I have been seeing this article posted by Neo-Conservative Douche-Face Austin Petersen. You know that guy that pretends to be a libertarian but actually loves government and and calls anyone that disagrees with him a “Beta male”? He runs that crappy site “The Statist Republic”… Wait, it’s actually called “The Libertarian Republic.” It’s that place that is totally bogged down with ads, click bait, and other such garbage but it’s passed off as a legitimate source of political and economic opinion. Ringing any bells? Well, this article from that cesspool has been floating around and it is causing a lot of damage. I’ve seen many “libertarian” outlets re-posting it and agreeing with it. Quite honestly, I am sick and tired of statism sneaking into libertarian thought under the guise of “pragmatism”. Sometimes it gets the point where I want nothing to do with the name “libertarian” because I see it going the way of the word “liberal”. It’s being taken over by statists.
I don’t know what the deal is with this. Do these philosophic dregs seek to gain popularity by offering some form of “libertarian thought” that is about as “libertarian” as “liberals” are “classical liberals”? If this movement is to gain ground and keep momentum, we need to keep the philosophy pure and without logical inconsistencies. If we don’t, our movement is destined to go the way of “Classical Liberalism”.
So let us tackle this poor excuse for logical argumentation. The first point made is that somehow, the NAP allows parents to starve their children so long as they do not keep their children from finding food elsewhere… They also argue that anyone that “trespasses” on the parents property to feed the child is subject to having “defensive force” used against them. WHAT?! This is a clear strawman if I ever did see one. The author is clearly and purposefully distorting the views held by those that believe in the NAP. Let us use an example to show how this argument is pulled completely out of the author’s rectal cavity.
Scenario 1: You wander into my house, I tell you to leave. Perhaps I point a weapon at you or I simply raise my voice. You back out of my house and leave my property. No harm done.
Scenario 2: I invite you on my private plane with me. After we are about 3,000 feet in the air, I accuse you of trespassing and tell you to leave. You reach for a parachute but I say “that’s stealing” and then I throw you out of the plane to your death.
Which scenario is most like the scenario described by the author of this idiotic article? If you said scenario 2, good job. Parents, when engaging in the risky behavior of sex without contraception, and then abuse the children that come about by their risky behavior, are like the psychotic man inviting people onto his private jet and then hurling them out of it because they are “trespassing” (rape is a different scenario all together which leads to the whole “abortion” debate which is too big for here, but I don’t think the author was referring to this). Children rely on their parents for their very lives, so to “invite” a child into existence and then abuse that child, that had no say or control in coming into existence in the first place, is an act of aggression. This should be common sense and I shouldn’t have to explain that.
My God, this person is a moron. They argue that since pollution is an act that violates the NAP, we must therefore kill all litter bugs. Again… WHAT?! Stephan Molyneux gives us the” YAD principle” in his own refutation of this idiotic article. You can click here to see it. The “YAD” principle stands for “You’re a Dick” meaning, “yeah, they littered on your property, but you’re a dick for blowing the guys head off because of that”. This of course means that, should this litter bug killer come to trial, no one would side with him and he would most definitely be punished for his grotesque misuse of “defensive force”. Again, this should be common sense.
I feel like I am getting less intelligent with each point in this “argument”. Notice they offer no quotation from advocates of the NAP. They just assume that those of us that advocate for it are like the whiny leftist feminists that have “safe rooms” on college campuses. This is just a flat out lie. The NAP is clear that a person’s body and physical property are the only things that can actually be violated. Everything else is a matter of preference, including how gentle I want to be with your feelings.
Guys, I don’t know if I can keep going. This author argues that the rest of world does not acknowledge the NAP so we shouldn’t either. That’s the gist of this point. Seriously. That’s like saying everyone is putting electric egg beaters down their throats and turning them on, so we should too. I mean, come on, we have to have a “philosophy that conforms to reality” right? The idea that the collective wisdom dictates absolutes is a completely idiotic and dangerous philosophy. I recall a certain regime pulling that one circa 1933…
They then us a David Friedman argument:
“what if I merely run the risk of shooting you by putting one bullet in a six-shot revolver, spinning the cylinder, aiming it at your head, and squeezing the trigger? What if it is not one bullet but five?”
Hey guys, let’s take the most idiotic and extreme example to argue our completely idiotic idea. Why would you put a gun in someones face and then say, “I’m not committing violence against you unless I pull the trigger and a bullet happens to come out and burrow in your brain.” Refer to the “You’re a Dick” principle mentioned above. If you point a gun at someone for no reason, and they maybe disarm you and hurt you in the process, are you seriously going to try and say you are the victim? Pointing a gun at someone is nothing like the potential danger we put each other in when we are driving on the road or anything else like that. To say otherwise is to clearly ignore common sense and logic in order to prove a point you know is fallacious. Just admit that you like statism and you are not a libertarian. That is just so much easier to swallow than completely idiotic arguments.
No only that what what is the purpose of pointing a gun at someone’s face? Often times when we are put in mutual danger, both parties have voluntarily put themselves there for some purpose. Take driving as an example. I know driving is dangerous but I put myself in that environment because I value other things more than safety at that moment. So what is the purpose both parties have for both pointing a gun at someone and voluntarily allowing a loaded gun to be put in your face? If it’s just to make a stupid point about how much you love government, just come out and say that.
I just have to get through this one and one more, and I’m done. I hope you guys appreciate what I do for you. Consider entering Amazon through our link or supporting us on patreon. We would really appreciate it.
They say that fraud is not aggression… Let that sink in. Taking your property under false pretenses is not aggression. Am I reading an article on The Onion or is this guy just a complete moron? I’m going to go with moron. They then say that inflation is aggression, or is it? They accuse us of not clearly defining this aspect. Well, lets see here. If the government points guns at everyone and forces them to use a fraudulent system, is that aggression? It sure sounds like it. It’s not that no one clearly defined this, it’s that the author is stupid.
Yes. Last one. This was draining guys.
The author again works in extremes. Person A is walking along and then person B jumps out of the bushes and clubs them on the head. They then argue that whoever is in the right depends on who’s property it occurred on. Again refer to the YAD principle mentioned above. If someone stumbles onto your property and you immediately use the maximum amount of force to “defend” yourself, everyone realizes that you are no longer actually defending yourself. I can’t believe this has to be argued or is up for debate.
As I said, I am sick of statism entering this movement under the guise of pragmatism. You cannot gut everything that makes libertarian thought unique and continue to call yourself a “libertarian” in the process. The idiots at the Libertarian Republic are neo-conservatives masquerading as libertarians and lovers of liberty. The fact that they want to argue that there are some cases when you have to initiate violence for no reason, shows that they never understood this philosophy in the first place.
On Austin’s FB profile he says the following:
“Not only is aggression not a bad thing, aggression can actually be a good thing like in sports, hunting, war, and mating. Oh, that’s not what you meant? You mean, not everyone defines things as you want them to? Now you see the problem.”