Hey terrans. Greetings from Oz. Only not though. It's nothing like Oz here, and I'm pretty sure the dwarves wouldn't like being compared to munchkins. Also, there's no emerald city. One thing we do have is manure. Everything poops. And you think you know that, but no one knows it as well as those who've put in hours at the menagerie. It's a poop factory, I tell you. Glad that's not my job.
My job gives me time for the dumpster fire known as twitter. I saw that your Musk figure bought most of it up, and things already seem to be improving. For example, someone (@takethewhitepil) even tweeted, “After becoming an anarchist I've somehow become more conservative.” See?
Well, I kid. One tweet is not necessarily part of a trend. (But maybe?) The tweet did remind me of an article I read long ago (Why True Conservatism Means Anarchy by Alexander William Salter). The article ended with this line: “[T]he state is constitutionally hostile to conservatism. For the sake of preserving ordered liberty and protecting inherited faith and folkways, conservatives should reject the state’s legitimacy. Failure to do so is fighting a war on the enemy’s terms.” Just where is this Salter guy coming from? Glad you asked.
First, Salter sees conservativeness as more of a preservation orientation than a creed. This frees him up to sort inherited wheat from chaff. Secondly, he makes two points regarding the modern state: (1) that it is relatively new and (2) that conservatives, in defending the state, concede something to the left of yore- something that they should instead be drawing from. He explains: “The polylegal system of the High Middle Ages, in which the authority of kings, local nobility, trade guilds, free cities, and the Roman Catholic Church competed and often checked the abuses of each other, is an important example and one that should be of obvious interest to conservatives.”
So, to Salter, institutions of governance need not include a monopoly of so-called legitimate force. He argues convincingly that such a monopoly makes the state particularly useful to anti-conservatives. If a small group of people different from the whole found persuasive influence too difficult, they might prefer the state for forcing their influence. And, well, there's more in the article: Why True Conservatism Means Anarchy over at theamericanconservative.com.
Well, I don't know about you, but I'm pretty tired. It's been a long day. I visited another realm, and the local bard (much better than the one here) wasn't feeling too well. He's on the mend though. After his situation improves, maybe an apprenticeship between the two can be worked out. Hmm.
This post originally dropped at the author's own blog, capedpersuader.com. It is reposted here with their permission. -Pen
As far as mission statements go, Spider-Man has one of the best. I mean, who can forget the immortal words, “When you can do the things that I can, but you don’t, and then the bad things happen? They happen because of you.” Or was that, “Your father lived by a philosophy, a principle, really. He believed that if you could do good things for other people, you had a moral obligation to do those things”? That’s the one.
In all seriousness, trying to rephrase one of the most iconic lines of all literature is no easy task. One might say there is great power in that phrase, and rewording it so that it doesn’t sound trite and clichéd is itself a great responsibility. For my part, I felt that the latest take felt the most natural. It wasn’t trying too hard to articulate it precisely. It wasn’t distilled into a perfect form, that ideal thing that never really comes to mind when we need it. It was a thought –an abstract– trying to claw its way through the imperfection of this world to show us a glimpse of truth.
So too are the guiding philosophies of our nation. Many of them have been distilled into eloquent, endlessly quotable 100 proof shots of liberty. We know them by heart, even if we don’t always get the words just right. We, the individuals who carry that baton of freedom from generation to generation, have tried to uphold those self-evident truths, to live up to the examples set by the founding fathers.
But it gets exhausting sometimes, trying keep track of local politics, state politics, national politics, let alone global. It’s easy to get overwhelmed, to just want to live our lives without constant vigilance. We begin to narrow our focus to just one level, or worse, to tune out government altogether. So when a global pandemic hit, it’s no wonder that our instincts failed us. We may have doubted the severity of the crisis, or questioned the lockdown, but ultimately our inexperience with that level of threat and reservations about our adequacy lead us to defer to the medical and civil authorities.
Spider-Man, too, has let his Spidey-Sense go on occasion. In last year’s Far From Home, he was more concerned with living a normal life than keeping his guard up. When an inter-dimensional threat arose, he was all too eager to pass the buck to others. Despite his own great power, and E.D.I.T.H., the nifty drone army bequeathed to him by the late Tony Stark, he felt the best way to honor these great responsibilities was to entrust them to the only person who seemed to have any solution to the threat: Mysterio.
Turns out, the very person he turned over his weaponized inheritance to was behind the whole thing. The foes he vanquished were nothing more than projections he and his conspirators had conjured for the express purpose of preying upon Peter’s insecurities. Mysterio saw a system–powerful beyond belief and dangerous in the wrong hands–entrusted to an inexperienced youth, decided he would be a better steward of it, and manipulated the web-crawler into willingly relinquishing it.
We, too, are the heirs of a tremendously powerful system. Our form of government –its ideals and institutions– have enabled us to become arguably the most powerful and prosperous society the world has ever known. We, too, have been targeted for our perceived inability to effectively take responsibility for that system. Our elected officials believe that citizens can’t be trusted with freedom when there’s a nasty bug going around. We, too, have willingly parted with that power. We sat by while that freedom was taken from us, or worse, we continue to willingly advocate its limitation.
We, as a nation, are sitting in that bar. The villains responsible for stoking our fears are feigning reluctance as they take control of our inheritance.
Now, I have no intention of going down the rabbit hole on the virus’ origin. For one thing, that subject is very much a moving target at this point. For another, it is irrelevant to the point I’m trying to make. Whether, like Mysterio, our government or another actively played a part in the creation of the threat or not, our government has no doubt projected cataclysmic stakes if we don’t heed its warnings, and it has certainly benefited from the aid of a cadre of allies in making those projections as believable as possible.
Likewise, I don’t intend to discount the lethality of Covid-19. It is indeed a deadly disease. The real damage caused by Mysterio’s drones, however, didn’t make the projections any more real. No matter how much destruction they caused, and no matter how many people ultimately succumb to Covid-19, it’s safe to say that both earth-shattering worst case scenarios were essentially fiction.
One day we will have a pretty good handle on how this virus started and how many lives it has taken. That will be the time to discuss culpability. Chasing our tails, bickering about who or what is responsible, will only distract from the question at hand: how do we get our system back from those who have deceived us?
Some are protesting in the streets. For all the effort such demonstrations take, they amount to asking Mysterio politely for the E.D.I.T.H. glasses back. Those who would limit our freedoms have us just where they want us, where they’ve expended tremendous patience and political capital to get us. They may placate us by lifting restrictions sooner than intended, but a return to the status quo of February 2020 would leave in place whatever laws or rulings that either explicitly allowed the lockdowns or those that were so vaguely worded as to be interpreted as allowing them. Without targeting such statutes or interpretations for repeal or appeal, we leave the system in their control.
So here we are, with the Elementals apparently defeated, the curve ostensibly flattened, and our Spidey-Sense going off like crazy. We have have handed our system over to villains who believe us to be too weak, too naive, too selfish to appropriately wield it.
The truth is, we have been weak. We have continued to tolerate, to advocate, the lesser of two evils rather than face the consequences of voting our conscience.
We have been naive. We have believed generation after generation of politicians who promised to protect our freedoms while contributing to their systematic dismantling.
We have been selfish. We have believed that defense of liberty can be compartmentalized to a vote, a representative, or any army; that we can live our lives free of that continual struggle.
With great power comes great responsibility. We have been endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. The founders of our nation secured these rights, further endowing us with a system of unmatched potential. They saw something in the American people, a great power that told them we could be trusted with that potential, that we could keep it. But this generation did not build this system. We don’t understand it. We haven’t earned it. We have come to rely too much on the endowments of our forefathers and not enough on those of our Creator.
When Peter Parker realized his mistake, he also realized it was time to stop trying to be the next Iron Man; that it was time to start being his own Spider-Man. He crafted his own suit and gadgets. He remembered his responsibility, and with it returned his instincts. He confronted his deceiver and retook the power he had abdicated.
It’s time for us to do the same. Let’s pray we can do so without a fight.
The Caped Persuader is a “Devoted husband and father, homeschool teacher, would-be champion of free will, amateur philosopher, writer, & political ronin. In that order.” Find out more at capedpersuader.com and twitter.com/capedpersuader.
Don't forget to grab your free copy of the Chronicles of a Cardboard Cutout along with my eletter: Sign up
Ken brings a poetic flare to things, and it makes them better. He's working what seems like a raw cross between Alexander Pope and a freestyle rapper, and it's fun. Below are a couple favs, with his blessing. -Pen
Libertarians thinking to vote Republican, Just because they cannot stand the other man? If a majority vote to burn the house down, We prepare our homes for the storm unbound. Sometimes people need to make mistakes, To change their mind that is what it takes. #VoteYourPrinciples
The world is a complex place, Each experience has its own face. Saying that your solution fits all, Is authoritarianism’s sirens call. Let’s each other to liberty leave, And let reality our ideas sieve. #VoteGold
Great to see #NolibertariansUnder1K, When we normally to ourselves stay. We wade into the war of broader culture, Though our soul feels thrown into a mulcher. The daggers well sharpened from infight, Let us turn to exposing the statist blight.
Ken N. is “just a libertarian guy, ain't gonna lie. A bit of a crooner, I also read Spooner. Mackin' on some reeses, while I chill with some Mises.” You can follow him at www.twitter.com/shoganate.
Don't forget to grab your free copy of the Chronicles of a Cardboard Cutout along with my eletter: Sign up (•‿•)
Earlier this week, I made an outline of the Smith Sarwark debate. Now you get to hear some of my thoughts. You’re welcome. 🙂
First, debates can be very helpful, but they also go bad easily. I need them to be engaging to get anything out of them, so I say debates need to be important and fun and followable… enough for the intended audience anyway. Second, someone should walkaway introduced to the whole scope of the matter at hand. Walking away with just two obscure takes leaves too much to be desired.
On both accounts, this debate did pretty well. It was easy to follow, for the careful listener anyway. Some of it seemed lost on Sarwark, but meh. Also, it was not dry. Smith kept it fun. Sarwark made it a bit creepy,1 but fun and lively it was.
Interestingly, each debater fit his message. Smith, in regular clothes and speech, stood passionately for profound yet basic principles. Sarwark illustrated his points with sales, twice, and with his suit and subtly crafty rhetoric, he fit the part. Dial them up, and one can imagine Smith pounding his fist and yelling, “Give me liberty or give me death!” while Sarwark worries about the Tory-vote.
Smith spoke to (and in the spirit of) the best in civilization. Sarwark's appearance of sincerity just clashed with his wormtonguery and the stench of b.s. on his breath. Smith won the debate. However, the line of the night goes to Tom Woods. Per Smith's quote:
We libertarians are the inheritors of an exceptionally venerable tradition of ideas that is noble and beautiful, and that carries a grave responsibility. We must be true to that inheritance. Enough putting people to sleep already. It’s time we finally woke them up.
Tom Woods
1. For just one example, if Sarwark took the time to pander to the audience and pet their emotions with “You’re special,” one more time, I was going to get sick. Someone from the audience should have yelled, “Thanks mommy!” His general style was off-putting as well.
2. Sarwark’s rhetorical care, dodges, and ploys were collectively and repetitively called out as “lawyering”. Sarwark even attempted to punt the label back once.
The Libertarian Party should never again put out national candidates whose views are similar to those of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld.
Affirmative: Dave Smith Negative: Nick Sarwark
Dave's Opening Statement:
The liberty movement over and before the libertarian party.
This is how it is for Dave. Dave cares about:
The Liberty movement.
The philosophy of liberty and
Seeing liberty in people’s lives.
Liberty is about civilization itself.
NAP.
Don’t hit others, and don’t take their stuff.
Things are bad, getting worse. Hitler and Stalin would be impressed with our statism, but libertarians have the answers. So do we make a difference?
A difference is bringing others in. It is not aggressing against other libertarians, especially with leftist tactics.
Two narratives about making a difference:
False narrative: It’s pragmatic leftist libertarians who get votes vs. anal anarchists who get in the way.
True Narrative: Winning more people gets more votes, and votes without conversion amounts to little.
The exemplar, the libertarian that converts people is Ron Paul. How?
He was courageous and principled.
He had an epic message.
Not watered down views.
Not “I think the system could be tweaked to be more fair.”
The center is not where you recruit!
Centrists lose elections. Who won? Obama, Trump.
Centrists: Hillary Clinton, Lindsey Graham.
Libertarian party marketed from the center and it hurt.
Particular Views of Johnson-Weld:
Disqualifying views
Concept: If you have a candidate that was for free trade, lowering taxes rates and was for gay marriage in 2004 and if it was Dick Cheney whose instituted torture He’d be disqualified in spite of other good views.
Disqualifying views of these two candidates:
Johnson: That Weld should be his VP, especially as a partnership.
Bill Weld a lobbyist for a weapons company, vouched for Hilary as a principled person, endorsed Iraq, …
Tom Woods quote: “We libertarians are the inheritors of an exceptionally venerable tradition of ideas that is noble and beautiful, and that carries a grave responsibility. We must be true to that inheritance. Enough putting people to sleep already. It’s time we finally woke them up.“
Nick's Opening Statement:
Pushing a rock up hill. Realized he’s not the home team.
Only disqualifying views heard. Johnson wanted bill Weld. Weld thought Hillary was honest, Weld and weapons company.
You special and different because you are a libertarian.
LP is a political instrument, so
no think tank and other such stuff. Instead,
Running people for office to effect policy and set the world free in our life time.
Dave ‘s way:
Dave is more about hearts than votes.
Dave doesn’t care about the party because he doesn’t care about politics.
Libertarian party has tried it Dave’s way.
Interprets statistics as Johnson Weld out performing Ron Paul in votes and money.
Political Parties should run candidates and get votes.
Appeal to subjective preference in diverse issues and purity tests.
Weapons company work is just: “not work I would take.”
This is not as big a deal to other libertarians.
Appeal to ideo-diversity of libertarians.
Different priorities and come from different places. Thirds. Left, right, f the man (with missed votes).
Numbers persuade. The officials must feel the heat if not see the light.
Vouching for Hillary appealed to leftists.
Must balance of Purity and Profile.
87% of Johnson’s voters were not libertarian.
Dave's Rebuttal:
Regarding Ron Paul in 1988 and Gary Johnson,
Ron didn’t inherit the Ron Paul movement and
Ron wasn’t running against such hated candidates.
So why call this a victory?
87% who voted for Gary weren’t libertarians, and they’re still not.
Gary is said to have done so well, but the liberty movement is doing worse than it was in 2012.
Regarding more views to discuss, being pro- war and pro- fed was enough to disqualify someone.
It’s less that Weld preferred Hillary to Trump than it is why:
With an hour on CNN We disagree on some economic issues but she’s a good person.
Good person? Suuuuure.
One should lead with Libya, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, …
Weld objected to Trump’s ending wars message.
We are competing with Hitler in the genocide. The LP has to support the liberty movement
that is being at least anti war and anti fed
Johnson Weld also not good on the fed.
Nick's Rebuttal:
No body cares about the fed outside the libertarian
Either the LP is to get people in the movement or to win votes.
Votes have to come from non-libertarians.
Either the LP can leave others until they are libertarian or they get them to vote L anyway (and maybe again in the future).
Johnson Weld
was anti-war.
had some libertarian positions
Mind the audience.
You’re special.
Meet votes where they are.
QnA
Would you prefer a Gary Johnson or a Ron Paul candidate next time?
Nick: Whoever is speaking bold in the empty space between the other two candidates.
Dave: Would you rather have had Ron Paul? Hell, yes?
If you could run Dick Cheney on the LP and get 10 million votes would that be a good move?
Nick: That’s a bad bargain.
Is that because certain views are disqualifying?
Nick: No.
Are there any positions that would be disqualifying for you?
Nick: Pro-war is disqualifying.
Who should we nominate in 2020?
Dave: Anybody willing to run an anti-war and anti-fed nominee bare minimum. Austin Peterson would have been better, others too.
Which did you vote for in 2016?
Dave: You gotta win my vote. No one.
Nick: You know because I voted.
Convert a million people to libertarianism or shrink the state a bit?
Dave: False choice.
Nick, do you see your broad tent catering more to the pseudo’s from the big parties or to the intellectual diversity in the party?
Nick: The diversity of thought extends beyond the Mises Institute. There are two groups: “propertarians,” and individual rights / reason libertarians. People who don’t vote for LP candidates on principle are part of the problem.
Dave: I’m a soldier in liberty movement not just part of a team of people who always go with the team. That is why there’s Democrats and Republicans. The two groups perspective, that’s it’s just that some are about individual happiness and some are more property, No. One has a solid philosophical foundation, and the other doesn’t.
What’s your number one issue:
Nick: Criminal justice reform and the war on drugs. Seeing it destroy communities and with every cop who murders- if you ran Dick Cheney and he ran on nothing but ending the war on drugs across the country, I would vote for him at convention.
Dave: What a load of first world privilege. You would take killing a million Iraqi’s if it would end the war on drugs at home?
Nick: Do you have any evidence that wouldn’t happen anyway? Cause they have for the last 4 administrations!
Shouldn’t the LP be more about a libertarian future than just votes and such?
Nick: The votes do that. Exs. marriage and drugs.
Dave: It doesn’t serve the movement to pretend that was the LP. It was the left. We’re losing everything.
Do you really think people feel free? BLM, TDSers?
Nick: These are the groups we can reach.
Dave: so we make the point it takes zero courage to make. I have converted more I have a bigger audience. Here’s how you convince, you believe in something. Do things like back-peddle and no one cares.
How can the LP call itself the anti-war party at home and abroad and oppose any form of gun control. How many people need to die before you wake up?
Dave: She had some courage. I will support us turning in our guns as soon as we run a background check on the government and see if they are going not go on a killing spree.
Violence is the issue and the libertarian platform is for minimizing that in ways like ending wars and criminal justice reform and drug legalization. These things are good in themselves and they’ll truly help the problem of gun violence.
Dave’s Closing Statement:
Convert how? By standing for something.
Fed and War are disqualifying.
Johnson faux success. Membership is low. was higher with real candidate.
State is dramatically growing. Getting worse.
2016 was the time for real spokesperson.
2020 will be another.
Nick doesn’t know how to help the liberty movement. He grossly alienated its most effective recruiters.
It is time to finally wake them up.
Nick’s Closing Statement
Most people don’t know about Libertarians
We need to run candidates who can appeal to outsiders and Johnson Weld did.
War and Fed are purity tests. Imply issue weight is subjective / relative.
Rocks from the side line? Party-members participate!
Gary Johnson got more ballot access.
*Drumroll* Dave wins a tootsie roll, Oxford style.
