I Identify

Izgad writes:

Instead of focusing my anger at liberals, I started losing patience with the Republican Party. Liberals, however much I might dislike them, were who they were. Republicans were supposed to be something better and they had failed.

That’s exactly what I feel but on the opposite side. I see no point in ranting against Republicans. They are who they are, and I never felt like one of them. What do I care if they are fucked up beyond all reason?

But we! We were supposed to be different! Better! At least a little bit! We aren’t supposed to be in thrall to a tea-party-style bunch of raving lunatics who are howling at the moon and telling us we are crazy if we don’t join them. I had an opportunity to catch up on my DVRed Tucker and saw clips from the conference of the Democratic Socialists. The clips featured grown men throwing fits about how loud chatter triggered their anxieties. Spoiled rich brats competing in who’s the biggest snowflake. And these are the people who now rule us. Every Dem candidate is toadying up to them, the disgrace!

Izgad’s profound (and very understandable) disappointment with his party led him towards libertarianism. (Or something he calls anarcho-capitalism). Where should I go, though? Libertarianism is definitely not for me, although I respect some libertarians. (Not Charles Koch. I hate that bastard.) I keep thinking that the bad moment will pass, Biden will stop trying to figure out the number of genders, Warren will quit making an idiot out of herself with the pronouns, and Bernie will go back to being against the Koch brothers’ agenda. But it keeps getting worse.

20 thoughts on “I Identify”

        1. On Tucker, Angela Nagle used the term “bourgeois narcissism” to refer to the silly complaints made by these DSA members. LOL. What an awesome and hilarious comment.


            1. Maybe I should learn more about her. I wanted to read the book a while ago but the reviews were unanimously bad. Not in terms of ideology but editing and writing.


              1. I wanted to read the book a while ago but the reviews were unanimously bad. Not in terms of ideology but editing and writing.

                It’s a fair cop. The book definitely feels “undercooked” and was pretty obviously rushed into print in the wake of Trump’s unexpected victory. Still, it’s worth a read (and won’t take very long).


              2. I’m not sure I’ll get around to reading her book, but The Left Case Against Open Borders is an article and not too long.


          1. I loved that, too. I hate this fashionable activity of competing in mental instability. If you are sick, get treatment. Stop acting like mental issues are cute quirks.


  1. Face it, lady! Doomsday is on the horizon, because Biden is senile and the rest of the Democratic candidates are certifiable loons, and Trump the idiot clown is going to be re-elected.

    And guess what? The world will keep turning, and the day after tomorrow won’t be that much different than the day before yesterday, and life will keep moving comfortably along, just like it has in all the long years since I was born in 1945, when the biggest war in history remade the map of the earth forever.


    1. If the next Recession hits before the election, he won’t be reelected. It won’t be his fault but you know how this works.

      I agree it’s not a huge deal if he’s reelected but imagine 4 more years of incredible butthurt from the snowflakes. I’d want him out of office just for that.


  2. Thank you for your generous comments. Let me explain what an anarcho-capitalist is for those not familiar with the libertarian movement.

    Like the ancient Gauls, Libertarians can be divided into three groups. The most moderate wing are the classical liberals. These are people who generally want a limited government but still see government as playing a positive roll such as in protecting civil liberties. Such people used to have a place as moderate Republicans but they are a dying breed. Think of people like Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, who was a Republican who ran in the Democratic presidential primaries in 2016 and has now joined the Libertarian Party, or Bill Weld who was a Republican governor, then the Libertarians’ vice-presidential and is now trying to run against Trump in the Republican primaries.

    Moving away from the mainstream, you have the minarchists. These are people who, unlike classical liberals, have a sustained ideological objection to government as something inherently violent. As such the only moral justification for government is when it protects against clear and present dangers. In essence, government is reduced to army/police and the courts. This is often refereed to as the “night watchman” state. You will see this position defended by the late Milton Friedman.

    Finally, you have anarchists. These are usually minarchists who have decided that the government will never agree, on its own to limit, itself and that government might not really be necessary to provide even security and a legal system so we should just get rid of the government completely and allow private insurance companies to handle security and law. See David Friedman’s Machinery of Freedom. (This is the son of Milton Friedman.) To distinguish anarchists operating within the libertarian tradition from more conventional anarchists, who oppose private property, we have the term anarcho-capitalism.

    I fall into the very “moderate” end of anarcho-capitalism (one can always be a moderate by joining the right extremists). I would be happy with a minarchist or even a classical liberal state and suspect that anarchism will not work in practice. That being said, I believe that I have the moral right to secede, through the use of passive resistance, and use my house to create my own mini-state. The practical purpose of such a position is that it becomes a kind of weapon to threaten politicians who pursue policies I find to be immoral.

    I encourage readers to take a look at Henry David Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience. His argument is founded on the anarchist premise that private individuals have the moral right to rebel against their government if they object to any laws.

    Politically, I operate with a radical distinction between theory and practice. In practice, I accept that, in the world we live in, we have a government and, for the moment, it needs to act in ways that go beyond the night-watchman state as long as it can be framed as a tragic necessity. In essence, I am the kind of person who might be convinced to vote for a Democrat as long as I did not have to hear any talk of the government as a moral force to be celebrated. I need to believe that a politician really would rather the market handled an issue it was practical.



    1. I agree that celebrating the government as a moral force is icky. I hate that kind of thing. But how about celebrating a private company, such as Twitter or Facebook, as a moral force? I hate that, too.

      I don’t want to vote for anybody who lays a claim to a superior morality and believes in punishing thoughts and persecuting speech. I’m beginning to think I can’t vote for a Democrat as long as Democrats don’t abandon claims to superior morality and stop preaching and indoctrinating. I’m from the USSR. I can’t abide this kind of thing.


      1. I agree with you that Facebook and Twitter are powerful and dangerous. That being said, I will always view them as less dangerous than the government because they do not have a monopoly on violence. My spending too much time on Facebook is my fault. Facebook may be sneakily addictive, but they do not have a gun pointed to my head. Think of the people being beaten and killed in Hong Kong and across Russia. These are the actions of governments, not private companies.

        It is one thing to say that Facebook engages in psychological violence. You can also say that government is the product of our will. But for the same person to say that Facebook is violence and that the government is not violence is a moral absurdity, the equivalent of calling bashing babies’ skulls in art. I am terrified of such people and honestly believe that they would be willing to kidnap my children and call it child protection.

        Most of your readers want a much larger safety net than I do. You should be able to have that in a country of your own that does not include me. I do not want to have to fight you over one United States for 300 million people. Let us chop up the country into lots of Lichtensteins so that there will not be any need for political conflict.


        1. Theoretically, it’s true but in practice the likelihood of any government wanting to exercise violence over me is minuscule in comparison to the likelihood that a Twitter mob will decide to hound me out of my career. That’s a real threat that worries me. Governmental violence is not a real threat in my life.

          The last paragraph of your comment I agree with completely. I keep running away from state-owned medicine but if keeps chasing after me, it seems. But the majority is eager for it because, in the typically American fashion, it secretly despises everybody not born here and considers their experience to be worthless.

          It’s ok, especially since nobody will ever get rid of the private option completely in this country. I’ll just have to make more money. See? This is the real threat: not being allowed to make money. And it’s not something that the government decides for people like me.


          1. What happens when the Twitter mob manages to get itself elected? When you call someone a Nazi, you have implicitly endorsed killing them. This is particularly the case when you keep in mind that no one is asking the average citizen to personally kill anyone. Every society has its sociopaths willing to do the actual dirty work. The issue here is whether there are people who can be “shipped out” with no objections. I assume that a large portion of our partisan electorate, when faced with the option of violating democratic norms even to the point of mass murder or lose to the other side, would sacrifice democracy. Key to understanding Conservative tolerance for Trump is the fact that many of them literally believed that President Hillary would send them to concentration camps. Once you believe this, you have written yourself a blank check for all kinds of crimes.


            1. Great post. When I see people foaming at the mouth, revving themselves up with ridiculous rants about existential threats and Hitlerism on the rise, I understand that they are working hard to remove all inhibitions to getting violent with those who, they believe, are so existentially threatening.


  3. “Bernie will go back to being against the Koch brothers’ agenda. But it keeps getting worse”

    Blame the economy. According to one analysis, the (seemingly) healthy state of the economy is delaying realignment. New political paradigms are only set when the economy has run its course on the old one..
    The New Deal period (early 30s to 1980) only got going once the depression set in (although the ideas had bubbling below the surface for some years).
    Reaganomics/Neoliberalism (from 1980 to its current death rattles) only got underway once the New Deal had hit a brick wall with stagflation and the like.
    Neosocialism (a placeholder name for the coming paradigm represented by Sanders, Tucker and Gabbard) will only really gather steam once the next recession (more likely depression I’m thinking) sinks in.
    That’s the dilemma, the coming downturn will cause a lot of suffering, but until it comes the Dems will keep preening in their vanity mirrors about how woke they are and the Repubs will just grow fatter and more alienated from anyone who isn’t a billionaire…


  4. I don’t want to vote for anybody who lays a claim to a superior morality…
    I think if you’re looking for a party that doesn’t see the government as a moral force and is against neoliberalism, you simply have no home.
    Not if you’re being honest with yourself.


    1. I’d settle for just one of these two descriptors. But no such luck. 😦 They can’t offer a defense against neoliberalism, so they deal in moral superiority, saying “you’ll be screwed but at least you’ll be better than those other guys.”

      So yeah…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.