Why narcissists hate individual responsibility (and therefore libertarianism)

Anarchist Notebook explains why narcissists despise libertarianism and love the state. Narcissism is of course a deep pathological insecurity masked by an deeply arrogant face and pretense of self-assuredness.

This deep pathological insecurity would render narcissists virtually defenseless in a society where the state cannot help them at the expense of those who have more, are more successful, richer, more talented, stronger, better or more intelligent. The notion that their own shortcomings would be brutally exposed in a free society, where people around them are not forced to cater to them and their views, has them tremble in fear.

 

 

Left-libertarianism, egalitarianism, and contradictions

On the blog of Bionic Mosquito, BM takes left-libertarian Sheldon Richman to task for what is, inevitably, a moral and logical contradiction that results from trying to smuggle egalitarianism into the definition of libertarianism.

It is a great and important set of articles for libertarians (such as yours truly) who are getting kind of sick and tired of ‘social justice warrior libertarians’ or ‘bleeding heart libertarians’ whom are trying to square their progressive, politically correct views on equality with the logical conclusions of having self-ownership, private property rights and an adherence to the Non-Aggression Principle.

Read BM’s articles here, and here.

P.S. Speaking of left-libertarians, apparently Christopher Cantwell has once again been uninvited for a libertarian festival, this time Anarchapulco, thanks to the cowardice and childishness of Jeffrey Tucker, who is apparently too much of a chicken to debate his viewpoints on ‘brutalist vs humanitarian libertarianism’. I don’t blame Jeff Berwick though. He had to make a choice between Cantwell and Tucker and unfortunately, Tucker is still a “big name” in libertarian circles.

Arizona’s “libertarian leaning” senator Jeff Flake is against freedom of association

Arizona senator Jeff Flake (R) is touted by some to be “libertarian-leaning”. See here, here and here. Libertarians know, of course, that this means virtually nothing. Especially when it comes to defending libertarianism on principle rather than utility.

One of the most important staples of the libertarian philosophy is private property rights, without which most other staples would fall. So if you do not have a right to freedom of association, one can basically say that: (a) one is not allowed to associate, or dissociate, oneself with or from whomever one wishes, and (b) one does not actually own one’s property, if the state can decide who you should do business with.

Without freedom of association, there simply cannot be private property rights. If someone else can dictate the terms under which your business, or any other property you own for that matter, operates, then you simply do not truly own that property.

Jeff Flake, held by many to be a “libertarian leaning” conservative Republican, is against freedom of association by wanting to see an “anti-gay” bill, which would allow businesses to choose not to do business with gay people, vetoed. In other words, he wants the state to dictate terms to businesses on whom they should be forced to do business with. This not only violates private property rights and freedom of association rights; it is also an anti-free market position period. These are three extremely important staples of libertarian philosophy without which many other libertarian positions cannot hold.

It should be said that it may very well be true that the motive behind this anti-gay bill is precisely that; it is anti-gay and therefore discriminatory. But libertarianism does not deal with motives. It does not matter for which reason you wish to have liberty. It merely states you ought to have it and that neither the government, nor anyone else, ought to have the right to take it from you. So as revolting as someone’s motives may be to exercise his decision-making over his own property, he should have the right to exercise it. Flake’s reasoning is based in legislating morality over supporting individual liberty. The only proper libertarian response from a pro-gay standpoint would be to boycott these businesses and spread the word on their business conduct to impel others to also boycott them.

Also, Flake argues that this bill would be bad for Arizona’s economy. You know what we call someone who puts money over individual liberty? We call that a corporatist; not a libertarian.

So Flake proves to be another one of those examples of politicians that is regarded in a moderately favorable light for having some positions that are good and thus held to be “libertarian leaning”, while being an utter failure on others. It is high time to get rid of this meaningless phrase “libertarian leaning” as it is too often applied to those who would alternate  some good positions for other ones that just cement the state’s coercive power in matters that should be personal business.