Archive for individual rights

The Latest Anti-libertarian Argument

Posted in Anti-libertarianism, Argumentation, Government, Libertarianism, Philosophy, Politics with tags , , , , , , on January 27, 2014 by Xajow

Someone has finally found the true weakness of libertarianism. Libertarianism cannot possibly work because it is “strange.” [insert eye roll indicating sarcasm here] Yes, boys and girls, prepare yourselves. It is time for another post about why an anti-libertarian argument is wrong. Hey, this is my blog, and I write about what I want to write about. Continue reading

Project August: Day 22 – Just What Is This Libertarianism Anyway?

Posted in Anti-libertarianism, Argumentation, Government, Libertarianism, Philosophy, Politics, Project August with tags , , , , , , , on August 22, 2013 by Xajow

Yes, I am going to talk about libertarianism again. Why do I talk about it when I could be making sexier posts about Dominance/submission? Talking about D/s and talking about libertarianism really stem from the same place for me. This blog is about expressing support for the liberty of the individual. D/s is part of my understanding of that, as is libertarianism. D/s and libertarianism may seem separate things in your mind, O reader, but they are intertwined in mine. Continue reading

Concerning Libertarianism: On the “Cynicism” of Libertarian Philosophy (Updated Version)

Posted in Anti-libertarianism, Argumentation, Concerning Libertarianism, Government, Libertarianism, Morality, Philosophy, Politics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 23, 2013 by Xajow

You may be thinking I just posted this the other day. But that post was not as well made as it should have been. So I made some changes. This is the updated and (hopefully) improved version.

One of the popular criticisms (and by criticism in this instance I mean denigration) of libertarianism these days seems to be that libertarianism is little more than cynicism. The implied idea being that libertarianism has no ideological footing or moral standing and therefore is just something snarky kooks use to pick on the poor ol’ government that is just trying to help people. Which is, of course, a fully erroneous idea. Libertarianism is, in fact, both moral and optimistic. Continue reading

An Important Point about the Second Amendment

Posted in Firearms, Government, In the News, Philosophy, Politics, Second Amendment with tags , , , , , , , , on July 25, 2012 by Xajow

After reading about how New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg apparently wants President Obama and Presidential candidate Mitt Romney to start committing to gun control laws, Continue reading

Progressive Pessimist Fantasy

Posted in Anti-libertarianism, Argumentation, Libertarianism, Philosophy, Politics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on July 5, 2012 by Xajow

Over at The New York Times, on its The Opinion Pages, is an op-ed titled “The Downside of Liberty”. The op-ed is written by Kurt Andersen, who apparently ran something called Spy magazine, hosts PRI radio program Studio 360, and wrote a couple of books. In other words, he is smart enough that he should know better. Continue reading

Answering Some Questions – Society

Posted in Libertarianism, Morality, Philosophy, Politics, Questions Answered with tags , , , , , on June 16, 2012 by Xajow

Yes, I know. The post immediately previous to this one is pitiful. Just ignore it.

Day 9 of answering questions posed by Diane Owens.

Question #9
What do you think today’s society is lacking?

I think today’s society lacks serious respect for the individual. We treat people as members of groups. In some cases we even insist people who we think should be members of this or that group, or even our group, are traitors to the group in which we have decided they belong.

If an African-American man decides he will be Republican, he gets branded an “Uncle Tom” or “not really black.”

I have seen it said that women who do not support abortion cannot be feminists.

If a Republican politician does not believe in the latest war, well then he is a “Republican-in-name-only.”

We talk about the Hispanic vote or the African-American vote, as if these people are expected to all think the same. We discuss what women want as if they all wanted the same things. Men speak of how hard understanding women is. Women speak of how hard understanding men is.

Yes, speaking of groups of people is convenient. I do it too. But at some point, we have to recognize that people are not the groups to which they may or may not belong. People are individuals. When we stop recognizing that, we dehumanize the people in those groups. And when we dehumanize, we lose sight of the individuals.

Laws to control others are easy to support when we think drug users or homosexuals or sex offenders are all the same. Being misogynist or misandrist is easy when we lump all members of a gender together.

But when we start saying a black man who does not support the Democratic Party is an “Uncle Tom” or a “traitor”, we start implying that black man has no right to form his own opinions, no right to be an individual.

The more we think of people in groups as just members of those groups, the easier thinking in Us versus Them terms becomes. And the easier stepping on the rights of others becomes. Because They are not like Us. They need this or that law to tell them what to do. Those people, They, need to agree with Us; because we, Us, are right and They are wrong.

Respect the individual. You do not need to understand all women or all men or all this or that group. Just try to understand the ones you know as individuals.

When we treat individuals with respect, then we will be more respectful as a society. When we protect individuals, then we will make society safer. When we respect and protect the rights of individuals, then we will be serving the good of society. Not the other way around. Do not put the cart before the horse.