Navigating Problems with Rightful Liberty
November 15, 2019 at 1:22 pm #128011
I pulled this comment that I wrote out of the Natural Rights thread / discussion:
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
Ok that’s great. We have a forum subsection devoted to this. However, there is a huge problem with this. Essentially, the idea is that you are limited by the equal rights of others. In a homogenous community that is pretty straughforward and common sense. Basically, do no harm.
However, in a world of crazy people such as today, the very meaning of this can be warped. I will use an example such as gun rights: it seems self evident to me and to you that having guns is essential to the natural right to self defense. However, a leftist would claim that by having guns, you are doing harm. They would probably also claim all sorts of other crazy stuff such as having guns is racist etc.
The other aspect to this is that you have to tolerate people you don’t like. They have rights like you have rights, and in the same way your rights are not allowed to harm theirs. Thus things you don’t like, such as lesbians getting married and having turkey baster babies etc. You could probably claim that drag queens reading stories in school classrooms is harming the children. They could claim that you being a white priviledged gun owner is equally as bad.
Thus, Rightful Liberty is great as a guiding principle, but it simply does not work in clown world. You have to have some sort of basic agreement on what your community should look like. And basic standards.
Thus I would conclude that Rightful Liberty is an excellent guiding principle, but you have to live in a community where you will not be attacked for your basic values. This is essentially the problem in clown world America right now. Virginia just became clown world, and we can expect a whole world of shit coming down the pike that is against classic American values.
I am neither of the right or the left. I am a rational libertist.
To add: the clown world we currently live in, where the left is winning the cultural battle by their use of political correctness / social Marxism / controlling the narrative and your speech, is not one conducive to what we would consider Rightful Liberty. There is insufficient common ground. It can all be twisted by the left into the need for universal healthcare, and gun bans, and all the rest. Society and the culture will be / have been destroyed. The youth are indoctrinated. Many of you who will not speak here or anywhere in public have been cowed by your fears of censure and monitoring.
Thus, Rightful Liberty can only exist, IMO, in a relatively homogeneous culture where standards of decent behavior are generally understood. Now, I can already see issues with that as I write. By homogeneous culture I am not referring to some sort of 17th Century Puritan village where gossips gossip and women are burned at the stake! I am referring to a truly Libertist society where Rightful Liberty is utilized in a way people can understand – for example no one challenges the basics of gun ownership for self-defense based on cultural Marxist reasons of tyranny etc.
Regarding my comment on a puritan gossip society, I would go so far as to say it is that very behavior that has been weaponized by the left – the nasty village gossip no longer wants to burn witches, but is an acolyte of the left, LGBTXYZ, militant feminism, METOO etc. It is the same behavior. Now, they are informing on you for having guns and reporting you for red flag laws. You will be burned at the stake by the soccer mom.
So the point of these comments is that we cannot even contemplate Rightful Liberty in a society so corrupt and divided. In a society where people are so indoctrinated by cultural Marxism. There will be a war, of some sort. Libertarians often talk about a ‘non-aggression principle.’ I entirely disagree. Non-aggression to people on your side and in your community, but the acolytes of tyranny get no mercy. I cannot get behind a non aggression principle. I believe that it can be applied in a society of Rightful Liberty, but until those who would bring tyranny are pushed back, it simply does not work.
I would urge people to stand up, not with violence unless in self defense, but stand up and push back at any and all of the madness that you come into contact with day to day.
- This topic was modified 4 months, 2 weeks ago by Max.
November 15, 2019 at 11:10 pm #128073AnonymousInactive
Worth noting that the Non-Aggression Principle was in part a countermeasure to government surveillance – the FBI was actively monitoring the various political groups of the 60s and 70s and the Libertarian Party didn’t want J. Edgar Hoover breathing down their neck. It was contentious then, since some folks weren’t ready to swear off direct action against the government (it was much more radical when it was founded), it’s still somewhat contentious today among more anarchist elements.
For me it’s basically I don’t fuck with anyone who doesn’t fuck with me, but if someone starts a fight I intend to finish it. It is not a pacifist pledge, at best it’s a no first strike policy, what constitutes a first strike is open to debate.
Regarding the SJW crowd, I live in liberal area and the most extreme of it is still mostly in the very most progressive parts of blue states, especially college campuses, to an extent it’s exaggerated by the media the same way the media exaggerates the threat posed by Trump supporters, most Trumpers aren’t joining their local militia to kill Democrats over impeachment proceedings despite what the media says. Not that there aren’t toxic authoritarian leftists, of course there are and they need to be challenged (fuck the tankies), but remember there are folks on both sides who have incentive to get folks riled up, just be mindful and don’t get played by the power elites. Not to Max specifically, but in general.
Really the broader issue is this mindset that people should be able to regulate the thoughts and actions of others. A few decades ago it would have been the authoritarian moralism of the Christians conservatives, now it’s that of the irreligious progressives. I think the core value is this – aggression is not simply offense taken or an mere ability to commit violence (I feel like I could phrase that better), it is direct, physical harm to your person or property.
November 18, 2019 at 12:40 pm #128359DiznNCParticipant
Methinks we see the same results here but have slightly different takes on the causes of things.
I was raised by strict christian-conservative parents, so I know of where I speak, when I say I don’t agree with a lot of their agenda. But. If you want to take a look at their overall impact on our society and culture, it was a lot more positive than the radical left. So equivocating the influence of the radical right with the radical left is a bit of a stretch for me; even though there’s enough truth in there to make a case, at least the conservatives were trying to “conserve”, while the radicals were trying to tear everything down. So I guess it comes down to whether you whether you truly believe the founding of this country, warts n all, was nothing short of miraculous, or key on all the flaws and tear it down because it wasn’t perfect, or all-inclusive.
Be that as it may. What remains today is a highly dis-functional government, a highly fractured society, and a very uncertain future. Whatever your definition of aggression, or what we in the mil would call ROE’s (Rules of Engagement), you need to be ready to “repel all boarders”, when and if necessary.
When you talk in terms of which group is trying to influence you, like nobody has that right at all, you get to the root of a lot of folks today, who think NO ONE has the right to do so. Well, that comes very close to the “lone sniper” meme we have been cussing and discussing here for so long. If you take that tract, all well and good, until the flying monkeys show up. Then you are pretty much fucked.
To borrow from the leftists, it does “take a village”, but a better use of said village is to join together for the common good, which in our case means for self defense. To gain all the benefits of the community, you have to accept some curbs to your freedom. That’s the trade-off. You abide by the rules and regulations of society, in return for the security of the group. Now this kind of “social compact” has taken many forms over the years, depending on what core concepts it was based on, and how well they worked to defend against threats at the time.
I think what most are describing here, which would include myself, and Max, as well, although obviously he can speak for himself, is something along northern European lines, like the Nordic or Germanic tribes. Since this is our heritage and what makes most sense for us. Here you have a clan or group, with some kind of tie that binds them together, either blood, or kinship, which in a broader context means folks of like-minded beliefs. They take an oath to literally stand and die for each other. So you have brothers who quite literally have your back. But in return you must accept the authority of the group. As long as your core beliefs are aligned, this should be no problem. However, when things get as crazy as today, it is a serious problem. So I can understand the anarchist tendencies in reaction to this current clown show. However, I would submit that at some point you have to find your clan, whatever that may be, in order to survive.
This where we define rightful liberty, as what we can all agree on and live with, to ensure our survival as a society and culture. When it doesn’t make any difference, we ignore our brother’s flaws, kinks, or goofy habits. Where it has impact on the group, we call it into account, and get it fixed or banish the offender. You simply have to have this, at some point, to survive.
November 18, 2019 at 2:52 pm #128371
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.