United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: A Libertarian Lexicon
Source:
Eric Peters Autos
URL Source: http://ericpetersautos.com/2016/05/26/a-libertarian-lexicon/
Published: May 26, 2016
Author: Eric
Post Date: 2016-06-28 05:52:06 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 2603
Comments: 26
Well, an EPautos Libertarian Lexicon! I get asked frequently about the meaning of some commonly used terms, known to EPautos regulars but less well-known to people new to this corner of the Libertarian universe. These form the core lingua franca of the dialogue here, but much more important, they serve as a convenient shorthand for conveying certain concepts easily and efficiently – without the need to go into a long explanation. Ideally, they will become anti-authoritarian/pro-liberty memes. Help spread the word! * Clover – The root cause of every affront to liberty. The spoonful of shit that ruins a gallon of ice cream. Clovers do not believe in live and let live. They believe in telling others how to live – at gunpoint, if necessary. Clovers can’t abide the organic society, voluntary interaction or free exchange. You are not free to disagree with a Clover. They always have “plans” and speak in terms of “we” – as if you agreed to their plans. As if they have the right to speak for you. A Clover will speak of “our children” when he means your children. Clovers believe that their feelings about what “someone” might do justify imposing restrictions on people who haven’t actually done anything to cause harm to anyone. Clovers believe in group guilt – and that you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent. Clovers believe the end (their end, whatever they deem worthwhile) always justifies the means. A Clover isn’t stopped in his tracks by a moral principle; for example, that it’s wrong to presume every driver on a given stretch of road is a “dangerous drunk” until he proves to the satisfaction of a cop that he isn’t. Clovers believe that constructs such as “society” have rights – but actual human beings don’t. They believe “there ought to be a law.” Clovers think it’s ok to take your money if it’s called “taxes.” They like to “help” others… with other people’s money. Clovers think people are too irresponsible and foolish to be trusted to govern themselves – but put limitless trust in people once adorned with special titles and costumes. Clovers consider other people their property – as evidence by their limitless desire to control other people, even to the extent of dictating to them what they may do with their own bodies. A Clover will decree how much soda you may purchase. He favors “sin” taxes – on the things he happens not to like. Most rank-and-file Clovers are bullies and busybodies but also cowards who hide behind euphemisms (see above regarding “taxes”) and the ballot box. They are not bold enough to actually take other people’s things themselves and shy away from telling other people what to do – such as personally telling their neighbor to “buckle up for safety” – but are eager to vote to have others perform this work on their behalf. Clovers are generally only dangerous in herds. * Hero – An armed government worker. Can be costumed or not. Usually identifiable by shaved head, opaque sunglasses and hair-trigger confrontational demeanor. The domestic variant enforces the state’s edicts upon the population; the export version enforces the state’s will upon foreign populations. Both populaces have been conditioned to servility and reverence in the presence of either. Preferred honorifics are “officer” and “sir.” Domestic Heroes keep us “safe” by taking away our freedoms. Export Heroes take away the lives of foreigners in order to “keep us free.” It is forbidden to “resist” a Hero. To criticize Heroes (particularly the export variants) is “unpatriotic.” Heroes form a Praetorian caste with special privileges; they are subject to more lenient standards of behavior and accountability in the performance of their “duties.” A domestic Hero may, for example, recklessly discharge a firearm and not be jailed or even charged for this while a non-Hero will usually be charged with multiple felonies and face years in prison for the same or lesser conduct. Heroes receive paid vacation when under investigation for potentially criminal conduct. A Hero fired for abusing his authority in one locality is free to seek employment as a Hero in a another locality. The “safety” of Heroes is paramount. Everything else – including our lives – is of secondary importance. All Heroes must be “thanked for their service.” Repeatedly. * Uncle – The secular deity of the United States. The incarnation/personification of the federal government. He acts in loco parentis over “children” who will never be emancipated, no matter how old they grow. At birth, we are assigned a number by Uncle – never to be used for purposes of identification, without which it is impossible to obtain identification. Or legal employment. Or open a bank account. Or do much of anything. Like Santa Claus, Uncle knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you’re awake …. except Uncle has a gun. Lots of guns. Uncle has assumed the power to do pretty much anything he likes. From ordering us to buy health insurance (but not necessarily get medical treatment) to decreeing how many miles-per-gallon our next new car will deliver. Uncle claims we have consented to abide by his edicts because we have been given the opportunity to vote for one of his priests, who tell us what to do on behalf of Uncle. Even if we voted for neither. * Saaaaaafety – The Magic Word that justifies … everything. It’s even more effective than equality – which it subsumes – because everyone must be kept safe. No matter what. And no matter the cost – in money or liberty. It is a Clover’s favorite word. It his meme. Let’s change that up.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 21.
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
[...] Help spread the word! Help spread the word ...
Recognize the faults with libertarianism Help spread the word ... A link to a Google page with 976,000 results is the furthest thing from an argument. Nut up and give us your own thoughts. Or not.
My own thoughts can be easily summed up on this political philosophy held by a small group of malcontent and misfit Paultards seeking their “libertarian utopia” … a world of liberty in which everyone is a sovereign individual with control over their own lives and in no way is anyone ever forced to sacrifice a single one of their values for the mutual benefit of others. I will do so now. I look at this insignificant group and think that the best single fault I can find with libertarianism is that it has never worked. There are no libertarian countries. If it is such a “great” thing, that libertarians believe they understand how to properly organize a modern society, then why is it that not a single country in the entire world is now successfully organized along libertarian lines? You would think that out of the almost 200 nation states around the world, there would be at least one country that has successfully tried it. Yet we can not find a country that has free trade, wide open borders, with no drugs criminalized and minimal government with no welfare system or public education system. I am someone who stays focused on reaching a practical and realistic goal in a straightforward, matter-of-fact manner. I guess that may describe a pragmatist. I will need to be shown where libertarianism has successfully worked on a large scale and then I may have some basis for its acceptance. Libertarianism has never worked. The latest count I can find shows there are 411,250 voters registered as Libertarian in the 27 states and Washington, D.C. ... Dude, that is one pathetically low number and abysmal performance record dating back to the mid 1500s when Étienne de La Boétie founded the libertarian political philosophy.
Poor confused gatlin is essentially describing our republican form of government, as it was for approx our first hundred years.
Poor confused gatlin is essentially describing our republican form of government, as it was for approx our first hundred years. I have no stomach to try and digest your heaping helping of historical revisionism. It is ludicrous if you are claiming that our country was established by some libertarians who were setting up a toothless national government. This idea that the Founding Fathers ever set out to construct a regime totally opposed to regulations and granting complete individual freedom to everyone is really laughable. Our founding fathers had no intention to ever give Americans a hands-off government. They just wanted to make sure the hands were to be our own through a Representative Republic. You Paultards continue to ignore this and are entitled to have your own bizarre view of freedom ... but don’t try to force it on me since I choose not to accept your views.
No, they also took pains to ensure that the federal government was limited to a limited set of enumerated powers.
No, they also took pains to ensure that the federal government was limited to a limited set of enumerated powers. Of course they did.
There are no replies to Comment # 21. End Trace Mode for Comment # 21.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestWell, an EPautos Libertarian Lexicon!
Recognize the faults with libertarianism
#8. To: Gatlin (#2)
Help spread the word ...
#9. To: ConservingFreedom (#8)
Help spread the word ...
You are absolutely correct. I do sincerely apologize for the voluminous overkill. Who could possible argue with 976,000 Google hits on “recognizing the faults with libertarianism?”
Recognize the faults with libertarianism
Help spread the word ... A link to a Google page with 976,000 results is the furthest thing from an argument.
Nut up and give us your own thoughts. Or not.
#10. To: Gatlin, chief cheeper, makes the canary clan look bad, once again. (#9)
we can not find a country that has free trade, wide open borders, with no drugs criminalized and minimal government with no welfare system or public education system.
#14. To: tpaine (#10)
we can not find a country that has free trade, wide open borders, with no drugs criminalized and minimal government with no welfare system or public education system.
#20. To: Gatlin (#14)
Our founding fathers had no intention to ever give Americans a hands-off government. They just wanted to make sure the hands were to be our own through a Representative Republic.
#21. To: ConservingFreedom (#20)
Our founding fathers had no intention to ever give Americans a hands-off government. They just wanted to make sure the hands were to be our own through a Representative Republic.
Replies to Comment # 21.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]