Freedom to not vote Trump

Posted on

Yep. I recommended the Tim Stratton as a good account to follow. He has many merits as a public thinker and as an advocate of multiple freedoms: political, metaphysical, and (as a Christian) spiritual. But he's not perfect (wouldn't ya know it?), and right after I recommended him, he went and re-forwarded his ideas that Christians are morally required to vote for Trump and also- Well, let's just say he sounds a little Christian National*ish*. Thanks Tim! 😉 (Hey, we have to be real, and it's how he really feels. I get that.)

Well, since I recommended his work (and I still do), I get to respond to those two things, those two ideas that I most certainly do not recommend. But first, a positive: his Trumpy article represents a real effort to explicate his case in an easy to understand way. Also, it may be the best defense of voting for Trump (“I felt like I should, and here's why!”) even if it is also, unfortunately, an imperative for others to do so too.

Previously, I distilled Tim's Trump argument to this: Voting for Trump is a big offensive against a yuge evil, and Christians should do everything they can to fight against that evil. So, Christians should vote for Trump. Now, that's pretty accurate. But I think we can make it better, make it also account for exceptions to the rule that Tim admits to (exceptions like over-worked single moms who don't have the time to vote). Also, this rendering focuses on Christians who actually can vote (U.S. citizens who aren't felons and so forth):

  1. If an able Christian doesn’t vote Trump, they neglect a fight against a particularly yuge evil.
  2. If an able Christian neglects that fight, they do wrong.
  3. So, if an able Christian doesn’t vote for Trump, they do wrong.

I imagine most people sympathize with premise 2. That's where the force of the argument is. But premise 1 is far from obvious. It assumes both (a) that it is ethical to vote for Trump and (b) that voting for him would make a difference in the case of all able Christians. (Failing to do something unethical is hardly negligence, nor is failing to do something insignificant.) But first, it is not obvious that this voting for (the lesser) evil is ethical, especially if one has taken an oath to defend the constitution. (More on that linked below.) Furthermore, many able Christians live in red states where Trump will get the electoral vote, even if they vote against him. Voting for him is not likely to change anything.

So, an able Christian does not neglect a fight that is already won or lost in his state. He need not combat Marxism by contributing to (or resisting) an all but guaranteed outcome, especially if their conscience is against it. He can find more efficient and effective ways to combat Marxism.

For more on this, I have an old two-parter that responds both to Tim Stratton and William Lane Craig on a similar matter. Check it out at penjams.com/i-will-do-mine.

Penjammin grew up in a labyrinthine cavern. Later he ran with the wolves and lived every moment marinated in the sweet scent of his game, until pirates landed and… See About for full story, and get his eletter at penjams.com/subscribe.

Ron

Posted on

The below first appeared in my eletter. Subscribe here penjams.com/subscribe.

There are Rothbardian libertarians advocating aggression. Now it comes with a caveat, like “under current circumstances, I [support aggression],” but still. How crazy is that? It’s extra sad because the impulse (to be marketable or to honor common sense) is good and understandable. But misguided, it's getting many to undermine the liberty movement. Or… change my mind. 🙂

What do I mean? Say libertarian border cowboy Ron Sonswan doesn’t like federal involvement in border control. He objects on grounds of aggression. He says, “They’re interfering in the local government’s work in such a way that it supports the on-going trespass [aggression] of potentially dangerous people onto the property of the good people of this town. Meanwhile, they also impede our ability to protect our own lands with violations of our rights to bear arms [aggression].”

Ron might also object to the local government’s involvement for the same reason. “Sure. Our local guys also violate our rights to arms and such [aggression] but not mine, and not as much. I don’t like that either, but it’s better than them Washington Democrats sacrificing us to their political agenda. At least the local guys don’t make things worse and expose us to other dangers in the process. They have to live here too.”

He prefers the localized efforts to that of an army under a president that makes things worse. That doesn't mean he likes it. One can prefer the lesser evil without promoting it. It seems like libertarians are forgetting that. It's special-pleading to object to some laws with a principled stance against aggression, only to advocate aggression in more extreme cases. If the principle doesn't hold up to the scrutiny of hard cases, then it's refuted and no good for the easy cases either.

“Ideally, we’d have a sizable, competent, and insured organization owned and ran by all the land owners, subject to reputable judges, whereby we took care of business ourselves. I could get behind that, but that's just not an option yet.”

Ron admits the common sense of what his live options are in merely preferring the lesser evil. He doesn’t have to promote it, to be pro-aggression (under certain circumstances), to be temporarily of conflicting principles. Still, when fit hits the shan, most anarchists sound like minarchists, and minarchists approach neocon.

. . .

And there was more, but I'll leave that for the good people on my email list. Don't forget to subscribe, and have yourself a Happy Easter weekend!

Penjammin grew up in a labyrinthine cavern. Later he ran with the wolves and lived every moment marinated in the sweet scent of his game, until pirates landed and… See About for full story, and get his eletter at penjams.com/subscribe.

Get Chuck Norris to…

Posted on

Rescue a Puppy from the Clutches of a Dragon!

Hey look up!, there is a new page on the menu bar. It is the podcast page, the page for To Drink With Elves or Dwarves! How can you not check out a podcast with that title? Am I right?

But I want to talk to you about the Thanks! page. “No! Bring back the podcast talk!” you say? Nah, this is going to be great. Look. —-v

You may not have realized this, but it's dangerous to merge economies between worlds. Yeah. I said it. It's true! Can you imagine a trans-world depression?!? No refuge! So, no. I don't bring over valuables. I don't much. I may have a couple of times, but It's not really possible the way I usually travel. I digress. So I created that to help get by when trans-world alien work dries up.

Or I just like to earn me some terran tips. I even like the mere possibility. At heart, I'm still very much the ol' street-performer I was with gyspy friends of yore in days of yore. The potential is a fun fun drive to continue to write and put out regular content. So, it's kind of like I'm internet street-performing. How fun is that?

Anyway, that's why I accept tokens of appreciation at buymeacoffee.com. (Also there's the coffee part.)* But that's not everyone's thing. If you're passionately against coffee or just short on change, there are other ways to show appreciation. From the Thanks! page:

  • With every drop in the tip cup, an act of aggression is avenged… and Chuck Norris rescues a puppy from the clutches of a dragon.
  • Amazon shopping from this link helps keep the lights on.
  • Guest-posts welcome! Often a cross-post thing works. Each person posts a favorite from the other's blog, giving author and directing info as well. It's a win-win and ensures both are happy with the content. DM or email: Penjammin at proton dot me.

Maybe some of that appeals to you. Maybe not. Either way, have a great week.

Hot Coffee

Posted on

Hot coffee come closer
And kiss thirsty lips.
Be welcomed with love
At each of your sips.
You can change the world,
At least for this man.
Fulfill your potential.
Then do it again.

Penjammin grew up in a labyrinthine cavern. Later he ran with the wolves and lived every moment marinated in the sweet scent of his game, until pirates landed and… See About for full story, and get his eletter at penjams.com/subscribe.

The Inherited Good

Posted on

This is an excerpt from my interview with Dr. Brad Birzer in which we discuss the definition of conservatism. -P

Penjammin: Let's talk about mischaracterizations, what conservatism is and what it's not. So we've kind of been looking at [conservatism] from a bunch of different angles. I was kind of trying to identify the thing and then try to analyze it, see what it is that makes it conservative and what's more accidental. Now let's try to do some contrast. What is conservative accused of being, compared to what it is?

Brad: Yeah, I think the biggest thing, and this would be in terms of conservatism as well as libertarianism, I think the biggest criticism is that we're selfish, that we're only thinking about the self and we're not thinking about others. And to me, when we look at everything from the American founding all the way up to Russell Kirk, we're really looking at our relations with one another. So it's not just Brad and Pen. It is two human beings who are interacting with one another, and we bring out the best hope in one another. That's what we're trying to do. So when I engage my daughters or I engage my students, I'm not trying to make them little Brad's. I'm trying to make them who and what they were meant to be . . . We make them better for what they are meant to be, which either God or nature (or both probably) has defined.

For more, check out The Imaginative Conservative. Also, hear the whole episode here:

Penjammin grew up in a labyrinthine cavern. Later he ran with the wolves and lived every moment marinated in the sweet scent of his game, until pirates landed and… See About for full story, and get his eletter at penjams.com/subscribe.