It’s Official: the Left is less tolerant than the Right

Official statistics from the Pew Research Center have made clear that a larger percentage of Democrats than Republican have problems accepting the political views of those different from themselves.

http://www.people-press.org/2017/07/20/since-trumps-election-increased-attention-to-politics-especially-among-women/

Of those, more women than men have such difficulties. The conclusion is thus that according to official research, not only are those on the left more intolerant about different political views than the right, but that women are more intolerant about different political views than men.

Any notion of the left, and to go a layer deeper, of leftist women, being “tolerant,” open to “diversity,” being “inclusive,” and being less “judgmental,” as opposed to what they see as their political opponents on the right can now safely be put to bed.

Statism, not Libertarianism, is for people that are immature

An oft-repeated slight of libertarians by statists, is that people tend to support libertarianism when they’re young, but reject it as they mature. Supposedly this is because only immature or juvenile people would see merit in libertarian philosophy.

Aside from the obvious question whether this claim as a whole is even true, it is also seriously begging the question if, and why, libertarianism would be popular with people that are immature, and less so with people that are mature.

In order to answer this question properly, one simply needs to look at just what the political philosophy of libertarianism and the overall political attitude called statism represent.

First of all, we need to comprehend just what makes immaturity and what makes maturity. In my estimation, immaturity in an incapability to deal with the world, with reality, and with life itself without what one might call a “security blanket” close by. Reality, the world, and life itself can be very rough and unforgiving, and can for these reasons be very scary for those with little stamina or a solid backbone. Just as they would be for children. How will people find and keep a job, in order to be able to pay bills? How will they get healthcare in the case of a medical issue? How will they deal with the existence of injustice and crime in society? The list of worries about the reality of existence goes on and on. For many, it may be simply too much to bear, and the notion of having to navigate life independently, maturely and without the constant presence of a guiding and protecting presence may resemble a nightmare. Immature people will tend not to take the consequences of their actions and decisions very seriously, so long as there is a safety feature that can be used when things may get dire. To be completely dependent on oneself if one has to face the consequences of one’s actions and decisions, would certainly either act as a wake-up call for those looking to live life irresponsibly, or confront them with those hard consequences if they resume their irresponsible and immature lifestyle.

In our youths, we have parental figures that basically allow us to live life without having to worry too much about the consequences of our actions. Those parental figures will generally take the blame, and the responsibility of any negative consequences. They will bail us out; they will pay the costs of the damage we do; they will offer us the services we need free of charge. And all of this, they will do provided we accept that we generally have to live by their rules and obey their directions. As adults, we go it alone, decide for ourselves what we spend our money on, choose who we associate with, buy the services we need, and face the costs of the damage we may do.

As we mature, we take more and more responsibility for our own lives and our decisions, and we accept more and more that making bad decisions will confront us with the consequences of them. We realize we cannot have it all, and we must make choices that we have to live with.

When we look at the state, what we see is essentially no more than a political form of a parental figure on the societal level. It is there to ‘guide’ us, to ‘bail us out’, to defend and protect us from the angry outside world, to ‘teach’ us, to ‘soothe’ us and ‘nurture’ us, to ‘fix’ things for us, and to instill us with ‘norms and values’. The price for this parental replacement of our parents at the level of the family unit, is that, just as with our parents at the family unit, we have to live by its rules and obey its directions. We are supposed to love our government and our state, the way we loved our parents as children (and usually continue to do so). We are supposed to be loyal to it, and trust it, preferably without many conditions or questions. We are supposed to see it as our own, much more so than other states. As we would fight to defend the honor of our parents, we must be willing to fight for the honor of our state.

Is there any question that the arrangement that most resembles life as a dependent and immature person, is the statist arrangement? Is there any question that the move toward maturity; the move toward independence and dealing with life and reality as a grown and responsible person, most resembles what is expected of one from the philosophy of libertarianism?

There is a reason that protective family bonds are often associated with the state. The “motherland” or “fatherland”, the “mother” tongue, Big Brother, etcetera.

The state serves the function of the parent to its citizens. It can be a nurturing mother, a stern father, or both. It serves as a security blanket for people who fear the unknown that a stateless society would represent. It is no coincidence that a stateless society is associated with “chaos” and “Survival of the fittest”. For if one kind of person is not regarded as fit enough to be self-reliant and independent, it is the child. It is the state that takes care of people through various departments and the provision of services, such as public education and healthcare, because the assumption is not only that most people cannot take care of these necessities themselves in a voluntary manner; they should not even be expected to. Are we going to leave the ‘weak’ to their own devices? Would it not be essentially the same as parents leaving their children to their fate? The state serves to protect its citizens from threats internal and external, but threats from itself are not regarded as threats, but as discipline for disobedience. The state tells us what ethics, norms and moral values we ought to have, just as parents try to instill the ‘correct’ values in us, because parents assume they know better than children, and to know more about life. The state feels it is its responsibility, at least publicly, to treat us as equals amongst each other, and to remedy any great inequalities between us citizens that exists. It admonishes those of us who are not eager to share what is theirs, as it would admonish its children when they are not eager to share with their play mates. Despite this, both parents as well as the state do not actually themselves share all they have, for they are regarded to be superior and to have special privileges by virtue of their role. Especially in modern times, the state even uses verbiage about “free” services, the way a child receives free services from its parents. Of course, in reality there aren’t free services in either case. In both cases, money first has to be earned in order for any services to be provided at all, and in both cases loyalty, obedience and respect for their dictates are default demands.

Because money does not come out of thin air, the expenses of the state must come from somewhere else, and the only place that generates money is people in the productive sector. So one of the few differences is that in the case of the state, the “children” are always paying for their own services. The more successful ones are admonished for having more, and perhaps not being willing enough to share, and the less successful ones are soothed and reassured, while it costs the state itself nothing. The state redistributes resources from its citizens the way parents may redistribute toys between children, the difference being, of course, that children all get their toys as presents, whereas citizens actually earn their resources through labor.

The analogy between parental figures at the family level, and parental figures at the societal and national level is so clear it is baffling how critics of libertarianism even dare suggest that libertarians, not they themselves, are the immature and dependent ones, desperately needing a government as a security blanket to feel safe in a scary reality.

Libertarians are the ones no longer needing mommy or daddy to guide them through life, to pay their way, to soothe their egos, to instill the correct values in them, to be there to support them when life seems unfair. Statists are the ones that do.

Grown-ups embrace liberty and the responsibility that comes with it. Immature people fear it.

It is statism, not libertarianism, that is tailor made for immature people.

 

 

Book review: “Progressivism,” by James Ostrowski

Book Review:

Progressivism: a Primer on the Idea Destroying America, by James Ostrowski

 

“Progressivism” is not a neutral or objective book, make no mistake about that. It is a book written by a classical liberal that tries, and in my opinion succeeds, in explaining what progressivism as a political ideology really is and amounts to in practice, what it means for the existence of freedom, and how it ought to be battled.

Ostrowski goes through the political ideology of progressivism by explaining first how a certain type of people draw progressive conclusions about social issues, what reasons they have to come to those conclusions, the basis on which they feel the need to come to those conclusions, the veracity and rationality of those conclusions and how they are put into the kind of political policy that effects everyone’s lives.

Book Review: “An Underground History of American Education”

“An Underground History of American Education” is a mostly great book that delves into the various aspects of compulsory schooling.

Most of it deals with the founding and history of compulsory schooling; how it came to be; which people made it come to be; and what purposes for compulsory schooling they had in mind.

These purposes were all but commendable.

Gatto explains, with quotes from important people involved with compulsory schooling since its beginnings, that schooling was mostly meant to turn the young into a dependable, predictable and obedient mass of citizens, fit to do whatever was expected of them by the elites of the day.

The elites being, in various times, big business (such as the coal industry), the state, and anybody else being in power and having special interests at the fore- or background at any time. Mostly one can deduce that a power elite as such, that might nowadays be called a “shadow government” were behind it.

Gatto also proves that, especially in earlier times, pure racism lay at the foundation of compulsory schooling, with elitist proponents having outright Nazist beliefs.

Classism seems to have always lay at the foundation. The very notion of classes has been transported into schooling precisely for the creation of stratification in society; of indoctrinating kids to know their place in the social order. Schooling ultimately was used to create a dependence on those above them in this order. Nothing is to be done without their approval. Orders must be followed without question. They dictate what is good or bad, correct or incorrect, through the grading of students. They claim to know much better about all these things than parents, whose influence schooling sought to diminish as much as possible. The belief of the elite behind compulsory schooling was the children belonged to the state.

In practical terms, schooling serves to extinguish the light in students lives, to accept their predetermined role in life and to not think outside the box. For those whom were regarded as talented enough to take part in the eventual power elite and upper class, there were elite schools, where loyalty to one’s own class was the basic value, along with contempt for those beneath them. Politicians, intellectuals, and business leaders are spawned from this.

There really is too much in the history of compulsory schooling to describe here in any detail, in terms of how it determines the shape of politics, economics, society and life itself. It can become almost overwhelming at times to see how compulsory schooling genuinely serves to create an entirely docile and obedient mass of people to serve the powerful elite that wants to shape the destiny of the world.

Of course Gatto also goes into the specifics, and the various other ways in which compulsory schooling leads to corruption at the expense of the innocent, including it functioning as a job creation program for useless administrators and as a “consumer” for a school materials industry. Even today, the very concept of compulsory schooling has many special interests intertwined in it, making it a necessity not so much for children as it is for people making their living off of it.

While all of this may seem much like a conspiracy theory, Gatto uses actual quotes from compulsory schooling’s proponents, which leave nothing to the imagination. The sources are there, but are in places where ordinary people may not have much interest in looking. The point of compulsory schooling from its very inception is quite open, and its proponents are not so much trying to perpetrate a scam as they have been, and continue to be, true believers in its merits. Also, Gatto points to the facts of compulsory schooling in such a way, that rudimentary logic dictates he be absolutely right.

All of this is absolutely eye opening for those whose minds are already open and are willing to investigate, rather than dismiss something that slaughters a holy cow.

The problem of the book, unfortunately, is author John Taylor Gatto himself, just as it was in his other work, “Dumbing Us Down.”

As long as Gatto explains the actions and views of others, he is on the money. It is when he reveals his own views on how things ought to be, that he goes off the rails and runs the risk of losing many readers.

Make no mistake, Gatto is clearly a very devout Christian and deeply conservative in his social values, to the point of making several rants against science and singing the praises of his own Christian mysticism.

It mars his point of view because any reader not equipped to separate the actual facts and the objective information from the personal opinions of Gatto himself, may end up believing that Gatto merely has a problem with compulsory schooling because it is not in awe of Christian and conservative orthodoxy. He sometimes comes off as a man lamenting that schooling is bad merely because it does not teach the beliefs he himself cherishes.

By allowing his personal religious and social views to intermix with the objective facts and history, he is making it very difficult for his reader to believe that this is not a work with a blatant self-serving agenda. Gatto does not seem to realize that he is at the point of repelling readers that have different views on science, religion and social values than he himself holds, and thus making it much easier for them to dismiss what otherwise is a book of absolute importance.

I would say that in the books of Gatto i have read thus far, Gatto is his own worst enemy, in terms of trying to find as wide an audience as possible. Although i have not yet read Sheldon Richman’s secular version of this material (“Separating School and State”), i wager to believe it may offer a much less self-serving account of the subject matter, and for that reason alone Richman’s version may have actually been necessary, even as some others claim it offers nothing new.

The Unshielded Hate of the NeoCon.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/12/national-review-writer-working-class-communities-deserve-to-die/

National Review’s Kevin Williamson believes Donald Trump’s appeals to the white working class are “immoral” because that demographic’s way of life deserves to die out.

Trump has so thoroughly destroyed future of the neocons’ gravy train that the hatred of neocons toward those who support Trump now comes out in the open. Take note of the hatred, of the frustration, of the pure contempt.

Robert Ringer about the Donald Trump phenomenon

Robert Ringer, a small government conservative writer, has some really great articles, and especially quotes about the Donald Trump phenomenon. Or maybe i should say, about Trump’s enemies.

Take this one for example:

It’s become a real-life version of Road Runner (Trump) and Wile E. Coyote (establishment Republicans). Every time the latter thinks they’ve convinced Republican voters that Trump is a fraud, a phony, and/or an unknowledgeable fool, they wake up in the middle of the night to the haunting sounds of “Beep! Beep!”

The Real 1%, and the 99% That Put and Keep Them in Power.

Far from with the wealthiest people in a country, the real power and exploitation lies with a different kind of 1%. And the 99% put them in their lofty position, keep them there and honor them.

 

 

Your body belongs to the state.

You may kill or be killed for the state.

You may destroy or be destroyed for the state.

You may maim or be maimed for the state.

But you may not choose to take medical marijuana, because the state won’t allow it. And take your children away if you proceed to do so anyway.

The state de facto owns your body.

You are a slave.

Wake up and see reality.

 

H/T to Laurence Vance at Lewrockwell.com

“Why narcissists hate libertarianism”

Says the Anarchist Notebook blog:

Whereas a sociopath possesses as a god-like attitude towards everything (what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine, as well) and believes morality is based on what’s best for them, a narcissist uses the state violence and intervention to cover up personal failings, miseries, and inadequacies.

It is, as the article says, indeed very easy to see. Show a man or woman who possesses some kind of strength that he/she alone has and has used for personal success, and you will see a leftist whining about something. Whether it is wealth, achievement through competition, a call not to be held down by the incompetence of others, the ability to protect oneself, or in any way not needing to rely on the state or society for personal happiness. He or she will have, or do something that is considered unfair. Even within libertarian circles you will find leftists who will complain about something like Bitcoin somehow being too ‘male-centric’.

In the case of the examples above, leftists are against wealth because they abhor economic inferiority to others (not necessarily ‘poverty’, that is why they have a problem with the 1%); they are against competition because it would expose the fact that some are simply superior to others in some areas; they are against the right of parents to have their smarter children educated on a level more befitting their intelligence, because it would make obvious that some kids are simply smarter; they are against the right to bear arms at the same time as they are against vigilantism because criminals are the true victims of society and ordinary citizens should be at least as weak as they are; and of course they are against anyone that doesn’t need the state for success, which explains why the leftist hates companies like Uber. They must be regulated to the hilt so that other companies will not ‘lose out’. It is for the same reason that leftists hate big companies and love ‘local, small businesses’.

Narcissism is a personality trait that despite its outside appearance, is based around a terminally weak ego. Narcissists need constant adulation, attention, admiration or positive feedback. The aim of which is for the narcissist to appear better than others. Which explains the “moral superiority” leftists tend to claim. But in reality it is all about the envy of those who are actually better in some way. That is why narcissists tend to tear others down in order to feel better about themselves. Narcissists, however, do not want to tear others down for the good of ‘equality’, but for the good of themselves being higher than the other.

One of the places most packed with narcissism is Hollywood, which tends to clad itself in a cloak of “moral superiority” whenever they talk about politics or society, all the while wallowing in opulent wealth and privilege themselves. People in the entertainment industry need constant adulation and admiration (remember Sean Penn in a boat taking journalists with him as he set out to ‘help’ people in the aftermath of Hurrican Katrina?), worship even, while adopting a political view that espoused ‘equality’, regardless of the fact that they have enough wealth to feed an entire starving village without even noticing any serious dent in their own income.

An insecure and bruised ego (hidden or not behind a facade of confidence) can be found all over the world where ever there is leftism. It can be found on a macro level with hardcore socialists that are quite open in their ideological leanings. But it can also be found on the micro level with people who are less open about it, but with whom envy for the success of others is still strikingly obvious. It is in the less wealthy people that support government coercion against those more successful than themselves. It can be seen not so much in the desire to lift themselves up, as in the desire to tear others down to their level.

The latter can be seen whenever in a comparatively well-off first world country the word “poverty” is used. When compared to third world countries with emaciated children, there is no such thing as “poverty” in Western countries. Some of the “poor” are overweight and have all kinds of brand clothing and gadgets that are non-essential for survival. You can see it wherever someone claims there should be a right to free internet access, or a call for the handing out of free laptops in schools. This is not coming from any desire to lift people up as to tear others down, because there is no real poverty there. There is only less wealth; less success.

And the sense of entitlement makes this simply unbearable to the narcissist on both the macro level and the micro level.

Libertarians are fiscally libertarian, and socially libertarian

One of the questions i had been struggling with for some time before, is why liberals seem to detest libertarians so much, despite the apparent fact that they share so many social values. After all, libertarians are often described as “fiscally conservative; socially liberal”, so ought liberals not at least hate libertarians half as much as they do conservatives?

Well, this article explains concisely what i’ve known for some time but had yet to find words to express clearly.

Here is the truth about it:

Here’s where the English language fails us: “Liberal” and “libertarian” come from the same linguistic root, meaning “liberty,” and many libertarians will describe themselves among friends as “classical liberals”—political heirs to the Whigs and the Manchester free-traders. But “socially liberal” and “socially libertarian” today mean almost precisely opposite things. If there is one thing our “social liberals” hate, it is liberty. In their view, you’re free to do as they please. (emphasis mine)

Simply put, libertarians aren’t ‘socially liberal’ at all; they are socially libertarian. Liberals do not support social freedoms, because the word ‘freedoms’ implies that one can have the social values one prefers most. Of course this is not what liberals want at all. They want people to have the social values THEY prefer most. And it will use the state to impose these values where it can. This is the hypocrisy behind their vaunted “tolerance” and “diversity” bromides.

When one takes this fact into consideration along with the fact that the conservative in general is fiscally libertarian about as much as the liberal is socially libertarian – that is to say, not at all – then we can conclude that maybe it is time to stop using that mantra “libertarians are fiscally conservative; socially liberal”.

Because no; we are not. Libertarians are fiscally libertarian, and socially libertarian. It is not mere rhetoric for libertarians as it is for conservatives and liberals. Unlike conservatives, libertarians really do support the free market, and unlike liberals, libertarians really do support social liberty. There are exceptions to this of course. Some libertarians are pro-corporate shills or pro-central banking hacks, and some others are culture warriors more occupied with trying to sermonize politically correct, liberal cultural values down toward the ‘brutalist’ libertarian masses than with opposing the state.

Most of both conservatives and liberals are supporters of the corporate/welfare state and prefer to serve as the self-appointed thought police on social and moral issues.  The difference between them and libertarians on these issues are apparent in libertarian class analysis. They are the class of state violence and force; we are the class of peace and freedom.