I have been chewing on this (non?) argument off and on all afternoon.
He says (@13:21):
“If we’re libertarians, if we don’t believe that Government force should be used to suppress any kind of view, any kind of free speech, then it is incumbent upon us to speak out about views that are repugnant.”
My instincts tell me this doesn’t make any sense. I could be wrong, but here’s my thinking why:
1. The idea of ‘an obligation to speak against (other people’s) views’ is the first problem.
I appreciate the whole ‘rights and duties’ thing, which suggests that every liberty comes with associated responsibilities…but I can’t see it extending so far as to compel speech or require people to share in some collective judgments.
2. The second part is more of a question-begging bit: who, exactly, found those views repugnant, again? “We”? When did “we” make that collective decision?
He assumes that certain views are de-facto unacceptable and therefore must be ‘responded’ to … but how do we know what is unacceptable in the first place unless these ideas are shared and debated and individual decisions made about them? Repressing certain ideas at first sight seems to make that process impossible.
3. Which i suppose leads to problem 3: ‘what form of response’ is obligated?
And why is “ignoring” things you don’t agree with not just as (if not more) effective? Because dumb-ideas can only transition from ‘dumb’ to ‘dangerous’ when they are being actively spread. And nothing spreads bad ideas quite like repression. Just ask any teenager.
If the specific thing he were talking about here – “Neo-Nazism” – were in fact in genuine danger of becoming a widespread, popular political movement, I’d grant that his argument had some practical merit… but which still had nothing to do with libertarianism in particular. It would be more “Jesus Christ, we’d better stop the Nazis before they throw us all in gas chambers”.
But it seems to me that he’s suggesting that a mere-assembly of a few-dozen racist yokels every now and then (if that) actually DOES merit thousands of liberty-minded people descending on them to silence them, because ‘repugnant’ speech must not be allowed to go unchecked.
Basically, I find that argument monumentally stupid on the face of it. But I’m interested in hearing different takes from the wise and thoughtful Gliberati. Hence, I thought I’d post the question rather than just comment.
More episodes may follow, depending on gibberish-levels.
Comments
330 responses to “Deconstructing Nick Sarwark’s Gibberish: Episode 1”
I believe GoodThink is in full force now globally.
*digs adjacent room to bunker*
We joke about this shit, but I am flabbergasted how many people took 1984 and Brave New World as “How To” manuals instead of warnings of the works of tyranny.
You have to joke about it otherwise you will give in to fear and dread. That’s when shit goes south. I’m going to keep doing what I think is right.
Get a load of Roberto Benigni over here.
Speaking of Benigni, Night on Earth is on TCM overnight at 3:45 AM. (I haven’t checked to see if Canada gets something else.)
I had to check to see if Canada even had cable TV.
I love everyone!
Don’t lose your sizzle, baby!
Bacon will bring us out of these dark times.
*angels sing*
Useful idiots always think they’re going to be Stalin not Trotsky.
it is incumbent upon us to speak out about views that are repugnant
thousands of liberty-minded people descending on them to silence them
It strikes me that the second is not equal to the first.
It isn’t, unless you’re antifa/SJW.
Does Sarwark actually advocate the Heckler’s Veto? I did not watch the video.
True.
Which is what #3 pointed out.
The whole “us” collective should be repugnant to any honest libertarian leaning individual…
So we should all burn this dude in effigy!
That man has a very punchable face.
That aside, I think his argument is that certain ideas have no place in a civil society, and if we as libertarians don’t want the government to combat those ideas, then it is incumbent upon us to do so. Which makes sense, as long as you don’t think very hard. You can see the same sentiment, although directed at the left, from helicopter Twitter. Granted throwing people out of rotary wing aircraft at high altitudes is a touch more severe than just calling out bad ideas, but the general sentiment of “certain ideas are so corrosive to libertarianism that they warrant bypassing the principles of libertarianism to defend the remaining parts of libertarianism” is the same. A difference of degree, rather than kind.
The problem is nobody defines what “civil society” really means. I suspect most people want it to be a form of groupthink, which means ostracizing people who don’t hold the same views or values. But that doesn’t sound civil to me. One could simply stay away as best as one can from people they don’t like, but for far too many people this means “tolerating” people and ideas they abhor and they don’t want such tolerance. In my mind, such intolerance is the exact opposite of civil behavior.
All ideas have a place in civil society; you can’t have a civil society if ANY ideas are suppressed. Actions are another matter entirely; compulsory activities have no place in a civil society.
Consider three items:
A) We serve white customers only.
B) All blacks entering will be shot on site.
C) We persecute and prosecute anyone who won’t serve a black customer.
I assume we all agree B is not civil. The problem is too many think C is civil. Yet A is the only one that is non-coercive.
Well that’s good that they’re doing the shooting on site instead of outsourcing it to some Indian firm!
… Ok, I’m done being a pedantic ass for the day.
If they did it off-site, how would it serve as a warning to others?
Instagram?
Fair enough. Point taken.
Shooting someone off-site makes the trespassing argument much harder to make?
I actually tossed around the idea of which spelling I should use before posting that.
You can see the same sentiment, although directed at the left, from helicopter Twitter. Granted throwing people out of rotary wing aircraft at high altitudes is a touch more severe than just calling out bad ideas, but the general sentiment of “certain ideas are so corrosive to libertarianism that they warrant bypassing the principles of libertarianism to defend the remaining parts of libertarianism” is the same.
i think you might be missing one pretty important distinction. The helicopter references are jokes. No one is seriously suggesting we throw leftists out of helicopters. Certainly no libertarians.
Some of the people are joking about helicopters, a la woodchippers. Others just have bloody issues. Some people like Kurt Schlichter have effectively abandoned all their principles and sense of decency and replaced it with an unbridled and irrational hatred of the left.
(Which he should be partially ashamed about because he’s a former colonel and this is embarrassing behaviour for an ex-officer)
I, on the other hand, have a very rational hatred of the left.
If one hates their enemies to the point where it becomes the core of their being, your enemies will never die because they will always be your reason for existence.
(Huh, I’m getting to use Nietzsche a lot today)
Do you have that calendar, too?
I can’t read references to Nietzsche without thinking of Otto from A Fish Called Wanda.
Anyway, it’s a fair point, but as my hate for them is fairly passive. It’s spurred by a desire to be left alone, which is something they won’t do. Leave me alone and I won’t give two shits about you and your crackpot political philosophies.
I was more referring to the Schlichter-brand of hatred than a more ‘just fuck off and leave me alone’ attitude.
Some people like Kurt Schlichter…
But, I’ve never known Kurt Schlichter to be a libertarian. And I think that, for every guy like him, you’ll find 50 people who are using it as dark humor. There’s always going to be lunatics about. You don’t base policy or outlooks on them. And you don’t put them in charge of the Libertarian Party. 😀
What makes a society civil? its active repression of de facto “bad”-ideas?
and how do you know what’s de facto “bad” in the first place? (see #2) Because you were told, or because you made the judgement yourself?
*these are rhetorical; you make the same point yourself, better.
Because I like answering rhetorical questions, I would say that in most of the cases that it is invoked, “civil society” is purposefully undefined. It is a stand in for the speakers preferred and idealized society, and expects that t the audience will substitute the phrase with their own version. There are various formal definitions, but even those are vague and sometimes contradictory to each other. The point, from a rhetorical perspective, is to pull some sleight of hand, to make it seem as if the speaker and listener share values while never staying what those values might be. The confusion of trying to define what civil society actually means is the point of it’s usage, not a detriment. It’s become another political weasel word(phrase?).
Mission update: dropped off the vehicles in Sarasota. It’s an rv storage place with big covered tents. If this takes a direct hit my hopes are not high, but it’s better than nothing. It’s out of the storm surge zone at least. Since I’ll be flying out tomorrow and flying with a handgun is problematic in the best conditions, I am now disarmed again. I just hope well have something to come back to.
The mission is basically complete at this point. We just have to make it to Tampa and get on the plane
Assuming the flight is not cancelled i will be home tomorrow night.
Good to hear!
Glad to here it. Which swamp did you throw your drop gun in?
Hear it. Stupid brain.
So not making enemies then?
here (plural heres) (obsolete)
An army, host.
A hostile force.
(Anglo-Saxon) An invading army, either that of the enemy, or the national troops serving abroad. Compare fyrd.
An enemy, individual enemy.
I was expecting this html fail when typing up the brief guide earlier… It would have been more apt.
Left it in the Durango. Hopefully the manager at the storage place doesn’t find it.
Just hit traffic at sarasota. Hopefully a temporary condition.
My SIL drove up ftom ft lauderdale to orlando yesterday. 10 hours.
Just saw on the news. Sarasota is mandatory evacuation at 2 pm.
“mandatory”
Good luck, V.
You’ll make it. Good job
Of course being a Real Libertarian ™ you have a variety of other arms stashed in safe deposit boxes around the world, like Jason Bourne.
Gilmore, you may be way off base with regards to foreign policy, but you make a good criticism here. Nice article. Hopefully you will do another along the same topic.
I’m putting this here because my comment was on the bottom of 550+ comments in the morning links.
Did you guys and gals see Lauren Southern’s takedown of the TOS?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2Q87dI0H5s
I would love to see a debate between Reason staff members and Southern and Molyneux.
Q also brought up the prospect of a cat fight between ENB and Southern. Perhaps if we set up a donation for a sex worker charity ENB will agree to participate?
“cat fight between ENB and Southern”
That would be a close one. I’d give ENB the edge
I’d pay big money to see ENB and Southern go at it.
I’d like to see ENB kick Southern’s ass, however, Southern has had some quasi-military experience playing Gonzo Journalisms against Antifa and in Pirates of The Mediterranean. She’s also taller.
Advantage, Southern.
Molyneux? Does anyone listen to that opportunistic shapeshifting dimtwit anymore? And if so, why?
“I’d like to see ENB kick Southern’s ass”
I’d prefer if they both lost. Definitely not a fan of ENB and not a huge fan of Southern’s.
Also, I’m not sure if Southern would have the edge. In those videos that she does of antifa and the sort, she’s never gotten into a fight. In one there was some some antifa girl that was specifically trying to goad her into fighting and Southern demurred.
I’d say it’s 55/45 ENB, simply because she seems spunky
Unless her husband has been teaching her Muay Thai, I’d put all my money on Southern. ENB has the build of an anorexic addicted to heroin. I doubt she could lift a packed suitcase without going into heart failure, much less win in a fist fight.
“Unless her husband has been teaching her Muay Thai”
‘Racist, much?’
-Nick Sarwark
Hey, my wife taught me some Muay Thai! Crocodile kicks to be exact.
I’m just telling you that Nick Sarwark thinks you’re ‘Literally Tom Woods’ because of your statement.
Southern famously had piss poured on her while covering a protest in Vancouver. ENB should pull the ‘golden shower’ induced traumatic memory move.
You’re making me want to root for Southern.
That’s a Friday night for ENB.
But to be fair her husband’s Muay Thai style consists of throwing a punch and a kick that don’t connect and then running off as soon as his opponent raises his fist.
Both of ’em put together don’t add up to thicc
To be fair to Southern, 22 year olds generally don’t have a great grasp of intellectual consistency.
But, neither does ENB, so what’s her excuse?
Hers? Cultural leftism clouds the brain to the point where it functions like a 22 year old. IOW, a wash.
They are both intellectually deficient in their own unique ways. That is why I’m in on the idea of them beating each other to a pulp for our enjoyment
She’s a hack that has the typical solipsistic narcissism of ‘millennials’?
I’ll put my money on Southern – she’ll fight dirty.
Have you seen ENB lately? She’s ninety pounds soaking wet and has the age disadvantage. Southern’s at least got some meat on her bones.
I would hit that.
She whooped dat azz. So hawt. I’ll be in my bunk.
“cat fight between ENB and Southern”
Also, is there even any bad blood between the two of them? I think it would be easier to organize a fight between Julie Borowski and Cathy Reisenwitz, who it would appear genuinely dislike each other at this point
File under: Be careful what you ask for!
Seriously though, great write-up Gilmore. Look forward to seeing more from you.
Gilmore, you may be way off with regards to foreign policy, but you make a fair criticism here. Good piece. I hope you’ll have a follow-up article around the same topic
you, sir, are playing with matches in a fireworks factory
Do it Gilmore, write the realist foreign policy article already.
i have tried. it gets very long very quickly. you’ve seen the comment-threads. they are interminable.
It’s just you and I. There is no “us”.
(deep romantic kiss)
Nacht der langen Messer
Heute Nacht?!
*arms self*
Everyone wants to be a civil rights hero now. You can’t claim to be “so brave” by ignoring idiots.
I think you hit the nail on the head there Gilmore. This as well as Sarwak’s previous statements as well as what happened with TOS got me wondering, how did all these libertarian institutions get taken over by a bunch of virtue signaling closet lefties? I might actually go to a Libertarian Party meeting or convention just so I can meet the so called libertarians that support these people. I’ve always rolled my eyes when people bring up the Kochtopus but are the KocK’s trying to use Reason and the Libertarian Party to virtue signal because they are tired of being hated by the left?
I think the Koch Brothers have probably always had some leftist positions, but it comes as a surprise because they’ve been painted as these extreme-right plutocrats who are only concerned with their own wealth.
Seems like the Kochs have self-esteem issues.
Small kochs?
*narrows gaze, and slow claps at the same time*
Someone with a tinfoil hat would almost say it’s intentional to paint the Kochs as right wing conservative in order for them to submarine actual conservatism/libertarianism.
It wouldn’t be the first time someone mentioned that I look like Arthur the Aardvark.
I believe there is a moral obligation to speak out against ideas you find to be evil. However, the issue at hand is one of conflation. The left has successfully conflated the truly “repugnant” ideas of actual racists with everything else that the left objects to, and most of the political right (as well as the LP) has stood by quietly and allowed them to do so.
It’s a triumph of ‘guilt by association’ and ‘well poisoning’ over logical thought.
“Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong. All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them. The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant, in this field as in all others. His culture is based on “I am not too sure.”
― H.L. Mencken
“It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning , witchcraft and sacerdotalism.”
H. L. Mencken
I notice he ignores the cases where the abandonment of morality led to the same sorts of cultural devastation. He sounds as though he has allowed his own certainty to blind him.
How so? Basically Mencken made the same argument as Gibbons, particularly the role Christianity had in hastening the fall of the Roman Empire.
Odd, because the Roman Empire spent more time as a Christian State (330-1453) than it Did a Pagan one (509bc-330ad). The rot that caused the loss of the western half predated Constantine by a while. Though if you included the Kingdom of Rome from it’s founding onto the Republican era, you’d have an almost even split. If we wanted to split hairs and go strictly Empire… well I don’t think that was implied.
So was the argument that a Pagan Rome would have held off the Ottomans, or that it would not have lost the western half as quickly?
If I remember correctly, Gibbons argued that Christianity contributed to the fall of Rome in that the undercurrent of pacifism inherent in Christianity weakened the classical Pagan martial spirit, and that a focus on an afterlife and salvation lead to a decreased interest in the present. Gibbons does talk about Islam, but I don’t remember the thrust of his arguments.
Makes it hard to discuss, as I never read it.
Here, if you’re ever snowed in a cabin in remote Alaska and have nothing else to do for 3 months.
Gibbons’ views are somewhat controversial now in the historical field, but I’d argue there is a point to his views on Christianity. Specifically, state mandated profession of Christianity for government positions robbed the empire of a great deal of qualified personnel. Particularly in the field of generalship, where many of the best officers articulated pagan views rather than Christian (as HM notes, Christianity is not exactly a warrior philosophy).
To me that’s still minutiae. The empire collapsed, like every other one, economically; essentially because the taxes were too high. Requiring professed Christianity is just another regulatory penaltax – too much is made of Christianity in particular rather than the regulation in general.
You act as if the fall of an Empire is a bad thing and therefore, Christianity is inherently flawed because it hastened the decline of a state ruled by one man and engaged in constant wars of conquest and subjugation.
“You” me? or “You” Mencken/Gibbons?
Mencken and Gibbons. I suppose I should have used the pronoun ‘they’ or ‘he’
Also, the time in which Gibbons wrote his book should be taken into consideration with regards to his criticisms of Christianity’s decline in hastening the fall of Rome. If the book had been written in the 19th Century, I doubt the same conclusion would have been reached
I didn’t read Heroic Mulatto’s post that way at all.
That’s true. Gibbons was writing smack-dab in the middle of the Age of Reason.
I dislike the historical concept of a ‘Dark Age’ because it’s inaccurate and people get the wrong sorts of ideas about it, but the death of classical urbanism and its replacement with localized ruralism definitely had extreme negatives. Sure, we made a lot more labour saving innovations, but there were a hell of a lot less Galens and Eratosthenes.
Unless you have specific instances you’re thinking of, most of the cases of devastation are usually done under the guise of morality.
Of course, I’m not sold on the idea of culture as being sacrosanct. Whenever I hear some nitwit legislator bemoan “the coarsening of the culture” my first reaction is “the culture coarsens whenever a law is passed.”
^THIS^
Immorality is as much a central tenant of belief as morality. Which some people refuse to recognize
“I know one thing; that I know nothing” –
SocratesH. L. MenckenAlchemy? Maybe as the astrological and esoteric was baked in the alchemical cake, but it was the forerunner to chemistry.
As much as I like Mencken, that statement taken to its logical extreme is relativist and a recipe for disaster. Are we not to defend the individual against the mob? The rights of freedom of thought and speech? The right to own ourselves?
I understand what Mencken was arguing against in this case, but some principles are worth defending.
You say moral relativism is a recipe for disaster, and Mencken says moral certainty is a recipe for disaster. Maybe disaster is baked into the cake and morality has nothing to do with it beyond convenience.
Mencken is fairly wrong in his history there. He seems to believe that the Medieval ages were ruled by some religious zealots that kept humanity in darkness, which is an idea that has been thoroughly debunked. I like Mencken, but he let his atheism become his own zealous crusade.
There’s a huge space between the moral certainty that Mencken was speaking of and moral relativism. One of the attractions of libertarianism for me was the distillation (or at least the attempt) of moral precepts into just a few principles with the NAP at the top. It still allows for quite a bit of relativism, which is simultaneously the strength and weakness of the libertarian political movement.
Because it’s Mencken, I’d argue it’s more a Nietzschean thing, i.e. “your truth exists until you discover evidence to the contrary, in which case your past truth is abandoned for a new truth”. Inherently promotes a mindset of some degree of uncertainty.
Also, there needs to be an understanding that not every idea thought up by a racist, slave-holder, or alleged “anti-Semite” is a bad idea. Bad ideas don’t invalidate good ideas if they actually have merit. You see this primarily on the left but also on the neocon right (which is a warmongering variant of leftism, I might add).
You know who invented the inflatable sex doll?
A married guy?
There is no obligation to speak out against repugnant speech. So questions 2 and 3 are moot.
There is only one effective, non-coercive solution to repugnant speech. That is shunning. Just turn and walk away.
They train police to empty their whole magazine into the perp. I had a similar upbringing.
A case can be made for the proposition that an able bodied bystander has an obligation to step in in defense of a helpless victim of violent assault.
What that has to do with a mob shouting down a speaker of unpopular ideas, I cannot say.
Moral obligations should not be legal. Maximum punishment should be shunning and maybe derisively pointing the individual out to children as a lesson of what not to do.
Wasn’t this the plot of the last episode of Seinfeld?
It may not be imperative to speak out against repugnant views that are a definite minority position, because castigating them would only provide them exposure, but to hold such views is also contradictory to espousing individual liberty. Ergo, all identity politics (white nationalist and the benign progressive type) are antithetical to individualism. Which certain people at Reason don’t accept. Some of the commentators believe that you can play identity politics, if it is the socially accepted type of identity politics, when, in fact, it all derives from the same statist mentality of viewing people as representatives of some amorphous group defined by inconsequential characteristics, rather than unique and different individuals.
“Which certain people at Reason don’t accept”
I meant “which certain people in the Libertarian Party don’t accept”.
There’s a benign progressive type of identity politics?
In comparison, I don’t find the Left’s identity politics as offensive as white nationalism
They’re both identity politics. They just have differing systems for determining which identity should be in charge.
I’m don’t see “white people are the problem and we’ll breed/immigrate them out of existence” as all that different from “non-white people are the problem and we’ll breed/emigrate them out of existence”, personally.
There are different brands of “left-wing identity politics”, though.
Eh, people take individualism too far. It’s true that individuals are the only ultimate moral objects, but that doesn’t that institutions and communities don’t play a critical role in maximizing the well-being of individuals. Wishing away the tribalism inherent in human nature is just as naive and destructive as New Soviet Man thinking; the best you can do is leverage it to do good, same as capitalism does for self-interest.
At any rate, it seems like the sharpest sincere divides are on the basis of culture and politics, and those characteristics are very consequential.
First off, who is “us”? Who determines repugnance? How does a libertarian believe that a group can carry a collective moral obligation? Why does not believing the government should suppress speech imply that we have a moral obligation of any kind whatsoever?
None of what he said makes any goddamned sense if you scratch off the virtue-signalling.
Moral obligations should not be legal.
That’s the problem. Not only do our “progressive” friends want to legislate morality, they want to define it in such a way that “hurtful words” are the same as physical violence. And they, of course, will control the definition of “hurtful”.
Agreed. I was amplifying what I understood you to be saying.
If we’re libertarians, if we don’t believe that Government force should be used to suppress any kind of view, any kind of free speech
I think there is a subconscious “tell” there when he uses the “if”. I think its a wide-open question whether he is actually a libertarian, and he may have similar doubts, subconsciously. Why not say “Because we are libertarians, we don’t believe that Government force should be used to suppress any kind of view, any kind of free speech, . . . “
Good observation
The distance from “incumbent to speak out against repugnant views” to “obligation to silence repugnant views” is not very far, IMO. I fail to see how what he said is very different from saying that libertarians have no principled objection to antifa, as a non-governmental organization, can silence repugnant views, and in fact a libertarian who adopted antifa tactics could merely say that by protesting they are “speaking out” against “repugnant views.”
The establishment libertarians seem determined to be the left’s useful idiots.
The establishment
libertariansseem determined to be the left’s useful idiots.Get dat tenured academic gig!
Sounds to close to taking a principled stand on an issue; something that takes a backbone and an ideology based on axioms rather than feelings.
I think there is a subconscious “tell” there when he uses the “if”
I don’t know how or why it happened exactly, but at some point the libertarian political establishment, from the LP to Reason to Cato, replaced genuinely espousing libertarianism with concern trolling libertarians.
The problem is that substituting “if” with “because” still makes it sound like he’s arguing that ideas should be repressed. Which I still can’t get behind. Shitty ideas that hardly anyone is board with as it is – white supremacy – will wither and die without anybody needing to do a goddamned thing to stop them.
I’d much rather a libertarian spend his time arguing against all the shitty ideas that are gaining traction – like all the socialist ideas being spewed by far too many Dems and Reps. Wasting time shouting down a few dozen fringe white supremacists means precious hours wasted not shouting down goddamned socialists and plays right into the hands of a group that is a much larger threat to libertarianism than white supremacists. Reason/CATO/Koch should have been above the leftist tactic of lumping them in with white supremacists but they took the bait and continue taking and it will be their demise. All of us here recognized it and warned them.
LP leadership, and the pres. candidate, really need to be very good at changing any question or topic into a statement that is very big picture. linking how the parties say the opposites about _____ but really don’t have a difference on solutions to the problem of ____. they need to not pick small fights, but keep the picture there.
then they need to focus on some state seats that might actually be winnable.
Shitty ideas that hardly anyone is board with as it is – white supremacy – will wither and die without anybody needing to do a goddamned thing to stop them.
White supremacy has already withered, but I doubt it will die, regardless of how many times it is denounced. Ideas, even bad ones, are stubborn things, and it is rare for an idea to truly die. You are right that it is a waste of time to continually attack a withered idea, especially at the expense of attacking other bad ideas that are vibrant and growing. Yet it is easier, which is why I think it is done.
+1 flat earth
You know who invented the inflatable sex doll?
Joseph Mengele?
“Made with artisanally harvested (((human))) skin!”
Where the hell is my table saw? I am sitting here, waiting for the delivery guy so none of my neighbors steals it from my porch, and I’ve been sitting for too long!
What did you get?
Low-end DeWalt
I’ve used it many times. It will work great for you. Make sure you square the fence.
No big stuff on it, though. Muy peligroso!
How big is big? I have some 7′ boards that need to be shortened to make project-length pieces. I’m unlikely to try to rip them at full length, just because of space constraints, so I was going to cut (close to) length then square up.
Sure, that’s fine. Just don’t try to rip full sheets on it. If you do rip them long just make sure you have outfeed support.
Since we’re helping you spend money, do you have a miter saw?
Nope.
My collection of power tools:
One Drill Press.
One Recipricating saw (Handheld)
One Cordless Drill (Broken)
One Dremel (missing)
The aforementioned table saw (if it arrives)
(I don’t own any non-powered saws.)
OK. You need (NEED!) a good miter saw. I like the sliders for versatility. I have a big 12″ but use the 10″way more often (it’s lighter). Other than my drill/drivers, it’s the woodworking tool I use the most.
Usual suspects: Bosch, Makita, DeWalt, etc. It will last you forever.
Okay, I’ll pencil it in on the list – but I’ve blown my current budget and I still need to get clamps.
Here.
Also check CL.
Thanks.
You can’t have too many clamps.
First jig to make for your table saw is a cross cut sled. perfect 90’s all the time, nice to work with smaller pieces.
cross cut sled
Things you are going to need sooner or later if you continue working with wood:
Roller stands — how else are you going to run a 7 foot board through a table saw, planar, etc
Clamps — lots of fucking clamps
Sanders — several of them
Planar, joiner, bigger table saw — price will drive you towards finding rough stock instead of surfaced-4-sides
Miter saw
Then get really good at hand cutting mortices and tennons or buy a mortising machine and a tenon jig for the table saw.
etc, etc, etc.
I hope you don’t have any other hobbies already 😉
I do not have the room to go that crazy.
To be clear, my objective is to be able to make basic furnature additions such as tables and freestanding shelves.
I’m working out if I can make a box out of the Cedar and the portion of the Sapele not designated as trim for the cutting board. I estimate I can make on that is 12″x9″x6″ give or take.
So big pieces of wood which have to be cut precisely and where square corners have to be square. So table saw and miter saw to start with. Then you are going to pay someone else to give you boards that are surfaced on four sides or you are going to buy equipment to turn rough planks into boards surfaced on four sides.
I’m okay with buying prefinished wood – that is most of what my current supplier has available to begin with.
*pre-surfaced
Don’t forget to put a little aside for prosthetic replacement fingers.
My post should be viewed as a warning, not a recommendation.
How much can handmade cedar chests sell for on Etsy?
as much as the market is willing to pay!
/snark
a lot, though. Some woodworkers from NBSS are doing very well.
Etsy is alright but flooded with crap from all over. You would do better with edc community on facebook and instagram.
Not doing a hurricane. That’s price-gouging.
My current project:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/61/cf/96/61cf965fa62f6b7b87ef4037cb110f6f.jpg
That joint configuration didn’t even occur to me in brainstorming.
Does it have a formal name?
google japanese joinery bed frames.
no idea if it has a formal name.
If it’s Japanese, it probably does, but I’ll get it wrong.
Hand cutting them, kinnath?
No. Jigsaw to cut the slots in the horizontal rails. Then clean up with a chisel to make a snug fit. Using a mortising machine to cut the slots in the bed posts. I am three quarters done with the rough cuts, then I will use a chisel/file to make a clean, snug fit.
Cool! It might be an excuse for a set of these!
I love the Japanese pull saws and have a couple of them.
If I did a lot of wood-working and was adept with the tools, I would try hand-cutting the joint.
But I only make something when I need it, so I use power tools with just enough skill to get done what I want done.
Me too. I do more finish carpentry than anything, but I would really like to learn more fine furniture techniques.
So many hobbies, so little time.
Post some pics when you finish!
Do you guys know about the Samurai Carpenter?
I do now. Not sure if I’m going to thank you for that. It depends on how much of my time this guy sucks up.
He basically remodels his entire house, episode by episode.
There are other cool projects too, but I really like the house additions.
I was expecting someone more… Japanese.
you will not be disappointed
Yeah, I watched the bastard build a workbench the other day.
He’s good.
If you don’t have a stone sink, you’re not a man. I’m not a man.
That sink is tiny, should have used a bigger stone.
Yep. Stainless steel.
Not a man.
I see the arms of one wooden man, beating another wooden man to death, who has his hand raised in a last-gasp effort to plead “no more”
in fact a libertarian who adopted antifa tactics could merely say that by protesting they are “speaking out” against “repugnant views.”
I wonder how our “libertarian” comrades would respond to a group of campus conservatives disrupting a intersectional race-and-gender studies symposium because the speakers espouse a repugnant philosophy based on what is little more than a thinly disguised version of blood guilt.
The LP was created to “signal” support for or opposition to various ideas and issues advanced by the GOP and Democrats. Doesn’t a political party need to take every opportunity to “virtue signal” whenever it finds its principles align with a significant portion of the voting public? It’s how the party gets agreeable voters to say, “Gee, maybe those LPers aren’t wrong about everything. I’ll check into some of their other beliefs.” Rather than Sarwark saying it from on high in D.C. (where it gets lost in the noise) , the message would better come from local LP organizations who can comment about relevant events happening in their communities. One of the biggest failures of the LP was to develop viable local organizations that engage the voters 24/7/365 instead of petitioning and running a non-campaign for an irrelevant office.
Doesn’t a political party need to take every opportunity to “virtue signal” whenever it finds its principles align with a significant portion of the voting public?
I’d prefer if they “principle signalled”. In this case, rather than lining up juuust next to, but a millimeter away from, antifa,in order to “virtue signal” on the side with minimal public support, perhaps they could “principle signal” in a way consistent with the broader public, saying they are opposed to both government interference in free speech and the heckler’s veto being exercised by antifa and its ilk.
If the LP wants to be a relevant party, they first need to focus on the cultural wave of conservatism. Sell your ideas on Breitbart or to Milo. Then they should focus on State House seats rather than in national seats. With smaller pools of voters, you can run LPers in districts where the GOP isn’t a significant entity, such as in minority-centered urban districts, or sponsor more conservative candidates that run on the GOP ticket and later switch to the LP. Then you can force GOP legislatures to make a coalition with them.
Doesn’t a political party need to take every opportunity to “virtue signal” whenever it finds its principles align with a significant portion of the voting public?
I thought about that myself, but I decided it doesn’t work. Why would a leftist leave the really big Democratic Party and join some tiny-ass party that doesn’t win anything and has economic policy views that aren’t socialist just because the tiny-ass party agrees with the big-ass party on a couple points?
Yeah that statement is very context-sensitive.
If “virtue signalling” means “visibly and consistently showing what your party stands for”, then yeah I agree entirely with it. If “virtue signalling” means “visibly and consistently throwing your party under the bus”, then not so much.
Because you wouldn’t go for leftists to recruit, but rather conservative GOPers. I think many of them would love to enshrine the Freedom Caucus as their own, unique movement separate from the GOPe.
Take a break from the highbrow philosophizin’
Thanks, Brooks. The Benny Hill cameo is great!
I was told as a child: “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me”.
How is that so difficult to grasp?
There is also the argument as to the degree in which certain ideas have traction in society as a whole, which you touch on. The views that Sarwick sees as repugnant enough to warrant a constant focus and attack on are only held, if we judge by the protest that likely started this whole affair, a couple hundred people in person and maybe a couple thousand on various part of the internet (many of whom are not even Americans). But does Sarwick focus on and go after the position that, say, people exercising freedom of speech should be responded to with threats of violence? How about the growing view in society in general that freedom of speech is not a good thing and should be restricted? Are these not repugnant views that overwhelmingly have more adherents in general civil society, and the state itself, and as such by his logic would be ideas that should take priority if one is ‘obligated’ to go after unacceptable views?
Yet for some reason, Sarwick inherently focuses on the ideals that are not just an extreme minority in civil society, but ideals that are overwhelmingly rejected by the vast majority of it. While the ideas that actually have traction within a larger percentage of the populace are allowed to continue and propagate without anywhere near the same disdain. I wonder why.
Look Sarwark is a garbage spokesman all around. The LP has become worse on individual rights in many ways over the past few years, making Ted Cruz look like John Locke reincarnate in comparison. In other ways, he has adopted the terminology and mindset of the Left by practicing their own insidious brand of identity politics. Meanwhile, he has led a purge against spokesman who are more popular and influential than himself.
He is the culmination of the unending butt hurt cosmotarians have had ever since Ron Paul overshadowed them and his son became a senator. If Rand Paul were to be the Republican nominee for president (God willing he will primary Trump), you would see the end of the Libertarian Party, as the cosmos would refuse to allow their party to simply endorse Paul’s nomination which would forever alienate more than half of their base of supporters.
What is the Pauls’ great sin, though? Being against abortion?
That and he probably isn’t that into forcing private businesses into transactions against their will.
Christfag, against abortion, the newsletter that cosmos never want to be associated with ever, etc.
“the newsletter that cosmos never want to be associated with ever”
Except they are fine with Jeffrey Tucker now, even though it is alleged that he was the author along with Rockwell.
That’s too deep into the story for most to care. If the general public has any knowledge of it they view it as Paul’s fault.
Koch v. Rothbard- the unending feud of stupid.
Ron Paul was the LP nominee specifically to refute the ‘low tax liberal’ campaign of David Koch, which occurred four years prior. Rothbard was instrumental in maneuvering Paul into the nomination. This was followed by Rothbard leaving CATO (founded by the Kochs) and founding the Mises Institute (with the blessing of Mises’ widow). Then, of course, Rothbard testified against the Koch brothers in a lawsuit against them, regarding ownership of the CATO Institute. And that is just the beginning of the unending feud.
the stupidest part is there are bigger fish to fry.
“we’re 20 trillion in debt and the executive branch is now the heavy lifter because congress shirked their duties” should be the fucking LP slogan.
I like it, and I don’t think you need anything after the word debt.
If I was a libertarian running for office, I might precede every one of my tweets with “The national debt is now: $X”, updated for each tweet.
“Delenda est Carthago” for a new generation! Of course Cato the Elder ended his speeches with that little bon mot but the comparison is rock solid.
We are lucky that we are not in a Russian Revolution type situation or this kind of petty infighting would lead to us all being dead or imprisoned.
Meh, Somehow Nicholas Sarwark just fails to inspire the sort of abject terror Stalin did.
Sarwark (and the Kocks) is a Menshevik or White, not Stalin, in this loose analogy.
Kochs*
Am I the only guy who Nick Sarwark reminds of Mr. Thompson in Atlas Shrugged? Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but that statement pretty much screams to me “If you don’t want the government to suppress bad speech, then you need to suppress it yourselves.”. The implication being that speech does need to be suppressed. And this demand is coming from a non-entity whose entire career seems to have been in various party functionary roles in different states.
That was my hot take exactly. I wasn’t aware that the alternative to government doing something immoral was to do it on your own. I can’t help but feel that there’s a third alternative Nick has failed to explore.
And besides, if the LP has to go around loudly proclaiming that they find Nazism and white supremacy to be repugnant, Nick needs to ask himself what he could do to improve the LP’s branding.
“If we’re libertarians, if we don’t believe that Government force should be used to suppress any kind of view, any kind of free speech, then it is incumbent upon us to speak out about views that are repugnant.”
This sounds dangerously close to “If A, then Purple.” A non sequitur.
How about, “If we don’t believe the government should be used to suppress any kind if view, we should vigorously oppose any attempt to do so.”
*footnote:
i wrote this about a week ago. and my inspiration for the subject has since waned. I never even finished his interview. it was a tedious shitshow.
re: RC Dean
yeah, that was definitely my gut reaction. There was something about the underlying premise of his arguments which bugged me. You touched on it with his “IF we’re libertarians…. THEN….” formulation, which implied the whole “rights/duties” relationship.
e.g. “IF we allow free speech…. THEN, we must….”
it implies that freedom of expression has no inherent value, but is merely something we permit conditionally
Good thought on the if/then nature of the statement making it sound like the right at issue is conditional.
Ideological purges are either entertaining or boring; I can’t decide which.
Nick Sarwark is a needle-nosed, holier-than-thou twat who’s trying to make a name for himself by using inane arguments against individuals who have done more meaningful things for libertarianism than he could ever dream of doing. Jason Stapleton, who’s a smart guy but not a particularly deep thinker, dismantled him pretty effectively on his podcast last month.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqhnkzp5lN4
Sarwark is a living and breathing embodiment of why the Libertarian Party is (and will be) a disaster.
The LP has been a dumpster fire since Bob Barr.
Stan Jones would like a word 😉
LP 2008: Let’s put up a former Republican (again) who kinda sorta is opposed to the Iraq War, I guess, sometime
LP 2012: You thought ’08 was bad? Oh, it will get shittier
LP 2016: Fuck it, we’re putting a Rockefeller Republican drug war fanatic on the ticket because….uhhhhh….fundraising, or something.
LP 2020: Is anyone still there? Hello?
I’m fairly sure yokels can be libertarians if they also don’t want to use the state to infringe on others.
Pretending there is some right answer for topics that libertarianism can’t really answer is wrong. The LP leadership can have some platforms, like abortion, and libertarians can be split on it.
They call free speech defenders nazis, what the fuck difference will it make when they come for through and through libertarians? how far on the right axis of the political compass can we go before it’s too much? LP leadership clearly doesn’t mind not being very far down it, they seem to be ok with (some) executive powers and pretty non extreme on monetary controls and (some) welfare.
Throwing libertarians who are actively reaching new people under the bus for word choices or some sort of minor ‘wrongthought’ is repugnant.
If we’re libertarians, if we don’t believe that Government force should be used to suppress any kind of view, any kind of free speech, then it is incumbent upon us to speak out about views that are repugnant.
This is absolute fucking bullshit, at least as a matter of principle. Believing the government doesn’t have a right to suppress views doesn’t impose any obligation on you whatsoever, except for not demanding the government suppress views you find repugnant. That’s it. Period. Full stop. No buts, ifs, ands or ors about it.
Wildly OT:
You Should Always Put A Quarter On A Frozen Cup Of Water Before A Hurricane
This actually makes a lot of sense.
Contents of my freezer: Booze.
I don’t need it to be frozen, in fact, it’s there because it stays liquid at freezer temps…
Plus the up shot that, per oz, you’re getting slightly more ethanol (0.8 g/cm^3 at 0C vs 0.78 g/cm^3 at 22C)
Then again when I’m drinking at home I’m already heavy-handed
And if the quarter is completely gone, it means your house was looted.
thanks to whomever added the sarwark-smarm-face pics. the captions made me laugh.
The part of me that used to think the capital-l Libertarians (and the editors at the other site…) were reasonable people is saying, “I’m sure he just means that individuals who find neo-Nazism repugnant and damaging to a free society should be willing to have a dialogue with those who exhibit those beliefs rather than expecting the government to intervene, because culture should evolve through free association rather than through legal mandates.”
The rest of me has seen these people’s track records and knows perfectly well that this is not what he means.
I’m not usually a fan of the “part of me thinks” construct, but I have to admit it’s particularly apt for someone with an alien brain slug.
Also, ignoring Sarwick and focusing on TOS, anyone find it really hilarious/stupid that the people who had to deal with the “OMG REASON PUBLISHED HOLOCAUST DENIERS” articles (to the point where it’s one of the major hits on google search) now has the balls to go around accusing other parts of the libertarian subset of anti-Semitism or pro-Nazism? You’re playing with fire retards.
Everyone can be tarnished for guilt by association. This is what Reason writers refuse to believe
The man’s last name is Sarwark.
It’s how you spell it in Canadianese.
Yep, and it seems pretty stupid to label quasi-libertarians as unpersons for long term recruitment. super statists aren’t going to jump straight into the LP. It might take someone in the middle, who has some bad ideas about_____. It’s on more libertarians to convince them further down the path. Ron Paul got me to read TOS, Friedman and Hayek. I never read the fucking newsletters, I saw youtube clips where he spoke about ideals and showed how simplistic the arguments from the big parties were, how small of an area they were arguing over. I didn’t agree with everything.
The LP is building a wall, as funny as that is.
^^ poster child for next gen libertarianism.
Well said, Doom.
Thanks, Tundra.
Here’s the thing that bothers me, in particular. While they’re building walls to keep out any but the most pure potential members on one side of the aisle, they’re throwing away libertarian principle to attract supporters on the other.
this is a good point.
the idea that “3/4” libertarians are your worst enemy, as though they’re going to infect the 100%ers with their 25% bad-ideas…. seems to me to be pretty stupid.
it both assumes your own core argument is so fragile that any infection will damage it….
and also seems to have a cynical view of human nature, as though the same people who are capable of understanding at least some of the ‘good parts’ of libertarian ideas are somehow incapable of grasping them all because they’ve dared to deviate on ‘the right response’ to some touchy-subject.
e.g. #3, above = “the appropriate response to fake-nazis”
one person demands they be treated like a dangerous threat to civil society, the other shrugs his shoulders and goes, “some people are retards”. Is the smart thing to do to then turn on the latter person and declare them a Nazi-Lover?
exactly.
They think calling people Nazi lovers will bring in liberty loving leftists, a contradiction in terms if I’ve ever heard one. It’s just a strategy to get votes, a moronic one.
I just don’t understand the mindset that, if I don’t scream until I’m blue in the face about how much I hate Nazis, then I might as well change my name to Goebbels. I don’t subscribe to their philosophy and I ignore them. If that’s not good enough for you, then fuck off.
Every morning I get up and shout into the mirror I AM NOT A NAZI AND I REJECT NAZIISM and then I make some toast and scream into the toaster I FIND RACISM REPUGNANT and then pour my self a cup of coffee, throw it on the ground and stamp on the broken pieces yelling THE CONFEDERATES WERE TRAITORS AND LOST SO FUCK THEM
It really starts my day out right
Ah, the life of the SJW.
Sorry bub, you’re still a shitlord. Give everything you own to a POC right now or else you’re irredeemably evil.
Al Franken’s new Daily Affirmation?
To put it in Misean terms, the Kochs are “Third Way-ers”.
Shit rolls down hill. Easiest way to take the heat off yourself is to join the others. Its Lord of the Flies, LP edition
For me it’s simple (perhaps naive). Ideas and arguments are subjective forces that flutter in a market of ideas that compete with each other on a daily basis. For the most part, the best ones rise to the top while the bad ones sink into obscurity or oblivion. It’s inefficient and being the wretched flawed creatures we are, from time to time something like Nazi Germany explodes. How this phenomena happens or manifests is something that could be examined I reckon but it does take place.
I think people are applying the precautionary principle wrongly in the case of ‘neo-nazis’. The ones who are going on the offensive seem to believe it has to be ‘nipped in the bud’. This is the lesson they draw from Nazi Germany. Had people been more aware they would have reacted with the right response. But that presupposes too many factors first among which Germans weren’t aware. Moreover, it completely neglects the competing factors that led to the rise of Nazi Germany which can be traced back – arguably – to The Treaty of Versailles around 15-20 years earlier.
In other words, their not examining the conditions properly and they’re creating distorted analogies.
How this fits into how ‘we should respond’ depends on how much we perceive there is a problem and that very much depends on how accurate we are in the assessment.
In other words, cooler heads should prevail and as time passes on, in my view anyway, it will be more of an over reaction than anything. I think the best way is to just counter any erroneous assertion that are made; especially those that threaten free speech and expression.
Hope this makes sense.
it’s one problem of calling everyone a nazi for the last decade. every republican presidential candidate that I can remember in my life was labeled one.
Now it’s just generic citizens, not even those in power. It takes away any meaning to real nazis that are in fact here, however small a group it is.
It’s finally catching up to some sort of a tipping point. I don’t know what happens next.
You can’t constantly call people Nazis who clearly aren’t Nazis, no matter how distasteful their beliefs may be, without the word eventually losing its power. When the left constantly asserts that all white people are racist, all Trump voters are Nazis, all libertarians are cruel social Darwinists who use the blood of children and puppies to fuel their gas-guzzlers….then people start to not give a fuck about the accusation anymore.
What’s more, using identity politics will inevitably lead to the rise of white identity politics, which is kind of what we’re already seeing. If we are all to be reduced to our pigmentation, why should white kids who have done nothing wrong but be born pale not play that same stupid game? A kid off to college today who has never called anyone by a racial slur, has had plenty of black/brown/gay/whatever friends, still gets told that he’s an evil horrible racist person no matter what he does or what he says. If you can’t win by their rules, why the hell would you bother with those rules anymore?
all libertarians are cruel social Darwinists who use the blood of children and puppies to fuel their gas-guzzlers
I resent that implication. Everyone knows child and puppy blood gets terrible mileage. Hobo blood works much better for that. Child and puppy blood is much better saved for an aperitif.
You know who else expanded the definition of hated subgroups?
spider scientists?
Class action lawyers?
which can be traced back – arguably – to The Treaty of Versailles
It can be traced back to Bismarck/Wilhem I and the original unification of Germany (the Second Reich).
OT — Exclusive – Kobach: It Appears That Out-of-State Voters Changed the Outcome of the New Hampshire U.S. Senate Race
For years, the mainstream media has ignored the problem of voter fraud and belittled those of us who are trying to do something about it. And when secretaries of state like me identify cases of fraud, we are told that the number of incidents of voter fraud is too insignificant to matter.
Now, however, facts have come to light that indicate that a pivotal, close election was likely changed through voter fraud on November 8, 2016: New Hampshire’s U.S. Senate Seat, and perhaps also New Hampshire’s four electoral college votes in the presidential election.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/07/exclusive-kobach-out-of-state-voters-changed-outcome-new-hampshire-senate-race/
Maggie McNeill’s libertarianism:
https://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2017/09/04/the-greater-of-two-evils/
She’s not my type, but I kind of feel that I should book a session with her if she’s on tour just to reward writing like this.
new lauren
Is this another video where she just spends ten minutes talking about how pre-modern European architecture is pretty?
I don’t think so?
I’m mostly joking about how sometimes I find Southern videos to be a waste of time and really vapid. The video I’m referring to got to the point where I was thinking “yes, Jesus Christ, you did your backpack across Europe, please for the love of god don’t show me your travel videos”.
It’s also a retarded way to ‘protect Western civilization’. I mean, I think this is pretty but it doesn’t mean that I’m suddenly cool with Islam as a whole.
agreed. I’m firmly neutral on Lauren.
One of tragedies of Lauren Southern is that she is willing to fight the orthodoxy of the day and tell the Left to fuck off, but she has no philosophical backbone which makes her sound like some idiot with a twitter account. She would be more effective if she got off the internet and read some Hayek, Friedman, and other authors that advocates the increasing of liberty.
She’s not wrong in this video, though. I’m not a big Southern fan (but, definitely ‘would’ by the way), but she is just repeating what many of us have already diagnosed as the problem with the Libertarian Party, in particular, ‘beltway libertarians’, in general, and the movement, at large.
I know an acquaintance who is part of the Libertarian establishment in DC (and actually hangs out with ENB and Robby) and despite us agreeing on a lot of shit, he’s painfully unaware of how people in general have soured against the establishment and politics as usual sort of shit. In his mind, the last election was a hick up and that Hillary despite her many flaws was still a better alternative to Trump. Another mistake that people like them make is trying to bridge their efforts with the Progressives. It’s foolish because all the Left craves is power over people and once the establishment libertarians fulfills their purpose, the Left will eat them alive next.
The Libertarian Party and establishment libertarians are rotten from the top down. I have a friend who is active in the local party and the head of the chapter once remarked, after a member talked about going to an upcoming Eric July concert, that July is ‘problematic’ and told a member not to wear his Rothbard shirt again, because he represented an ‘ugly strain of libertarianism that we shouldn’t celebrate’. Its totalitarian thought police all the way down from the state leader, down to the chapters. Just because they go smoke dope after their meetings does not mean that they are defending anything remotely resembling individual liberty.
Cosmotarians need to pack-up and go back from whence they came. They lose more people than they gain
Well, for one thing, ENB was (probably still is, IMO) a lefty type. Her pre-Reason work could have been published at Jezebel without anyone batting an eye, she made the comment about how the goals of social justice are noble, and she’s spoken repeatedly on Twitter about how she came to libertarianism (if you take her word on it that she did) from the left, so she naturally feels more sympathetic to their point of view. As a writer in the DC area, her entire social circle is undoubtedly made up of leftists and liberaltarians. Her boyfriend writes for fucking Mother Jones. Even someone whose core principles were rock solid probably has some trouble staying on the straight and narrow under those circumstances, and somehow I doubt the strength of her liberty bonafides.
Whenever someone uses the term, “problematic,” I assume that they are about to say some dumb shit.
The DC bubble is real y’all. I have a couple of good friends that live in the DC area and once they started to hobnob with the think tank wonks, advocacy groups and the Hill folks, they started to develop this belief that the rubes outside of DC ought to be more deferential towards them. It’s this perverse idea that due to their education and being able to live/work in the nation’s capitol, they have a much better insight on how to run other people’s lives.
Honestly, I’m surprised that Lauren Southern is the first commentator to really go out and attack the LP and the Libertarian establishment. I remember a lot of conservative publications attacked Gary Johnson as being a pretty shitty libertarian (mainly, because they were hoping that the LP nominee would be the alternative to voting Trump). Reason, of course, responded by saying that these conservatives were ‘concern trolling’. I wouldn’t be surprised if National Review and other conservative publications started writing articles about how non-libertarian the LP and its establishment has become.
I know Shapiro has touched on it a few times. I would expect more people to pile on as time goes on unless some big changes happen.
Oh I absolutely believe that. I remember going up to DC last year for this cybersecurity conference to give a short presentation on an identity verification process that used us as a “trusted authority”. The two guys from the company who created the concept and asked us to participate were so fucking condescending towards me and my associate about us living in Richmond – “Must be awesome for you guys to get up here, huh? Why don’t you move up here? Why would anyone want to live in Richmond? ” etc, etc. All that kept running through my head was “I wouldn’t move up here for all of that federal grant money that’s funding that lavish office of yours in Alexandria that you invited us to” I’d put my balls through a meat grinder before I’d ever move north of Fredericksburg.
At Chipwooder: My sister in law lives in Alexandria and my Mother in law suggested that I should move to DC to work at the IMF or the World Bank (because my degree is in Economics and Accounting) and my response was similar to yours. I got a dirty stare from my sister in law after I spent a couple of minutes explaining why I think the DC area is the worst place in the world.
Shapiro directly rejected Johnson under the context of ‘he’s not a libertarian’. And he’s right.
Gilmore posted a video of Brendan O’Neill yesterday that fully sums up how stupid the LP and the cosmo plan is, but mostly in the context of how millennials act. He argues that millennials are extremely pro-establishment, and that’s stupid because it makes them easy to be exploited by said establishment. The beltway libertarians are doing the same thing, rejecting counterculture and anti-establishment values in order to try to be validated by them. It’s pathetic and completely contrary to libertarian ideals.
Twitter about how she came to libertarianism (if you take her word on it that she did) from the left, so she naturally feels more sympathetic to their point of view.
This always strikes me as extremely odd, as one of the resident ex-communists. Part of the reason I left the Left is because I recognized how profoundly dysfunctional and controlling its advocates are. Of course, ENB has been shown to be plenty dysfunctional herself, so perhaps she lacks the capability for self-reflection like that.
JT, and yet compared to Bill Weld, Johnson is fucking Rothbard.
yeah, cause music isn’t a good way to reach people.
In his mind, the last election was a hick up and that Hillary despite her many flaws was still a better alternative to Trump.
That right there is a top shelf John-o
@Chipwooder
That exact same sort of “why haven’t you moved here yet” thought bubble infests the Bay Area as well. It’s incomprehensible to them that real people (as opposed to caricatures of the other tribe) don’t actually want to live there.
She’s 22, I grade her on a curve. I agree she needs to spend more time reading and less time talking though.
The thing that gets me more is the fact that so many older self-proclaimed ‘defenders of Western civilization’ are uncultured ignorant morons. As I said yesterday, I’m sure Jack Posobiec goes home to read the Greek classics every night and can tell you his favourite fresco in the Vatican (School of Athens or GFTO) when he’s not crashing Shakespeare plays.
At least when people like Mark Steyn talk about Western civilization they’ve done the fucking work.
I don’t care what the others say about you.
You’re a good egg.
… favourite fresco in the Vatican (School of Athens or GFTO) …
While “School of Athens” is nice for the symbolism of western cultural and academic heritage, “The Last Judgment” is clearly the superior fresco in the Vatican. It has action, hellscapes, gratuitous nudity, and a critic of the work painted into the scene as a donkey.
I imagine she intends to make her case to her peer group, more or less, and doing so necessarily means speaking their language.
The Glibertariat is more well-read than she is, but her videos don’t seem to be aimed at us.
Most 22 year olds are pretty vapid. I know I was at that age.
She’s right about one thing, at least – Will Wilkinson IS a cunt.
I thought he was a joke of a man?
That too.
The Niskanen Center is absolutely insidious. It exists solely to try to give a libertarian sheen to statism.
This kind of shit is what they do when they’re not promoting universal health care or carbon taxes.
That’s almost indistinguishable from the SJW position on identity politics.
more of his twitters
No more, Doom. You’re killing my soul. On a Friday, no less
Were now at a hotel in Tampa near the airport. As long as the flight goes as planned the mission is over. Current models show the keys taking a direct hit. I may not be back to Florida for while. I hope something, anything I did on this trip made a damn bit of difference. I’ll know in a few days.
best of luck.
“As long as the flight goes as planned the mission is over.”
Also, as long as you are not attacked by pythons, gators, or meth heads the mission is over. Don’t forget you are in Florida. Keep your head on a swivel. Good luck.
I think the part that pisses me off the most is his fucking smug “well have fun trying to vote me out” attitude when someone says something.
“I doubt you’ve ever been in the party” and “yeah, I’m sure i’ll miss your votes next time”- go fuck yourself. I hope he gets voted out in a landslide to a broken stapler.
He doesn’t believe people when they tell him he’s making them leave. He relishes it. the worst part is people leaving means he might stay, driving more out. I’ve told the Colorado LP I won’t be rejoining until he’s gone. Which is sad, the state chapters are independent of the national party. he’s hurting states chapters.
does the LP publish its membership statistics?
they do, I’m trying to find them right now. I saw somewhere that new numbers had fallen to near 0 after the election.
this is what happens when you try to search on the party website.
I really can’t find it.
Speaking of teh Nazis
If he were in charge, Trump said in 2000, “sexual orientation would be meaningless. I’m looking for brains and experience. If the best person for the job happens to be gay, I would certainly appoint them.”
Advocates for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are pointing to those remarks again this week, after the Trump administration filed court papers siding with a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding celebration because he said it would violate his religious beliefs. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case this fall.
“The Justice Department has already made its hostility to the rights of LGBT people and so many others crystal clear,” said Louise Melling, deputy legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union. “But this brief was shocking, even for this administration. What the Trump administration is advocating for is nothing short of a constitutional right to discriminate.”
And? Is that bad?
I always ask, “Why would you want a person who disagrees with your lifestyle to bake you a cake anyway? And what do you get out of it by making a person bake you a cake?”
“I know! I’ll get the government to force me to give money to a human who thinks I’m not one!”
What happens when, for example, a baker is forced to bake such a cake and the customer is dissatisfied? Is he assumed to have done substandard work intentionally, and is that now a hate crime?
More laws, that’s what happens.
The neverending compilation of more laws with which to beat you over the head when convenient.
You get the satisfaction of knowing you managed to dominate another human being and force him to do something he didn’t want to do. For a lot of people that’s a turn on.
Could the ALCU please enumerate all the civil liberties and rights they are protecting now? I’ve seen its grown to include health insurance, and this quote implies that cake is a right as well. What else can we throw in there while we’re at it? I’d like a new car, and free whiskey delivery to my house. Any chance of that?
Seriously god damn it, free association necessarily means you have the right to discriminate! Why me, Some Asshole on the Internet, understands this, and Deputy Legal Director at the ALCU does not is mind-boggling.
They understand it just fine.
2017 STI, if you’re heading to the rights store. white.
Apparently LGBT people are advocating for nothing short of a constitutional right to coerce.
That is such a giant steaming pile of mish-mash muddled up shit it would take a whole new article to discuss it.
If I were forced by Government fiat to bake a cake for someone that expressly came to my business in order to “make a statement” I would certainly make a statement of my own – one kinky pubic hair nestled between the figurines’ clasped hands atop the most professionally well-made pastry concoction that I could manage. Here you go fellers! Have your cake and eat it too!
Apparently LGBT people are advocating for nothing short of a constitutional right to coerce.
That’s totally not the same.
ps- you’re a NAZI for thinking that.
No no no. They’re arguing for having the government punish wrong think as determined by them. Totally different.
Hey Nick, you are right. We should call out bad ideas. I will call one out now. Trying to police what I think or how I express myself is a bad idea because I will kick the shit out of you if you try.
There ya’ go.
hey suthen
i’m off to NoLa this evening for a weekend of drinking, eating, whoring, and avoiding arrest. any suggestion on fave places/things i should try and catch while there? others have provided some helpful suggestions… but wanted to check in w/ you.
i used to visit the city often in my 20s and early 30s, but its been about 10 years, and my last visit (for jazzfest) didn’t even have me around the city very much.
♪, ♩Come, Mister tally-man, tally-me-some-hate-crimes♪, ♩
Guy who supported Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Chavez, and even Stalin, to help explain to New Yorkers about the hateful, racist legacy of people like Christopher Columbus, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and Andrew Carnegie
small-irony alert=
“Come Meestah tally-man, Tally me some Pinkertons! Strike-break come and me want to go Home…”
*looks around, shrugs, wanders off*