A Strategic Libertarian Case Against Non-Violent Degeneracy

Ask ten different libertarians about their political priorities, and you’re likely to get ten different answers. These might range from the quite moderate like marijuana decriminalization or a tax reduction, all the way to the more dramatic like the complete overhaul or abolition of the entire State apparatus.

A Strategic Libertarian Case Against Non-Violent Degeneracy

A Strategic Libertarian Case Against Non-Violent Degeneracy

Ask still others, and you’ll find priorities that aren’t libertarian at all. Like gender equality, fighting paranoid notions of racism, or combating the social stigma of certain behaviors, often involving sex or drugs. Such efforts often gain favor amongst self described libertarians, and are often a path of lesser resistance since in most cases these efforts have nothing to do with the State apparatus whatsoever. Whether the State is actually involved or not, it allows them to make common cause with radical left wing ideologues with access to manpower and resources. This is appealing to many libertarian activists who find themselves quite frustrated with the slow or even negative growth of the libertarian movement.

There are a lot of reasons I’ll go into as to why this is misled, and I’ll give some very specific examples, but I’ll start off by summarizing briefly. Regardless of what anyone says about the virtues or maladies inherent in the “left/right paradigm” of politics, this paradigm does exist, and for good reason. Were politics a rational thing whereby logical people tried their best to organize human civilization for the health and well being of all, we would all be Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists and this post would be quite unnecessary. Sadly, that is not the nature of our political affairs. We operate in a left/right paradigm due to real and explainable biological phenomenon which quite regrettably have nothing to do with logic, reason, or evidence.

Even amongst self described libertarians, there is an identifiable demarcation between left and right priorities. The right libertarian will prefer to focus on self defense, property rights, taxes, and economic matters. He may oppose the State itself as an institution and have very serious disagreements with the war on drugs, violence by police, and foreign policy matters, yet still recognize that a free market society would have security forces and discourage degenerate behaviors. The left libertarian will be primarily focused on sex, drugs, misled notions of equality, and opposition to wars and police violence no matter how justified relative to the current organization of society. Concerns about taxes, guns, and the economy are secondary issues to this creature if they even cross her radar at all.

These traits, were they to play out in a society operating on strict property rights would naturally come to the least destructive of negotiations. Were the whole of the civilization privatized and working within the confines of a market, a political strategy would be wholly unnecessary, and we would all be better off. But that is not the civilization in which we live. We live in a civilization where common spaces are imposed upon us by governments, as are the costs of our neighbor’s bad behaviors.

For the libertarian pursuing political solutions to our disagreements with the State and its agents, it may at first seem axiomatic that wherever the filthy paws of the State may touch, they ought to be slapped away without a second thought. Indisputably, the State is an agency predicated on initiatory force. As libertarians we oppose this predation root and branch with every ounce of our being. Sadly, this strategy is misled when dealing with society as it actually exists, where commons are monopolized by the State and the costs of degeneracy are redistributed.

The dissatisfaction of the populace with bad behavior in common spaces will naturally lead to the populace asking government to outlaw or otherwise legally discourage the undesirable behavior everywhere, an expansion of government. Simultaneously, as bad behavior is met with scorn from the public, the degenerate demands protection from the State to engage in whatever non-violent behavior they see fit. This will come in the form of not only police presence, but also in anti-discrimination laws, both expansions of government. Degenerate behaviors have negative social and economic consequences, which lead to dependence on State welfare programs, further expansions of government. The combinations of sanctioned degeneracy, increased government burden, and freely available resources via welfare programs, work to undermine the family unit which has served for millennia as the cornerstone of stable civilizations. Undermining the family unit has always been a primary goal of Marxists and other anti-freedom left wing movements, because the State is empowered by filling the gap left behind by a lack of familial bonds.

Thus, non-violent degenerate behaviors in the presence of government subsidy necessarily lead to a more oppressive State than the State which outlaws degenerate behaviors.

As perhaps one of the less controversial libertarian arguments (if any lack of controversy might even be said to exist in such things) let us take the drug testing of welfare recipients.

The right libertarian might say that since one has no natural right to reap the rewards of another’s work by State redistribution schemes, they have no right to complain when that redistribution scheme sets standards for entry to such a program, like mandatory drug testing. Even if certain figures showed the cost of drug testing said welfare recipients would outweigh any projected savings, the right libertarian might look upon such projections with scepticism and still support such a proposition. To him, subsidizing poverty is a sure way to create more of it, and adding subsidized drug addiction to the mix is a recipe for disaster. His opposition to the war on drugs is a wholly separate issue. If one desires to use drugs, they are responsible to suffer the social and economic consequences of their degeneracy, and those consequences ought to be what deters them therefrom.

To the left libertarian, this might be seen as an act of profound tyranny. To them, there is nothing wrong with doing drugs. Not only should the drug war end immediately, but social stigma ought to be eliminated as well. They may even go so far as to assign a mystical value to intoxicants under the auspices of spiritual journies or connections to higher planes of existence. Their opposition to the welfare State (if it even exists) is a wholly separate issue. No stigma or consequence can be assigned to drug use because drug use is a favored behavior. If this increases the tax burden, societal dependence on government, and general lack of decency in the civilization, that’s just fine because after all, collapsing this thing is the goal.

These two strategies for achieving a more libertarian society are in direct opposition to one another. The two may well have quite similar or even identical end goals, but their strategies put them at odds with one another. Since either strategy involves the use of the State apparatus to carry it forward, this conflict is a violent one and for either to succeed the other must be utterly defeated and violently suppressed.

This conflict is only magnified by the nature of party politics. With libertarians a small political minority, they are compelled to work within the two party system if they want wield political power. Working within the two party system compels the libertarian to make common cause with other members of their party, advancing the interests of said party even as some number those interests include expansions of State power. One is thus compelled to choose not only a strategic position on an issue, but also a strategic favoring of a political party and its agenda as a whole.

As another example, let us look more recently and closer to home, for me anyway. In New Hampshire, the state I now call home, a controversy recently found its way into mainstream liberal media surrounding a campaign known as “Free The Nipple”. The “movement” seeks to de-sexualize female breasts, and normalize female toplessness in public, amongst other things which we’ll touch on shortly.

As it pertains to the State apparatus, it again may seem axiomatic to the libertarian that this peaceful behavior should meet no sanction from the State. They might cry from the rooftops about freedom of speech, bodily autonomy, and self ownership in a short sighted bid to oppose State intervention in a non-violent matter. Indeed, many self described libertarians have done exactly this. Ian Freeman of Free Keene covered two “Free The Nipple” events on his blog, and later covered the trial of two women who received summonses during one of the events. An associate of the Free State Project, and elected Democrat by the name of Amanda Bouldin recently voiced opposition to a bill in the state House of Representatives which would outlaw female toplessness in public, with the exception of breast feeding.

Axiomatic, right? No victim? No Crime! Seems open and shut at the libertarian’s first glance. But the trained eye sees a greater conflict underneath the short sightedness of the degenerate libertarian’s rhetoric.

The beach is a public place funded at the expense of taxpayers, where families bring children to play. Those families have no choice but to fund this public space. It is monopolized by government and a comparable private sector alternative does not exist. They have a very real interest in keeping sexual imagery from their children, including that of female breasts. Early sexualization of children has numerous profoundly negative impacts both for the children themselves and for society at large. They seek to raise their children in an environment conducive to what they (rightly) perceive to be healthy, conservative, sexual norms.

The supporters of “Free the nipple” favor unmitigated public sexuality, and have an interest in direct competition with that of the parents. They have a social agenda which involves upending societal views on sex and gender, and the earlier they can influence young people, the better for their agenda. One of the women cited at one of the protests even claims to not “associate” with the female gender, despite being named “Barbara” and having breasts, further morphing the issue from one of simple nudity to one challenging gender dimorphism itself. If one listens to audio of the trial, they hear both defendants talking about “rape culture” and “slut shaming” and “gender equality” not just in toplessness but “in everything”.

Thus we witness the tragedy of the commons. The people are compelled to pay for government monopolies on public spaces. Predictably, competing interests emerge. The two world views cannot peacefully coexist in the same space, but are compelled to share said space by force of government nonetheless. One seeks the healthy raising of children. The other to destroy the social fabric of Western civilization, and both seek to do so at taxpayer expense.

“Free The Nipple” is thus obviously not the promotion of the non-aggression principle, limited government, constitutional law, or any other libertarian axiom. Gender equality “in everything” means equal pay, equal representation in government, academia, the corporate world, and in all other things, regardless of merit. These goals run contrary to biological and economic reality and are thus unsurprisingly pursued by way of government legislation and regulation. “Rape culture” is an absurd nightmarish conspiracy theory of radical feminists, who claim rape is socially acceptable, and that society must be reconstructed from top to bottom for the elimination of patriarchal male privilege and dominance. “Slut shaming” is opposition to healthy social consequences which discourage female promiscuity. In brief it is the same dogmatic leftist psychobabble which is presently turning once prestigious universities into rainbow room safe spaces devoid of intellectual rigor.

While seemingly laughable at first glance to many right thinking people, this is actually quite dangerous. Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth, universities which will produce the next generation of senators, representatives, presidents, captains of industry, and other important leaders, are proving incapable of teaching students to cope with basic reality. We are raising a generation which loses their composure over halloween costumes, and can’t tell the difference between rape and a hangover.

This is not some far off threat that may or may not someday emerge, it presents itself as we speak in the New Hampshire House of Representatives. Amanda Bouldin favors the radical left wing feminist cause, and denounces a bill in the house aimed to stop it. In her denouncement, she claims the bill lacks an exception to female toplessness for breast feeding. Clearly, she commented out of ignorance because that provision does in fact exist. While Amanda fancies herself a representative of her constituents, she apparently does not see fit to understand policy before making judgement on it. Why would she? Her agenda runs contrary to reality, and thus the effort to understand her opposition may as well run so counter as well. All she cares about is the advancement of her left wing social causes, reality and consequences to her opposition be damned.

While I cannot claim to have poured over Amanda’s entire legislative record, I can say from my experience before the House Legislative Committees at the General Court that where I witnessed Amanda’s appearances was exclusively at left wing social causes. Legalizing Narcan (an antidote to opioid overdose), electronic cigarettes, and barring police from obtaining military equipment off the top of my head. Noble enough goals to be sure, but even her rhetoric on police demilitarization rang familiar to that of gun control advocates, claiming that the mere presence of heavy weaponry would compel its usage. She was noticeably absent at hearings pertaining to civil asset forfeiture, vehicle inspections, and registrations. These are perhaps not the most decisive of examples, but there are numerous others I fail to recall and the pattern became obvious to me nearly a year ago.

In addition to her ignorance that the proposed bill had made exception for breast feeding, Amanda’s other complaint was that all the co-sponsors were male Republicans. When opposition predictably found its way to her ignorant commentary, she denounced them as misogynists. These claims are not arguments but assertions of wholly imagined victimhood, appeals to identity, and hardly the level of discourse that should be expected of a New Hampshire State Representative. Yet, as we speak, a whole generation of Amanda Bouldins are about to come streaming out of the universities and into our legislatures and executive offices, to rule over our civilization in a state of purposeful ignorance, reality denial, and imagined victimhood.

So to rewind back to that axiomatic libertarian response, it may well seem at first that a libertarian ought to support the non-violent behavior of the topless protesters. Or perhaps, the cause of liberty might be better served by telling a bunch of left wing activists that if they want to show off their repulsive chests, sexualize our children, and destroy our way of life, they would be better off moving to somewhere warmer.

I’ll take the liberty of suggesting California. They ought to fit in there just fine.




This effort is made possible by donors like you. You can also help by shopping through my Amazon affiliate link. Without that support, this site will cease to exist.

Subscribe via email and never miss another post!

  • paendragon

    Guess I’ll opt for the pedantic approach this time, re: “These two strategies for achieving a more libertarian society are in direct opposition to one another. The two may well have quite similar or even identical end goals, but their strategies put them at odds with one another.”

    “End goals” are “strategy,” Chris; and what you’re describing are the tactics chosen to achieve those strategic end-goals. You’re welcome!

    • Jeremy Woods

      End goals are the “fruit” of a successful strategy. Strategy is how you get there. You’re welcome.

      • paendragon

        No, those would be “achieved end goals” not goals per se.

        You’re welcome.

        • Richard Chiu

          Technically, while there is a category of “grand strategy” which is focused more on defined ends than applied means, overall strategy is entirely about means. And even at the level of grand strategy, the strategist’s concern is expressing the ends in terms that clarify the means, not choosing those ends.

          Tactics refers to operational patterns and principles which are likely to be useful regardless of higher strategic concerns, and thus almost independent of ends as such. For instance, you might have an end goal of exploring your atheist beliefs and life-style free from the dictates of Sharia law. This might result in various strategies, one of wiping out all Muslims, another of securing a defensive perimeter around your nation, and yet another of relying on well-armed citizen militia to kill any Muslims who make trouble in your country. These different strategies are all dependent on similar basic small unit tactics like employing well-aimed rifle fire to suppress enemy movement and return fire while maneuvering to flank and destroy them.

          One can only really identify a strategy as being an end in itself in the case that being a military commander is your ultimate objective. My ultimate objective is just to get to relax somewhere and have nobody bug me about their problems. I have two strategies for this, teaching people to solve their own problems and killing everyone who just doesn’t want to learn how. For me, neither of these strategies are ends in themselves, they are just something I do as a means to my goal. Conversely, my goal of relaxing somewhere and have nobody bug me isn’t a strategy.

          • paendragon

            Haha well said!

    • Guy From V

      Strategy is theory, big-picture and in the future. Tactics are messy, pragmatic and happening now. Neither are the same as objectives.

      • paendragon

        Strategy is the plan to achieve the objective. Tactics are the means the strategy adopts to achieve same. For instance, you need to take some land, so you have a choice of strategies concerning how to do it. One strategy might involve a sea attack, the other one by air assault. The tactics for the first one should involve boats or submarines, while the tactics used for the second should probably involve planes or at least hang-gliders. Other tactics could involve employing other tactical devices to succeed in the the same overall strategy and achieve the same goal.

        • Guy From V

          What you are calling tactics I’d call logistics or order of battle.

          • paendragon

            Logistics is a process of choosing the right tactics to suit the best strategy to attain the desired goal.

          • Guy From V

            Logistics is getting crap you need in the right place at the right time.

          • paendragon

            I used to be employed in the Army Logistics Corps.

  • Mr. Michael

    I once came across these fanatics back in 2008 out in Venice Beach, California. 50-100 of the most disgusting men and women “freeing the nipple”. One woman angrily handed me a flyer and asked me to take off my shirt and place duct-tape over my nipples to show solidarity for their cause. I told this lunatic I’d give her a dollar to put her shirt back on.

    • Coralyn Herenschrict

      If you had been genuinely committed to freedom, even for people who would use it in ways you don’t approve of, you would have said, “I disapprove of how you dress, but I will defend to the death your right to dress that way.” And taken off your shirt.

      • Richard Chiu

        Would you defend it to the death?

        I’m just curious. I wouldn’t, nor would I defend to the death the “right” of anyone to not ever see repulsive shirtless people. But if you would, why not defend to the death the right of people not too be exposed to repulsive toplessness?

        I think an argument could be made, if you were serious about it, but I’m just wondering whether you are.

        • Coralyn Herenschrict

          Anyone who claims to value freedom should be willing to fight for it when the stakes, risks, and situation make sense and call for it. I would. In this situation the way to fight was removing a shirt. Surely, not too much to ask.

          There is no such thing as the right not to be exposed to repulsive toplessness. This is equivalent to the right not to feel offended. Such are liberals notions of rights.

          The only right is property. That’s it.

          These protesters own their own bodies. The may dress as they see fit, only because their bodies are their property. A private land owner may evict them from his property, only because his land is his property.

          That either party wants to express himself or feels offended or harbors one standard or another of “decency” has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The notion it does is a liberal statist notion. One that Chris has been sucked into and accepted wholeheartedly.

          Government held land, like state parks and state beaches, is unowned. So no one has the right to evict anyone else from it. Only private property owners have that right. People occupying government held land remain private property owners in their own body and may act accordingly

          Personal feelings, values, and preferences surrounding nudity do not and can not in any way justify use of force, either by oneself or by proxy via the state, to strip others of their property rights in their own bodies.

          • Simon

            Why do you support topless specific law and not repeal of all public decency laws ?

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            Of course I support repeal of all public decency laws! I support repeal of the state!

            Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

          • Richard Chiu

            Which makes it a tactical question of whether carving out exemptions so that certain groups have less incentive to fight the state itself and all interests are powerfully incentivized to bid for having the state on their side is really the best way to make that happen.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            Rothbard says:

            ..while the abolitionist will accept a gradual step in the right direction if that is all that he can achieve, he always accepts it grudgingly, as merely a first step toward a goal which he always keeps blazingly clear. The abolitionist…will take a bit of the loaf if necessary — while always preferring the whole loaf if he can achieve it.

            I would go farther and say the libertarian must accept a bit of the loaf if offered. If he were to reject it, the victims involved with the bit could otherwise rightly accuse him of collaborating with oppressors, gambling with their freedoms, or holding their freedoms hostage to extort them for their support.

            In other words it’s fine if we only invest our own time and energy into pushing for repeal of all public decency laws. However we are obligated to sanction and accept Free the Nipple exceptions to as well.

          • Richard Chiu

            Rejecting the crumbs offered to those who serve the larger cause of injustice is collaboration?

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            If we wish, we can reject partial restoration of our own freedoms holding out for something bigger. But we can’t make that call for other people. If we obstruct the restoration of other people’s freedoms against their wishes, we’re no longer blameless for their oppression.

          • Richard Chiu

            Wait, so I’d be a “collaborator” for not cooperating with actual collaborators?

          • Richard Chiu

            I’m not saying that they don’t have the right to do as they please when they don’t violate anyone else’s property interests.

            But other people own their own eyes just as much as these people own their own bodies. Why aren’t you fighting for their right to be able to use their eyes freely without being deliberately forced to see things which they have clearly established they find repulsive? Sure, they can close their eyes, but that makes it impossible for them to see AT ALL…and thus impossible to find their way to someplace where it would be safe to open their eyes again.

            Someone who wants to go topless can wait until they are somewhere that it doesn’t horrify anyone. This is a pretty clear cut case of “your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose.” Not because noses have some inherent priority over fists, but because in practice it is easier to not punch someone in the nose than to avoid being punched in the nose. The burden of avoiding initiating a nose-fist collision has to fall oh someone, and we place it on the person waving their fist around because to do otherwise is insane.

            I will not fight to the death for your right to wave your fist around and insist that if someone else’s nose gets in the way, it is their fault. I will not join you in a protest where we march through a crowded area and deliberately swing our fists at other people’s noses while demanding that they take responsibility for keeping their noses out of the way. I’m willing to consider a reasoned argument as to why the general presumption that the right to swing a fist freely should have priority over the right to not have to constantly dodge people’s fists, but until I’m convinced on the merits I won’t fight to the death to defend your right to “control your own body” in that particular manner.

            The situation would be completely different if we were talking about challenging the notion that “your right to swing your fist ends where it intersects the ballistic path of my high-velocity round.” If there were people claiming that when they shoot someone it is the fault of the person who got shot, because the bullet was on a ballistic trajectory and thus couldn’t avoid the collision etc., I would immediately join your protest challenging that and go around waving my fist in public around people who were brandishing loaded guns. It’s a life and death issue, and I’d defend to the death your right to not get shot by people carelessly using other humans for backstops.

            Practical consequences make a difference. Allowing people to use their eyes is more practically important than allowing a few dozen people angry over how repulsive their bodies appear to go shirtless in public. I would say the same if they were waving around feces and offending everyone’s sense of smell, even though defecation is a significantly important bodily function and people really can just hold their breath and leave the area.

          • You have conflated seeing and touching.

          • Richard Chiu

            And what, in reality, is the difference?

            Physical “contact” as we so naively call it, is in physics terms a matter of the electrical forces between quantum ‘particle’ waveforms. “Sight” turns out to be pretty much exactly the same thing, just involving a faster and less massive quantum ‘particle’ waveform.

          • I am really disappointed. You are picking at nits and using the tactics of hermeneuticsm, nihilism, relativism, and solipsism.

          • Richard Chiu

            You started it.

            Okay, that’s not true, you didn’t start it, and neither did CH, nobody remembers who started all this nit-picking about how touching counts and seeing doesn’t cause eyes aren’t important idea.

            But I’m pointing it out. And that’s the first step towards stopping it.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            Property means physical property. Tangible, real things. Flesh. Land. Items you can touch.

            I own my physical eyes. This does not obligate others to behave with their bodies in ways such that my eyes only register images I find emotionally pleasing.

            A person displaying something I don’t want to see is not “forcing” me to see anything, even if through a confluence of circumstances it was impractical for me to avoid looking. Force means physical force. There is no other kind.

          • Richard Chiu

            So, if I use a UV laser to blind you, that’s okay? Cause by your arbitrary standard I didn’t ‘touch’ you. The physical force may be more than that exerted by visible light bouncing off a repulsive chest, but it’s a lot less than a tangible touch any sane person would claim was an attack.

      • Sam Cru

        You wouldn’t defend anything to the death, let alone a stranger’s bare nipples. Stop LARPing.

        • Richard Chiu

          Oh, I’d guess there must be something. I once posted a meme with a disturbing image captioned, “You’re going to resist. Why wait till it’s futile?”

          I believe it’s generally true.

          • Sam Cru

            Most people don’t resist.

          • Richard Chiu

            My grandmother resisted when my aunt gave her an impromptu lethal injection because she was tired of the sound of her mother’s breathing.

            It was completely futile, especially because she didn’t resist until after her ‘favorite daughter’ finished administering the drug.

            But she did resist.

            I know, that’s just an anecdote. But you didn’t know just how completely, Stockholm syndrome sheep asleep that old woman was her whole life. If she resisted to the death, I can’t imagine who wouldn’t, in the end.

  • Richard Chiu

    This is an excellent essay overall, but I found myself distracted somewhat by the inexplicable use of “misled” where “misguided” would seem the more appropriate term. Strictly speaking, only entities capable of cognition can be “misled” in the most common use of the term, and only those able to be led in different directions without being fundamentally altered in principle can be “misled” in any meaningful sense at all.

    I will also note that it is not necessary to take any position on which position (morally degenerate or traditional) is “right” and which “wrong”. The fact that one position is seeking to use state power to suppress the other is sufficient cause to find it incompatible with libertarianism. A case can indeed be made that those seeking to uphold traditional values only need the intrusive state to be abolished so as to allow free competition in the marketplace (private beaches, no welfare at all, etc.). But it is entirely sufficient to note that those seeking moral degeneracy are only seeking to shift (and increase) the regulatory burden onto others.

    I for one do not wish any aspect of the female body to be “desexualized”. I love the sexuality in every hair of a sexy woman’s head. I find desexualization repulsive in principle, and desexualized men and women repulsive in fact. But I do not approve of any state action in regards to the matter, even if the market somehow went against me and it turns out everyone else really longs to embrace desexualization, as long as I retain the freedom to be fully sexual myself and associate with women who choose to remain sexual, I can endure the knowledge that we are a tiny minority who will constitute the only source of future generations, so long as the state is not invoked to deprive our minority of our sexuality.

    I approve of the state inaction of not giving out welfare, not the state action of imposing drug testing. As long as the drug testing is voluntary in the sense that anyone can get out of it by forgoing participation in the welfare system, it is less problematic than the involuntary imposition of taxes on those who have no wish to participate in the welfare system at all. I still would rather that the state did no drug testing, administered no welfare, and imposed no taxes, but between voluntary participation in a drug-tested welfare system and involuntary imposition of taxes, there can be no contest on libertarian grounds. After all, I should happily permit a private entity to administer a drug-tested welfare system to voluntary participants, but could not tolerate any such entity imposing involuntary taxation.

    The same is true of a privately owned beach, I should permit the owners to cater to the majority demand for a ‘morally clean’ environment, or to a smaller but perhaps more lucrative ‘degenerate’ clientèle . I should not in either case tolerate vociferous protesters violating the established policy of the ownership, whether by running around topless where the owners prohibited it or forcibly covering people against their will.

    Of course, I still object to the state being involved in either case. But I object less when the state is only doing something I would permit of a private entity, but of course doing it much less competently and efficiently. This is not because I don’t have libertarian principles but because I do have libertarian priorities. If most beaches were privately owned by people who regarded desexualization as a desirable outcome and encouraged it, I should be repulsed but content to frequent beaches which did not have such policies (or no beaches at all, if the market were so entirely against me). But if non-owners were allowed to dictate to owners the policy of their beaches, then private property rights would be meaningless and that I should not tolerate at all.

  • Another well reasoned political comentary, vinage Cantwell, his argument not only fits today’s political reaity, it follows the historical progression of libertarian politics from the beginning in 1972. It was a limited government Republican Congressman, Roger McBride, that switched sides in the Electoral College and voted Libertarian. The reason libertarians have never gotten any equivalent support any so called “civil libertarian” should be obvious. The left is very easy to understand. The Left does NOT, never has and never will, support individual liberty based on self ownership and property rights. True libertarian values are always secondary or minimalized by the liberal left because they support the exact opposite, the collectivized group rights of favored constintuencies.

  • Simon

    It would be interesting to see how the “free the nipples” people react to a “free the penis” movement.

  • Simon

    A libertarian axiomatic answer to “free the nipples” is simply : it doesn’t reduce the State, it makes it bigger.
    “free the nipples” want a loophole in laws so women can show their breast as they want, and use the State force whenever a man is aroused and does something “offending”.

    • Coralyn Herenschrict

      That’s the proper line of reasoning – what reduces the state. Loopholes in laws that strip liberties weaken those laws. For example, tax loopholes reduce taxes. Gun show loopholes reduce oppressive gun restrictions. A libertarian should be in favor of loopholes and swiss-cheese onerous laws as much as possible.

      • Richard Chiu

        The weakening of the rule of law does not, of itself, weaken the state. It gives it more arbitrary authority, that is to say, more latitude to decide according to the current whims of the agents of government to say in any particular case what the law no longer clearly decides.

        Indeed, the strongest possible argument against the state as such is that it does not subject the agents of government to the same laws as are imposed on the people generally, and thus innately violates the rule of law. When laws rule, agents of government are subject to the same laws as anyone else. When agents of government rule by whim, the law does not rule.

        • Coralyn Herenschrict

          Weakening the rule of law does weaken the state. Absent state law, the need for order and rules will be acutely felt. That need gives rise to market demand ($) for competing entrepreneurs to enter the space and provide private solutions.

          For example, the government does not monopolize dating the way it monopolizes health care. So we see a plethora of competing online dating sites and matchmaking services with reputational systems arising to fill the need for structure in dating. This serves to displace and keep the state out of the space.

          The framers of the Constitution cited the weak nature of the Articles of Confederation and clusterf*ck execution of the Revolutionary War as justification for creating a powerful central government. They failed to understand the lack of rule of law at the federal level, given time, would have evoked voluntary, mutually negotiated solutions among the states precisely because these things were genuine pain points. Same with individuals.

          • Richard Chiu

            You’re making a basic error here, and it’s a pretty serious one.

            You are taking the free market for granted. You are assuming that excluding one threat (even if it is the biggest and most aggressive one) to voluntary exchange is sufficient to create the free market.

            It isn’t. It never has been. This is why states originate in the first place, because people were seeking protection from other criminals and were so desperate that they decided to just trust the strongest criminal organization to ‘protect’ them. Which, as long as it was run by relatively smart criminals, it would tend to do more than not.

            I oppose the state. I oppose allowing anyone to be above the law. But conflating the rule of law with government is the classic and central error which allows the evil of the state to flourish.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            “Free market” is another term for people voluntarily trading wherever it is profitable / in their best interest to. I’ve never known a normal person in any circumstances pass up an opportunity to exchange his X for 2X.

            All potential threats to the free market are just themselves problems to be solved by the free market. It is people’s failure to understand that that leads to people clamor for governments, thinking they contribute some special pixie dust without which markets could not operate.

            If by “rule of law” you mean rules of behavior, enforcement, and consequences, then yes, we need all that and free markets will supply all that just fine if left alone to. All problems currently addressed by government are just business opportunities solvable voluntarily.

          • Richard Chiu

            The free market can only solve problems if the free market is allowed to exist in the first place. The state suppresses the free market to prevent a free market from solving the problem of the state, lesser criminal organizations will do so in the absence of the state.

            This is how states come to exist in the first place. It can start with just one criminal, smart enough to realize that if he allows people to get together and voluntarily associate they may find a way to overwhelm him.

            Why do you think the first thing hostage takers do is force everyone to lay down and shut up? To suppress their ability to discuss what to do about the hostage taker, whom they outnumber and could overpower if allowed to engage in free market voluntary exchange.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            The free market exists and solves all problems absent governments. You are correct, the first thing governments do is immediately monopolize essential services and punish any who attempt to compete as this would render them unnecessary.

            The X for 2X idea has nothing to do with time preferences and delayed gratification which is all the Stanford marshmallow experiment is about.

            I’m talking about no-brainer self interest. Trade occurs because you realize you can feed your family steak instead of gruel if and only if you relent to trade your wicked knife sharpening skills with my wicked cattle-raising skills. And absent a state you’d also trade for John Doe’s dispute resolution service to escrow, broker, and insure the deal. And Mary Jane’s heavy armored territory defense service to ensure no gang moves in to call itself your government and start bossing you around as governments do now.

            Free markets only need your preference for more and better goods and services rather than less and worse and your realization government is not required.

          • Richard Chiu

            If the free market already existed in the state of nature and solved all problems, then how is it that it didn’t prevent the rise of the state?

            Or is the rise of the state not a problem?

            As for conventional trade, there is a problem in that I’m better at almost everything than anyone else I know. Including fighting the government.

            Also, normal people trading X for 2X in the specific circumstance of having to delay consuming X long enough to get 2X is the exact finding of the experiment. I didn’t insist on any particular interpretation of the result because the initial result itself was exactly what you claimed you’d never knew to occur.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            Why and how faith in government became a mass delusion among people is a huge historical/sociological/biological question.   I suspect much in the same way faith in religion arose and persists.

            I see faith in government as an especially toxic combination of interlinked ideas, a pernicious mental meme, behaving akin to a parasitic mental virus.  I suspect it originally arose in nature as a perversion of biological impulses associated with mechanisms of leadership and cooperation in animals.  It then evolved capabilities of spreading to consume entire populations by heavily rewarding its beneficiaries for aggressively infecting others while eliminating the resistant.  It perseveres to reach the next generation by effectively masking itself from the immune systems (doubt, rational inquiry) of the hosts.

            As for your talent in producing things obviating any need for trade, I invite you to read up on the Law of Comparative Advantage which reveals talent is no substitute for trade.  Also check out “I, Pencil” on YouTube and read The Toaster Project.  It’s hard to overstate how mind-bogglingly productive specialization and trade are, regardless of one’s individual talents.  Life would be harsh and short without specialization and trade.

          • Richard Chiu

            Okay, but you didn’t answer the key question.

            If the rise of government is a problem, then why didn’t the free-market solve it?

            And yeah, I know the law of comparative advantage. I also know that it only works if other people can reliably do things to a standard which is acceptable to you…like by practical experience. I’m just saying it’s a problem for me, not that I don’t have any solutions.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            Sorry, thought I addressed your question but apparently did so unsuccessfully. I’ll try again.

            The free market is acting as we speak but hasn’t yet successfully caught up with the problem of the concept of the state arising among humans. Not because of any failing of free market mechanisms but because of a particular vulnerability/failing of humans as a creature with a particular evolutionary history. Just as humans happen to have a particular vulnerability to the HIV virus that knocks them on their butts as a population until evolution can respond over multiple generations with better genes and immune systems that recognize the virus for what it is. The meme of “the state,” to humans in their current state of mental evolution, is like HIV. It is acting as a powerful virus exploiting human weaknesses to sabotage and warp their behaviors en masse.

            There is a funny yet telling YouTube animation called “Government Explained” that illustrates this with the notion of a sentient alien creature visiting earth. This creature is completely baffled by the very concept of government and repeatedly asks the simplest questions about it that a human responding struggles mightily to answer. If that alien, immune to the virus of “government,” colonized the moon as an anarchic territory, and offered humans the chance to move there, the free market would take it from there. Humans would rapidly move in increasing numbers to take advantage of the blessings of freedom under voluntary governance and vastly higher productivity possible. Meanwhile all the state-run societies on earth would have no choice but to progressively scale back state power or be rendered empty shells with no citizens left. I.e., the free market would work.

            The good news is even without aliens supplying a state-free alternative, on a time scale of millennia, human rationality has shown a tendency to evolve beyond false notions. Just in the past 300 years due to the spread of reason, religion in many parts of the world has progressively receded from its overriding role dominating human life, and that’s likely to continue. The fact we now type this on computers in the partial comfort, safety, and freedom of our own homes rather than beat our chests around the village campfire in tribute to the almighty authority of a tribal chief who controls every aspect of our daily lives is testament to the progress of rationality over state power. It may take another millennia, but eventually human rationality will prevail and the notion of the state will completely fall by the wayside as a dark relic from a tortured evolutionary past. That is, one way or another, the free market will prevail.

          • Richard Chiu

            Okay, so your point is that human nature was in the past inadequate to support the existence of a free-market, but it has improved…as a result of millennia under state domination, apparently.

            So, when you said, “In a state of nature, the free market already exists and solves all problems.” what you meant was that if there exist sufficiently rational beings, they will by nature interact according to the principles of the free-market. I can agree to that, but it is very different from saying the free market already exists in a state of nature. I mean, one statement strikes me as a lot more hypothetical than the other.

            I have to take issue with the idea that millennia of domination by the state is really likely to have improved the fundamental nature of humans. I just don’t see this. Yes, there are humans that seem relatively rational, but then there always were and they don’t seem especially more common now relative to the overall population. I’d say they’re even less so, just on principle.

            As for outgrowing religion…I think that you’re forgetting that worship of the secular state is no less an irrational religion than anything else, and it is in fact more irrational than many. This sort of ‘progress’ strikes me as…lateral at best.

            Still, I accept your contention that it is the nature of truly rational people to interact with each other according to principles of the voluntary exchange of goods. But I don’t quite see how this alleviates the need to deal with irrational people who resort to the competitive exchange of violence. Nor how it makes subversion of the principle of rule of law a gain for rational voluntary interactions.

            This may be a matter of definition. I regard as “law” the principle that a person must refrain from initiatory violence to be trusted as a participant in the free market. By “law” I mean a universal principle to which all persons are subject. Thus I regard the rule of such laws as the above to be fundamental to the operation and integrity of the free-market.

            You appear to be operating under some definition of “rule of law” which fails to distinguish it from arbitrary government by tyrannical edict, ignoring the history of the term. Would this be about right?

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            Human nature is more than adequate to thrive within a free market. Just not perfect. Like all imperfect creatures, humans are susceptible to disease, in this case a mental one. When mad cow disease sweeps cattle herds in chronic fashion, do we conclude cows are fundamentally ill-suited to graze pastures? Or do we simply realize their genetics do have a peculiar vulnerability.

            It is despite the church and state, not because of them, that human rationality has advanced. Agreed, the current mass worship of the state is akin to mass to worship of a supernatural deity. I’m more sanguine secularism and the associated rise of the scientific method represents progress.

            Gratified to hear we share respect for voluntary exchange. I would never claim alleviation of the need to deal with irrational people attempting to live by violence. Those people will always arise. I merely claim a competitive, free market with private law can deal with those people better than a monopolistic state can.

            You decry the “above-its-own-law” aspect of government as if this could be somehow stripped away from government. Yet this is essential to the very nature of government. Its agents must possess exemption from the NAP and operate above it according to a double standard. Otherwise, the entity would not be government.

            Yes, refraining from initiatory violence is a prerequisite for trade, and everyone knows that. That just means those who just initiate violence are aggressors who didn’t want to trade anyway those who do want to trade (most people) won’t initiate violence.

            Trust is itself a good on the free market. To the extent a market requires trust to function, participants will bring it to the party, BYO style. They will build up reputation, or bond their performance with mutually trusted 3rd parties, or employ escrow services, etc. Rules of behaviors (“law”) is itself a good on the free market participants will bring to the party as well. Participants can negotiate those rules in advance of any trade and mutually agree upon 3rd party dispute resolution, 3rd party enforcement, and consequences to violations. If you want to reserve the term “law” for only state-decreed rules of behavior and use a different term for privately negotiated rules of behavior, that’s fine with me, the function served by these sets of rules is exactly the same.

          • Richard Chiu

            The issue isn’t whether humans are better off in the free market, but whether they are naturally rational enough to generate, maintain, and defend it.

            I don’t see enough evidence that they are, on the whole. The fact that markets require trustworthy, rational actors doesn’t mean that they exist…it becomes a “unicorn” market. And the intellectual integrity of science is in decline, possibly as a result of the prestige of ‘science’ attracting too many people who are less interested in finding out how the world actually works than promulgating their vision of how it should.

            I have to take exception to your conflation of “government” with “state”. “State” is not a very precise term, but it is adequately defined as “how public affairs are currently run.” “Government”, on the other hand, means the restriction of otherwise possible activity. The free-market, by definition, is itself a form of government because it restricts the otherwise possible activity of intentionally imposing involuntary harms on people with impunity. The free-market is not the only possible form of government, nor is restricting imposition of harms the only possible action of government, nor perhaps is the free-market per se sufficient to maintain its own existence without an additional mechanism restricting activities which would undermine the free-market itself, depending on what counts as a “free-market”.

            Of course in colloquial usage we use “government” to mean “state”, because we are most familiar with the governments that are actually being implemented somewhere as states. But when you make an assertion about the fundamental principles of government, it is necessary to make the clear distinction between them. Agents of the free market must not possess exemption from the NAP and operate above it according to a double standard. Despite this, the free market must restrict the intentional imposition of harms, which is otherwise possible. It is therefore a government.

            To be clear, I do not claim that everything which governs is therefore a government. Only that which by its essential nature governs is government. It may be said that the free-market exists to enable human activity, not just restrict it, but if that made it not government then one could claim the same about welfare states. By definition, all existing governments are states, in both the general sense and the specific sense of being current public affairs, and we must abolish these states because they depend on the initiation of violence with impunity, which is by nature incompatible with the free-market.

            There is an interesting question about whether a functioning free-market would be a state in the sense of an identifiable current organization of public affairs. The absence of central planning and self-ordering nature of the market might mean that the organization of public affairs would be unidentifiable overall, that is to say, one could never in principle create an overall chart or description of the status rei publicæ. In this particular sense I think it is acceptable to say that the free-market would represent the actual abolition of the state.

      • Simon

        Loopholes can reduce the State in a way, but they often serve as shields to protect the State.
        Loopholes in taxes only serve the ones who spend their time and energy into studying tax code.
        And often the people who use the loopholes will be reluctant to see the whole law repealed, as the repeal would provide them additional competition.
        So I would not take a general stance for or against loopholes.

        • Coralyn Herenschrict

          Consequentialism is an invalid basis to defend more rights violations rather than less.

          • Simon

            Denying actions have consequences is crazy.
            When you request loopholes you support the State in a way.
            It is the same as voting.
            When you vote for a “lesser” evil, you actually say : “I want a master”.
            When you spend your energy to get a loophole in a law you say : “this law matters”.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            No one denies actions have consequences. It’s a question of what level you are at. If you zoom all the way back, and examine what basic principles best suit man by his nature, you’ll conclude respect for private property. A creature living by its nature leads to the best possible overall consequences, even if zooming in to a smaller frame doesn’t show that. Violation of property rights always leads to profound unseen adverse consequences. It is never optimal, even if it appears to be in the moment or in a narrow scope.

            I didn’t say anything about requesting loopholes, spending energy to get them, or voting, that’s a separate discussion. We are merely discussing in the abstract if an onerous law applied uniformly or an onerous law applied with exceptions is better. I say, with exceptions is better, because that constitutes less property rights violation.

          • Simon

            You are discussing in the abstract, I (and Cantwell) are discussing this specific case :).
            Wanting people to be free to clothe as they like is one thing, the actual laws and how they are applied is another.
            “I say, with exceptions is better, because that constitutes less property rights violation.”
            This is open to discussion.
            For instance, taxes. In one scenario you have a flat tax. In the second one you have thousand of laws & loopholes, and the average tax rate is a little lower.
            Which one is better ?

          • Richard Chiu

            An onerous law applied without exceptions will cease to be enforced at all, because anyone that might enforce it has just as much reason to dislike its consequences as everyone else.

            Thus the acid test of just how onerous a law really is is the number of people that must be excepted for the law to remain in force.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            I don’t perceive Cantwell is discussing the specific case of whether to invest time and energy lobbying government for loopholes to public decency laws versus investing time and energy into lobbying government to repeal public decency laws.

            However, if you are arguing that, then that’s a valid argument to make. Even then, I would not condemn non-libertarians who invest their time and energy into seeking loopholes. I’ll take an inch moving in the right direction, rather than a mile, if someone gives the inch to me for free.

            Assuming no part of the flat tax is a new category of tax, like a GST, then whichever tax scheme extracts the least amount of money from earners after costs of compliance. Smaller property rights violation.

          • Richard Chiu

            Your failure to understand what Cantwell is saying is not because he isn’t saying it clearly enough. It’s because he’s saying it a little too clearly for comfort.

          • Simon

            “I would not condemn non-libertarians who invest their time and energy into seeking loopholes”
            Yes I would not either.
            About the tax example I don’t think we can really reach a conclusion.
            All the problem is the “costs of compliance”. With a flat tax you have a small well defined cost. With a big tax or law code, you can’t really know in advance its cost, you get it only after the fact. There is just too much regulations, different for each activity, and changing all the time.
            One solution is to have someone to manage that for you, but then the cost of compliance is a lot higher … and you have to find such a person, which is not a given.
            That is a dark area, a risk, that many entrepreneurs would exchange for a few % points of revenue.

  • Guy From V

    Chris, before you try any weird or expensive gun grip options I personally just roll my own with something like 3M or Duck brand tread tape. Also, before any even more wildly expensive tritium and installing it and the obvious reason you brought up (if you can’t see your target, there’s nothing to target) 99¢ glow nail polish is just fine.

    • Richard Chiu

      I like to shape a good thick pistol-grip out of a couple of pieces of inch-thick hardwood. That way it fits my hand exactly. But if you’re not terribly comfortable with wood-working, duct tape can be used to fill out a handle, then you can finish it off with a layer of sports tape for added grip and comfort (I find that the surface of duct-tape can produce an unpleasant combination of slipperiness and blister-inducing friction/adhesion points, particularly when slightly sweaty, as a grip will get, and sports tape solves this nicely).

      It’s an AK, embrace and celebrate its cheap and durable nature. When you have all kinds of money to spend on after-market perfections, start with an AR lower and go wild as you like. You can also embrace both worlds with one of those AR lowers that you can bolt together out of simple chunks of minimally machined aluminum, they look like a joke (and they kinda are one), but they work fine.

  • The dissatisfaction of the populace with bad behavior in common spaces will naturally lead to the populace asking government to outlaw or otherwise legally discourage the undesirable behavior everywhere, an expansion of government.

    That’s an understandable sentiment in the short term; Thaddeus Russell in “A Renegade History of the United States” I think makes a good case that the economic and cultural freedoms we enjoy are largely thanks to cultural radicals (or “degenerates,” as you might call them), so backlash is short-lived.

    For the practical effects to child development, any harm would be negated by the benefit of teaching them not to turn to the government to solve their problems.

  • UsedtobeaSuitBoi

    from the anonymousconservative blog; ”I increasingly find myself wondering if conscious logical thought is something a select few are trained to do when they find themselves confronting a world which they (and their reproductive strategy/psychology) are not designed for.
    Libertarians end up very thoughtful because after umpteen times confronting the fact that they can’t just enjoy life and be left alone, they begin to knuckle down and look closely at how they are living, and whether something they are doing is right or wrong. I imagine if every libertarian lived in the wilderness of Alaska, treated those they happened across politely right up until they had to kill them, and then they continued on, making their way as they prepared for the winter, few libertarians would think critically about life. They’d go day by day, each emotion perfectly guiding them to optimal behavior, be it surviving and enjoying calm moments, or occasionally burying the bodies of those whose unctuousness brought it upon themselves. They would die without ever understanding liberalism, conservatism, or questioning what is right or wrong. They would just know how to live.”
    this is so relevant to my experience it stopped me cold.

    • Richard Chiu

      It is a question worth pondering.

      I believe that people who generally respond to life’s difficulties by thinking about them simply like to think, and if life were less difficult they’d probably spend even more of if thinking. But there may be a good many people who respond to life’s difficulties with thought only after all other approaches fail, and these people might not like thinking but do it only when it is clear they must.

  • Matthew Reece

    Free the Nipple is yet another example of r-selected people trying to ruin things. I was surprised to not see a mention of r/K concerning Free the Nipple in this article.

  • Brian Ryman

    So you condemn libertarians for fighting against sexist laws because if these sexist laws weren’t in force, women would expose their nipples in public and that will encourage the populace to demand sexist laws from their government…
    “Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.”

    • Yeah. My head was starting to spin as I tried to follow the high speed turns. It led me to thinking that I should get off this merry-go-round.

    • Richard Chiu

      It’s…not that dizzying.

      The strategy of challenging existing social standards, institutions, and norms for the sake of forcing expansion of government power is a well-known and extensively documented strategy of Marxism…one that has wreaked havoc on what was once a significantly freer country.

  • Coralyn Herenschrict

    The extent of consequentialist argument and ends-justifies-means rationalization in this piece defies belief. It’s hardly recognizable as libertarian.

    Reads like a sophistic apologia calling for more state action rather than less – necessarily implying more laws stripping more freedoms, using more jails and police, with more taxes to pay. As if additional aggression can compensate for prior aggression. As if imposing one set of personal views onto all others who don’t agree could possibly be just. As if it is good to carefully husband the state’s ill-gotten gains so they may be conserved and “properly managed” for the “common good.”

    An anarchist would know state resources are stolen goods. They must be open to all comers to use, exploit, expropriate, and degrade to the fullest possible extent in order to hamper and burden the state as much as possible. As one would treat the possessions of any known aggressor. An anarchist would understand no one may claim exclusive right to use or right to dictate how others may use public (unowned) property any more than he could do so on un-homesteaded property.

    There used to be an anarchist here with some right-leaning personal preferences. Now there is just a right-winger with some anti-state leaning personal preferences. Someone who has become obsessed with pseudo-social-science gobbledygook. Someone who maybe doesn’t like the state all that much, but meh, what can you do, it’s here, so hey, let’s use it. Let’s sic the state’s guns on the “degenerates” – i.e. anyone who is different. People who are open-minded about sex or were born under a different ruler on another piece of dirt. For the love of God, can we get some police with some military gear out here to clean these hippies off the streets? You know, for the sake of the children?

    Oh, how the formerly principled have fallen. Really disappointing.

    • Now THAT really nailed it! Well said indeed!

      • Coralyn Herenschrict

        Thanks Dennis!

    • Richard Chiu

      I’m sorry, but you’re missing a few linkages.

      There is no libertarian case for resorting to initiatory violence, but that doesn’t mean libertarians need to embrace and support things they find unsustainable and obnoxious simply because they are non-violent. Indeed, once you say that someone cannot refuse a deal…it is no longer a non-violent offer.

      Cantwell isn’t saying we should beat down non-violent protests we find offensive or misguided (though I still wish he’d at least used the term “misguided”), or that we should call upon the state to do it for us. He’s simply saying that we can and should refuse to support things we find obnoxious, and focus on offenses the state commits against principles we actually care to defend rather than be distracted by the theatrics of people who are not our allies even if they don’t actually deserve the violence the state visits on them.

      This is a delicate distinction and it is not one I and Cantwell have always drawn in the exact same space. But it is an extremely important distinction and if we cannot draw it at all (despite difficulties agreeing), libertarianism is a dead letter, a mere wordy facade for throwing in our lot with Marxism.

      • Coralyn Herenschrict

        He’s going far beyond saying we should stop supporting things we find obnoxious. He says:

        …[slapping away the paws of the state] is misled when dealing with society as it actually exists, where commons are monopolized by the State and the costs of degeneracy are redistributed…non-violent degenerate behaviors in the presence of government subsidy necessarily lead to a more oppressive State than the State which outlaws degenerate behaviors.

        In case you missed it, Chris is arguing in favor of more state power, and fewer liberties, for consequential reasons. His implicit argument goes like this: The state will tax and take liberties in proportion to the level of demand for it to do so. So in the name of self-defense, we can do whatever it takes to stem that demand, including take up state power to legislate, tax, and forcibly compel behaviors across the population to outlaw “degeneracy.”

        A police state does nicely in this regard, actually so it seems Chris would find himself little to complain about these days. Perhaps he should run for office.

        • Richard Chiu

          No, he’s arguing against wasting our time fighting the state in ways that will only make the state stronger.

          Have you ever been in a serious hand to hand fight? If you lose your cool and start wildly slapping away every jab, a clever/experienced fighter will quickly have you flailing, off-balance, completely exposed, and then lying on the floor trying to figure out whether breathing or vomiting is a higher priority.

          Every level of real combat has that same principle. Libertarians will never win against the state unless they fight smarter than statists.

          Fortunately, that’s not hard. Unfortunately, it seems most libertarians aren’t willing to try.

          • Fighting the state is NOT necessary except when you are directly attacked. And because of their currently overwhelming force, it would be a foolish waste of one’s own resources and life.

            Just walk away!

  • Fl Cracker

    Their boobs will be welcomed in Florida. We like ’em.

  • cityscape

    Your move to Somalia redux is eye roll inducing. Since we’re discussing degeneracy in terms of things people are perfectly entitled to do with their own bodies, where do you stand on obesity? I guess you must not feel being fat unravels the moral fabric of society like a bare breast does. For all your barking about traditional gender roles and masculinity, you’re oddly unashamed of your sloppy set of bitch tits which are absolutely unacceptable in the theories of human breeding you espouse, and in real life, as I’ve personally been a witness to you getting shot down by fit girls. If it wasn’t for your balding, innocent children in the street would be left traumatized playing a game of guess the gender after encountering you. What’s worse is that you’re unemployed and have all the time in the world to work on your fitness which is non existent. Obesity is a massive drain on the health care system, state imposed fitness regimens would be akin to mandatory drug testing to assure these resources are not being squandered to treat patients whose health problems are the result of being a fat fuck, like you. Also, it’s interesting that you go to great lengths not to mention alcoholism as degeneracy, because it most certainly is.

    • Richard Chiu

      Wow, we’re all so impressed. You really have just logically destroyed all possible opposition to your agenda, whatever it is.

  • Snowdog

    I think you’d be proud of Amanda’s record in the House, even if you disagree with her on the topless issue.

  • Murray Roodbaard

    There is no libertarian case against non-violent “degeneracy”. Only a non-libertarian one, because a non-libertarian case can also be made against non-violent forms of behavior. In the form of statism, this means making such behavior victimless “crimes.”
    First of all, if the degeneracy is non-violent, it is by default not a violation of either the NAP or private property rights. If it is, it is violent.
    Second, “degeneracy” is an entirely subjective term denoting personal views of morality. It means nothing but what it means, subjectively, to the person using the term. I could easily agree with what Chris calls ”degenerate” indeed being degenerate, but it would also be an entirely subjective and personal assessment on my part, and no libertarian case for being against it can be made, because libertarianism is the NAP and private property rights, period. No more, no less. And all non-violent forms of (degenerate) behavior comply with the NAP, and are thus by default libertarian.
    On the flip side, i could also disagree with Chris that the behavior is “degenerate” for equally subjective and personal reasons. They are all merely opinions. And opinions, as Clint Eastwood said, are like assholes; everybody has one.