Forcing A Collective Identity

One way to tell the intellectual inconsistency of open border libertarians is by watching their reaction when you explicitly disassociate yourself from other people in the same country as you who are not your countrymen or your people in any sensible manner.

Whenever you get into a debate with them about immigration or borders, just say “it doesn’t matter if they come or go or what the government does, they’re not (fill in the blank ethnic group) and never will be. They’re not my people and I refuse to be associated with them on any basis other than the fact that we’re ruled by the same government. Therefore, all appeals to a shared identity between myself and them are invalid.”

Then watch them kvetch and call you all sorts of names for not accepting a coerced collective identity as decreed by your wise state overlords.

Remember, these are the same people who mock collective identity based on race and/or the “imaginary boundaries” of political jurisdictions, but then flip out when you say that certain people in that jurisdiction aren’t your people just because, well, because that’s racist!

By doing so, you’re not advocating government policy or even making a political statement. You’re declaring an identity independent of other peoples you don’t wish to be associated with. You’re declaring yourself separate from other peoples claiming to be one of you because they happen to have set foot on the same dirt your ancestors did.

For heritage Americans such as myself, it’s a one-way street: for them, anyone can become an American – which of course begs the question as to what is an American. I have yet to find a single open borders libertarian article or blog post that makes the case for heritage Americans to reject efforts to force a collective identity with the immigrants entering the country. In other words, none of them are saying, “government borders are wrong, but that doesn’t change the fact that the immigrants coming here aren’t Americans and won’t be, and actual Americans are free to maintain a separate identity in the form of culture, traditions, customs, beliefs, values, and collective historical experience.”

Ironically enough, for people who love to bash nationalism, they actually cherish their own form of it – civic nationalism.

The reason? They’re cosmopolitans who hate, hate, hate, hate the notion of anyone anywhere of Western descent separating themselves from non-Westerners in any manner and adopting a distinct identity in which there is “us” and “them.”

Ultimately, they’re not anti-state borders; they’re anti-boundary activists, many of which secretly harbor a fondness for the ongoing deconstruction of Western ethnic identities in which Westerners are not allowed to define their identities without the supervision of the state and the input of outsiders.

Advertisements
Posted in borders, cultural marxism, Culture, Immigration, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

No, Socialism Doesn’t Work With Whites, Either

A common belief among many members of the Alt. Right or Dissident Right is that socialism can work, if it’s done with white people. They don’t see the issue as one of economics, but race. For evidence, they’ll point to Scandinavian countries such as Sweden, Norway, and Denmark that enjoy First World status, while highlighting African nations that are utterly corrupt Third World disasters.

Superficially, this may seem convincing, but that is because the ramifications aren’t seen as quickly. Other libertarians have done their part to attack the “socialist paradise” view of Scandinavia, but we only need to look at what is happening today in those countries to acknowledge that their system is unsustainable.

I’m sure someone on the Alt. Right may argue “if they just didn’t let in the migrants everything would be fine.”

But we already saw the failure of socialism in white nations such as New Zealand. Because it is not a major world power, it could not delay or offset the consequences of their policies.

Now, they didn’t suffer from a cultural and societal collapse as a result, but that isn’t the argument made. The claim is that socialism can work when implemented by whites in a white nation.

I would remind these pro-white socialists that African nations formerly run by whites like Rhodesia, didn’t turn from a socialist system to a free market and then collapse. Typically, the opposite happened.

Ultimately, a socialist system fails; the question is how long political leaders can kick the can down the road and hide the ramifications. Nations with wealth already acquired can sustain the loss longer than one in which there is little to no wealth to begin with.

Spending more than you bring in will eventually leave you impoverished, but if you have $10,000 in the bank you can overspend longer than someone with $10 in the bank.

The fact that your financial situation “looks” successful or sustainable doesn’t mean your overspending “works.”

The reason socialism doesn’t work, white or non-white, has to do with the lack of pricing, also known as the Impossibility of the Socialist Calculator. Without prices, the scarcity of resources cannot be determined, and thus you can’t allocate it properly based on its abundance or lack thereof.

It is no coincidence that shortages occur with any resource handled in a socialist manner. The free market doesn’t always make goods and services accessible to all equally, but prices prevent their misuse and squandering. If a resource becomes limited, the price rises accordingly, consumption decreases, or a supply of it previously not cost-effective to collect becomes financially tenable.

As Vox Day writes:

If you want to read some truly artistic masterpieces of illogic, read a few socialist papers attempt to prove that socialist price-calculation is possible. The two primary papers, written first by Mises, then further articulated by Hayek, are two of the most conclusively devastating critiques of anything ever published. And the empirical evidence subsequently gathered over decades resoundingly supported their logical conclusion.

Ironically, a white nation that tries to implement socialism is going to fail at it for the same reason African nations formerly ruled by white fail when they adopt socialism; both blame another race for economic problems and the system they enact is inconsequential to that.

 

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

Google’s Underground Resistance

In my last post I discussed the imbalance in regards to property rights that occur in society and how this makes it difficult to properly apply libertarian philosophy. This is where person A’s rights are fully respected, but he does not have to respect person B’s rights at all – or worse, person A has state-endowed privileges person B does not.

This came to mind when I read this article in which ex-Googler James Damore reveals the existence of what can only be described as an underground movement within Silicon Valley resembling that of World War 2 resistance groups.

We are talking about a place where anyone who holds views outside the 3×5 index card of approved thoughts can’t even meet in the open. They have to organize secretly, thoroughly vet anyone who wants to join, and even then there are people who actually have so little time on their hands they act as infiltrators and record the conversations in order to later turn them in and get them fired.

Libertardians will cry “it’s a private company, they can do whatever they want!” Which is exactly what I would expect from someone who privately sympathizes with the persecutors, but pretends to be siding with them on principle. Also, anyone who favors this kind of censorship in corporate setting isn’t going to have qualms about extending that policy into the public realm. This is the kind of environment cultivated by the Stasi in East Germany, not Rothbard or Mises.

Further, the right for companies to do “whatever they want” is not reciprocated when a company holds opposing views. This kind of behavior would not be tolerated for a minute if it were a company doing this to leftists.

Remember, bakers better bake the damn cake, or get their businesses shut down. Brandon Eich got ran out of his Firefox position for making a campaign contribution to the wrong side.

Has the equivalent ever happened to a lefty in recent memory?

This is why I’m empathetic whenever I hear people on the Dissident Right calling for laws breaking up corporate giants like Google or turning Twitter into public utilities and thus subject to the same restrictions.

Phone companies don’t get to turn off your service if they don’t like what you say. Your water and plumbing isn’t disconnected if you’re using it for the “wrong” reasons. Your electricity isn’t cut off if you’re watching the wrong TV shows.

There are practical and prudent reasons for this stance.

I promise you all the libertardians who scream about muh’ private companies would cry bloody murder if their essential services, in which there were no alternatives to turn to, were shut off purely as a form of political retribution.

I’m not a fan of anti-trust legislation, but I have no sympathy for these companies.

Ultimately, we have this situation because of this imbalance of political power. In a truly free society, this kind of thing would not happen, because there would be corresponding retaliation on the part of those negatively affected and force a truce. This would encourage and foster more harmonious relations. But when one side clearly has dominant political power, there is no incentive to respect the rights of those under their thumb.

If we’re going to let companies behave this way, the door has to swing both ways. Right now, it is an incontestably one-way road, and I’m not interested in preserving it.

 

 

Posted in free market, free speech, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

The Appeal of Barbarism

In a new post, CJay Engel at Austro-Libertarian examines what he calls “Antonio Gramsci Libertarians.”

Commenting on the “left-libertarian” strain of the movement, he writes:

This social agenda need not be embraced by all who carry the name “libertarian.”  It is perfectly “libertarian” to peacefully picket for either the gay couple or for the baker.  Libertarian theory and the NAP does not offer guidance beyond the respect for property.

When push comes to shove, however, I contend that all libertarians must fall on the side of property rights.  Absent property rights, there is no NAP; absent the NAP and you can remove the word “libertarian” from “left-libertarian.”  Recalling the history of the movement, you end up with the Marxist strain.

I one hundred percent agree with him on the issue of property rights – as does every true libertarian – but where this gets highly confusing and morally complicated is when we live in a society where certain people’s property rights are respected, while others are not, and the former uses this to take advantage of the latter.

I have experienced this myself in workplaces where coworkers knew that they could make highly offensive (and inaccurate) statements about my gender, ethnicity, and religion that, should I ever dare to even suggest about theirs, would have got me canned on the spot.

In the realm of theoretical and coffee-house talk, we can envision a scenario where we get to decide all these things and always “side” with the property owner. But in reality, you can have a situation where a person who violates other people’s rights all the time suddenly find themselves a victim of it, often as a consequence of coercing others.

We are now seeing this same dynamic play out in the public arena, and the consequences are obvious; if a person from a certain background or political ideology can say whatever they want or attend any rally no matter how radical, without fear of professional consequences, but others have to keep silent in both public and at work, how can you possibly expect the latter to have the same influence in shaping social, cultural, and ultimately political views?

Imagine, if you will, a family where one child is allowed to speak at family dinners, but the other cannot – a rule imposed by the parents at the behest of the other child. Which one do you think will have greater say in family matters? And are we really to blame the child that must remain silent when they try to get the other child silenced in order to create equal rules?

The inconsistent application of property rights, in my opinion, has and will always plague libertarians when attempting to apply the philosophy. The NAP addresses the abstract, but it does not account for context that can make seemingly obvious situations dicier to analyze, because as Bastiat said concerning economics, there is the seen and unseen.

All of this becomes tenfold complicated when it is libertarians’ rights that are not respected by their enemies. How can libertarians as a movement succeed when they advocate to protect the rights of their enemies, who don’t return the favor and, unlike libertarians, have stronger influence over the state and ultimately whose rights are respected?

This is where a form of barbaric libertarianism has appeal – a barbaric libertarian is only concerned about whether his rights are respected, not that of others. He may not violate their rights, but he doesn’t see it as his duty to advocate for their property rights, either.

He’s not going to lend them moral support or protest their ill-treatment. They’re not his people, and therefore not his problem. Also, if people don’t respect his rights, why should he be honor-bound to defend theirs.

As was said in the film LA Confidential, reciprocity is the key to every relationship.

 

 

Posted in cultural marxism, Culture, libertarianism, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

The Proposition Nation Starter Kit

Are you in need of a new country? Tired of your Third World hellhole? Is your plumbing and electricity not up to snuff? No political or civil rights? Your uninformed sister wants to be able to elect your next leader? No freebies to feed your unrealistically large family?

Do you want to have all the benefits of a developed nation without having to go through all the hassle of actually creating one where you live?

Some of you may think sneaking into America is the right solution, and no doubt that was the right choice for centuries. Once you cross the border, you’re immediately an American just like them and can take credit for what their ancestors accomplished as though they were your own!

But travel costs are up, and welfare payouts may be on the decline. Not all of you may be able to slip past ICE officers like in the good old days.

Well, have we got something for you.

THE PROPOSITION NATION STARTER KIT!*

Yes, with our proposition nation starter kit, you too can recreate America anywhere in the world, no matter who you are! Why move to America, when you can propose it anywhere you’d like? If anyone can be an American, why not become one in your current region?

Our starter kit contains all the necessary ingredients for a successful, First World nation with the strongest political rights, architectural standards, quality of life, and cultural sophistication.

All you need to do is take the bottle of magic dirt – taken from real American soil – that comes with your starter kit and find a spot, any spot, in the world you’d like to propose your nation. Then simply pour the magic dirt on the ground and voila! Your proposition nation will begin growing infrastructure, government, and institutions ready for a population of Americans!

Anyone walks onto that dirt will instantaneously transform into a genuine, certified American, endowed with 500 years of Anglo-Saxon Protestant knowledge, beliefs, tradition attitudes, and values.

As a bonus, we’ll throw in a set of official American documents such as the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and even the Magna Carta! Then your Americans will be able to celebrate their civic ancestors who fought for the rights of all freeborn Englishmen and whoever happens to be living on the dirt that they wrote those documents on or the dirt controlled by the government their ancestors later formed.

The proposition starter kit has a 100 percent guarantee, backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. taxpayer. If your experiment doesn’t work out, don’t worry! The U.S. taxpayers are ready, willing and able to bail you out. And you’ll still be Americans forever!

Stop wasting time with dangerous boat trips, border crossings, and other outdated form of non-militarized invasion. Start your proposition nation today!

 

*Some restrictions apply. The starter kit cannot work when using the soil of non-Western nations. Magic dirt also cannot transform Westerners into non-Westerners. Some proposition nations may require several whites to grow properly – consult manual before expelling them from nation or discouraging their birth rates.
Posted in Central Government, constitution, Culture, Immigration, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Political Warfare

Sutton-on-Lawrence-IMAGE-1

As some of you may know, I don’t actually discuss politics much in real life, for a variety of reasons. However, there are several friends of mine who are aware of my writing here and ask me from time to time what my take is on the future, particularly in Western nations.

It’s difficult to provide any concise and accurate reply.

While there’s a clear trajectory towards more totalitarianism of a Leftist flavor (and a possible Reactionary response), history is less linear than it is cyclical. At some point, a return to the natural state of things will happen, but that could take many years. The Soviet Union lasted from roughly 1917 to 1991, even though its economic policies made it doomed from the start. The right global or national event may trigger a similar destruction of the heavily concentrated power found within Western countries today.

If that does not occur, one possible future is that of overt political warfare.

As I’ve discussed in the past, all politics is violent. There are no such thing as peaceful political solutions, because they ultimately rely on coercion and aggression to implement. As state involvement into ordinary life increases, these acts will multiple as well and its presence will be harder for people to ignore or dismiss.

Recall also that there is no such thing as being truly apolitical; sooner or later the state gets to something you care about. At that point, the otherwise nonchalant individual either submits out of cowardice or weakness; or, they become politically active in a way they weren’t before.

This is all relevant within the context of the modern states which govern countries such as the United States of America. It is a political jurisdiction that is too large, too diverse, and too divided in order to be anything that one might regard as united (or American, for that matter). In prior times, the degree of tension and conflict within the USA would have produced a revolution, rebellion, or secession movement well before now.

Yet, thanks to the outcome of the War Between the States, separation seems to be beyond the consideration of the average person. Instead, everyone appears to be contemplating a true civil war – where two factions battle for control over the same territory. Deescalating the situation through independent regions or restoring traditional states’ rights is simply out of the question.

What this means is that as the years go by, the power of political leaders is strengthened, and the divide between U.S. citizens/residents is decided by a handful of voters, the national focus will intensify on elections of every kind.

Since we have decided that war is not a plausible, viable, or moral option, all that energy will be channeled into its extension – as Carl von Clausewitz put it.

The Alabama Senate seat race involving Roy Moore and Doug Jones was a case study of what I refer to. There was an enormous investment of political capital on a national scale into destroying Moore’s reputation and character, not because of the seat per se would flip the Senate over to the Democrats, but because of the ramifications his election would have for both the region and the nation.

Living in the Pacific Northwest, I can’t begin to describe the incredible scrutiny and obsession that race received from media and lawmakers here, thousands of miles away. It’s because the race for that Deep South state’s Senate office symbolized a much larger ideological fight occurring nationally. When you are forced to associate with others (or insist on it yourself), you care very much for what they do in areas that would otherwise be unimportant.

Unfortunately, things from here could get much worse than character assassination.

Every political seat at every level will contested bitterly. Every race will be treated as a military campaign and treated with the same seriousness. Every registered voter will be seen as a soldier, and every unregistered voter as a potential fighter abandoning their duty to fight for the Cause.

In many respects, the treatment is appropriate. In a war, the losing side risked the destruction of everything they cherished.

When your political enemies intend to use state power to do the same, what difference does it really make in the methods used?

At the end of the day, barbarians raiding your house and taking your children to raise them as their own in their rival tribe after destroying your defending force is no different than CPS seizing the offspring of political dissidents and placing them in foster homes because the government offices overseeing the agency were won by the wrong candidate.

Nor are laws that treat homeschooling parents as suspects who must provide sufficient reason to let them raise their child as they see fit any different than laws by the British prohibiting the Irish from speaking their language, reciting their own poetry, participating in dances, etc. They are all mechanisms put in place to prevent opposition to the ruling entities.

When your enemies wins an election, you are under an occupation force. You are an occupied people.

Real Americans are a nation with no country and no government they can call their own; they are an occupied, conquered people – subjugated not through military force, but their own foolishness and subversive elements. Most of them are ignorant of this or in denial about it.

Of course, this is where the separation of war from politics will begin to blur, because many on both sides will be unwilling to let the process, with all of its perceived faults, determine the winner. All manner of intimidation, threats, harassment, and retaliatory behavior will be employed.

This happened years preceding the War Between the States in border states such as Kansas and Missouri, where pro-slavery and anti-slavery groups fought for control over the state government. It was a local fight that extended from a larger political debate, thus the outcomes mattered to more than merely the state residents.

Violent actions will be justified based on the importance of victory and severity of defeat. In an all or nothing scenario, where your rights are guarded by one candidate but stripped away by the other, elements on both sides will resort to “criminal activity” they conclude must be conducted for the sake of their respective peoples.

We can look no further than the persecution of bakers, florists and other business owners throughout the country over their refusal to create items for or participate in state-licensed same-sex weddings. They have nothing to do with discrimination, fairness, equality, love, romance, justice, or whatever rationalization is offered. These lawsuits are acts of political persecution against a weaker, conquered foe.

If you’re one of those business owners, and a local political candidate vying for a seat with relevant authority vows to stand up for your rights, the outcome is not inconsequential and you can’t afford to claim apolitical status as you sit home and pray your next local overlord is benevolent.

Further, should someone engage in acts that one might find unsavory to ensure that person is elected, you will be sorely tempted to look the other way.

Since D.C. is amassing the most power, the fighting will be greatest involving federal offices such as representatives, senators and the president. As we saw with last year’s presidential campaign, we can expect future political rallies to contain further violence, mobs, riots, and retaliation against attendees both at the rallies, in their professional careers and even in their neighborhoods.

The average person will be between a rock and a hard place. Political activism will potentially carry a heavy price. However, a similarly high price may be paid for doing nothing.

Having said this, an unforeseen, unpredictable event could cause a sharp turn in our present course, or people turn to highly passive aggressive, indirect ways of carrying out attacks on their enemies.

Eventually I will get around to some suggestions or thoughts on what people can and should do irrespective of what happens in the political realm. The truth is that we should carry on with our life mission, whatever it may be, in spite of or in direct defiance of opposition in our path.

Posted in civil war | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Missing The Moral Of Christmas Films

One of the aspects of libertarianism that I have a love-hate relationship with is the predilection among its adherents to be contrarian – that is, to behave in a way that is opposite from the majority for the sake of being different.

I have a contrarian streak within me, and always have, but the reason chiefly has to do with the fact that I’m doing what makes sense to me, whereas others are interested in going with the flow. It’s why I didn’t buy Bitcoin when it was an obscure concept discussed only among libertarians, and why I’m still not buying it now. Everyone is interested in it, except me.

Where this becomes a problem is when libertarians say things that in many ways come off as purely contrarian.

Look no further than the libertarian revisionist take on Christmas films. Every year now, libertarians are eager to revisit A Christmas Carol and It’s A Wonderful Life specifically, because they both feature antagonists, Ebenezer Scrooge and Henry Potter, respectively, that work in the lending industry. Both are also portrayed as selfish, self-centered, cruel men. Sensing this as a proxy attack on wealth-generators, libertarians are tempted to defend these men, when they shouldn’t.

They’ll point out that Scrooge’s business helped out the poor and needy obtain small loans. They also claim Potter was the true free market businessman, while George Bailey sold subprime mortgages and engaged in fractional reserve banking practices.

Let’s address Scrooge first; I’ll get to Potter latter.

First, let’s point out that libertarianism deals with aggression and coercion. That’s it. It doesn’t differentiate between a wretched man and a kind man.

And make no mistake, Scrooge is definitely the former, not the latter, and that is the moral of A Christmas Carol. He’s not a criminal, and the story never claims he’s broken the law. The words “cheat,” “steal, “swindle,” and “rob” are not used once in the original story. He comes off as obeying the law for practical reasons, as violators are likely to lose their money and get shipped off to Botany Bay.

The story also involves no new legislation or legal reforms, because problem isn’t the government allowing certain practices to go on, but Scrooge’s hardened heart that makes him a miserably lonely old man.

We dislike him because he’s unnecessarily mean, rude, selfish, and inconsiderate with everyone in his life. It’s his personality and demeanor that makes him the villain, not his career.

Simply replace Scrooge with his nephew, Fred, and you see what I mean. Fred could easily carry out the same profession as Scrooge, but his response would contain a lot more tact and charm, even if the answer is fundamentally the same.

Speaking of Fred, what precisely is admirable about Scrooge’s treatment of his only living relative whom he blames for the death of his sister? (she died giving birth to Fred)

What does the story focus on – the wheeling and dealing business practices Scrooge used to amass his fortune, or the way he completely ignores a relative that treats him kindly despite the profound lack of courtesy Fred receives back, and for no justifiable reason?

When does one of the Christmas spirits introduce Scrooge to a person he swindled.?

A successful businessman doesn’t have to be obsessed with money, yet that is precisely how Scrooge needlessly loses his beautiful young finance. She didn’t care that he had so much money (that might have been a point in his favor); his entire life was now centered around it to the point where she realized he didn’t love her and never would.

The long and short of it, is that you can be a wealthy business owner who earned every cent legitimately, yet still be a total jackass nobody likes and actually despises. Or you can be a rich man who is considered of others, sees the importance of family ties, doesn’t foul it up with a pretty maiden, uses their position to care for others whose ill circumstances are beyond their control so that they too care be productive members of society, and have respect and admiration of their community that as a result views the wealthy as those whom they should aspire to be rather than regard as soulless heathens.

To me, the point of A Christmas Carol is that you should be the latter.

Now, let’s turn to Henry Potter from It’s A Wonderful Life. According to the contrarian/libertarian perspective, he was the true hero of the film who relied on the free market to provide goods and services. His only illegal act was keeping money Uncle Billy accidentally leaves in his lap – I’ve even heard some libertarians say that technically it’s not theft, because George Bailey’s Building and Loan owned him the money, so it was really his.

Imagine if I loaned you $1,000. You didn’t pay it back, but your forgetful uncle accidental gave me $500 of your money along with a newspaper or magazine. You came to me asking for an additional loan because you can’t find that money you needed to pay for that month’s mortgage or some such. Rather than tell you that I have the money your uncle left with me on accident and discuss the situation on an honest footing, I denounce you as a careless idiot, accuse you of having an extramarital affair with a specific girl in town, spending the money on her, revel in your financial straits, then call the mortgage lender to initiate some sort of legal action against you.

What I describe above is what Potter does in the film. Does that sound like the behavior of a man who engages in wholly honest business practices? Does it sound like the type of guy who is above the use of government to stifle competition, when he is using government to get an innocent man thrown in jail?

Unlike Scrooge, Potter is a small-town monopolist thug who the film heavily implies uses his resources and power to ensure he is the only game in town, except for the Building and Loan. The whole reason he is a board member of the Building and Loan and buys up shares during the 1929 Stock Market Crash is because he wants to shut it down so no one can live in houses except the ones he owns. It’s no different than a company town, except the company actually owns the property. Potter’s monopoly is implicitly coercive.

To be sure, George Bailey definitely engages in fractional reserving banking, and his mortgage loans are highly questionable. However, when George’s loan business faces the Crash and has no money, he bails it out with the cash he was given for his honeymoon. He takes responsibility for it. He doesn’t demand the government do so.

Also, the film demonstrates that he is a threat to Potter because unlike the “warped, frustrated old man,” Bailey doesn’t have a high salary. He doesn’t make money for himself, nor did his father. All the money went back into the business, which allows them to undercut Potter’s rent.

This is the premise for a critical scene between Potter and his rent-collector, who warns that Bailey is cutting into Potter’s renting racket. As the only game in town, Potter can charge high rent so that the “discontented, lazy rabble” can never save up enough money to buy a house of their own. But George’s business offers home mortgages at rates ordinary people can afford.

But why doesn’t somebody just set up a competing renting industry to Potter? A libertarian might ask.

Notice during this scene Potter is informed a U.S. senator is waiting to see him. He gruffly replies, “tell the senator to wait.”

If you were in a room with a very wealthy man who barks orders to a member one of the most exclusive groups in the world, a political entity no less, what would you assume about his dealings?

You assume he owns the senator and has him do his will.

The idea that Potter is a free market entrepreneur providing legitimate services is libertarians seeing what they want to see in the character the film, but isn’t there, and it takes a contrarian to miss the obvious.

A man who is above the use of government to shut down or stifle competitors isn’t going to falsely accuse someone of swindling his business’ money to cover the costs of having a girl on the side and then make a fraudulent police report about it in the hopes they get arrested and imprisoned.

Plus, I’ve spent my fair share of time in small towns and their inner workings. I can tell you now, there are plenty of Potters in the world today, and they have no interest in allowing competition to open up. They don’t want outsiders coming in who force them to lower their prices or rates, and they prevent it through the use of local ordinances, business licensing, and land use zoning restrictions that prohibit building above a certain size and height befitting their industry. “Grandfathering” is a great way for people to get regulations enacted that don’t apply to them but discourage future competition.

Modern Potters also contribute heavily to local lawmakers’ campaigns, so when the councilmember wants to meet them, they too can tell the receptionist “tell them to wait.”

I’ll conclude with this: Nobody raises a son in the hopes they grow up to be like Scrooge or Potter. Nobody wants an uncle or grandfather like them, and none of them want them around during the Christmas season.

Their soullessness is what we are meant to despise, not their day jobs.

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