You must be logged in.
You must be logged in.
Equal and opposite reaction
http://christophercantwell.com/2015/11/28/an-equal-and-opposite-reaction/
I wish that Cantwell were not so enthusiastic about this or so eager to take part in it, but I find his overview of how we got here and what is likely to happen next to be on point. Thoughts?
I identify myself as a libertarian, but I don’t get involved with the Libertarian party.
My thoughts about the article? I am reminded of something known as chatter or whitenoise. If you watch the stock market performance on a day to day basis, you become distracted as to what is happening in the big picture. It appears that Cantwell is distracted by the whitenoise, inconsequential chatter of day to day happenings within the liberty movement.
There have always been, and there will always be, people who support the ethos, “Peaceful. Voluntary. Honest.” That is what it is all about. It doesn’t matter what labels people try to stick on themselves or each other.
Cantwell is on a rant about petty crap, and my thought it, “who cares”? And why would anyone care? The things he is ranting about don’t matter. The message of “Peaceful, Voluntary, Honest” remains unaffected.
The following views are my own:
The ease with which Christopher Cantwell employs collectivist language in his article makes it unpleasant to read; such is to be expected from pundits and politicians, but it is especially tiresome when it comes from someone who wears a libertarian label.
If you can manage to make it past all the “royal we’s,” you’ll soon discover that he has nothing of value to offer. The only take away from this piece is that he is just as guilty of associating personal, cultural preferences with libertarian philosophy as the people he’s ranting about.
As for some of his points, voluntaryism is the moral underpinning of libertarian philosophy. Consent takes precedence over preferences for how society should be run, period. And people do forget that anarcho-capitalism is just a preference; it’s not synonymous with voluntaryism for a reason.
You don’t have to like technology or wage employment. If someone would rather go live in the wilderness, a village, or be self-employed, all the power to them. No harm no foul.
The thing about voluntary association is that it leaves a lot of room for people to live their lives as they wish, whether or not they have similar opinions on property and societal arrangement.
The whole point is non-aggression.
Somewhere along the line, Cantwell has forgotten that core aspect of what he claims to represent.
Last time I checked, libertarianism itself is not a preference for skin color, gender, and sexuality. It does not welcome stricter state controls over the border. If it can be said to have obligations, it is only to the non-aggression principle. Apart from that, there are none.
Fleeing crime is not a crime; it is strictly self-defense. Refugees are trying to survive a war that the state has brought upon them. They have no obligation to rebel against the Syrian gang by joining ranks with ISIS or vice versa.
National borders are a crime because their very existence as anathema to property rights. Walls and agents – all funded by stolen money inhibit the free flow of persons trying to escape war it creates. It’s crime all the way down.
State aided immigration is also funded the same way. But as long as the state monopolizes things like roads and drivers licenses and travel, that is how it’s going to be. But the world is not made freer by barring people from traveling. The wall goes both ways.
Victim blaming is not appropriate. Yet, somehow Cantwell has forgotten that the state is the problem.
Instead, he preoccupies himself by worrying about the IQs and color of war-torn people, or the sexual and gender preferences of others who have done nothing to him. The fact that he spends so much energy on these things, thinking they will “impact” his life and “his white society,” calls into question his own capacity for reason and risk assessment to say the least.
I can’t figure out whether or not his preference for conflict, as evidenced by the tone of his articles, and his many interactions with police, is a symptom of childhood trauma, or just a marketing strategy Trump would appreciate.
Just read this garbage:
We [white people] are capable of some truly terrible s***when you put us in a corner, right up to and including physical removal, so to speak. Do not turn us into those monsters again.
This “anarchist” thinks voting for Trump is an option. Even non-libertarians who aren’t voting this election season understand anarchy better.
I think that famous quote from Nietzsche applies to him pretty well.
If you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you.
And as far as I’m concerned, the only person making a “mockery of libertarianism” is Cantwell. For as long as people associate Trump and Cantwell with libertarianism, statism will continue to appear sane by comparison. This should concern anyone who would like to see philosophy get somewhere this century.
But that’s just my two cents.
