Thursday, June 14, 2018

A response to Bruce the Anti-libertarian

I ran across a letter to the editor written in response to a libertarian's letter. (I have a screenshot in case this letter goes away.)

This raving statist's letter was a treat to behold. Rarely have I witnessed this much dishonesty in such a small space. Kudos to him!

Now I'll address just a few of the lies promulgated therein.

"[R]egulations (and taxes) exist for the public good, and protect the public from bad actors"
That's simply not true. You can't rob the "public" for its own good. It's not possible.

There are only two kinds of regulations- the useless and the harmful. You don't need regulations (or "laws") against things such as murder, robbery, kidnapping, etc. to make it OK for people to defend themselves and others from those acts. And "laws" against victimless acts are harmful to society because they harm individuals. You can't harm all your body's useful cells and claim it's beneficial to your body. Well, you can, but you'd be lying.

The worst of the bad actors are those who seek positions of political power, from which they can rob and molest people (mostly) without consequence-- because it is "legal", and people like the author seem to believe that's good enough.

"Libertarians believe there is no such thing as 'the public interest' and deny that altruism exists."
More lies.

It can not be in the "public interest" to systematically enslave the individuals who make up the public. This is the reality government extremists such as the author seek to sweep under the statist rug.

Altruism exists. No libertarian denies that it does. I have performed altruistic acts of my own free will, and I have benefitted from the altruistic acts of others-- just very recently in fact. It would have cheapened the act if someone such as the author (or his hired thugs-- government employees) had stuck a gun in the face of those he felt should "help" to convince them to be "altruistic". If you have no choice, due to "laws", it's NOT generosity. It is not altruistic to rob people and claim it isn't robbery because you call it "taxation". It's not altruistic to give "the less fortunate" money or other property which is not yours to give away. That is the opposite of altruistic.

"Everything is seen through a lens of naked self-interest."
Nope. He's lying again! How many lies can he squeeze into this one screed? LOL!

"...they believe all politicians and all bureaucrats are simply out for themselves, and have no other motive than grasping self-interest."
I don't care about their motives, I care about what they actually do. Their acts harm innocent people, and even when they see the harm they do, they "do it harder". That's wrong.

"Therefore, every regulation, and every tax, is a coercive measure of oppression intended to deny libertarians their 'freedom.'
I care about your "freedom" as much as I care about my own. Otherwise I wouldn't be a libertarian. All those acts of statism the author supports deny him his own freedom (and liberty), too. And I care even if he doesn't. I don't want to see someone robbed and raped, even if they're OK with it. But even more than that, I don't want people like him making the decision that others have to be OK with it just because he sees nothing wrong with it. That's just evil.

"Of course, the same daily 'coercion' experienced by most people in the corporate world goes unremarked, because employment is voluntary, and you can always quit."
Another lie. This guy's going for a new world record!
Corporations are an instrument of government, which only exist by crawling in bed with government, and which get government favors out of the deal. They are just as wrong when they initiate force or violate property rights as government.

It's not about government, after all; it is about not having the right to attack others or take their stuff, no matter who you are or what your excuse. Yes, you can usually quit a job without being forced to move away like you're forced to do if you want to quit a particular government. That doesn't excuse the aggression or property violations committed by government's bosom buddies, the corporations.

"Libertarians believe that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of motives, will somehow work for the benefit of us all."
Haha!! No, you've just stated your own side and blamed it on libertarians. That may be the most dishonest thing you've said here, but it's a close contest.

Bruce, I hope for your sake no one ever characterizes you and your position half as dishonestly as you've just characterized the libertarian position. If they do, you'll probably fang yourself in frustration. You should really get a bit more informed about a topic before you dive in and put your foot so deeply into your mouth.

Thank you for helping support
Follow me on Steemit and Medium


  1. Bruce is an exemplary example of why to kill them all. Billions think like him, vote and reproduce.

  2. Sorry, Anon, but I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Genocide is NEVER moral, under any circumstances, and "Kill them all" is genocidal thinking at it's finest.

    It's also statist thinking. Anyone who talks about "killing them all" is an archator, and a natural enemy of liberty.

    On the individual level, in cases where the "Bruce the Statist" clone of the moment has fired the first shot, swung the first sword, then it may be moral to take their life, purely as an act of self defense.

    Any further than that, and you would be no better than any other tin pot dictator who's doing it for the children, for humanity, for the spotted snail darter, or whatever idiotic excuse, I mean, cause d'jure is being cited this week.

    IF we are to ever have liberty in our lifetimes, we need to stop archating, and STOP trying to govern others. I couldn't care less than I already do, which is not much, what Bruce the exemplary statist says, does or thinks, as long as he is not actively, directly, trying to kill me or my family.

    If his archating results in a law, I will sidestep it like the noisome piece of feces it is. I am not bound to follow his rules, just as I cannot force my views on him. If he flatulently orates I will counter his opinion with my own. If he initiates force, the gloves come off, yes. But NOT until then. In the meantime, I am free to make my opinion of him known, just as Kent did here.

    I am not free to kill him just because I don't like his views, politics, or the way he rubs blue, green, or red mud in his navel.

    TL;DR? If "Bruce the exemplary statist" leaves me alone, I will leave him alone. If he kriffs with me, then I will use appropriate force, from a punch in the nose up to and if necessary, a sidewalk craniotomy. If "Bruce the exemplary statist" sends enforcers to kriff with me, same thing, applied to the enforcers. THAT, Anon, is how it works. Anything else is stooping to their level.

    You have no more right to take away that which you cannot give back, than he does. And you certainly never have any right whatsoever to do it to entire categories of people.

    Education instead of extermination. =)


    1. You are rightful to kill statists who claim your homeland as jurisdiction and actively organize to violate and enslave you and your family. It is rightful defense.

      Such statists includes everyone from voters to lawmakers to judges and police.

      To argue otherwise is to suggest that anyone is rightful in organizing to steal and assault and kill, etc, ...under the condition that they are not the ones who directly use force. Bullshit.

      ..or think of it like this; ...

      If I hire a man to kill you and supply him with equipment, etc, I am facilitating your murder, thus equally guilty. If you kill him, I can send another, and another, and, according to your reasoning, you have no right to act as to prevent me from actively conspiring to kill you.

      That's retarded.

  3. No. It's not.

    There's a huge difference between "Bruce the exemplary statist" and William Bernard Hitlerstein the politician. That is conscious volition. Bruce is most likely ignorant, and may be capable of learning. Hitlerstein is Doing it actively, for the LULZ and power.

    If Bruce is actively, consciously conspiring, I will happily eliminate him as a threat as quickly as possible. If he is merely ignorant, I will educate him. If he actively knowingly conspires after that, then I'll kill him.

    I NEVER said it was wrong to kill statists. I said it was wrong to commit genocide. BIG DAMN DIFFERENCE.

    You're ignoring wehat I actually said, in favor of a false narrative. In other words, straw man argument.

    You're likely another statist troll, and I'm done with this conversation.

    Don't like being name called? You started it. Likwe I said, I don't have time to argue with statist trolls.


  4. Oh, and don't bother attacking my spelling. Typos happen, especially when there's no post editing, and you're busy trying to get out the door to do some productive class stuff


  5. An armed man takes a hostage as a body sheild, traps you and your family in a resteraunt or store or something, and starts shooting at you. You are armed as well. You are being forced to choose between the unethical act of killing/critical injuring an innocent to save your self and family, or letting your family die in favor of the ethical position of not kilLing the innocent.

    The answer is to kill the gunman, never mind the hostage. First and foremost, because it the most effective and efficient solution to the problem. Dead people don't ______. include make pieces of lead travel across a room so fast they go through your family.

    You are not responsible for killing the hostage because you were forced into those terms. Those terms do not negate your right to defense. Those terms are the responsibility of the gunman. He is responsible for making you have to kill him and the hostage in order to save your family.

    The gunman is government, the statists among us. The gun is law enforcement and 'justice' system. The room is jurisdiction. The hostages are the valued innocent women and children, family and friends, the honest peaceful valued members of society.

    Forced terms - governent is responsible - right to defense applies - genocide.

    That is the utilitarian goal oriented devil's advocate position. But we as libertarians who's whole philosophy is based on reality and the value of life and rights, absolutely must weigh this ethical set of principles and values into the equation.

    It is fundamentally wrong to violate nonviolent people, killing them. But that is counterintuitive to the defense/freedom goal. The ethically superior argument results in perpetual violence/enslavement for your progeny. Is that more or less ethical? Is subjecting your children to slavery not cruel and irresponsible? I digress.

    The only recourse is to have a nonviolent means of neutralizing/incapacitating the state. ..which would be economic crash and/or social chaos, natural disasters/acts of god, things of that nature. So unless you have a way to peacefully cause a reset,... ..

  6. He's an idot. I stand by my position of him being an exemplary example.