libertarianism is stupid

Capitalism pits worker against worker while liberating owners, employers, landlords, and other ruling elites from social engagement. When we recognize how vital prisons are to the economy, we see the grotesque nature of libertarian capitalist virtue, the ability to be free from others. Working class and poor people’s existence is purposefully degraded. And true liberty is illegal. To freely feed one self is outlawed. To be able to afford to eat is virtuous. To freely house one self is outlawed. To be able to afford a house is virtuous. Nobility becomes recognizing the potential for wealth in people who lack it. Generosity is no longer a gift one can afford to offer, but a prize an unfortunate struggler might receive from a wealthy benefactor. Prisons concretize social relations. To be disobedient is to lose the liberties working people are permitted. Freedoms become inherited or gifted. Commodities, tbh.

Let’s Talk About Certain “Libertarians”

You got your Ron Paul, Julie Borowski, Libertarian Girl, etc. 

Ron Paul is heavily pro life. He even made a fucking bill to counter Roe v. Wade. Basically, guns, fetuses, and troops all have rights and amendments should uphold that. 

Fuck you if you are a woman though. 

Julie Borowski made a video last summer about how everyone should be pro-life.

NOPE. 

NOPE.

NOPE.

You cannot be a “Libertarian” if you are pro-life. Can we just admit that? Can we agree that you cannot pick and choose what rights other people get to have? 

No. The fetus is not innocent because you cannot be innocent without the ability to be guilty. Since the fetus is capable of neither, it is neither. 

Being a human being does not mean your “right of life” trumps other people’s body autonomy. Why arrest rapists? Why arrest organ harvesters? Why are they crimes at all? Aren’t those criminals human beings as well? 

Being pro-choice=/=pro abortion. Nobody is pro abortion. I have not seen one person going around town forcing pregnant women to get an abortion (besides the Chinese government). Pro choice=/=I don’t think fetuses have no right to live. 

Abortion is legal the same reason that I cannot force one of my parents/friends/family member/teacher/anyone to donate blood, organs, or body parts that they do not want to donate. Abortion is legal for the same reason that you cannot take a dead body’s organ if it is not previously consented in the will. 

Body autonomy. 

Abortion is a last reserve. Banning it does not stop it. 

Childbirth is 14 times more dangerous than abortion. The pain of it equals to breaking 20 bones in your body simultaneously. What is it called when you force someone to go through that? Oh yes. Torture. What is forcing someone to carry out a pregnancy called? Forced labor/Involuntary service aka reproductive slavery! A direct violation against the 13th Amendment. 

I care about children. I love children. I even plan to start my own family in a few years. 

I love and care about children in the sense that every child should be loved, cared for, and wanted. Can someone be a good spouse to you if you forced them to marry you? Can someone be a good friend if you force them to? Now, can you expect someone to be a good mother if you forced them to? 

Libertarians are all about individual freedom. Motherhood is a choice. It is never an obligation or “responsibility.” Making it a requirement is spitting freedom in the face. 

Long live freedom. Long live choice.

I just don’t understand reverse racism. My whole family believes in it, but like?? We’ve never been oppressed before, we’ve never been stripped of basic human rights because of our skin color? I just don’t believe in it honestly

Honestly, FUCK Hillary Clinton and anyone that supported/voted for her. Fuck you all for choosing her over Bernie Sanders, especially you fucking sellout people of color. That’s the thing though, any dumbass or horrible politician that had won anything in this Country, have won that because of the people. So you know what? Let this motherfucker burn down once and for all, you get what you deserve. ANY TIME this Country has a choice between a true progressive and a establishment Democrat, they will always chose the status quo on a national level. So fuck it all. Hillary vs Trump is literally Alien vs Predator and I say let them maul each other. But I think Trump will ultimately be the sacrificial lamb to lay down and be devoured and give the election to Hillary, as was the plan all along. This isn’t a free Country and they only allow dynasties or frauds into office. I know the rest of World isn’t perfect, but I will definitely be looking at other Countries to take up residence in, and I’m talking years down the line..if this place is still standing, I’m out. Fuck KKKLINTON.

anonymous asked:

I wasn't asking about anarchism in general and what would "actually" happen according to your enlightened mind. I was asking exactly how the train of thought looks for people who beat their chests like monkeys saying "Fuck the gubverment we have GUNS" and then say that "if we had anarchy another state would conquer us immediately". Do you actually know the answer to this or should I just write it up to both Libertarians and Anarchists being fucking stupid with no knowledge of how the world works

The latter.         

In reality, the ‘free market’ is a bunch of rules about 1) what can be owned and traded (the genome? slaves? nuclear materials? babies? votes?); 2) on what terms (equal access to the Internet? the right to organize unions? corporate monopolies? the length of patent protections?); 3) under what conditions (poisonous drugs? unsafe foods? deceptive Ponzi schemes? uninsured derivatives? dangerous workplaces?); 4) what’s private and what’s public (police? roads? clean air and clean water? healthcare? good schools? parks and playgrounds?); 5) how to pay for what (taxes, user fees, individual pricing?). And so on. These rules don’t exist in nature; they are human creations. Governments don’t 'intrude’ on free markets; governments organize and maintain them. Markets aren’t 'free’ of rules; the rules define them.
— 

– Robert Reich

In reality, the ‘free market’ is a bunch of rules…

These rules don’t exist in nature; they are human creations.

Markets aren’t 'free’ of rules; the rules define them.

Fucking that.

Take your free market worship and shove it.

On Capitalist Logic, Equality, Rights and Privileges

[I’m reposting this, so folks can reblog without having to attach that ridiculous photo set. By the way, she’s a Ron Paul fan who now claims she’s in a police state because people are pissed at her. I say fill her ask box with messages, track her down online. Politely haunt her. She needs to grow up. Apparently does not have the courage that her convictions demand.]

Speaking for mom and dad at 19–her parents must be proud. You can take the girl out of youth ministry, but you can’t take the protestantism out of the girl. She’s a douchebag for sure, but a stupid one.

All this complaining about affordability and choices is nonsense. Education is not a market good, it’s a shared good. If we all got the education we could afford…. Wait a minute. Using my noodle for just a second, but what purpose could be served by making higher education cost so much for so many? Remember cost is relative. A rich asshole can send his or her kids to school without worry, while a poor family must all work together to send any of their children. The cost is the same. But what does it mean to have earned it? The girl above doesn’t understand this, so ignore her for a moment.

I live in Korea, where an entire generation of a family will work themselves to death to get one child into a good school so that student can in turn support that aging generation, eventually and possibly the other less fortunate members of his or her generation in his or her family.

We have a society that has yet come to terms with equality. The high cost of higher education makes it extremely difficult for poorer citizens to go to college or university. Those who do, like me, end up having to subsidize the entire amount through loans. Pell grants were helpful, but I didn’t qualify for scholarships. I know, right. I must not have worked very hard. Bullshit. I worked from fifteen and served my country and then went to university. So, I missed out on all that privileged scholarship crap. Eventually, through my fellowship while working on my PhD, I was able to be paid to attend school. Paid so little, though, I had to take out loans anyway.

You know what, I never complained. It’s not the school’s fault. It’s about inequality. It’s social and political in the United States. Equality is not that we pay the same amount. It may have been my choice to attend, but my fellow students who come from wealthier backgrounds do not owe what I owe, though we paid the same rates and I outperformed almost every one. I was a leader both in the classrooms and on the campuses I attended. I doubt you’d find anybody who attended with me to disagree. I was also one of the poorest.

Here’s the deal. After sixteen years of loans, grants, scholarships and one fellowship, I still owed over $130,000 in loans. I’m now locked into a payment plan for 20 years that is very expensive. I’ll manage, but it’s a rather ridiculous amount for a teacher to afford. In addition, I’ll never pay my balance. Not even close. I’m going to pay consistently and on-time simply to keep from defaulting on the loans. The remaining balance after twenty years will be reconciled. What is it worth, then? To have over-valued my education to an extent that the government isn’t even going to insist I pay it all back. What’s that kind of process for? What does it achieve? If it’s not a good deal economically speaking for all parties involved–the student, the bank, the government–then what’s the deal good for in the end?

Three things it’s good for.

First, it promotes the notion that students be seen and think of themselves as consumers making a choice like the douchebag in the photographs above who wants to be rewarded for making a sound market choice as much as she enjoys brags about being smart and hardworking. This is the capitalist myth of choice rooted in the myth of the American Dream and it’s all part of the white power structure. It rewards relative wealth over poverty because it treats both as a choice. This is a fact, unlike the American Dream, which is a myth. Of course, the ambition that wealth affords is almost always unearned. The girl in the photos is privileged. She hasn’t earned her status. But the argument goes that because she’s a hardworking student who makes prudent decisions, well, she now has a right others don’t.

Second, it helps insure a laboring working class, poorer and needier than other social classes, will always exist. The cost of higher education and the requirements for hire at many jobs work hand-in-hand to exploit the working classes. Sure, you can go to college, but you’ll forever be in debt. For the poorer citizens this is like asking to choose for yourself or your family. Go ahead, make that choice. This is part of capitalist logic: consumers making pragmatic choices and accepting the outcome regardless of fairness. Libertarian capitalists call it liberty and personal responsibility. Poorer people are only rewarded when they don’t act privileged because they know their place. Poor student choses to quit school to work to support his or her struggling family and doing so while working for standard wages is seen as an equivalent choice to the wealthier student going to the best school possible and succeeding in generating more accumulated wealth for his or her family. In capitalist logic this is equality.

We must fight this logic. We must stop cooperating with it. Like the douche bag above, we’re supposed to be smug and proud of wise economic decisions made in conjunction with hard work. In capitalist culture, the individual is a self-righteous consumer. It’s this logic that ignores inequality. She should be condemned for her disregard of others, scorned for her stupidity and lack of insight, and chastised for her immaturity.

Third, and maybe most important, is that this logic represents the conservative conflation of privilege and right. For example, she has the right to be a douche bag and her warrant is that she works hard and is being rewarded for practical decision-making. I’m sure she’s not financially independent from her family, but that doesn’t matter. She would say, she has the right to make this argument. And she has the right to go to the school of her choice. She has rights. (I do wonder what she’d say if she contracted a serious illness or got hit by a bus or taxi. You know got handed something she didn’t earn, like poverty is handed to new born children.) Poor people, on the other hand, who take out too many loans, simply haven’t worked hard enough to earn the privilege to go to school where they want, where they can afford to go (to use her language because she also conflates desire with affordability, but that’s way above her intellectual pay grade. Let’s not confuse her.)

Conservatives love to claim rights are earned for the privileged and privileges unearned for the less well off: the poor, the minorities, women in some instances–basically, any individual claiming a need isn’t privileged yet, and therefore, hasn’t earned whatever right he or she is seeking access to, a right that others take for granted, like finding a college to attend. This is white power, no matter who takes advantage of it. Feminists on Tumblr often forget this when criticizing masculinity. White power has a hierarchy, but it can be accessed by every individual in some manner.

We should call out this capitalist logic and condemn it. Always confront it using the three points above. They are basic and address consumerism, pragmatism, and human rights in capitalist society.

You aren’t anti-authority...

If you like the idea of private property and you like social theory that makes freedom contingent on the existence of private property, then you imply people cannot be free without private property, which is already a form of coercion.* 

The relationship between people and property and people and freedom is authoritarian. The authoritarian relations and all the power relations that will adhere to them are prior to the existence of a market wherein people will exchange property and other products, permitting a fertile landscape for authoritarian and power structures to cultivate and thrive. 

*The pseudo-libertarians who talk about liberty and coercion always bracket the coercive nature of private property in capitalism. To have to be able to afford to purchase and maintain property vaporizes in a mist of voluntary fantasies and earned ambition.

Crass Libertarianism, Liberty, Ideology, Ron Paul fans

I got sick a couple of weeks ago and forgot that one of my favorite trolls is wishing me mad death and napalmings and such. So, for my new followers, I thought I’d repost some highlights of what got me in trouble with the logical positivists, the Ron Paul fans, and their hysterical apologists. (Any bisexual snark is reserved for Leon.)

I began writing about libertarianism this summer. Somewhere in my archives, you can find me struggling to discuss capitalist libertarianism, trying to come to terms with what to call it. I settled on “crass libertarianism.” About that time, I began being trolled by Ron Paul fans, logical positivists, and anarcho-capitalists. Most of them have given up reblogging my posts because I insisted that if they wanted to talk about capitalism and libertarianism, even positivism, that they’d need to begin referring to the actual theories and theorists, rather than giving me some shit paraphrased from mises.org.

For my new followers, this thinking about crass libertarianism is not all I write about. I’m into critical race theory. I write a lot about whiteness and white supremacy. Also, about pedagogy. I also post about what I’m listening to and a few other things. I love conversation, so always feel free to leave an ask…

1. US Libertarianism is in hate with itself

Libertarianism, from anarcho-capitalism to objectivism, denies social being yet depends on its formation (namely, society,) for its denial, its rhetoric, its discourse. They are the only social political movement I know of that denies itself as part of its ideological representation of reality.

I wrote this earlier on The Weight of Emptiness:

2. Ron Paul, Ideologist

If freedom is “taking your own risks,” then freedom for Paul has nothing to do with the libertarian sacred cow, Liberty. Freedom is being free from others, and nothing more. Liberty becomes a rhetorical object embodying this being with(out) others.

Not only is Ron Paul a capitalist ideologist. He’s an aristocrat with a compulsion to cultivate the traditional white power structure.

I write “ideologist” in combination with the tag “libertarianism is stupid” for many reasons, but each reason rests with(in) the most stupid thing libertarians like Ron Paul discuss: regulation. (I believe this is why he is nothing more than a common Republican.)

If what I’ve illustrated in many posts about Paul, anarcho-capitalism, and American libertarianism is true, that Liberty for libertarians is the ability to be more or less free from others, then this social and political movement, from capitalist anarchists to fascist objectivists, is about nothing less than insuring regulations only exist to compose citizens as free individuals who must be free from others. We could make this ethical and bring in “ought to be”: the libertarian ethos is focused on regulating society to compose citizens as free individuals who should be free from others. And people are more or less free from others dependent upon their status. This is a must because libertarians believe individuals should be status-seeking.

In nature, an individual is never being free-from-others. (This is being as a noun; “free from others” modifies it.) In markets, a consumer is never consuming free from others. In society, a citizen is never living free from others. This free from others is an ideological construction. In other words, it is imaginary. As such, it is a highly regulated representation of reality that relies on ancient and aristocratic notions of the city and citizens. Libertarianism is not to be confused with a new movement that is looking forward in its progressivism, say that’s represented in the current, growing Occupy Movement. It’s the old order of wealthy and privileged elites who wish to define the best we can be via a highly idealized vision of past orders.

I do believe that libertarianism is stupid. Stupid enough to not understand that the core of its own complex ideological structure calls out for a very narrow construction of what is intended to be seen as a free and public discourse community regulated to reflect an ideal version of nature, market and society that has never existed. It’s not that they believe their own representations of reality as the only reality that’s problematic. That’s just common fundamentalism we cope with in free societies and marginalize as anti-intellectual. It’s that they wish to force everyone else to live according to their rules. So much for liberty and freedom.

Anyone who denies social and shared good(s) exist separate from economic good(s), as crass libertarians do, is a very dangerous kind of fundamentalist. Libertarians are tricky because they use the anti-intellectual knee-jerk response to the words “liberty” and “freedom” to offer cover for their elitism. We live in a capitalist market economy that’s ideally free. But what free means in the capitalist free market is free to exchange goods and services. Unfortunately, we also have a money economy. As we all know, the money economy rather unjustly limits freedom in all communities within society to those individuals who have more money than others. Even Adam Smith had to handle this ethical problem of unjust social standing he referred to as unearned ambition.

Libertarians have no ability to cope with the unjust money economy. It’s why they hold equality in contempt. In addition, they conflate the money economy with nature via a constructed term Hayek called the spontaneous social order, and I often call the liberal social order. This is where aristocracy enters via another construction from Greek, the catallaxy. Supposedly, you can’t make enemies into friends without exchanging money for goods and services—in other words, without trade across borders.

A libertarian can’t talk to you about these things. Go ahead and try.

3. Why I hate Ludwig Von Mises

It’s simple. To take Mises’s work on human action seriously, I’d have to first admit that capitalism is natural and that democracy depends on its unregulated function. Second, I’d have to admit that I’m much better described as a consumer than a citizen. Mises’s theory was constructed to justify a society’s use of death and the threat of death for billions who are not US citizens. It’s theory developed to make socialism appear to lead to communism as democracy leads to capitalism. It’s opposed to the concept of a general shared good. It’s constructed to reward unearned ambition and inheritance as a natural right. In other words, it’s constructed to eradicate discussions about equality in human society. In this manner, it’s highly aristocratic.

To contrast capitalism and communism the way Mises and his followers do—that the latter is natural and the former is artificial—is troubling. First and most important, it’s rhetoric. It really doesn’t mean anything to those who don’t believe it. In this manner, it’s a fiction. In my opinion, it illustrates a major flaw with much of the cold war era’s theory about liberty and capitalism. It’s a critical attitude towards humanity that illustrates human being (human action) as the natural recipient of something we created, namely capitalism. Mises struggles, as do other capitalist theorists like Hayek, to find the source of capitalism in human society and as a result of nature. That’s where catallaxy and catallactic come from: the idea that the unregulated exchanging of goods and services peacefully and justly organizes society as the result of a spontaneous social order that results from the unregulated exchange. That’s a fucking fiction. It’s white fiction about the earliest days of organized human society when we are taught we became civilized. (You know, son, that business is the cornerstone of civilization. Trade. Free trade. Without it, civilization would end. Get the fuck out of here with that nonsense.)

Capitalism is a highly regulated economic system. To insist it’s part of nature (the liberal social order) is interesting, but suspect. Moreover, it explicitly demonizes a significant aspect of human being, shared good and the impulse to seek it out—in other words, the impulse to address inequality, to organize our lives, our communities, our society. It’s hard to to take seriously a moral system for economic being that constructs a complex and artificial framework for human being that insists we pretend it’s natural while at the same time denigrating the one thing it accepts we naturally seek to do.

It’s hard not to see Mises as a cold warrior. In this manner, he’s a hero to some, I suppose. But to what end? His works hold no answers for growing poverty and corruption. For him, we are all consumers of products produced by entrepreneurs who listen to our wishes. That’s really it, that’s his theory of demand. We want what we buy because what we buy is produced to satisfy what we want by really smart rich guys. That’s fucking insane stuff.

We have the ideal theorist for an idealized capitalist society fueled by white power and white fiction about the wealthy white man and his just inheritance of everything he stole.

4. Crass Libertarian-isms: Liberty

Liberty, for crass libertarians, is a rhetorical tool.

An object.

Liberty reflects what the individual observing it sees as any thing, process, and/or state of being that makes one feel free of obligation, duty and responsibility—these three often being most responsible for citizens’ anxiety and dread in public.

Liberty is a rhetorical tool designed to make one think about freedom while being educated about how to behave in a capitalist market.

Liberty looks like it has roots in a historical tradition of republicanism and democracy and sounds in tune with capitalism. They appear to go hand in hand.

Liberty is, however, a shape-shifting placeholder for one’s desire to be free from others while laboring with them. It justifies one’s own slavery while excusing others’. Liberty, therefore can be seen as a Capitalist’s ideal form of Cooperation.

Liberty reminds people of an idea they think they share. But the idea was constructed to look old, treasured, lost and recoverable. Liberty has been designed by capitalist economists and libertarian theorists to appear just out of reach. If you have not the liberty you want, it’s because you haven’t worked hard enough, or because the government is keeping you down.

Liberty is part of the white power tradition in the United States.

———

When listening to a political leader, public official, and/or community organizer using Liberty to organize any effort, think twice before trusting him. (Him is appropriate here. Liberty is part of white masculinity. It’s almost always heterosexist.) They’re working in a tradition of white power, imperialism and capitalist economic theory—theory that justifies unearned poverty, war and slavery of others—that justifies the unearned ambition of the wealthiest members of society. Capitalist Libertarians are always anti-socialist, anti-anarchist. They are statists.

5. On Crass Libertarianism Wealth Redistribution:

When you talk to a capitalist about taxes and government spending, inevitably the capitalist will want to begin speaking about wealth. A common conversation is that we, as in our government acting on behalf of citizens, should be promoting (spending on and investing in) wealth creation not wealth redistribution. Never mind that the claim is unreasonable. Specifically, business owners, entrepreneurs and employers in general do not create wealth. Wealth is a capitalist word that is supposed to be a synonym with value. Wealthy people do not create value. We know how value works, but wealth, you know, is the root in wealthy. So, wealth and the wealthy go together. It’s just common sense. Right? Don’t get pulled into a discussion with such shitty use of common sense and language.

When you hear wealth, you should always insist the conversation returns to labor and value. That’s the most important thing. Capitalists do not want to talk about value. Capitalists want to argue that wealthy people create demand. We know that spending creates demand, but again, capitalists will not want to talk about spending. Capitalists will not want to talk about the fact that money in the hands of the poor is much more stimulative than money in the hands of the rich. Why? Well, for example, capitalist libertarians like to believe that 1$ wealthy people spend is worth more than 1$ poor people spend. It’s that simple. It’s an absurd debate to get into. Always insist the conversation turn to labor and value. Bring the conversation from spending, debt, and wealth back to the basic relationship between the employer and employee.

You’ll discover that the capitalists aren’t capable of discussing value and labor because they typically don’t know what they’re talking about. They haven’t done their homework. They’re simply repeating propaganda.

See also my post from last week. I wrote:

5%, in the US, consume 80% of the capital gains income. That income is taxed at 50% of what it would taxed at if it were normal income. 1% control 40% of that capital gains income. In other words, most US citizens don’t have any access to the wealth their labor produces and a few take advantage of all that labor for their own benefit without having earned it.

When you hear a conservative or libertarian talk about personal responsibility, you’re listening to somebody fighting for the cause of the wealthiest and whitest citizens and against the well-being of the majority of citizens who have no access to it now, nor historically ever have. Personal responsibility really means work that others should do so I can continue to benefit from it and it only applies to privileged individuals who can afford to profit from others’ labor.

If you don’t see the class warfare against the poor, you’re an asshole and an idiot.

dagNotes: On Freedom; Or, Why I don't trust most white people.

They believe they have a freedom that, factually and historically, no person of color has,  the freedom (to pretend) to be ignorant of difference. The performance of this ignorance to others–white and not-white–is one of the most pervasive and irritating aspects of everyday whiteness. This freedom is a distinctly white privilege. I’d say, this freedom is the most recognizable marker for whiteness as it’s the most ordinary in appearance. People who can be free from knowing about others who are not white are fully composed white individuals. The others-to-be-ignorant-of are composed white subjects. The relation is inherently oppressive. One group is liberated while the others are bound. 

In the US, the social interpellation process is one of becoming white, living with whiteness, bargaining with white power, coping with white supremacy. It’s violent, interpellative social action. It occurs where all social action is organized, within the free market. Thus, it is both passively and actively consumed. It’s both affliction and consolation. Those who are afflicted are passively composed white subjects who endure composition regardless; those who are consoled are actively composed white individuals who answer an invitation to composition without endurance. It’s from this interpellation the supremacist conception of the individual and its western philosophical tradition springs. Capitalism has embraced this conception from its beginnings and has sublimated the concept in its contemporary state. Hence, white individuals are often aggressively recalcitrant participants in anti-racist action; obstinate and uncooperative toward the authority in any discourse that confronts white supremacy, yet passively obeisant to the authority in white power. For example, we’re asked to embrace an equality and social justice discourse that ignores oppressive power relationships in exchange for attention to singular issues that fail to significantly confront white supremacy and its power structure. We must talk about distribution of goods and services; we must address all individuals as consumers and employees. In other words, we are always already encouraged to see others without difference, to see others as if we all are equally born, that we are, in a significant manner, equivalencies.

It’s a rare occurrence to find a white person unconditionally willing to betray the authority in whiteness. And it’s why I’m dutifully mean about it with white tumblr bloggers; as mean as I am about it IRL. I won’t permit the passive violence in white power between social liberals to sit unexamined and have made a promise to return any and all forms of violence with like violence. I’m especially mean to tepid social justice discourse that pushes for the degraded equality I discussed just above. I expect the libertarian white boys to deny all of this outright. I expect more from people who claim enlightenment and progressivism.

I will do this until we reside in societies that have overcome white power. Don’t see that happening any time soon. So, fucking deal is my attitude. I can’t trust white people who aren’t willing to betray their permissive whiteness, their unexamined possessive-whiteness, their unearned ambition.