❝❝Speaking as a small "L" libertarian (and yes, there is a difference), living with progressives and the Left beats the alternative.

Once you start using force and the rule of law to go after your "enemies," what's to stop you from going after us next? I promise you that the average libertarian is better at arguing, if for no other reason than we get more practice.

"Thou shalt not dissent" is the hallmark of tyranny. And not just the Left-based ones.

---

"And Right-based tyrannies tend to be better than Left-based ones."

Depends on if you are one of the ones being oppressed or not.

And if you are not making a stand for people's rights, just how is your tyranny better than the other guys?

What makes you think that I will stand for it?

---

OK. Let me explain again.

"One side winning" is the progressive game. It's done by their rules using their labels and conservatives can't win without perpetuating the game. By taking the battle to them, you're forcing yourself into their label of you just so you can play. You can't win on those terms. Oh sure, you can attack, you can kill, you can imprison those who don't agree, but all you are doing is providing victims. Progressives need victims so they can shout "INJUSTICE!!!"

Don't play their game. Don't accept their label. Don't use their rules.

Don't sacrifice your principles and your beliefs. That's what they want. That's how you lose. That's how the game perpetuates itself.

---

Let's back this up for a just a second. Progressives will point to a victim group and say "Look, these people are oppressed because society is racist-misogynist-homophobic-whatever. Behold the victimhood! Isn't that terrible! Isn't that evidence that society is irredeemably evil and MUST Be Changed?"

A normal person who is not crusading will say "Let me help." Quietly. And when help isn't needed anymore, they will move on.

Confronting progressivism is just another crusade. Making the world just a little better today, that's human.

---

There is no "end game."

The only winning move is not to play.

---

America isn't collapsing, it's transitioning. If our civilization can't survive the transition, hopefully our successors will do better. Frankly, if tyranny is the "only" way, then we don't deserve to survive. If you will take a second look, I've never advocated letting the Left "win." Or the Right either.

Reagan and Patton were dealing with external threats.

The 1950s were not the "happiest" time for women. There were issues. Among other things, women weren't allowed to have their own bank accounts. Some of that survived well into the early 1980s. After WWII the number and types of jobs that women could hold was limited, that didn't change until the 1970s. You may not like it, but the first and second wave feminists had some valid concerns.

Ask Franco's victims if his violence worked

---

Politics is about controlling other people.

I don't want to destroy the Left. I don't want to destroy the Right either. Although there are times I am tempted to eradicate both.

“You don't control government. It's easy to think of the perfect law that will stop the bad guys while leaving the good guys unhindered. But no law will be written the way you have in mind, it won't be administered the way you have in mind, and it won't be adjudicated the way you have in mind.”
— Harry Browne

But maybe we need to get more basic than that.

“In every generation there are those who want to rule well - but they mean to rule. They promise to be good masters - but they mean to be masters.”
— Daniel Webster

---

Browne was specifically denying that a perfect government could exist. That quote is from Browne's The 7 Never-to-be-Forgotten Principles of Government. It's short and to the point.

---

Except I never claimed that today was perfect. I said the 1950s weren't the happiest time for women. I gave examples. I said that the first and second wave feminists had valid concerns.

---

I didn't use happiness as a metric. I said that there were issues. I know women who were flat out told that they would have to have joint accounts. Women could be refused credit cards. Women could be laid off if they became pregnant. Marital rape was not recognized by the courts until the 1970s. I could list a dozen more. Some of the changes were good ones, and they never would have happened without women standing up for themselves.

---

The chief effect of libertarianism has been to keep some conservatives honest. Both Libertarians and libertarians are dead set against crony capitalists and self-appointed elites.

You haven't been talking reform, you've been talking killing.

Any political reality is temporary at best. Utopia doesn't exist. Your problem with libertarians is that we keep reminding you of that instead of marching without question under your flag banner. We also tell you that you are risking everything you value when you diminish rights for others, but obviously you're not ready to hear that.

---

"…against conservatives having effectual reform."

You don't see the problem there? Why should conservatives and conservatives alone decide what reform should be?

All you can do is accuse me of seeking utopia and tell me that libertarian ideas are "teenage." You can't address the merits or faults of the ideas. You don't even want to know what libertarian ideas are.

All you know is that those darn pesky libertarians are preventing you from punishing progressives the way you think progressives deserve.

---

It's a very valid question. Obviously you don't want progressives making the decisions. Why are conservatives better? Especially if you don't recognize rights?

You're talking about "destroying the Left," and I asked previously what's to stop you from coming after others you don't like next? You never did answer. Since you don't want to acknowledge rights and you just used the excuse "because there are more of us," that's a pretty valid concern too.

In fact, it's the same concern you have about progressives.

Your way makes you the monsters you despise.

---

It predates libertarianism. As long as someone says that rights belong to some people and not to others, that's tyranny. It destroys freedom.

Everyone's freedom.

Every. Single. Time.

Look it up.

What I am spouting are the same principles contained in the Bill of Rights. It goes back to the Ethic of Reciprocity, which Christians call the Golden Rule. It predates our country and may well be the keystone of Western Civilization.

I trust people individually to do the right thing. I do not trust anyone collectively. Especially since you are so eager to exclude so many.

Speaking as an individual who accepts sole responsibility for my words and actions, have you seen me say or write one thing against your Jesus Christ? I tell people that the Bible "t'ain't mine" and I try to move on. I do criticize individual Christians if I think they've stepped over the line. As far as "normal Americans," I reserve the right to speak and write against anyone I choose. Just as you yourself do. I think you'll find on balance I criticize progressives much more than I do conservatives.

I'm not a "you lot." I'm me. NeoWayland, libertarian, pagan, philosopher, and part-time trouble maker. It says so on my websites and in my Disqus description.

Most libertarians became libertarians after being disgusted by either the conservative or progressive elites.

As long as you attack Liberty, you'll have to go through me.

---

So there is the answer I've been asking for.

We're your enemies too. According to you, libertarians must not be allowed to speak. I wonder if you'll go after Rotarians next.

"Thou shalt not dissent," remember? I told you that from the very first. And for all your claims that I demand people kneel to my conception of "how things should be," I'm not the one who wants to take rights away from people.❞❞

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.

Tags: tyranny ∙ progressive ∙ conservative ∙ libertarian ∙ dissent ∙ rights ∙ rules ∙ labels ∙ game ∙ victim group ∙ let me help ∙ crusade