My Divorce from Libertarianism

Back in 2007, sometime in May, as a faithful neocon turned paleoconservative, I watched the South Carolina Republican Presidential Debate for the same reasons that anyone engages in anything political: to reaffirm my beliefs in a group orgy and mock those who disagree for their ignorance and cruel intentions. The plan met merely moderate success. One debater voiced an opinion which made me predictably furious. And eventually, this debater made me agree with that terrible opinion which I found so misguided in the past. For the next several years, I spent no small amount of time and money promoting Ron Paul and the Libertarian movement in general. And in the spirit of that unlikely conversion in 2007, I turned my back on the Libertarian movement in 2012.

Libertarianism can be rather effectively summarized by citing a few principles: the Non-aggression principle, private property, homesteading rights,. At its core, Libertarianism is simpler than many political philosophies because it essentially does not advocate anything. We often sum this up with the term "Negative rights" - that is - the right to be left alone. Libertarians spend a great deal of time delineating exactly when one possesses the right to be left alone, filling lexicons with names for these individual rights, imposing a total ordering on these rights, and complaining about even the most minute violation of these rights.

Although only Negative rights seem to be discussed by Libertarians, there exists a natural dual to these rights which is of equal importance to the cohesion of the theory as a whole. Without the complement, the philosophy survives from a deontological viewpoint but thoroughly fails as any sort of complete socio-cultural means of organization. The proper foundation for Libertarianism is that of Negative rights and Positive action. The latter often finds itself omitted from discussion since too many Libertarians are exactly what people accuse Libertarians of being: self-interested people with comfortable lives who find any social obligation to be a detriment to their happiness.

Negative rights are easy. They're fun for everyone. Positive action is hard and not so fun. Succinctly, Positive action replaces the political process with determined action by individuals. With our current system of organization, the public will recognize a problem which must be fixed. For the purposes of illustration let this problem be a cultural glorification of violence and incidents of spree-killing. Once the problem is noticed, various solutions are proposed: media coverage which focuses on the victims rather than mythological depictions of the perpetrator of shootings is needed, entertainment must be less violent as to stop a cultural desensitization to violence,  firearms are too prevalent and need to be reigned in, firearms are not prevalent enough, and so on. Finally, we come to the time when solutions must be implemented. Here the great perversion occurs where political and indirect action replace personal and direct action. At this point the government is lobbied and the call for the force of law begins. We demand that government make the media's coverage balanced. Bureaus and Boards must be erected stop violence in entertainment. Armed guards need to be posted at schools. Government needs to step away so that the force of dereliction itself can solve the issue.

People will clamor and scream for anyone else to do something to fix a problem. The political process itself atrophies the actions of individuals. The path of least resistance is encouraged. And this situation is completely ignored by most Libertarians and the movement in general. As they call for the government to abdicate power, they ignore the void which must be filled in the wake blind to the unfortunately obvious reality that mere negligence is insufficient to build a social unit. The great radical notion of Libertarianism is the notion of Positive action.  Individuals alone have the obligation and the means to bring about change. The moral duty to such action cannot be spread across the aggregate population of a geographical area. The moral duty to action is not fulfilled by mere group inclusion in a body nor in vocal and philosophical support. Libertarians having the largest exposure in their history had a chance to preach the path to change via acting rather than passively complaining about even the most trite issues. The opportunity was ignored.

Libertarianism as spread too often today offers no real solutions to a world in desperate need of them. It suggests them, but stasis cannot breed change. Negative rights exist as means of defense on one hand and on the other as an arbiter to ensure that the room for individuals to act towards improving the world exists. Negligence of the second function is easy. Statism and broken Libertarianism share a common appeal. They both suggest that all problems can be solved by others. An omnipotent government direction by an omniscient social consciousness in the case of the former, and simple addition by subtraction where a healthy society springs spontaneously from the rubble of a toppled government in the latter. Both are equally full of delusion. I, having no interest in a lazy delusion, no longer wish to count myself a member of either camp.

We spend far too much time forcing others to act and thinking of what others ought to do. Nobody ought to do anything except ourselves.

Good Educators Make A Difference

Working in and around the tutoring profession as I have for quite some time now, I periodically find myself trapped in a reoccurring conversation with various people who pass through my life. The transcript of those conversations would be closely approximated by one of the two following scripts.

Person Making Small Talk: "How's work?"
Me: "Not much happening. I'm having some trouble filling a math position."
Person: "What's the problem no smart kids at the college?"
Me: "Plenty of smart people applying, but all of them would make terrible tutors."
Person: "What? If they know the material, why wouldn't you hire them?"


Person: "How have you been?"
Me: "Not bad. I'm struggling with this student grade school student I'm tutoring right now."
Person: "What? What are the learning?"
Me: "Fractions mostly."
Person: "Anybody could tutor that. Why would someone hire you?"


As a neophyte in the field, I asked these same questions myself. Indeed, I certainly understand the line of thinking which leads to them. However, they undeniably ignore the value and importance of an "educator." I know, I know, stop tooting your own horn. Seriously though, these people are important.

With that said, they tend to be overvalued by society given our current format of education. Teachers walk upon hallowed ground in our society when they should be universally lambasted. I think an unfortunate overemphasis on education theory over producing educated educators persists in our universities. I also think every educational paradigm erected by mainstream America leads to ignorance. However, a real need for true teachers does exist. I will not call myself one of these, but I will give a personal example of a distinction between an experienced educator and a lay person educator.

Let's take the second mock discussion produced above. Anyone with half a brain knows grade school addition of fractions. Anyone with half a brain can teach a normal, well adjusted, well behaved kid it then too right? Yes, but there's certain nuances which will tend to go unnoticed and analyzed.

The child I'm tutoring currently writes his addition problems in the following way.

Sorry for the formatting, but I want the process to be clear in its progression. Now, that's how this student writes his fractions. Good for him. It makes sense. He writes the problem down accurately. Now he goes to solve it.

Other kids (myself included), would instead write the problem like this.

I assume most people instantly notice the distinction between these two progression, and most people would recognize the difference while helping a child. I also assume most people would probably think little of the fact.

Anecdotal evidence means nothing in science. My personal experiences from an incredibly biased and small sample mean nothing in science. Education ain't exactly a science though. Nine times out of ten, the student who write his fraction in the former way has no idea what the hell he's doing. He can't add. He can't reduce fractions. He can't convert from mixed numbers to improper fractions. (Interestingly, he will be able to multiply easily and divide to some extent. However, it will come back to bite the kid when dealing with rational functions in algebra). Furthermore, you'll have twice as much trouble even teaching the kid who writes them in the former way.

In essence, this young man cannot understand the fraction as a concept. Many people, including adults, do not, but his muddled formulation expresses itself in an easily recognizable and pernicious way. His writing of the problem betrays this misunderstanding. He sees fractions as primarily an organizational construct between the horizontal lines on a ruled sheet of paper (I could write an entire post about my hatred of ruled paper. Seriously, requiring it is like teaching an art class using coloring books and a single crayon.). This leads to many common errors since with this conception he essentially sees two distinct problems of 1+2 and 2+3, merely linked together by this fraction bar which has little physical reality. Also, this presents special difficulties when attempting to reduce fractions. It becomes a chore to convince him that the same number must divide numerator and denominator to reduce. Luckily, I could recognize all of this within the first three seconds of working with the child. Yes, these difficulties make themselves known eventually. However, a distinct difference exist between a kid who just doesn't know the rules and a kid who has a flawed mental image of an object which will continually clash with the rules your try to teach him. People find fraction rules and procedures arbitrary, even after learning them, because of this collision between mental image and conceptual reality.

Another lay person mistake would occur after reading this post. I've shared this with one or two other people already. Unfortunately, despite being the field themselves, they remarked, "So why not just makes him write them the right way?" As I've said before, there's no right way. Further, you must be careful and have exceedingly good reasons to crush a child's style. Arbitrary rules and regulations and forced conformity turn children away from education. Most importantly though, this would not accomplish anything. Although his method of writing strongly suggests a lack of understanding, it does not cause it. Instead you must tasks yourself with building a correct concept in the child's head. He will then either change the way he writes his fractions from his own realization, or he won't. As long as he understands the concept though, it doesn't matter how he writes anything.

In other words, you still need to pay $50 / hour to tutor your kid in third grade level maths because I just told you so.

The Nature of Law

I'm trying to set a personal record for number of blog posts in a year, so naturally I need some filler. Consider this filler.

Unfortunately, we live in a rather chaotic, undirected, and frequently capricious universe. Adding to this misfortune, human beings sometimes mimic this capriciousness rather immaculately. We often find ourselves observing events which can only be described as tragic or disastrous. Being unable to control nature or alter natural law, we consign ourselves to the fact that natural disasters will always occur despite our greatest philosophical objections. However, we have significantly more control over the failings of humans and thus, with no gods to save us, we bind our brothers down with man-made laws to prevent catastrophic events.

As a result, when tragedy strikes and the media makes it a thriving part of the national consciousness, throngs of mouths emerge from the crowd calling for new legislation which will prevent an act of this nature from occurring again (Be wary of these people as almost exclusively they speak purely from emotional shock or in fact seek power for themselves) . The majority of the population inevitably comes to agree with or apathetically accept the need for legislation. This long introduction leads me to my short point.

People envision the law as a divine shield. The Congress erects it carefully through legislation before handing its use over the the Executive. The Executive then faithfully hoists it between the innocent and the ravager. They rarely envision a problem with new legislation. The more shields we possess, the better protected we will all be. The passing years simply give us opportunity to search and search for the additional shields we need to protect ourselves.

They fail to see that the law is a sword. The law is force, raw and naked. The law is destruction. Sometimes circumstances necessitate the use of the sword, but we must not delude ourselves and equivocate regarding its true nature. It's a power instrument. We must be exceedingly careful in its construction and ever vigilant in watching those who wield it. Occasionally, we must melt down some when the numbers become too great. Laws should be enacted under only the most dire situations. When you call for laws, you call for hangmen. We must be certain that we really need the hangman.

Shields do exist. Societies forge shields. Education creates shields. Only institutions such as these can peacefully prevent violence. Laws may only strike out at those who commit it, begetting more violence in their wake.

(As an editor's note, while the author remains highly critical of governmental institutions of law and believes that private law systems would be far more efficient, the above critique is aimed at law in all its manifestations.)

The Juror as Individual

"The jury must also judge whether there really be any such law, (be it good or bad,) as the accused is charged with having transgressed. Unless they judge on this point, the people are liable to have their liberties taken from them by brute force, without any law at all." Lysander Spooner

A society without the practice of jury nullification ceases to be a society and instead meanders as a subservient arm of a totalitarian ruling body. I firmly believe it and now no ambiguity exists regarding my view. Myriad arguments may be made for the legitimacy of such a practice within the United States' legal system. Writings of the founders, case law, diaries of the Constitutional Convention, and English common law precedent lend support to its inclusion as standard practice. Many classical liberals and individualists have given support based upon pragmatism and political philosophy. Although I agree with both of these approaches, I find the arguments to be ineffectual when considering mass acceptance. For that purpose, an appeal to personal morality may be more prudent.

Each individual possess an inner moral compass, conscious or unconscious, examined or unexamined. Some may be called more inner than others as often times this morality emulates religious and educational institutions. Regardless of particular circumstance, even the most ostensibly amoral person has this sense. As my weakest assumption in the argument, this compass almost never seeks the law as its pole. The law provides a poor basis for morality given its volatility and transient human founding. Indeed, while the law lends credence or stigma to particular actions, it rarely guides morality itself.

Most people will freely concede this point. From a level as debase as pure arrogance, one will insist their morality to be inner and personal or derived from a higher source. What occurs when it comes time for the individual to serve on a jury and enforce policies not perfectly in line with his morality? Here we arrive at the great contradiction in action. The timeless conflict between principle and perceived duty takes place. The great number cast aside their personhood to faithfully serve as a mere judge of fact (rather than a judge of law). How does this happen?

Peculiarly, the laws of that State become a shield for personal culpability. The herd mind overtakes the individual mind. With the ersatz morality of the government, jurors parry personal convictions. However, despite all the legal verbosity and pompous ceremony of the court, the juror does not escape the implication of his action. It’s essentially obvious and must be pointed out. If one gives a guilty vote, that individual admits himself as an accomplice in all punishment that follows. If you sentence someone to prison, for a crime you believe to be invalid, you cannot hide behind the legal procedures from the judge of your morality. The law is not unjust. The courts are not unjust. You as a person are unjust. You have transformed to the tyrannical monarch oppressing the peasantry. One side of your mouth may not speak guilty as the hypocrite spouts pleas of flawed laws out the other. Actions are non-transferable.

Cells may act in tandem to form an organism. Many bodies amalgamate to form the legal system. Unlike cells though, human beings still admit free choice and action in these circumstances. To view it otherwise requires a fallacy of composition. The judging bodies only exist as a collection of individuals each giving individual fates regarding the defendant on trial. As each person does this, each claims full responsibility for the actions. When acting on a jury, despite being forced to do so, each man judges not only the person on trial, but each man also passes judgment on himself. Errors in assessment may be forgiven. Purposeful abdication of morality cannot be forgiven.

We have trouble with laws because jurors have no shame. They feel a moral immunity when acting on the command of the government. They feel this because they are taught this. They live this because contrary words are never uttered to awaken the good inside them. Individuals may not agree which laws should be nullified, but each should nullify or face the personal consequences of the contrary choice. The charade has perpetuated long enough.

“A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame…as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world…aware that effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure.” Professor de la Paz in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Sky is Illusion

or Hope(Yes Hope(No))

Death and birth meet at the skyline.

A thin divide pressed together like,

lips whispering a secret

impossible to define.

Colors and waves abort all the mundane.

A furious fire bursting from not like,

stars collapsing to novae

impossible to constrain .

And

Under this bloodstained canvas,

which somehow can encompass

all the thoughts I entertain,

Nature has reminded me

that truth, and peace, and equality

Man will one day rise and obtain.

Until that awaited transformation,

a glorious aberration

to render all souls sublime,

Nature like we all must be

our form and function in harmony

and desires silenced like a mime.

But

Time and spin quell the sky’s refrain.

A violent death of the spirit like,

devils prisoning a jesus,

impossible to unchain.

Hope and dream fade like the sunshine.

A stupid belief meeting reality like,

childs believing in Santa.

Impossible too impossible.

A Poisoned Well - Unsavory Campaign Contributions

The American public applies a peculiar logic to their elected officials causing a bifurcation of expectations into seemingly contradictory paths. Would be electors simultaneously ignore abjectly immoral acts of their rulers which the masses of people would usually condemn and overreact the rather insignificant occurrences which voters commit without thought of wrongdoing in their personal lives.

Politicians wallow regularly in vast bastions of corruption where they lie, cheat, steal, commit fraud, and sometimes even murder. A president can order an assassination and be met with cheers and jubilation. A general may approve an operation leading to hundreds of civilian casualties, with women and children laying slaughtered in the wake, and the many will not blink an eye at this “collateral damage” or simply the “nature of modern warfare”. A senator may make an impressive list of promises and pledges which he dismisses like spoiled clothing as soon as reaching elected office, but he does this merely in the name of compromise, bipartisanship, and just playing the game. Ridiculous justifications for these actions flow from the halls of academia or the annals of the old media to be eagerly gorged in a buffet style by the majority. Nearly a single member of the public would accept this sort of behavior in their personal life among acquaintances. Perhaps not a single one would commit these actions and allow themselves a comfortable night’s sleep. Yet they afford politicians such carte blanche with a jejune faith in their good intentions.

This could simply be explained by a general naivety applied to the ruling class, as I may as well call them. However, this explanation would easily be dispatched by the countless examples of people quibbling over mundane details which occur in political life. Hypocritical voices abound to lambast politicians for taking vacations as pressing issues sit in their queues, while they take ample vacation from their own jobs every year. In particular, the source of campaign contributions becomes scrutinized more heavily than salient features of a politician’s campaign such a voting record and the intricacies of their economic policy. Libertarian and internet favorite Ron Paul has been censured by many because of campaign contributions received from white supremacist leader of Stormfront, Don Black. Obviously, I posit that such accusations are hypocritical and unnecessary.

Essentially two real arguments may be levied against those taking contributions from unsavory companies or individuals. Either the contributions suggest that the candidate will use his political power to reward the donors to his campaign or the candidate shares some moral culpability with the individuals who finance his campaign. Although only the latter argument is generally applied to the specific Ron Paul case, both could be justifiable cited and so we will examine each of them.

The first objection suggests a necessary quid pro quo agreement between the politician and donating party. Given the substantial sums of money necessary to finance a campaign, and similarly the substantial sums of money stood to be loss or gained due to a particular governmental law or regulation, the temptation becomes nearly insurmountable even among good intentioned individuals to strike a back alley deal of this sort. I often criticize candidates based on just these grounds, but we should recognize an important distinction of not just mere expediency. A differentiation must occur between explicit cash for policy exchanges and de facto advantages acquired by beneficiaries if the supported candidate wins. Although important, this distinction becomes volatile and sometimes dependent of personal philosophies regarding the scope of proper government. To be explicit: A hypothetical contribution to the Obama campaign from British Petroleum, under the agreement that in return for the money Obama will give preferential treatment to BP including damage caps and exclusive drilling contracts, should be viewed differently than a contribution to the Paul campaign from IBM, because the company supposes that Paul’s lifting of sanctions on Iran will allow IBM to expand its market. The former agreement extends privilege to one party at the expense of another. The former agreement persuades a candidate rather than just financing his views. The former uses the might of government aggressively, rather than stepping back and allowing free transactions.

The Don Black support may very well be of the second agreement. Ron Paul champions civil liberties including those freedoms of press, speech, and assembly. Ron Paul alone among the candidates supports the right of association among private individuals and entities. Finally, it must not be ignored that even racists have other issues they may feel passionately about and such a contribution could easily represent support for the abolition of the income tax. It seems unlikely that his contribution indicates intent by Paul to promulgate a white supremacist agenda. His voting record would indicate unwillingness to compromise over his thirty year political career. The small contribution would hardly buy much in terms of influence, and Paul’s decentralized campaign relies on legions of small donors rather than a few particular keystones. Even ignoring these points, reason would dissuade anyone pursing this route. As reality demonstrates, it is simply much easier to use statist means for rent seeking purposes than attempting to work through the enterprise of free exchange.

While the Paul campaign may escape any potential slings and arrows screaming corruption, does he evade any collective sin by accepting such soiled money? Should the money be returned? Media pundits bombard him with these same questions, of course with the implicit suggestion that the money must be returned to avoid any guilt by association. To begin my criticism, many pundits argue this point using a straw man that can be particularly alluring before the fallaciousness of hypothetical becomes apparent. The complaint usually proceeds by saying, “Suppose Mr. A supports several concerning and morally devoid principles. If through his morally devoid actions Mr. A acquires a sum of money and if Mr. A gives this money to Mr. B , then Mr. B must return the money. Morality compels him to do so since the money originated in unscrupulous waters and since the acceptance of the money compels Mr. B to use it according to Mr. A’s dark intentions.”

Neither of these reasons actually hold true under close examination. The confusion in the last point comes from an inability to distinguish between two different transfers of money: a purchase and a donation. A purchase of goods involves the holder of the money transferring it to another party under the assumption of receiving something explicit in return. A donation simply entails a transfer of goods from party to another which may occur for a variety of reasons. In the latter, the recipient is not bound legally or morally in the specific use of the funds. We should be especially cognoscente of this point since the intentions of the donor will only be truly known by himself. More importantly we should reject the blind prerogative which requires one to return money to people we find to be socially undesirable. This moral edict could very well marginalize groups considered fringe that nonetheless deserve a place in political discourse, but as too often occurs, incur a radical label simply to suppress their influence.

Further, let us consider each of the two possible actions a candidate may take. As we have already seen, accepting the funds does not bind the candidate to use them in a particular fashion or to support a particular ideology. The candidate may then keep the funds and use them to further their personal political agenda, one of peace and freedom in the case of Ron Paul. Contrast this with the scenario where a candidate returns the donated money to the bigoted group from whence it came. Here we see a candidate removing funds from the relatively innocuous political process, funds which could be used to promote good moral principles of government, and returning them to the seedy organization originally providing the money. This case essentially entails the candidate donating money to the organization, thus ensuring that the money will be used to further morally abject philosophies. This mode of action appears to guarantee the very outcome it hopes to avoid.

While the public should no doubt pay close attention to a candidate’s funding, often times we focus on the more source of the money while diverting our attention away from the candidate and his platform itself. A donor list may suggest a great deal about a candidate and his positions, but it does just that. It will only suggest. Voters should diligently amalgamate great scores of information about each candidate when evaluating each situation and forming an opinion as a whole. Furthermore, voters would do well to remember politicians should not be readily absolved as such high crimes as murder and grand theft because they feebly hide behind curtains of prestige and office. If we evaluated politicians a little more as we evaluate our neighbors, our democracy might more closely approximate a rational system.

Gretel, your breadcrumbs are bleeding.

A thud thud and plop plop!
Showed and telled bodies drop .
Lifeless long before they meet the ground,
their cotton skins hardly sound.
A brooding storm coupled by
some companions from a child’s eyes.

Look and see her Noah’s arks!
Floating through winter’s dark.
Two black clouds which precipitate
the deluge they try to abate.
And today this polyethylene betrayed
breaking like promises her sister made.

So on and on Amelia she walks
while on and on her sinister leg balks.
Longing for home sweet home,
she trudges on all alone.
Until finally she’s home with mother greeting,
safe and warm, just in time to receive her beating.

!Written about an experience someone shared with me at work. It formed a particularly vivid and depressing image in my head.!