Know Thine Enemy: Political Ignorance and Libertarianism on Feed 44

[StylesGrant]

http://c4ss.org/content/29179

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=B0hJnYViuE0

 

I got more than a few chuckles out of the picture narration on this. Great video, great explanation.

 

Take home message: Follow politicians, bills, acts, and what congress is doing so you have hard dirt on what it is that is impeding normal markets.

 

I've always been a fan of lobbyist hating myself. Nothing funner than bitching about Vioxx, Farm Bill, and GMO's.

[Slavik]

This is what the video sounded like to me.

 

Ending slavery might leave black people not as protected, I mean as slaves they have jobs, but we all know if the slavery is ended, they will have to find jobs, and job markets are not as secure as being a slave.  I mean, yes slaves will be better off, but not to the fullest extent, some will have trouble finding better conditions.  Lets concentrate on not ending slavery, but on answering each and every possible condition in the future of how the slaves would be better of.   Lets also think about how cotton will be picked in the future.  So what we must do for now, is study how slaves are bought and sold, study how government is involved, the transportation of slaves, the whole business......

[StylesGrant]

'Know thine Enemy' -> Know and understand what the slave master has going on in his sick head.

 

I take it as a clear realism, and existential necessity to know what they are doing so I can plan accordingly. I certainly have no desire to enable them or perpetuate them or vote on them. Definitely not what I got from the video.

 

This moderating or compromising behavior of false anarchism or state apologist is in fact warned against in the video in how she describes 'ra ra' or 'conservatarians', as well as 'liberaltarians'. Rather the video warns that the amount of infighting among libertarians and lack of cohesiveness on universal issues that are of more importance impedes a consistency of principals, strategy, and action of goals. 

 

You definitely learn a lot about stopping abolition by studying the involvement of the government, the transportation of slaves, the whole business, to muckrake it, not the theory, but the actual crimes and especially motives. The documentation of crimes is utterly necessary for consistent application of principals in order to correctly make a case for people who do not understand anarchism and need real clear journalism over political crime to see and understand why anarchist principals consistently expose patterns of abuse.

 

People cannot just learn in abstract theory, it drags them away from understanding how motives play out and why those motives lack principles and arise from consistent patterns of government corruption.

[Slavik]

'Know thine Enemy' -> Know and understand what the slave master has going on in his sick head.

 

I take it as a clear realism, and existential necessity to know what they are doing so I can plan accordingly. I certainly have no desire to enable them or perpetuate them or vote on them. Definitely not what I got from the video.

 

This moderating or compromising behavior of false anarchism or state apologist is in fact warned against in the video in how she describes 'ra ra' or 'conservatarians', as well as 'liberaltarians'. Rather the video warns that the amount of infighting among libertarians and lack of cohesiveness on universal issues that are of more importance impedes a consistency of principals, strategy, and action of goals. 

 

You definitely learn a lot about stopping abolition by studying the involvement of the government, the transportation of slaves, the whole business, to muckrake it, not the theory, but the actual crimes and especially motives. The documentation of crimes is utterly necessary for consistent application of principals in order to correctly make a case for people who do not understand anarchism and need real clear journalism over political crime to see and understand why anarchist principals consistently expose patterns of abuse.

 

People cannot just learn in abstract theory, it drags them away from understanding how motives play out and why those motives lack principles and arise from consistent patterns of government corruption.

Quote from the Clip:

--"Libertarianism limits itself is a philosophy that limits or eliminates the gvt. This solves some problems, of course it makes everyone richer, though at diff. rates and to diff. degree, it makes everyone freer from state control, but what does it do about inequality?  What does it do about current and ongoing inequality through theft through corporatism redlining or forfeiture? What does it do about equality resulting from bigotry and discrimination ? Yes of course unprotected actors in perfect free market will suffer more for their bigotry and discrimination, but enough to end it?" 

 

 

And so on, and this is what I was responding to.  What am I missing here? She is talking about current problems and saying that eliminating gvt. isnt enough, or that working to eliminate gvt. doesnt help the situation right now (as if working towards eliminating gvt. isnt a huge deal as it stands).  I am working on educating people on the immorality of gvt.  Not sure how knowledge of bill writing or campaigning will help me with the task.

[StylesGrant]

Let me stress this point, people must be aware of how the bills being written will affect their liberties. I.e. secretive trade agreements, obamacare, etc.

 

As for the other part of the argument. I am an entirely libertarian person, in that I take it to the conclusion of not just attacking government oppression, but class, race, gender, collective prejudices, religion. Or fully to the extent of 'spiritual' or 'behavioral' liberatory goals. 

 

There is a divide among libertarians, with some favoring natural hierarchy, and others wanting extreme liberalism in everything, markets included. The problem with natural hierarchy, is who gets to decide what is natural. Culture? Class? Race? Religion? The Government more so? A bill writer? A lobbyist? 

 

I am not someone who believes in a lack of natural elitism, just someone who doesn't believe it counts towards as much as people insist it does. 

 

And in any case, most all social and legal structures are an outgrowth of culture. A large part of libertarianism should be criticizing culture and class from a historical, philosophical, psychological, sociological, and often evolutionary biological stance.

 

There is a long history of economics argued from culture, where culture is argued from morality and psuedo-science, frenology, and eugenics. 

 

Biology (like Robert Sapolsky's work) is a way to protect people with rational empiricism from backwards cultures that try to argue economics on natural hierarchy. 

[Dwain Dibley]

What if there were a chance that you could bust up centralized control, would you take it?