Andy Jacobs Interviewed at Comfest in Columbus, OH

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/154121166

Watch live video from TraneDePriest on www.twitch.tv

83 thoughts on “Andy Jacobs Interviewed at Comfest in Columbus, OH

  1. Andy

    Since I saw Joe Buchman post a media appearance he made here, I figured that I’d post one that I made here. This interview was conducted by WGRN 94.1 FM. I encountered somebody from this radio station who was looking for interesting people to interview in the crowd while gathering LP ballot access petition signatures. I figured that I’d help the party get some publicity, so I took some time out and did the interview. I had to walk to another part of the festival to get to where they were conducting the interviews, so this ate up a little more time than is shown in the video, but it was still a very productive day of signature gathering.

    This is not the first time I have gotten publicity for the Libertarian Party. I have gotten some newspaper articles (I even got the Libertarian Party mentioned in USA Today back in 2003, but due to a snafu, I ended up not appearing in that article), and been on a couple of local TV news shows, plus I have gotten on several radio shows.

    YouTube videos are pretty easy to post here, but this video was uploaded to some site called Twitch, and I tried several times, but I was unable to get the video to post, so it came out as a link to where the video is posted. If somebody else here wants to fix it, go for it.

  2. paulie

    Thanks for the interview and the article. Your video has been added. It would take you far less time to learn how to do it than you spent on at least one far less productive pursuit last night. In general, look for the share button or icon then look for the part that says “embed,” and copy and paste that into the article. If you can’t find that, do Ctrl + U to see the source code and look for iframe…./iframe or embed…../embed.

  3. Bondurant

    My computer never interacts well with Twitch. Clip buffers non-stop making playback irritating. Had to tap out after 60 seconds.

    Good work, though, getting some publicity about petitioning and shedding some light on the difficult process in Ohio.

  4. Tony From Long Island

    Andy comes across quite well and professionally here. Short focused answers without tangents.

    The video and audio quality are atrocious, though. It felt like 1995 using Real Audio / Video

    The interviewer stated that Bernie became a democrat. That is not the case. As far as I know he has never joined the Democratic Party.

  5. Andy

    Paul said: “than you spent on at least one far less productive pursuit”

    oh my gosh, i just noticed that the letters in the video for the radio station were in dreaded all caps. i hope that this does not cause the post to get taken down by the censors here (typing in all lower case here just to be safe, as i would hate to scare anyone with big, bad, scary upper case letters).

  6. Just Some Random Guy

    @ Tony

    The interviewer stated that Bernie became a democrat. That is not the case. As far as I know he has never joined the Democratic Party.

    Sanders says that as he was elected as an Independent he still identifies as one as a Senator, but in any future election or re-election will run as a Democrat. So he’s kind of both a Democrat and not a Democrat at the same time right now.

  7. paulie

    oh my gosh,

    Sure, you can keep complaining about the caps lock ban, or you could use your time more productively – for example, by learning a few basic HTML tags or studying how I added the video above so you can do it yourself next time for videos other than youtube.

  8. Andy

    I was tired when I tried to post it so I gave up. I figured I would try again later, or somebody else would get it.

    This in no way erases my disgust with the censorship of words in upper case letters, nor does it absolve those responsible for this irrational, petty, arbitrary, underhanded, crybaby, expression stifling behavior of their guilt.

    Whether or not a video is posted here in a format where people do not have to click a link is not nearly as important an issue as stifling expression which harms no one, 9r the behind-the-back “we took a secret vote of specially selected people” way it was done.

    My opinion of this site has dropped.

  9. paulie

    OK, keep howling at the moon about caps lock, and feel free to start your own competing site. You could be the next Chris Lesiak.

    Also, if you do feel the need to keep crybabying about caps lock, please take it to a moderation related thread. Or, hell, keep it here, since this thread is by and about you. It can be your own very special thread if you want.

  10. Richard Winger

    Bernie Sanders continues to list himself as an independent in the Congressional Directory.

    Just because someone seeks the nomination of a particular party does not mean that he or she is a member of that party. The US Supreme Court in Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut said it would violate the associational rights of parties if state laws forbid the party from nominating a non-member.

  11. Stuart Simms

    @JSRG

    “Sanders says that as he was elected as an Independent he still identifies as one as a Senator, but in any future election or re-election will run as a Democrat. So he’s kind of both a Democrat and not a Democrat at the same time right now.”

    Schrodinger’s Senator?

  12. Tony From Long Island

    What exactly is “comfest” anyway?

    Have a good weekend all . . . .except Andy of course.

  13. George Phillies

    And for the other-party conspiracy

    Having previously cast doubt on the claim, noting an absence of evidence (the plural of anecdote is not “data”), there is now data, leaning in that direction. To support this investigation, send money to Judicial Watch at JudicialWatch.org . I did.

    More voters than citizens

    https://mishtalk.com/2017/08/05/california-has-11-counties-with-more-registered-voters-than-voting-age-citizens-registered-voters-144-of-egilibility/#more-47254

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/NVRA-letter-CA-August-2017-1.pdf?D=1

    By a lot. Up to 144 % (in Los Angeles County).

  14. Jill Pyeatt

    There is no question in my mind that there was vote-tampering in Los Angeles, and a lot of it. There are many anecdotal stories, from many different areas besides Los Angeles, also. The people who watched their votes being changed always saw their vote going to Hillary.

  15. wolfefan

    Since it’s Judicial Watch, I would take the claims with a grain or two of salt. I also believe that in California (I could be wrong – please correct me if I am) that one need not be a citizen to vote in state and local elections, so the fact that there are more registered voters than citizens may be of no moment.

  16. wolfefan

    I should add that CA, like most states, has difficulty with voters who move and register in their new locations but do not cancel or update their previous registration, as well as voters who die. It takes several elections of not voting in CA to be struck from the rolls.

  17. dL

    Since it’s Judicial Watch, I would take the claims with a grain or two of salt.

    more like a salt mine….it’s a right-wing rethug organ.

  18. paulie

    It’s almost entirely people who have moved and are still registered at their old address as well as their new one. That’s because it is very easy, and far less work, to fill out the voter card without putting the old address at the bottom. It does not mean that any significant number of those people actually try to vote more than once nor that any significant number of ineligible persons are registered and voting, the latter being myths being spread by NSGOP. If anything the problem is in the other direction, with people being denied the vote who are fully qualified to vote because of bureaucratic paperwork BS and ill-intentioned voter roll purge efforts.

  19. NewFederalist

    “Since it’s Judicial Watch, I would take the claims with a grain or two of salt.” – woflefan

    Why is that?

  20. Jill Pyeatt

    If it’s a partisan thing to point out illegal behavior, oh well. It’s not like the people on Judicial Watch are racist skinheads.

    Oh, yeah, even though I live in Los Angeles and am quite involved in the political system here, I guess I must be wrong about voter fraud.

    Considering I’ve been called an anti-Semite here recently because I object the the killing in Gaza, I guess I just really don’t belong here anymore. I consider ignoring the law and lying about it to be wrong behavior,even if the people doing it are Democrats.

    DL, why don’t you start posting articles? That way I can disappear from IPR for good.

  21. paulie

    If it’s a partisan thing to point out illegal behavior, oh well.

    They clearly favor Republicans, as can be seen in a cursory glance at their site.

    It’s not like the people on Judicial Watch are racist skinheads.

    Am I missing context? I did not see anyone suggest anything even remotely like that.

    Considering I’ve been called an anti-Semite here recently because I object the the killing in Gaza,

    I don’t remember seeing that either. Who called you that?

    DL, why don’t you start posting articles?

    That would be great, but it’s not a requirement. I appreciate the help with the comment section, even without posting articles.

    That way I can disappear from IPR for good.

    I hope you don’t do that, regardless of who does or does not start to post articles.

  22. langa

    Jill’s got a point. Since the last election, the atmosphere here at IPR seems to have taken a clear left turn.

    Over the years, IPR has frequently linked to partisan sources (both left and right), and no one has had a problem with it. And why should they? As I have pointed out about a million times, simply agreeing with someone on one issue doesn’t mean you agree with them on anything else. This should be obvious.

    But lately, whenever anyone criticizes the left, they are assumed to be sympathetic to the right. Bullshit. Genuine libertarians understand that neither the left nor the right deserve anything but pure contempt.

    Unfortunately, such libertarians appear to be a dying breed, replaced by “lesser of two evil” apologists.

  23. Andy

    langa said: “And why should they? As I have pointed out about a million times, simply agreeing with someone on one issue doesn’t mean you agree with them on anything else. This should be obvious.”

    BINGO!

    “But lately, whenever anyone criticizes the left, they are assumed to be sympathetic to the right. Bullshit. Genuine libertarians understand that neither the left nor the right deserve anything but pure contempt.”

    BINGO!

  24. paulie

    Jill’s got a point. Since the last election, the atmosphere here at IPR seems to have taken a clear left turn.

    That’s odd. My experience has been exactly the opposite. It seems that it has veered to the far right, with strong authoritarian overtones. I honestly don’t feel welcome here anymore and I know for a fact a lot of our participants, including those who were putting up most of the articles before, have felt the same way and have moved on. With all of the ugly bashing of immigrants, Muslims, Jews, etc, etc, it feels like an only slightly more polite version of Stormfront more than half the time in here.

    It’s a sad state of affairs when I have to look at IP addresses to distinguish bigoted impersonators from longtime regulars half the time. I’m not the only one who has remarked on this, either.

    As I have pointed out about a million times, simply agreeing with someone on one issue doesn’t mean you agree with them on anything else.

    But that’s just the thing. Judicial Watch is completely wrong on this issue. The problem with the voter rolls is too few people being allowed to vote, not too many. In fact, the most promising trend currently is doing away with voter registration barriers and letting all citizens known to exist, over the age and not in prison be allowed to vote. Additionally, two states allow people to vote even while in prison, and while this is rare in the US it is common in many countries around the world.

  25. paulie

    Genuine libertarians understand that neither the left nor the right deserve anything but pure contempt.

    BINGO!

    If the reich wing deserves contempt, and it does, why do you keep kissing up to every reich winger and fascist who makes some spurious claim to being libertarian (or used to, pre-Trump), and why do you give credence and repeat the worst of their arguments, over and over, in the face of all logic and evidence?

    As for the left, libertarians have always been on the left – that’s just a historical fact, just like it is a fact that the right has always been authoritarian. You can go all the way back to the French Parliament of the 18th century, where our political concepts of left and right originated, to see this illustrated. From my experience, the right has always been and continues to be more authoritarian, including in the US, despite some hypocritical lip service to small government. When it comes right down to it, government is force and the police, military and prisons is where the rubber meets the road; and it is the right which is most blindly worshipful of all of these.

    Is this some new argument that I am making? No, I have consistently said this since long before IPR existed. Is my viewpoint suddenly more popular here? It feels quite the opposite.

  26. dL

    DL, why don’t you start posting articles? That way I can disappear from IPR for good.

    well, if it resulted in “Nathan Norman” disappearing, I could probably be motivated to start…

  27. dL

    If it’s a partisan thing to point out illegal behavior, oh well. It’s not like the people on Judicial Watch are racist skinheads.

    Clinton Watch, err, Judicial Watch, is well-known CDS(Clinton Derangement Syndrome) organization. It is not a non-partisan org. The front page clearly indicates it is also an immigration restrictionist advocacy group. Libertarian politics should be in the business of expanding voter rolls and not playing intellectual wingmen to the GOP “illegal voting” charade.

  28. dL

    As for the left, libertarians have always been on the left

    That should should go without saying. However, this site is not anywhere close to having a “leftist” slant. Nonsense. There is virtually no green party participation. It may have never been a significant participatory voice here, but it is more or less zero now.

  29. paulie

    It used to be more. And some of the libertarians or ex-libertarians seem to have gone full blown Trumpster fire or even worse, full blown alt reich.

  30. George Phillies

    Bloating teh voter rolls is an anti-third party maneuver. From their Secretary of State “To qualify a new political party by voter registration requires that voters equal in number to at least 0.33 percent of the total number of voters registered on the 154th day before the primary election or the 123rd day before the presidential general election complete an affidavit of registration, disclosing a preference by writing in the name of the political body intending to qualify as a political party. (Elections Code §§ 5100(b), 5151(c).)”

    In Los Angeles County, 2/3 of all registered voters showed up and voted, somewhat below the 3/4 seen statewide. It is marginally numerically possible for 2/3 of LA voters to have voted, while only real residents voted, but that would require approximately a 100% turnout of census-estimated residents, which is absurd. If 3/4 of all actual residents showed up and voted, then something like a quarter of LA’s votes were fraudulent.

  31. paulie

    Bloating teh voter rolls is an anti-third party maneuver.

    Quite the opposite, in most states. For example, Ohio has a pretty typical law as does Alabama, where the number of signatures we get is based on the number of people who voted for Governor (or president in some jurisdictions). In some other states like Arkansas and Illinois it is a fixed number of signatures without regard to how many people voted or registered. But, where we get screwed is that the voter roll purges reduce the number of people who are eligible to sign, and mean we have to spend more time asking people who turn out to not be eligible. Furthermore, they may not even know they are not eligible, because they don’t know they get purged if they missed one presidential election and didn’t respond to one piece of what they assumed was junk mail.

    Even in states that are different from this norm like CA it would be easier to collect a somewhat higher number of signatures if you could be sure that every CA resident US citizen over 18 that you ask is eligible to sign regardless of how recently they voted or whether they paid attention to their snail mail or moved etc.

    In Los Angeles County, 2/3 of all registered voters showed up and voted, somewhat below the 3/4 seen statewide. It is marginally numerically possible for 2/3 of LA voters to have voted, while only real residents voted, but that would require approximately a 100% turnout of census-estimated residents, which is absurd. If 3/4 of all actual residents showed up and voted, then something like a quarter of LA’s votes were fraudulent.

    Perhaps. Or more likely, a lot of people did like I did and ignored the census.

  32. paulie

    For all the noise Republicans and Republisymps have been making about the so-called problem of ineligible voters there have been virtually zero cases of it documented in recent decades. It’s all based on assumptions and anecdotes.

    Meanwhile, there are very, very many documented cases of people who should have been allowed to vote being denied that right due to these voter purge tactics and ID laws and so on, which is exactly the actual intent of all that crap. It has swung entire elections any number of times, generally in favor of Republicans due to their use of these dirty tricks, just like the dirty tricks they have used to disenfranchise libertarians in Ohio – and we are far from the only ones they have done that too.

  33. paulie

    Libertarian politics should be in the business of expanding voter rolls and not playing intellectual wingmen to the GOP “illegal voting” charade.

    Exactly.

  34. dL

    In Los Angeles County, 2/3 of all registered voters showed up and voted, somewhat below the 3/4 seen statewide. It is marginally numerically possible for 2/3 of LA voters to have voted, while only real residents voted, but that would require approximately a 100% turnout of census-estimated residents, which is absurd. If 3/4 of all actual residents showed up and voted, then something like a quarter of LA’s votes were fraudulent.

    From this source:
    http://www.scpr.org/news/2016/10/05/65383/california-reaches-highest-number-of-registered-vo/

    # registered voters in LA County ~ 5 million.

    From this source:
    http://www.seecalifornia.com/counties/county-population.html

    population of LA county ~ 10 million

    Judicial Watch claims that the LA county clerk informed them over the telephone that the registered voter count in LA county is 144% of the eligible population count. For this claim to be accurate, the eligible voting population count for LA country would have to be ~ 3.4 million. Hence, the voting-eligible population percentage in LA County would have to be ~ 34%. That would be amazingly low figure, lower by a factor of 2 to the national average of ~ 70%. Indeed, a simple google demographic query for LA County median age returns 35.6 years of age. So that 144% claim is complete bullshit, as expected.

    A Google news search RE: Judicial Watch’s Cali registered voter bloat claim only turns up the usual wingnut suspects.

    Conclusion: Conservative Fake News

  35. dL

    Why am I not surprised?

    The internet is supposed to make smart people smarter. It takes 10 minutes to look up county population, find county registered voters, find national voting-eligible population percentage, check county median age stat w/ national median age statistic and then do some simple math.

    10 million * .7 =7 million.
    (5 million/ 7 million) = 71%, which is very much in line what Cali reported for statewide, which was 73%.

  36. paulie

    It’s all part of the Trumpster fake spin, Putinesque propaganda machine to try to make false claims that he did not lose the popular vote, as well as part of the efforts to purge the voter rolls and disenfranchise a lot of people who should be allowed to vote and hand the Republicans more undeserved victories… just like these same Republicans are disenfranchising Libertarians, for example in Ohio, so that independent Republican-leaning voters would have no alternative that they are more comfortable with than they are with Democrats. Putin tactics by Putin understudies.

  37. dL

    it’s all part of the Trumpster fake spin

    Judicial Watch goes back to the Clintons, whitewater. They are not a product of Trump. More like a product of CDS…They are also a known immigration restrictionist outfit.

  38. paulie

    I’m familiar with their work over the years. But opposing Clinton(s) has translated into tacit support for Trump for them, and his need to legitimize himself by claiming he actually won the popular vote is part of their agenda, although it is only a part. The bigger part remains what it has been, as far as the voter purges go, to disproportionally disenfranchise groups that tend to disproportionally vote against Republicans.

  39. langa

    My experience has been exactly the opposite. It seems that it has veered to the far right, with strong authoritarian overtones.

    You are one of the people who has changed the most. You used to be a hardcore libertarian, equally quick to criticize the Clintons, Bushes, etc. But now, anyone who doesn’t agree with your insane hyperbole (e.g. “Trump is literally worse than Hitler” or “Putin is plotting to take over the entire world”) is some sort of far-right, goosestepping Nazi. You often criticize the right without mentioning the left, but if anyone criticizes the left without mentioning the right, you quickly admonish them, and often imply that they are a closet Trump supporter. It’s a clear double standard.

    Judicial Watch is completely wrong on this issue. The problem with the voter rolls is too few people being allowed to vote, not too many. In fact, the most promising trend currently is doing away with voter registration barriers and letting all citizens known to exist, over the age and not in prison be allowed to vote.

    You’re talking about what the law should be, while they are alleging that the law (as it exists) has been broken. Those are two different claims. For example, in theory, there’s nothing wrong with allowing people to sell their vote to the highest bidder (under the libertarian principle that, if it should be legal to do X for free, it should also be legal to do X for profit, or to pay someone else to do X). Nevertheless, that’s not what the law currently is, and I am quite sure that if someone (say, Trump) was being accused of having bought votes, that you would not just say, “So what? You should be able to buy votes.”

    You can go all the way back to the French Parliament of the 18th century, where our political concepts of left and right originated, to see this illustrated.

    Again with this absurd red herring. Yes, the meanings of “left” and “right” used to be different, just like “gay” used to mean “merry” — does that mean that modern debates over gay rights are just debates about the right to be merry? Modern leftists have almost nothing in common with Bastiat or Molinari, and you know it. Implying otherwise makes me question either your sanity or your sincerity.

    From my experience, the right has always been and continues to be more authoritarian, including in the US, despite some hypocritical lip service to small government. When it comes right down to it, government is force and the police, military and prisons is where the rubber meets the road; and it is the right which is most blindly worshipful of all of these.

    The entire history of Communism (which has always been considered to be on the left) repudiates that claim. And speaking of lip service, where’s the evidence that the left actually opposes any of the things you mention? During my lifetime, we have had various permutations of the D’s and R’s controlling the White House, the Congress, or both. Yet the police have continued to get more violent, and to be held less accountable for their crimes, no matter which party was in power. The military has been almost continuously involved in various adventures and conflicts that have nothing to do with the U.S., no matter which party was in power. The prison population has either increased, or at best, remained constant, no matter which party was in power. Face it — “Culture War” posturing aside, there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the left and the right.

    It’s all part of the Trumpster fake spin, Putinesque propaganda machine…

    This is exactly what I mean. You literally sound like Hillary, with her talk of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” that was out to get her. You really seem to have bought into this crazy idea that the left is some poor victim of the right. Of course, in reality, it’s more like a battle between warring crime factions (like the Crips and the Bloods) with the rest of us being caught in the crossfire.

  40. paulie

    You are one of the people who has changed the most. You used to be a hardcore libertarian, equally quick to criticize the Clintons, Bushes, etc.

    I haven’t changed one bit. All of those people still belong in maximum security housing for the criminally insane.

    insane hyperbole (e.g. “Trump is literally worse than Hitler” or “Putin is plotting to take over the entire world”)

    That’s not insane hyperbole, it’s true. Hitler did not manage to develop nukes, so Trump is worse. I do believe he is an active danger to the survival of anything that is more evolved than a cockroach on this planet. Putin is indeed active in efforts to control regimes around the world, including in the US, where he is starting to have success in that department.

    I thought Cathy Young’s article previously linked made a good case for why and how that is happening and why libertarians should not be thrilled about it, but all you managed to get out of it was a call for war that was not there and somewhere in there was thrown the idea that we should be A-OK with Putin’s global support for neofascist regimes and parties throughout Europe, collusion with multiple members of the Trump campaign, administration and family, support for global thugs and dictators from Assad to Erdogan to Duterte to many more… because the global criminals in the US regime also interfere with elections and governments in other parts of the world, so we should be OK with KGB 2.0 doing the same thing.

    But now, anyone who doesn’t agree …

    Lots of people don’t agree with me. Many of them are not in any way shape or form Trump supporters.

  41. paulie

    You’re talking about what the law should be, while they are alleging that the law (as it exists) has been broken.

    They’re talking BS, and I am talking about why they are talking that BS.

  42. paulie

    The entire history of Communism (which has always been considered to be on the left) repudiates that claim. And speaking of lip service, where’s the evidence that the left actually opposes any of the things you mention? During my lifetime, we have had various permutations of the D’s and R’s controlling the White House, the Congress, or both. Yet the police have continued to get more violent, and to be held less accountable for their crimes, no matter which party was in power. The military has been almost continuously involved in various adventures and conflicts that have nothing to do with the U.S., no matter which party was in power. The prison population has either increased, or at best, remained constant, no matter which party was in power. Face it — “Culture War” posturing aside, there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the left and the right.

    The communists and the rest of the modern left has been using right wing, meaning authoritarian, means ostensibly in the service of left wing goals. That does not make libertarianism any less left wing. Nor does it make conservative-libertarian fusionism any more viable in theory or in practice. I do believe I have posted links to Roderick Long’s long form explanation of the theory and history behind this in enough past discussions. It’s a fact that the right is more openly and thoroughly worshipful of the military and police and makes the biggest pushes to expand them. You are entirely correct that the compromises of the Demopublicans in power are to keep both the parts of government the left pushes for and the parts the right pushes for going and growing. I’ve discussed this dynamic in many past discussions here and my opinion on it is still the same. With Trumpism the right has taken a hard authoritarian turn, openly following a demagogue who praises authoritarians and dictators all over the world and openly wants to be one himself while emulating many of their tactics and rhetorical flourishes.

  43. paulie

    It’s all part of the Trumpster fake spin, Putinesque propaganda machine… well it is. So what? I don’t like either of the Clintons and them losing was one of the few silver linings to Drumpf winning. That doesn’t make what Judicial Watch is doing here anything other than what I said. They have been part and parcel of an effort to disenfranchise a lot of people all over the country, an effort which has succeeded and has swung many elections, and which is ongoing. It’s also a fact that those very same Republicans have been active in disenfranchising libertarians, notably in Ohio as well as many other places. None of that means that the Democrats are worthy of support, which they are not.

  44. dL

    You often criticize the right without mentioning the left

    Might have something to do w/ the fact that the Rethugs these days have the presidency, both houses of congress, a majority of SCOTUS and a majority of the governorships.

    You’re talking about what the law should be

    No, he is talking about how Judicial Watch is simply making shit up. Something which I easily demonstrated above.

    Modern leftists have almost nothing in common with Bastiat or Molinari, and you know it. Implying otherwise makes me question either your sanity or your sincerity.

    Bastiat didn’t necessarily have much in common with many of the leftists of his time, either. Left-wing has never been a uniform ideology.

    And speaking of lip service, where’s the evidence that the left actually opposes any of the things you mention? During my lifetime, we have had various permutations of the D’s and R’s controlling the White House, the Congress, or both. Yet the police have continued to get more violent, and to be held less accountable for their crimes, no matter which party was in power.

    True. Of course, I don’t consider the Democrats to be a left-wing party. Center-right, at best. And these days, in the aftermath of the Clinton loss, they’ve reverted to a1950s McCarthyist collection of red-baiters.

    This is exactly what I mean. You literally sound like Hillary, with her talk of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” that was out to get her.

    My guess is that if you were in Pauli’s shoes, a naturalized American(but perhaps not sufficiently papers-please documented) who may not pass the pig look test for a “real American” when walking down the street, you attitude might likewise shift a bit on the threat Trump poses.

  45. langa

    That’s not insane hyperbole, it’s true. Hitler did not manage to develop nukes, so Trump is worse.

    Yes, Trump has access to nukes. So has every other U.S. President from WWII forward. Does that mean that they have all been worse than Hitler?

    Here is a list (compiled by Thaddeus Russell, and quoted by Tom Woods here: http://tomwoods.com/literal-nazis-are-everywhere-say-leftists-who-know-zero-history/) of policies that Hitler enacted in Nazi Germany:

    1) Opposition political parties banned.
    2) Government control over major industries.
    3) Conversion of manufacturing industries to military production.
    4) Universal military conscription.
    5) Labor conscription.
    6) Ban on independent labor unions; mandatory membership of all workers in state-controlled national labor union.
    7) State propaganda promoting worship of Hitler and demanding the complete merger of individual identity with the nation-state.
    8) Mass arrests of communists, socialists, social democrats, homosexuals, prostitutes, alcoholics, juvenile delinquents, and the chronically unemployed.
    9) Concentration camps for the above groups.
    10) Nationalization of media and the arts.
    11) Criminalization of foreign cultures (e.g., the banning of jazz and listening to foreign radio stations).
    12) Mandatory public schooling, with curriculum teaching love for Hitler, obedience to Nazi authority, military discipline, racism, eugenics, and antisemitism.
    13) Mandatory membership in Hitler Youth for all Germans 18 and under; conscription of youth for agricultural work.
    14) Forced sterilization and euthanasia of the genetically and mentally “unfit,” including prostitutes and promiscuous women.
    15) Revocation of all civil rights, expulsion, incarceration, and ultimately genocide of “racially inferior” citizens: Gypsies, Slavs, and Jews.
    16) Conquest and colonization of territory “belonging” to “Aryan” race.

    Which of these has Trump even advocated, let alone succeeded in implementing?

    As for the Cathy Young article (and your gross mischaracterization of my response to it), we have already had that debate, and I don’t feel like rehashing it. Instead, I strongly encourage anyone interested to read our exchange for themselves: http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/07/open-thread-for-july-2017/#comment-1628652

    Read the linked Young article, read the links to her other articles that dL and I provided, read the link to Raimondo’s response to Young, and then make up your own mind on whose position is more logical.

  46. langa

    The communists and the rest of the modern left has been using right wing, meaning authoritarian, means ostensibly in the service of left wing goals. That does not make libertarianism any less left wing.

    This is the “No true Scotsman” fallacy. “The left isn’t authoritarian, except when they do authoritarian things, and then they’re not really the left. In that case, they’re actually the right, pretending to be the left.”

    Nor does it make conservative-libertarian fusionism any more viable in theory or in practice.

    When have I ever advocated fusionism? On the contrary, I frequently criticized Austin Petersen for his support of that stupid idea. My vision for libertarianism is simple: Fuck the left, and fuck the right. Fuck them one at a time, or fuck them both at the same time. But, whatever you do, fuck them both.

    It’s a fact that the right is more openly and thoroughly worshipful of the military and police and makes the biggest pushes to expand them.

    Only in their rhetoric. Just like the right pretends to support the free market, but then enacts all kinds of policies that interfere with the free market, the left pretends to be for peace and civil liberties, but their actions speak louder than their words. Obama continued all of Bush’s wars, and started a couple of new ones. Police militarization and violence increased on Obama’s watch. The left and the right are like two books, with different covers, but the same table of contents.

  47. langa

    Might have something to do w/ the fact that the Rethugs these days have the presidency, both houses of congress, a majority of SCOTUS and a majority of the governorships.

    Look, if libertarians want to criticize the right without mentioning the left, that’s fine with me. But if you’re going to do that, don’t complain when other libertarians criticize the left without mentioning the right.

    No, he is talking about how Judicial Watch is simply making shit up. Something which I easily demonstrated above.

    The quote I replied to was about what the law should be, rather than whether the law had been broken. Now, if you want o dispute the accuracy of Judicial Watch’s numbers, that’s fine. But that’s different than saying, “What? How dare you link to a right-wing site?” As I said above, IPR frequently links to partisan sites. For example, the Paul Stanton article recently posted included links to several left-wing sites (even one to the SPLC, who are so far left that they once categorized Ron Paul’s campaign For Liberty as a “hate group”). Yet no one complained. And that’s fine. But again, if you’re not going to complain about that, then don’t complain about someone linking to a right-wing site.

    Left-wing has never been a uniform ideology.

    Which is another good reason why it makes no sense to claim that libertarianism is “part of” the left. Any “coalition” broad enough to include both libertarians and Communists is basically meaningless.

    My guess is that if you were in Pauli’s shoes, a naturalized American(but perhaps not sufficiently papers-please documented) who may not pass the pig look test for a “real American” when walking down the street, you attitude might likewise shift a bit on the threat Trump poses.

    Oh, I definitely view Trump as a threat (and not just to immigrants, but to almost everybody). But the unhinged comparisons to Hitler aren’t an effective way to address that threat. They simply destroy the credibility of the person making them. If libertarians want to persuade people, it helps not to come off as a raving, hyperpartisan wingnut. I find, for example, TK’s latest Garrison Center article to be a much more logical and persuasive analysis of Trump: http://thegarrisoncenter.org/archives/11134

  48. dL

    Look, if libertarians want to criticize the right without mentioning the left, that’s fine with me. But if you’re going to do that, don’t complain when other libertarians criticize the left without mentioning the right.

    I generally abide by the principle of reserving the majority of criticism to those currently exercising power and refrain from a voluntary imposition of the FCC equal time law.

    “What? How dare you link to a right-wing site?”

    Actually, there was a comment made that relying on Judicial Watch should be taken with a grain of salt. I then followed up w/ a comment that it should be taken w/ a mine of salt, it’s a partisan GOP organ.And I would have left it at that. But that’s when the butthurt began…

    Which is another good reason why it makes no sense to claim that libertarianism is “part of” the left. Any “coalition” broad enough to include both libertarians and Communists is basically meaningless.

    Nonsense. Lack of uniformity doesn’t mean lack of any thing in common. Often, you can share the same ends but have vehement disagreement over means. Leftism has some basic things in common: embrace of the enlightenment, anti-reactionary, guided by reason…It’s a broad swath of a tradition that includes both anti-authoritarian means and authoritarian means to achieve the enlightenment ideals of liberty and equality.

    Libertarianism and conservatism, however, are diametrically opposed. Libertarianism views liberty as the mother of order. Conservatism on the other hand views liberty as the daughter of order. Libertarianism==liberty as the primary objective. Conservatism==order as the primary objective. Conservatism is not an enlightenment project.

    Personally, since I come down on the anti-authoritarian side of leftism, I view libertarianism as the farthest left of left-wing.

  49. langa

    …you can share the same ends but have vehement disagreement over means.

    But that’s just the thing. There are no such thing as “libertarian ends” — at least not in any meaningful sense. I suppose you could say that “libertarian ends” are whatever ends happen to result from the application of libertarian means, but that seems rather tautological.

    In truth, the left and the right have a lot more in common with each other than either of them have with libertarianism. This is because the left and the right are both defined by their ends, and by the belief that, when push comes to shove, those ends justify whatever means are necessary to achieve them. Libertarianism, on the other hand, totally rejects that view. Indeed, as I alluded to earlier, libertarianism turns “the ends justify the means” on its head, holding just the opposite — that the means justify the ends — a point well illustrated by Nozick in his famous Wilt Chamberlain analogy.

  50. dL

    But that’s just the thing. There are no such thing as “libertarian ends”

    Well, liberty is means not ends, true. But that’s not the same thing as denying any libertarian ends. Peace, tolerance, justice, equality, a market economy w/ property rights, minimization of arbitrary authority, minimization of coercion, etc. These things are ends, too. If you prefer a market economy over a communal economy, then social organization by market economy is obviously an end. Though, of course, a market transaction itself is a means to the subjective ends of exchanging agents.

  51. Jill Pyeatt

    No, he is talking about how Judicial Watch is simply making shit up. Something which I easily demonstrated above.

    Don’t flatter yourself. You didn’t demonstrate anything to me except that you’re arrogant. I live here in Los Angeles County, and I’ll trust my personal experience as far as how the last election went.

  52. langa

    But that’s not the same thing as denying any libertarian ends. Peace, tolerance, justice, equality, a market economy w/ property rights, minimization of arbitrary authority, minimization of coercion, etc. These things are ends, too.

    Well, yes and no. On the one hand, it’s true that pretty much any libertarian will tell you that they are in favor of freedom, or justice. But so will pretty much any conservative, or pretty much any progressive. The difference is that for the left and the right, those goals (freedom, justice, whatever) are desirable regardless of how they come about. It is the outcome that they care about. For libertarians, however, those goals are worthless, unless they can be achieved by libertarian means.

    For example, consider equality. Sure, libertarians believe everyone has equal rights, but that’s a basic principle, an axiom, not an outcome. It forms part of the criteria for evaluating the legitimacy of the means. So, that type of equality is not an end. When people talk about equality as an end, they are talking about outcomes. Now, a lot of libertarians believe that a truly free market would, in fact, result in a more equal distribution of outcomes. But what if it didn’t? What if a free market resulted in massive inequality (such as in the Wilt Chamberlain example)? A progressive would deplore this end, and want to “fix” it. But a libertarian would have no problem with this sort of “natural” inequality, given that it resulted from libertarian means, and would certainly find it preferable to the progressive’s “equality at gunpoint” (via forced income redistribution).

    Or, to take another example, consider peace. Certainly, libertarians desire peace as an outcome, but again, only if it can be achieved through peaceful means. Contrast this to warmongers, such as the neocons, who often try to justify their wars on the grounds that they will lead to peace. And perhaps they believe that. But even if that were true, libertarians would still oppose such a “peaceful” outcome, assuming that it could only be reached through violent means.

  53. dL

    Don’t flatter yourself. You didn’t demonstrate anything to me except that you’re arrogant. I live here in Los Angeles County, and I’ll trust my personal experience as far as how the last election went.

    well, apart from the petulant whine, the ad hominem attack and the anecdotal fallacy, you’re presumptuous . You know, that I would give dish it back as good as as you apparently like to give it out.

  54. Tony From Long island

    Langa: ” . . . .Jill’s got a point. Since the last election, the atmosphere here at IPR seems to have taken a clear left turn. . . . ”

    Other than my posts, I see it more as taking a right turn.

  55. dL

    Well, yes and no. On the one hand, it’s true that pretty much any libertarian will tell you that they are in favor of freedom, or justice. But so will pretty much any conservative, or pretty much any progressive.

    I’m not going by the public dialogue, which I often find to be useless. I’m going by the texts. For example, for conservatism, Russell Kirk. Order, not liberty, is the primary objective.
    [The Roots of American Order]
    https://www.amazon.com/Roots-American-Order-Russell-Kirk/dp/1882926994

    Progressive Manifesto:
    [Progressive Thinking: A Synthesis of Progressive Values, Beliefs, and Positions]
    https://www.scribd.com/document/131793272/Progressive-Thinking

    Four major ends of that text: Freedom, Opportunity, Responsibility, Cooperation

    For libertarians, however, those goals are worthless, unless they can be achieved by libertarian means.

    No shit…who argued otherwise? Libertarian ends(which I consider to be leftist ends) by libertarian means does not invalidate the notion of libertarian ends. I clearly wrote that “It’s a broad swath of a tradition that includes both anti-authoritarian means and authoritarian means to achieve the enlightenment ideals of liberty and equality” and you go off on long rant–ignoring what I wrote– to restate in 20 sentences what I originally stated in one.

  56. paulie

    Other than my posts, I see it more as taking a right turn.

    As far as I know your posts have been the same before and after the election. I concur that the comments have veered to the right.

  57. langa

    No shit…who argued otherwise? Libertarian ends(which I consider to be leftist ends) by libertarian means does not invalidate the notion of libertarian ends. I clearly wrote that “It’s a broad swath of a tradition that includes both anti-authoritarian means and authoritarian means to achieve the enlightenment ideals of liberty and equality” and you go off on long rant–ignoring what I wrote– to restate in 20 sentences what I originally stated in one.

    Hmm, you seem to be missing my point. I think it’s a pretty simple point, and you strike me as a pretty intelligent person, so either you’re being intentionally obtuse, or else I’m explaining it poorly. I’ll assume the latter, and give it one more try.

    The difference between libertarians and the L/R (left and right, which for the purposes of my argument, can be treated as identical) is that for the L/R, ends have value that is independent of the means used to achieve them. That is to say, outcomes are good or bad, regardless of the process that produced them. If a progressive says that equality is their highest end, or a conservative says that order is their highest end, that means they would prefer equality over inequality, or order over chaos, no matter what had to be done to achieve that outcome. Sure, they probably have some preference for one means over another, but, when push comes to shove, that preference is trumped by their goal. Ends trump means.

    For a libertarian, means trump ends. In fact, from a libertarian perspective, any end is acceptable, as long as it is achieved through libertarian means, while no end is acceptable if it is achieved through non-libertarian means. Ends have no value, in and of themselves. That’s why I say that there are no distinctly libertarian ends. “Libertarian ends” are whatever ends result from libertarian means. No more, no less. So, is equality a libertarian end? Maybe, or maybe not. It depends on how that equality came about. Is peace a libertarian end? Maybe, or maybe not. It depends on how that peace came about. And so on, for every possible end. Put differently, “libertarian ends by libertarians means” is redundant, since it means the same thing that “any ends by libertarian means” would mean.

    So, that’s why I say that the L/R are defined by ends. Libertarians are defined by means. I really don’t see how I can explain it any more clearly than that. (Actually, I think my first explanation was clearer, but that didn’t seem to take, so here’s my second best attempt.)

  58. NewFederalist

    “The left and the right are like two books, with different covers, but the same table of contents.” – langa

    You must be from the libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party! I agree!

  59. dL

    Hmm, you seem to be missing my point. I think it’s a pretty simple point, and you strike me as a pretty intelligent person, so either you’re being intentionally obtuse, or else I’m explaining it poorly. I’ll assume the latter, and give it one more try.

    No, I’m not missing your point. But you are conflating liberty as means w/ Libertarianism, a political philosophy that generally values the maximization of liberty(the ability of people to do what they want w/o arbitrary impediment) as its highest end. And that, my friend, is an end.

    For example, the definition of liberty:

    “the ability to do what one wants without arbitrary restriction”

    is a liberal definition. However, liberalism constrains liberty with the social contract, a construct that is viewed in liberalism as rational, not arbitrary. Libertarianism, however, uses the study of political economy to deconstructs the social contract as a ruse for arbitrary restriction on liberty. So while liberalism and libertarianism share the same view of liberty as means, they are not the same thing, and they don’t share the same view RE: political ends. I would posit that the chief political end of libertarianism proper is to abolish the state.

    Conclusion: Liberty ==means does not equal(nor imply) libertarianism.

    ENDS vs MEANS
    You compose lengthy paragraphs delineating between “ends” vs “means.” I largely agree w/ it, but to me you are suffering a bit from SJW derangement syndrome and go too far with the agnosticism thing.

    Example: A statement like:

    “any end is acceptable, as long as it is achieved through libertarian means”

    runs into a paradox of sorts w/ voluntary servitude, an oft debated topic. Typically, one extricates oneself from the paradox by stipulating a contract for voluntary servitude is not enforceable. But the unenforceability of it is motivated by a moral aversion to slavery, voluntarily contracted or not.

    Lastly, libertarianism is a product of the enlightenment. It is motivated by enlightenment ideals. A society that cannot tolerate enlightenment ideals is not capable of being libertarian.

  60. langa

    …you are conflating liberty as means w/ Libertarianism, a political philosophy that generally values the maximization of liberty(the ability of people to do what they want w/o arbitrary impediment) as its highest end.

    I disagree. For example, imagine that you could go back in time and murder Hitler’s mother, before he was born. Would you do it? The libertarian answer is obviously no, as it would violate the NAP. But if the goal of libertarianism were the maximization of liberty, as an end, then the libertarian position would be yes, as doing so would have the end result of maximizing liberty (compared to not doing so — the thought experiment assumes that those are the only two options).

    …liberalism constrains liberty with the social contract, a construct that is viewed in liberalism as rational, not arbitrary. Libertarianism, however, uses the study of political economy to deconstructs the social contract as a ruse for arbitrary restriction on liberty. … I would posit that the chief political end of libertarianism proper is to abolish the state.

    I agree, but I don’t think your conclusion follows. In fact, I think it’s just the opposite. The reason liberals are willing to forego their preferred means (liberty) is because they fear (wrongly, in my opinion) that their preferred ends (equality, peace, justice, etc.) can’t be achieved through pure liberty. So, forced to choose between their preferred means and their preferred ends, they choose their preferred ends, and sacrifice some liberty for the creation of the state, which they hope can help them achieve those ends. This is the gist of Locke’s argument for the legitimacy of the state: that non-liberal means must be used to secure liberal ends. But we libertarians are unwilling to make such a sacrifice. Rather, we choose to limit ourselves to strictly libertarian means, even at the risk that they may result in “bad” outcomes.

    A statement like: “any end is acceptable, as long as it is achieved through libertarian means” runs into a paradox of sorts w/ voluntary servitude, an oft debated topic. Typically, one extricates oneself from the paradox by stipulating a contract for voluntary servitude is not enforceable. But the unenforceability of it is motivated by a moral aversion to slavery, voluntarily contracted or not.

    This is actually not a problem for me, as I agree with Walter Block that libertarian theory allows one to sell oneself into voluntary slavery. The contract cannot be broken, except under penalty, just as one cannot absolve oneself of voluntarily assumed debt without penalty. (Of course, exactly what the penalty should be is debatable, but that’s neither here nor there). Just as libertarianism supports the right to relinquish one’s life by committing suicide, so too does it support the right to relinquish one’s liberty, by voluntarily agreeing to become a slave.

    Lastly, libertarianism is a product of the enlightenment. It is motivated by enlightenment ideals. A society that cannot tolerate enlightenment ideals is not capable of being libertarian.

    I disagree with this “thick” libertarian position. I am an ultra-thin libertarian. I consider libertarianism to consist of adherence to the NAP — nothing more, nothing less. The only “ideals” that must be accepted are individual sovereignty (or self-ownership, if you prefer) and property rights, as acceptance of these two principles necessarily implies acceptance of the NAP. (Of course, I agree that the acceptance of certain ideals is likely to correlate strongly with acceptance of the NAP, but correlation doesn’t imply causation, and it would be theoretically possible for an alt-right bigot, or a hardcore SJW, to abide by the NAP. Not likely, perhaps, but possible.)

    As an aside, I have always wondered what a thick libertarian would do, if a truly free society turned out to be radically different than the one they would prefer. If all states were abolished, and the resulting society turned out to be culturally far to the left of the status quo, what would Hoppe do? If all states were abolished, and the resulting society turned out to be culturally far to the right of the status quo, what would Long (or Carson) do? My guess is that they would all turn their backs on libertarianism, and support aggression to achieve their desired goals. But I hope that I would be wrong.

  61. dL

    I disagree.

    I disagree. It’s why libertarianism went anarchist over retaining the state.

    imagine that you could go back in time

    Not a paradox. Time travel cannot change history, in principle or practice. If one contemplates going back in time to kill Hitler’s mother one automatically knows that if one decides to do such a thing that the time traveler’s attempt on Hitler’s mother’s life has already happened in the past and failed.

    In fact, I think it’s just the opposite. The reason liberals are willing to forego their preferred means (liberty) is because they fear (wrongly, in my opinion) that their preferred ends (equality, peace, justice, etc.) can’t be achieved through pure liberty.

    This is the gist of Locke’s argument for the legitimacy of the state: that non-liberal means must be used to secure liberal ends.

    That’s not Locke’s social contract argument. Might want to re-read ” two treatises of government.”

    But we libertarians are unwilling to make such a sacrifice. Rather, we choose to limit ourselves to strictly libertarian means, even at the risk that they may result in “bad” outcomes.

    The libertarian conclusion via via the state is derived more from the practice of the state than from pure deduction. Ayn Rand, for example, would say anarchism would necessarily violate NAP. NAP requires enforcement from a properly-scoped state.

    This is actually not a problem for me, as I agree with Walter Block that libertarian theory allows one to sell oneself into voluntary slavery. The contract cannot be broken, except under penalty

    Yes, I’m aware of Block’s position. It is also why I was not surprised when he started up “Libertarians for Trump.”

    I disagree with this “thick” libertarian position.

    Stating that “libertarianism is a product of the enlightenment” is not a “thick position.” Indeed, the one thing I’ve noticed about “right thickness” is this claim that the enlightenment is just SJW thickness, a claim I view as some hard core postmodernist shit.

    As an aside, I have always wondered what a thick libertarian would do, if a truly free society turned out to be radically different than the one they would prefer. If all states were abolished, and the resulting society turned out to be culturally far to the left of the status quo, what would Hoppe do? If all states were abolished, and the resulting society turned out to be culturally far to the right of the status quo, what would Long (or Carson) do?

    Hoppe is on record for advocating state violence to achieve his moral ends. So, we know what he would do. Roderick Long has no such record. There is no expectation of moral equivalence between Hoppe and Long.

  62. langa

    Not a paradox. Time travel cannot change history, in principle or practice. If one contemplates going back in time to kill Hitler’s mother one automatically knows that if one decides to do such a thing that the time traveler’s attempt on Hitler’s mother’s life has already happened in the past and failed.

    This is just nitpicking. Denying the plausibility of the example is just a way to sidestep the ethical argument. Nevertheless, if you insist, here is a similar dilemma that doesn’t involve time travel: A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor. Do you support the morality of the doctor to kill that tourist and provide his healthy organs to those five dying persons and save their lives? Obviously, the libertarian answer is no. But, if the criteria is maximization of liberty as an end, then the answer would be yes, since one has no liberty without having life.

    That’s not Locke’s social contract argument.

    Sure it is. It’s also the same argument used by Hobbes. (The basic justification for the existence of the state was one thing Hobbes and Locke agreed on. Of course, they differed greatly on just how much liberty would need to be sacrificed for the state to do its job.) Locke (and Hobbes) argued that people must be willing to give up some of the liberty that they have (in the state of nature) in order to create the state, which would then protect their rights. In other words, they argued that liberty as a means must be sacrificed in order to achieve liberty as an end. This is exactly the “bargain” libertarians reject. (Compare Locke’s view to someone, like, say, Rousseau, who argued that in the state of nature, people had no liberty, and were “slaves” to their base appetites. He held that the existence of the state was necessary to “liberate” people from these base appetites, and thus, that the existence of the state, far from requiring a sacrifice of liberty, actually created liberty. This is the opposite of the view of classical liberals like Locke.)

    Ayn Rand, for example, would say anarchism would necessarily violate NAP. NAP requires enforcement from a properly-scoped state.

    Rand is wrong. In fact, even accepting her premises, her conclusion does not follow, as Roy Childs (a former Randroid) demonstrated: https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/roy-a-childs-jr/objectivism-and-the-state-an-open-letter-to-ayn-rand/

    Yes, I’m aware of Block’s position. It is also why I was not surprised when he started up “Libertarians for Trump.”

    This is a non sequitur. There is no logical connection between the two positions.

    Stating that “libertarianism is a product of the enlightenment” is not a “thick position.”

    No, but stating that “a society that cannot tolerate enlightenment ideals is not capable of being libertarian” is a thick libertarian position. It is possible to reject certain enlightenment ideals while still adhering to the NAP.

    Hoppe is on record for advocating state violence to achieve his moral ends. So, we know what he would do. Roderick Long has no such record. There is no expectation of moral equivalence between Hoppe and Long.

    First, Hoppe is on record advocating state violence given the existence of the state. He is also on record advocating that the state should be abolished. The question is whether he would still advocate violence in that situation. I suspect he would, but we can’t “know” that he would. As for Long, I think you give him too much benefit of the doubt. He, like Hoppe, has a long history of praising people and ideas that are hard to reconcile with hardcore libertarianism. But very well, if you don’t like that example, how about the folks at C4SS? Surely, they haven’t been shy about advocating violence and discarding the NAP when it seems inconvenient to them (e.g. their elaborate attempts to defend the “Nazi punching” crap).

  63. dL

    This is just nitpicking. Denying the plausibility of the example is just a way to sidestep the ethical argument.

    There is a difference between plausibility and impossibility. Time travel itself is implausible. Changing history is impossible. But to address the argument. The mother: no, giving birth is not a crime. Hitler: you could try, but you would fail, and you would probably then realize that the attempt itself was the thing that propelled him on his sick path(“I have thwarted time travelers and fate! Purpose!!!”).

    here is a similar dilemma that doesn’t involve time travel

    Your dilemma sounds suspiciously like the Trolley problem. The Trolley problem is an exercise in utilitarian reasoning. Maximization of liberty is not a utilitarian end. For starters, liberty(do what you will unimpeded by arbitrary restriction) is bounded by a harm principle. So, “without arbitrary restriction” does not equal “no restriction.” That which is done to the healthy traveler in your example is a crime. Exempting oneself from crime in the name of improving the human condition is how the state ethically operates. The consequences of that vis a vis liberty are severe. Maximization of liberty is not a divorce of liberty from justice, a license for injustice.

    Sure it is. It’s also the same argument used by Hobbes.

    The argument you recited below from that is not the same one you recited in your previous comment.

    This is a non sequitur. There is no logical connection between the two positions.

    There most certainly is. Boeti’s “The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude” famously addressed the question. To reject the principle of:

    “Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed”

    ultimately puts one on the side of obedience. Those who side w/ obedience(under whatever rationale) will sooner or later side with authoritarians.

    First, Hoppe is on record advocating state violence given the existence of the state.

    The bromide of putrid authoritarians.

    As for Long, I think you give him too much benefit of the doubt. He, like Hoppe, has a long history of praising people and ideas that are hard to reconcile with hardcore libertarianism.

    Long authored an essay “Libertarianism and Feminism: Can this marriage be saved?” that I disagreed with in parts. However, you will search his writings in vain for an argument of the form:

    “given the existence of the state, I support state prohibition against X,Y and Z.”

    they haven’t been shy about advocating violence and discarding the NAP when it seems inconvenient to them (e.g. their elaborate attempts to defend the “Nazi punching” crap).

    Mises, in his book, Liberalism: In the Classic Tradition unequivocally states that the one thing that can’t be tolerated is intolerance.

    Liberalism, however, must be intolerant of every kind of intolerance. If one considers the peaceful cooperation of all men as the goal of social evolution, one cannot permit the peace to be disturbed by priests and fanatics. Liberalism proclaims tolerance for every religious faith and every metaphysical belief, not out Liberalism: A Socio-Economic Exposition of indifference for these “higher” things, but from the conviction that the assurance of peace within society must take precedence over everything and everyone. And because it demands toleration of all opinions and all churches and sects, it must recall them all to their proper bounds whenever they venture intolerantly beyond them.

  64. langa

    Your dilemma sounds suspiciously like the Trolley problem.

    It is, in fact, a (less flawed) variation on it. The common point of all these examples is to get you to say whether you believe that the end can ever justify the means, which you seem determined not to do.

    Maximization of liberty is not a divorce of liberty from justice, a license for injustice.

    In other words, maximization of liberty (which you call a “libertarian end”) cannot be achieved by other than libertarian means, correct? Hence, my original point: that, unlike for conservatism, progressivism, or even classical liberalism, libertarianism has no ends that have value independent of the means used to achieve them.

  65. langa

    Those who side w/ obedience(under whatever rationale) will sooner or later side with authoritarians.

    Voluntarily choosing to sell oneself into slavery is not “obedience.” It is, in fact, a radical exercise of autonomy, much as suicide is. Or do you believe that you do not really own your life, or your liberty, and are therefore free to dispose of them in any way that you choose?

  66. langa

    Mises, in his book, Liberalism: In the Classic Tradition unequivocally states that the one thing that can’t be tolerated is intolerance.

    You are misreading Mises. Look at your own quote from him. He says, “Liberalism, however, must be intolerant of every kind of intolerance.” This includes the “ideological intolerance” of antifascists who use violence to silence viewpoints that they find odious. In case this isn’t clear, he goes on to say, “it demands toleration of all opinions…” and that “…it must recall them all to their proper bounds whenever they venture intolerantly beyond them.” In other words, Mises argues that every opinion must be tolerated, no matter how repugnant, and it is only when they venture into intolerance (that is, when they use force to silence those they disagree with) that they must be “recalled to their proper bounds.” This applies to everyone. Everyone is free to voice any opinion they choose, even if it is contrary to liberalism, but no one is free to use force to silence any opinion. This is plain as day. The alternative view, espoused by C4SS, is that you may initiate force against someone simply because of what you think they might do, if they gained power. It’s no different than Andy’s claim that it is justifiable to use force to keep “Marxists” out of the country, on account of what they might do, once here.

  67. dL

    You are misreading Mises.

    No, I’m not. It is clear that the anti-liberalism addressed in the book is fascism, and it is clear from the book that fascism cannot be tolerated. Anti-fascism should mean intolerance of fascism. There is no moral equivalence between the anti-fascists and the fascist alt-right who want to bow down and suck Trump’s little cock. None.

    The alternative view, espoused by C4SS, is that you may initiate force against someone simply because of what you think they might do

    Source?

  68. dL

    Voluntarily choosing to sell oneself into slavery is not “obedience.”

    No, but insisting that it must continue even if it is no longer voluntary is.

  69. dL

    It is, in fact, a (less flawed) variation on it. The common point of all these examples is to get you to say whether you believe that the end can ever justify the means, which you seem determined not to do.

    Trivial. The right to revolution allows the use of violence against tyranny. There. You, on the other hand are so muddled by SJW derangement syndrome, you apparently would deny that.

    In other words, maximization of liberty (which you call a “libertarian end”) cannot be achieved by other than libertarian means, correct?

    Not necessarily. Liberty necessarily is intertwined with justice(which is the absence of injustice). The correction of injustice requires The Law, which is force. Example: Property rights carry a Lockean proviso, meaning the acquisition of property is bound by a justice principle(ah, another one of those pesky ends!). In a Robinson Crusoe example involving two agents, if one of the agents lays claim to the entire island, then that acquisition is unjust. Part of the claim must be turned over to the other agent. And if it comes to down to it, by whatever means necessary, i.e. force.

  70. langa

    It is clear that the anti-liberalism addressed in the book is fascism, and it is clear from the book that fascism cannot be tolerated.

    So, let me get this straight. Your interpretation of Mises is something like: “Liberalism must tolerate all opinions, except those that are illiberal.” Is that what you are saying? I don’t think Mises would be so daft as to argue in favor of a “tolerance” that only extends to those that agree with you.

    There is no moral equivalence between the anti-fascists and the fascist alt-right…

    This is not about making a “moral equivalence” between two groups of authoritarians. It’s about the basic libertarian principle that violence is never an appropriate response to speech. It boggles my mind that anyone who believes otherwise could view themselves as libertarian.

    Source?

    Sure. Here are a couple of them:

    https://c4ss.org/content/47734
    https://c4ss.org/content/48244

  71. langa

    No, but insisting that it must continue even if it is no longer voluntary is.

    When you sign a contract, you are obligated to fulfill it, or be penalized. That has nothing to do with “obedience.” Or do you believe that it is “authoritarian” to evict someone who decides they no longer want to make their mortgage payments?

  72. langa

    The right to revolution allows the use of violence against tyranny.

    You are justified in using defensive or retaliatory violence against someone who has initiated violence against you. However, such violence cannot take the form of aggression, e.g. no “collateral damage” is allowed.

    Property rights carry a Lockean proviso, meaning the acquisition of property is bound by a justice principle(ah, another one of those pesky ends!). In a Robinson Crusoe example involving two agents, if one of the agents lays claim to the entire island, then that acquisition is unjust. Part of the claim must be turned over to the other agent.

    You’re just making my point for me. The sort of “injustice” you describe is a case of unjust means, i.e. injustice in the acquisition of property. “Unjust ends” would refer to, say, an unequal distribution of wealth, such as the one deplored by Rawls. The main point of Nozick’s book was to demonstrate that such “unjust ends” do not violate libertarianism, as long as they came about through just means (e.g. the Wilt Chamberlain example).

  73. langa

    To return to your Robinson Crusoe example, let’s say that the two people initially divided the island 50/50. However, they then agreed to play chess against each other, with the loser giving one square mile of his property to the winner. They then continued to do this, day after day, until eventually one of them owned the entire island. In this case, the end would be total inequality. Yet, a libertarian would have no problem with this, since this supposedly “unjust” end came about through entirely just means. Means justify ends.

  74. langa

    Ironically, by the way, the paleos that you dislike so much actually seem to agree with you on the ends vs. means thing. For example, a little while back, I listened to (part of) an interview with Jeff Deist. I think it was on the Tom Woods Show, but I’m not sure about that.

    Anyway, Deist said something like, “When it comes down to it, most libertarians are really just consequentialists. They see libertarianism as the easiest way to achieve their goals, and that’s why they support it. Of course, there are some people, like Walter Block, who are willing to follow the NAP wherever it leads them.”

    At first, I thought Deist was totally wrong. Consequentialism and libertarianism are not only not the same, I’d argue that they are mutually exclusive. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that Deist wasn’t entirely wrong, at least not when it comes to “thick” libertarians like himself. If he would have changed a few words, he would have been exactly right.

    For example, if he had said: “When it comes down to it, thick libertarians are really just consequentialists. They see libertarianism as the easiest way to achieve their goals, and that’s why they support it. Of course, there are thin libertarians, like Walter Block, who are willing to follow the NAP wherever it leads them.”

    If he had said that, I think he would have been absolutely correct.

  75. dL

    Is that what you are saying? I don’t think Mises would be so daft as to argue in favor of a “tolerance” that only extends to those that agree with you.

    With that statement, I can only conclude you are being deliberately obtuse…

    Sure. Here are a couple of them:

    The linked pieces are limited to a specific response to neo-nazi organizing and are not the generalizations that you claimed.

    Also, bear in mind that the “coordinating director” of C4SS is on record as saying, “I hate the fucking NAP.”

    If we were going by your apologetics of it, I would have to concur…

    You’re just making my point for me. The sort of “injustice” you describe is a case of unjust means, i.e. injustice in the acquisition of property. “Unjust ends” would refer to, say, an unequal distribution of wealth, such as the one deplored by Rawls. The main point of Nozick’s book was to demonstrate that such “unjust ends” do not violate libertarianism, as long as they came about through just means (e.g. the Wilt Chamberlain example).

    Actually, there are number of main points in Nozick’s book. The 1st section makes the case that the minimal, minarchist state is justified and could arise without any rights violations as the dominant protection agency from a liberal/individualist anarchist private defense society[I don’t agree with this section].

    The 2nd section outlines Nozick’s Entitlement theory of justice and addresses “states beyond the minimal state.” In particular, he addresses the distributive justice theories of Amartya Sen and John Rawls. In the process Nozick lays forth his own criteria for just distributions, which eventually leads him to retackle Locke’s original property acquisition theory. For Nozick, a just acquisition entails:

    1) original appropriation/homesteading

    bounded by:
    2) no one is made worse off by another’s exclusive claim to the property acquisition

    (2) is restating the Lockean proviso, which in the original text read: “at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.”

    Nozick’s Entitlement theory also addressed a principle of rectification for injustice in holdings.

    Clearly, the Robinson Crusoe example would violate the Lockean proviso, and the Agent A’s claim to the entire island would have to be rectified. This is not debatable. And it has nothing to do with the Wilt Chamberlain example outlined in “How Liberty Upsets Patterns.”

    The 3rd section deals w/ Frameworks of Utopia. I suppose you are pulling much of you argument from a casual reading of the part “Utopian Means and Ends,” but you are misreading much of this section. Nozick is arguing that his minimal state provides society with a utopian foundation that “maximizes liberty” while allowing plenty of room for pluralist social organization. Although Nozick makes no preference for the types of social organizations that may arise, he most certainly is arguing a preference between competing utopian foundations. I duly note that Nozick did make a casual comment at the end regarding the allowability of voluntary servitude, but he did not address the enforceability of such, which is usually the primary point of dispute regarding such contracts.

    To return to your Robinson Crusoe example…

    Again, what part of “at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others” do you not understand?

    When you sign a contract, you are obligated to fulfill it, or be penalized. That has nothing to do with “obedience.” Or do you believe that it is “authoritarian” to evict someone who decides they no longer want to make their mortgage payments?

    No, but I beleive it is authoritarian to claim that, say, divorce is forbidden b/c two people made a contract to stay together “till death do us part.” Paying a mortgage is not voluntary servitude, but binding oneself to a marriage contract most definitely is a form of it. If either party wants out, they should be able to file for divorce. Apparently, you would disagree b/c they are contractually obligated to stay together until death, right?

    Ironically, by the way, the paleos that you dislike so much actually seem to agree with you on the ends vs. means thing. For example, a little while back, I listened to (part of) an interview with Jeff Deist. I think it was on the Tom Woods Show, but I’m not sure about that.

    Not even close. I’m a thin libertarian RE: the thinness of impersonal duties, which means I find no necessary social commitment to a particular culture or cultural institution, which is a mainstay of something the Hoppean account. In that regard I’m a liberal and reject “thickness” as it pertains to huffing and puffing social critical theory moral judgements. I’m actually pretty close to Nozick’s utopian framework but dispute that his minimal state fiction is a means to achieve it.

  76. langa

    With that statement, I can only conclude you are being deliberately obtuse…

    To borrow your phrasing [with regard to Mises]: What part of all opinions don’t you understand?

    The linked pieces are limited to a specific response to neo-nazi organizing and are not the generalizations that you claimed.

    It doesn’t matter. There is a general libertarian prohibition on using force to silence speech. Once you violate that prohibition, you have opened Pandora’s Box. “Oh, we should tolerate speech for peaceful people, but not for the neo-Nazis. They’re just too dangerous!” is no different than Andy’s, “We should let peaceful people cross the border, but not Marxists. They’re just too dangerous!” For that matter, how long until the antifa/SJW types start classifying libertarian ideas as “fascist” (here’s a hint — some of them already have)? Then we’ll be the ones getting punched.

    Actually, there are number of main points in Nozick’s book.

    Yeah, spare me the Cliff notes. I’ve not only read the book, I’ve written papers on it. The point of the Wilt Chamberlain example is that “patterned” theories of justice (like that of Rawls) are flawed. Why? Because they only look at distributions of wealth, while ignoring the way that those distributions came about. In other words, they focus on ends, rather than means. Specifically, he says, assuming that the initial distribution is just (however you want to define that), and all the subsequent transfers are just (i.e. don’t involve aggression), then the final distribution must also be just. In other words, as long as the means (the initial distribution and the subsequent transfers) are just, then the end (the resulting distribution) will also be just. This is another way of saying that the means justify the ends, rather than the other way around.

    The example I gave in response to your Robinson Crusoe analogy is just a slight variation on the Wilt Chamberlain example (the only difference being that the property was voluntarily gambled away, rather than voluntarily paid for entertainment). But either way, the point is the same: “enough and as good for others” only refers to the initial acquisition of property. It does not mean that people are not allowed to give away their property, or gamble away their property, or even voluntarily destroy their own property. None of those actions violate libertarianism, no matter how much inequality might result from them.

    No, but I beleive it is authoritarian to claim that, say, divorce is forbidden b/c two people made a contract to stay together “till death do us part.” Paying a mortgage is not voluntary servitude, but binding oneself to a marriage contract most definitely is a form of it. If either party wants out, they should be able to file for divorce. Apparently, you would disagree b/c they are contractually obligated to stay together until death, right?

    I don’t know what the point of this debate about voluntary slavery is, other than to act as a red herring, but in any event, I would argue that voluntary slavery, mortgages, and marriage are all similar, in the sense that they are all contracts that cannot be unilaterally broken without some sort of penalty. In the case of a mortgage, the penalty is generally eviction. In the case of a marriage, the penalties vary, but some common ones are alimony, child support, or forfeiture of joint property (houses, automobiles, etc.). In the case of voluntary slavery, hopefully, the penalty would be spelled out in the contract. If not, then it would be up to a jury to decide on an appropriate penalty, much as it usually is in marriages (or at least, in those without prenups).

    Again, though, I don’t know what the point of all this is, and I’m beginning to tire of this debate. So, in the interest of closure, I will attempt one last time to get a straight answer out of you by asking you 3 simple questions:

    1. Do you or do you not agree that libertarian means are both necessary and sufficient to achieve libertarian ends?

    2. If your answer to 1 was Yes, do you agree that when one thing is necessary and sufficient to achieve another, those things can fairly be described as redundant (e.g. lifelong abstinence from sex is necessary and sufficient to achieve virginity, and therefore such abstinence and virginity are redundant concepts)?

    3. If your answer to 1 was No, can you give me a concrete example of libertarian means producing non-libertarian ends, or of libertarian ends being achieved through non-libertarian means? Either will do.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *