by saying nothing as they were charged with the murder of a man whom you knew had died from health problems. Your “code” had you falsify military documents to whitewash your leadership. A close colleague of yourself killed himself out of remorse for his involvement in your scheme.

What exactly did you defend, other than your own skin?

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.

Then explain yourself to the two Marines whose lives would otherwise be ruined  because of your deceit.  If in fact you did hold a blanket of freedom over America, they’re were ones who knit it.

By the way, no one asked you to provide them with that alleged blanket, which you’re paid to do through money coercively taken from those whom you claim to keep free.

I would rather that you just said “thank you” and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand the post. Either way, I don’t give a DAMN what you think you’re entitled to!

Mere distraction; you failed to adhere to the motto of your own Corps: Semper Fi. You were not faithful to your own men. Had you lived up to that code, you would have admitted you gave the order and protected them from any charges because they were your men. You would have taken the rap for it, possibly been demoted or transferred.

You left men under your command behind for the sake of your own skin. You are the very word “coward” made manifest.

It could have happened anywhere. But it happened on a base located in a country you had no business occupying. The death didn’t save lives because any lives lost there would have been needlessly spent.

You also took an oath to defend the Constitution. How did you uphold that oath?

If anyone is entitled, it’s you. You’ve convinced yourself you’re so vital to America’s freedom that you can pass on the consequences of your actions to men who adhered to the code you pretend to live by.

It’s the truth, whether you can handle it or not.

Posted in borders, War | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments


American Flag

A homeland loved so great
Now a nation fallen
Consumed in its self-hate

Once conceived in liberty
Its freedom of mighty fame
Now reduced to oppression
Filled full of fear and shame

Where is that pioneer spirit
That spurred your people on?
When did it depart from you?
And where has it now gone?

A land of freedom’s cradle
Reduced to its dark hearse
Through Judas-like betrayal

A people bred in autonomy
Independence their daily bread
Their progeny eat the paltry crumbs
Road to Serfdom’s end ahead

Great truths have become heresies
Patriots are traitors scorned
Tyranny’s triumph celebrated
Dead legacies left unmourned

A land betwixt two fates
Choose one, or the other
Or is it now too late?

Photo credit: ctj71081

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Statism and LARPing

Statism As a Form of LARPingBefore starting I want you to watch this video about a couple from my neck of the woods.

Watch the entire thing.


Was there anything in particular that struck you as peculiar?

Most likely it’s the criticism they’ve received for adopting Victorian Age culture.

Sounds odd that random women would violently confront a stranger and scream at them merely for wearing a corset, doesn’t it? Or that people would actually resent someone’s anachronistic lifestyle enough to openly harass them about it. One could argue their behavior is strange, but so what? Why does it produce such anger and rage?

Live Action Role Playing As An Indirect Form of Protest

The couple is engaging in a very advanced form of live-action role playing (LARP). The term typically refers to medieval role playing you find within groups such as the Society for Creative Anachronism. However, recently I’ve seen the term used more frequently in reference to people attempting to live according to outdated norms from a previous era. It’s one of the many charges leveled against the Alt. Right and neomasculinity proponents; that they want to recreate some 1950s Golden Era.

We tend to think of LARPing as an organized collective game or event, like a Renaissance Festival. But this mentality paints too narrow a picture. As the Victorian couple in the video demonstrates, LARPing can consist of just two people wearing certain clothing and fashion, eating certain foods, decorating their house a certain way and adhering to certain behavior. To cast LARPing as some human form of an RPG game ignores the underlying psychological motivations for why people engage in it; it’s an attempt to escape from an undesired environment when physically leaving is not necessarily feasible or possible.

For all our talk about freedom and liberty, life in the Western world is heavily regulated by the state. Social and culture norms are codified through laws and policies. State-run education indoctrinates youth to view government as sovereign and the final authority on all matters. Just to name a few examples, look at dating site christianmingle.com forced by government to open up its dating options to homosexuals.

Human Resource departments ensure that even what you do or say in your private life can hurt your career if it violates the decrees of the state. State marriage laws make it impossible for a couple to have full control over the terms of their relationship. It even taxes them differently; unmarried couples now get twice the mortgage interest deduction under the IRS tax code.

We’re taught what to think, how to think, what to say, what not to say, where to say it, who we can say it to, and what will happen if we don’t obey these rules. Government policies are designed to prevent or discourage traditional households in which the man works and the woman stays home to raise the children because it wants one more individual paying income tax while the children are raised by the state.

For people who reject the modern culture, there are few ways to avoid it.

What we call “LARPing” is one of them. It is more or less a rejection of the prevailing state-controlled values in favor of an organic, voluntary community. It’s a sign of dissatisfaction with the prepackaged mainstream cultural values we’re offered with the implication that there are consequences for rejecting it.

Now look back at the video and you can see why Baby Boomer ladies were so angry with this woman for innocently wearing a Victorian-age dress purely as personal preference. By doing so, she is rejecting a culture created by Baby Boomer generation women through the Sexual Revolution and the multiple waves of feminism. I’ll get to this later, but she’s also refusing to participate in their preferred form of LARPing.

She is saying, “I don’t like what you’ve given us. I like what we used to have.” However, their resentment is also partially due to feminist brainwashing and propaganda about the Victorian Age in which anything associated with the period involves female oppression.

What makes LARPing seem ridiculous or a pretentious, especially to critics, is that all the social, cultural, religious norms it promotes ultimately must submit to state coercion and aggression if the state decides it does not want to allow the activities to go on. Their “rules” are only enforceable through voluntary means, whereas the state can force their rules upon all regardless of consent. We can pretend to live in a society based on honor, but we can’t enforce the consequences for dishonor. LARPers can also “leave” and return to the normal world anytime they want.

LARPing also tends to whitewash or romanticize historical periods that, if we were to get into a time machine and visit, we would find were not be so pleasant. I remember a historian telling me that were I to go back to Medieval times I’d be unable to stand the stench which people then regarded as an ordinary part of daily life.

Statism As a Form of LARPing

But here’s the thing: Much of our current culture and society that relies on the state to enforce is itself a form of LARPing. It’s LARPing because it goes against the natural order of things.

I’m going to upset some folks here (barbarian, remember?) but cosmopolitan multicultural environments are a form of LARPing. In reality, most people don’t want to live outside of homogeneous communities. Having women work en masse in corporate cubicles or serve in front line combat roles rather than raise children is LARPing (Dalrock calls this “playing career woman”). Egalitarianism and equality are just as much myths as the giants Don Quixote saw instead of windmills so when we add them to the LARPing it only works through political violence.

In The Warrior Princess, manosphere writer Rollo Tomassi touches on the extent to which the military will go to perpetuate a form of LARPing in which women are men’s physical equals.

It’s akin to play fighting with real swords.

In fact so dependent on this imagining are women that they expect the simulations of battle to accommodate their lack of capacity to handle the reality that they’ll lobby to alter the qualification necessary to engage with that reality. Thus, the physical requirements for combat suitability are reduced to a degree where women can feel like a success and maintain the storyteller’s archetype of themselves, thus sustaining their ego’s investment in it.

The problem then becomes one where men not only become responsible for women’s security as well as their own security, but also the maintenance of their feminine-primary self-image as a strong, independent, individual capable of achieving an equal measure among men while the real-world requirements mean life or death for them both.

The fantasy of female empowerment is not just the social expectation of men, but it is also the life-threatening liability of men who don’t (or can’t) perform it for them. Men literally risk their lives to maintain women’s equalist fantasy of independent strength apart from, and above that of men.

Trying to force association where it would not occur otherwise or prevent associations where it would occur, is LARPing. Affirmative Action is LARPing. Section 8 is LARPing. So are attempts to turn Third World hellholes into Western democracies. Keynesian is a LARPing – as John Keynes himself said regarding flaws in his economic theories, in the long run we’re all dead.

Transgenderism is just a mentally ill form of LARPing; a boy puts on girls’ clothes and says he’s a female but at the end of the day his genitals are the same.

The difference between statist LARPing and regular LARPing is that, unlike an anachronistic organization, the state puts a gun to someone’s head and say, “You will believe what we tell you. You will pretend.”

So we pretend. It’s why people get outraged when we play make believe in ways that threaten state-reliant fantasies. They perceive the vulnerability inherent in their ideologies. Were it not for the state, the coercion that enables their type of LARPing to exist would end.

Photo from larping.org.

Posted in central planning, cultural marxism, Culture, marriage, philosophy, political correctness, politics, Social issues, society | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Never Argue With the Enemy

Never argue with an avowed enemy on his terms. Whether you come across them online or encounter them during the natural course of a day, either mock their ideas or ignore them. But for the love of God don’t argue with them as though somehow it might change things. Continue reading

Posted in cultural marxism, Culture, doom and gloom, general political thoughts, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The Greatest Speech Ever Made?

In 1940, famous silent film comedian Charlie Chaplin made a film called the Great Dictator. Released at the onset of World War II, the movie was a lampoon of Hitler and Nazism.

Despite tackling a somber issue, it was very much a comedy. Continue reading

Posted in general political thoughts, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments