The myth of social progessivism

Social progressivism.  This is a concept many associate with as citizens and politicians organized for change.

A lot of people think this is a good thing.  "Who doesn't want bad situations to improve?" Is what they would ask us.

However, what social progressives do not talk about is how said change will occur.  We want to know who is deciding what must be changed and how.

Social progressivism in America is another name for socialism.  The modern progressive movement, historically ushered in by Teddy Roosevelt is an advocate of change enacted by government and determined by a few over the many.

In other countries with historical backgrounds of monarchies, dictatators, and communism, progressivism seems fine because they have little regard for individualism.  The individual exists to serve society.  Thus conformity with social "change" is not just expected, but demanded.

However, in America, ours is not a society of the many over the one.  Ours is a society where the one is not only protected, but empowered.

Our Constitution is written to guarantee that an individual's and a minorities rights cannot be easily voted away by a majority.

This is because our founding is predicated on the idea that we are a group of individuals engaged in voluntary association, each having natural rights that cannot be regulated, imposed or removed by other people.

Here, society exists because individuals agree to collaborate and be a society.  The individual does not exist at the whim or service of society.

Here, the individual has value because of our natural rights.  Society does not determine the value of the individual.

For social progressives, this means the change they want, no matter how well intentioned, cannot simply be imposed.

This is the main reason social progressives want to see the American Constitution as a fluid document rather than the bedrock that it is.

The more people understand that the Constitution is not easily editable and is indeed not meant to be changed simply for the sake of change, then the less influence these progressives will have on public policy and society in general.

Police depts, not police officers are the real problem

The population and the media are having a heyday complaining about rogue officers who are being jackass jack booted thugs.

Those police officers exist.  However, statistically speaking, they are a tiny minority of all police officers in general.

Most police officers believe themselves to be and are generally making an effort to be good people doing a necessary job, and they are.

Police departments on the other hand exist primarily for the purpose of protecting a city or town's property and financial interests.  After that, protecting residents and enforcing laws is in their purpose.

How do we know this to be true?  For decades, police departments have encouraged the public to be compliant victims.  To avoid confrontation and give the criminals what they demand and count on the police department to follow up and apprehend the criminals.

This does not work.  It embolden criminals because they know that most people will not defend themselves.

Far too many police departments not only encourage victim compliance, but actively oppose open and concealed carry licences.

Again, looking at the statistics of police departments across the nation, they know that they cannot be in a position to deter or early intervene in the vast majority of violent crimes.

They would have to have officers in the area at the time of each crime to prevent or interrupt it.  Given officer to resident population ratios, this is statistically impossible and they know it.

Police departments are authoritarian organizations by nature and with the exception of locally elected law enforcement such as county sheriffs, they are "hired guns" by the city.  Most if not all answer directly to the Mayor's office.

Remember,  your average Joe police officer is there with good intentions often thinking of themself as a "good guy".  However.  They are hired hands.  They must follow the directions they are given and enforce laws on the books or risk being fired themselves.

Morality is not their job.  Just because something is legal or illegal does not necessarily "right" or "wrong".  You cannot legislate morality and that is a cold, hard fact of life.  That means you cannot "enforce" morality either.  You can only enforce laws.

So, we have a few jackasses that are making other officers look bad, a 24 hour cycle news media that pushes the negative stuff 100 to 1 over "feel good" stories, police departments that put police officers in positions they simply should not be in, and those same police departments that actively encourage residents to be compliant victims and largely oppose self defense.

Now you know how we arrive at a place where addled brained whack jobs who probably should be on medication or locked up are getting the confidence to brazenly attack, en masse, the most un-defended places in our communities.

Don't attack individual officers (unless they are one of the few jackasses that abusing their position).  Demand civilian oversight of local police departments and anything else that minimizes the ability of police departments to create and maintain authoritarian regimes.

Libertarian Distinctions

Far too often, in an effort to tarnish and otherwise make others look bad, there are those folks who say incorrect things when talking about others.

They want to misdirect, bring about fear, uncertainty and doubt when a particular person, group of persons or ideal held by them is introduced.

Libertarianism is one of those often maligned this way.

For example, one of the most common mistellings is that libertarians are for personal profit at the expense of others around them.

They like to depict libertarians as greedy and selfish.

This is perhaps the farthest from the truth.

Libertarians want everybody to be able to profit from their own efforts, labor, investments, etc... as they are able to WITHOUT using force, coersion or violence against anyone in the course of doing so.

We want the ability to make our own way, make our own living, live our own life without government,  social or religious groups, or other private individuals harming us nor us harming those other people.

The reason these others disparage libertarians this way is because it is libertarians who strive for individual liberty but those others strive for control over individuals.

They want people to be dependent on them for protection and leadership, and everything else.

Libertarians believe we are each our own leader, we are able to protect ourselves, we are able to take care of ourselves.

Libertarians believe in you and in ourselves.  I can do it, you can do it,  if we choose to, we can do it together.

That's something those who disparage libertarianism don't want you to know.  That you don't need them.  They need you.

Let's Explore Libertarianism

I've read a lot of definitions of what libertarianism is on various websites,in different books and as expressed by different people.

What has become clear is that libertarianism has certain values that are immutable.

1. Individual liberty must be protected.

2. Individual association must be voluntary.

3. No individual may use force or coercion against another individual.

4. No state, religion or social group may use force or coersion against an individual except in justice vs individuals who have or attempt to do so vs other individuals.

5. An individual is responsible for themselves, their actions, and those they are responsible for.

Now, given the above listing of libertarian "traits" there are those who would further politicize libertarianism which, I suppose, is inevitable.

Mostly, these would be the hyphenated libertarians.  I've even seen some try to identify as a "libertarian-communist"  which I'm pretty sure we all realize can't co-exist due to those two contrary concepts cancelling each other out.

If there's any one of these hyphenated concepts that seems to make the most sense, it would have to be the "Constitutional-libertarian".

This type of identification essentially builds on supporting the American founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights as they relate to the six values listed above.

Libertarianism doesn't support agendas, it opposes government regulation

As usual the media gets it wrong again (and again and again).  They love to pronounce  that libertarians tend toward the liberal side on social issues.  They especially like to say that libertarians support LGBT marriage.

The fact is that libertarians are opposed to the government regulating marriage at all, for anyone.  Saying that is the same as being pro LGBT is incorrect at best and flat out lying at worst.

In fact, most libertarian minded people will tell you that they couldn't care less what any given persons sexual preference is.  That is each person's own business and is really only secondary at best in the issue.

The problem is that the folks in the chosen opposing two party sides want any ally they can find to push their own agendas.

Actual libertarians (not party Libertarians, those are a different animal) are supporters of individual liberty AND individual responsibility.

A libertarian is opposed to the government regulating or influencing anything that infringes individual liberty.  That's it. 

Some individual libertarians may personally support specific issues, but libertarianism in general doesn't pick sides in regards to social issues and political party agendas.

The sole concern is keeping government, religious and social groups from infringing on individual liberties.

Will the real Howard Roark please come forward

Howard Roark, for those unaware, is the hero of the book, "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand.

Now aside from the fact that this book so utterly and completely pisses off socialists and would be dictatorial types, it shows us an example of someone who has always fought against the mob mentality because of his insistence of living and working to his own ideals.

First of all some of the basic facts presented here are that altruism is nothing more than a disguise for controlling people "for their own good".

The idea that there is a mob mentality and that there are people who ever endeavor to manipulate the mob is central to everyday society.

Most people are conditioned to look towards others, indicated to be their "betters", to base their own opinions.

Then we have Howard Roark.  Roark is an individualist.  He looks to his own experiences and education (much of it self education) to form not only his opinions, but to set his own goals, ambitions and to see to his own values and principles.

The crowd, the mob, doesn't really figure in to his movement through the world except as an antagonist and stumbling block.

Howard Roark himself is an ideal of Rand's.  He represents what people in this country could be if left alone to live their life from government and social manipulation.

One question often asked is who in the real world might be most like Howard Roark.  The answer is everyone and no one.

Howard Roark exists as an epitome of the self driven, self guided person.  Just about everything about his character is an extreme.  Roark's movements in Rand's book are arch-typical.  No one can ever really be an exact Howard Roark because that kind of person can't exist outside of fiction.

However, the potential for every person to aspire to be like Roark in all the best ways is very possible.

One sad and disappointing aspect of our western culture has become the "end justifies the means" mentality.

In truth, it is the journey toward the end that makes the end such a reward.

We tell our children all the time that it's not winning every game that matters but how we played that is most important.

We tell our children that if we fall off the horse we need to get right back up on it and not give up.

We tell our children that if they were to quit worrying about what everyone else does or says and stay focused on their own endeavors, they will get more done and be much happier.

We tell our children these things and these things are Howard Roark.  We tell them these things then we promptly forget about them when we grow up and live our own lives.

Think for ourselves; don't let others live our lives for us; aspire to something great; don't quit just because it gets difficult; don't expect everyone else to do it for you.

All these are things we grew up hearing. These are all things, we have been told that help us "build character".

 

All of these things are Howard Roark.  WE can be Howard Roark if we work at it.  Howard is his own hero.  He rises to the occasion and accepts his defeats the same way he accepts his successes.  Quietly, passionately, respectfully and unapologetically.

Who is the real Howard Roark? I am,  you might be too.

Are Humans Really That Capable? I Think Not

I see a lot of people wandering around the internet lately calling themselves "anarchists".  there seem to be two types of anarchists running around.  A very small group who think that anarchy is the free-for-all chaos run around like an unrestrained toddler in the throes of the terrible two's.  The other group is larger and does believe in order and rules but they believe the state (government) is unnecessary in any form.

First of all, the first, smaller group is just a bunch of flakes looking for any excuse to be a jackass and think that anarchy justifies it.

The second group sis a different bunch.  I admire them in one way that they think that people are able to be so responsible and self controlled that no legislative, police or judiciary organization is required or desired.

How ideal to think people are so capable.  I completely and emphatically disagree with them that such a society is possible.  They are quick to refer us to several examples of societies with no government having existed.  What they fail to disclose is that upon closer examination, none of those societies are long-lived.  They cannot be sustained because the idea is dependent on a perfect world where all people are accountable and responsible for their behavior.  It is an ideal that cannot be realized or achieved as more than an experiment.

I love them that they are so idealistic.  I think it is fantastic to be so optimistic about people in general as to think the way they do.  I would say that in concept, I have no doubt that I could be such an anarchist.  But I am certain that it is not plausible in real life.  I like to think that if one such society were to be created that was not a voluntary socialist society, I would be there in a flash.

Sadly though, it really is not plausible for the long term.  The number one reason for my saying so is that some people are jack-asses and will ruin it for the rest.  Take a brand spanking new voluntary anarchist society and it will work great for the first maybe ten years.  Inevitably, some people will find themselves dissatisfied  with how things are working out but because they were one of the original volunteers, they will have a sense of entitlement that makes them think they have some right to expect the rest of the society to change to meet the one person's expectations.  It is at this point, the first indications of government will rise and the state will begin as a committee for change.

Let's give this society the benefit of the doubt and give them the first twenty years as going ideally.  the first non-volunteer members of the society, the children of the first volunteers, will most definitely field at least one, my bet is multiple, people who feel entitled to drive some kind of societal change to meet their expectations.  It's human nature.

As someone who kinda, sorta, self identifies with libertarianism, I have to say we libertarian types aren't too far from the idealist line either.  We have no doubt that some sort of government is useful, if not inescapable (notice that at no time do I say "necessary") but that we want to hinder and restrain any government to being as limited as possible and out of the way of the typical voluntary citizen.  Yeah, That's like planting a tree and expecting it not to grow higher than a bush.  Not very freaking realistic either but more likely achievable than the anarchist pipedream.  It seems that way anyway.  On paper.  ish.