1984 vs. Brave New World

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

h/t: Ace of Spades HQ

Personally, I think we're seeing both.



In the 5th panel from the end the cartoonist notes:

As Huxley remarked in "Brave New World Revisited" the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions."

This is why libertarians are wrong about legalizing marijuana. First, it is not a personal liberty issue and second, it is part of the slide into being docile cattle to be herded about to the benefit of others.

The would-be tyrants know the populace is easier controlled when it is self-sedated.

[franksolich]

In the 5th panel from the end the cartoonist notes:

This is why libertarians are wrong about legalizing marijuana. First, it is not a personal liberty issue and second, it is part of the slide into being docile cattle to be herded about to the benefit of others.

The would-be tyrants know the populace is easier controlled when it is self-sedated.

Yes.

[DumbAss Tanker]

I'm with you on the "Both," Snugs.

[NHSparky]

Certainly worthy of consideration.  And also worthy to note that in this nation, both are used.

[Freeper]

We have a hybrid of both.

We don't ban books, instead we get certain types of books pushed on us as must read, fiction is cool non fiction not so cool unless it has a progressive message. Meanwhile efforts are made to trash the authors of non progressive books, and the people who read them are mocked. At the same time we are exposed to constant alternatives to books, we have tv shows on the internet that you can watch any time, movies on demand and 3 gazillion channels on cable and Dish.

Oddly enough we are deprived of information even with the internet and the alternative media. Most people do not seek out any alternative media and believe what is fed to them on the major networks and what MSN and Yahoo put on their homepages. Most of what is called news is unimportant garbage like what Justin Bieber had for lunch that day. So by being fed so much we are being deprived at the same time.

Same goes for concealment of truth. The media will cover for 0bama in Libya meanwhile they will run with the sex scandal for the former CIA director, and run with all that is going on with Susan Rice. They conceal the truth by broadcasting so much other information that people will not care.

We have become captive to our trivial culture. Most people care more about the new iPhone than what the government is up too. Most people will gladly give up any rights or control over their own life as long as you don't mess with their recreational times.

As for the pain vs the pleasure principle, we also have both of those. Politicians will promise all kinds of pleasures if you vote for them and support their policies, at the same time they promise pain on those who don't agree with them, and promise to cause pain on some people in order to pay for the pleasures they promise.

So basically everything that we fear will be our undoing, and everything the other side loves will be all of our undoing.

[Big Dog]

This is why libertarians are wrong about legalizing marijuana. First, it is not a personal liberty issue and second, it is part of the slide into being docile cattle to be herded about to the benefit of others.

The would-be tyrants know the populace is easier controlled when it is self-sedated.

So, you are saying that the same government which wants to keep the sheep in their pens, stoned and docile, refuses to legalize the tool to accomplish their goal. Are you sure?

And you assert that men having the freedom to act, even to injure themselves (which marijuana use can do), is not a matter of personal liberty. George Washington famously said, "It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it." Any thoughts?

You also equate libertarians (name derived from "liberty") with would-be tyrants. Do tell.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

So, you are saying that the same government which wants to keep the sheep in their pens, stoned and docile, refuses to legalize the tool to accomplish their goal. Are you sure?

And you assert that men having the freedom to act, even to injure themselves (which marijuana use can do), is not a matter of personal liberty. George Washington famously said, "It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it." Any thoughts?

You also equate libertarians (name derived from "liberty") with would-be tyrants. Do tell.

OK, I'll tell.

Misnomers aside, it's been my experience that libertarians aren't for liberty as much as the libertine.

And while Obama may be enforcing the drug schedules the fact of the matter remains: progressives crave legalization. This cannot be denied. We don't have the Circus Maximus anymore so what do you think serves as the second-half of the modern day EBT bread card and circuses?

And no, there is no inherent freedom to be stoned.

I can deny a person employment, payment, legal protection, transit etc. based on whether or not they show positive on a drug test even if they are not currently intoxicated.

I've been aching for anyone to tell me which other right -- among the actual, genuine rights -- can serve as a similar basis for exclusion. Religion? Political Affiliation? Skin color?

If getting stoned is a "right" then forbidding it is beyond the reach of government. I don't appreciate being told I'm not allowed to vote for (or against) Policy X just because someone slaps the label "right" on it.

I'm over the modern political mania of deeming each pet issue a "right." It's the same inane thought process that tells DUmbasses they have a "right" to healthcare, $40/hr and a 30-hour work week. Granted, they cannot/will not make the distinction between protection and provision but no free person can be forced to legally accommodate stoners. There is no constitutional right to get stoned but there is a constitutional right to make our own laws.

Are libertine-arians tyrants?

No.

But they do seek to limit what free men can enact by means of self-governance while contributing to the mindset actual tyrants use to make the people more pliable.

[Big Dog]

OK, I'll tell.

Misnomers aside, it's been my experience that libertarians aren't for liberty as much as the libertine.

And while Obama may be enforcing the drug schedules the fact of the matter remains: progressives crave legalization. This cannot be denied. We don't have the Circus Maximus anymore so what do you think serves as the second-half of the modern day EBT bread card and circuses?

And no, there is no inherent freedom to be stoned.

I can deny a person employment, payment, legal protection, transit etc. based on whether or not they show positive on a drug test even if they are not currently intoxicated.

I've been aching for anyone to tell me which other right -- among the actual, genuine rights -- can serve as a similar basis for exclusion. Religion? Political Affiliation? Skin color?

If getting stoned is a "right" then forbidding it is beyond the reach of government. I don't appreciate being told I'm not allowed to vote for (or against) Policy X just because someone slaps the label "right" on it.

I'm over the modern political mania of deeming each pet issue a "right." It's the same inane thought process that tells DUmbasses they have a "right" to healthcare, $40/hr and a 30-hour work week. Granted, they cannot/will not make the distinction between protection and provision but no free person can be forced to legally accommodate stoners. There is no constitutional right to get stoned but there is a constitutional right to make our own laws.

Are libertine-arians tyrants?

No.

But they do seek to limit what free men can enact by means of self-governance while contributing to the mindset actual tyrants use to make the people more pliable.

This is my kind of discussion!

Let's start at the beginning.

"Libertarians aren't for liberty". As Ayn Rand said, "check your premises".

Each man owns his life and himself, and is responsible for his actions, even if those actions lead to his own destruction. This is called "self-ownership" (Murray Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty)

Under "natural rights theory", a right exists naturally (a priori) or because it was endowed by God, not because the government grants it to him.  Libertarian and conservative philosophy on rights, which is also the Classical Liberal theory from the Enlightenment period, is that man is free, with the limited exception of the powers delegated to the government to restrict that freedom (referred to as "negative rights"), and the modern liberal theory is that "rights" confer a claim by the individual against the assets of the state or the fruits of another man's labor, known as positive rights (F. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom).  In the United States, each man's rights are not limited to those listed in the Constitution, but rather "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" (Amendment IX, US Constitution).

The logical conclusion is that men have the natural right of autonomy over our bodies- even if that right leads to a man's self-destruction.

The second half of the "bread and circuses" is "circuses". Circuses were, and are, cheap entertainment to distract the masses. Legalized recreational marijuana is not a "circus", as the phrase is used. How about pro football? NASCAR? WWE? UFC? Reality TV? "American Idol"? 250 channels on your TV? Netflix? Internet pron? "50 Shades of Gray"? Those are circuses.

Free yourself from the circus. I challenge you to turn off the TV for one month and read three books: Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty, Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, and Churnow's Washington, A Life. If you have the fortitude, throw in Atlas Shrugged for good measure.

You continue to contradict yourself with regard to legalization of marijuana and an oppressive state wishing to enslave mind-numbed sheep. Two states have legalized recreational marijuana, but the Federal government continues to enforce existing laws regarding possession and distribution. Who, exactly, is trying to enslave you with legal marijuana? The states of Colorado and Washington? The Federal government? Preezy McChoom? Libertarians?

Last of all, what are the "actual, genuine rights" in your fifth paragraph? Please provide a comprehensive list.

Edited to add: I also want to ask, is it your contention that "Freedom = Slavery", as I infer from your second and final paragraphs?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

**** Rothbard and Rand. I got so sick of anarcho-capitalists citing them in cultish chanting I'm over it.


Thought experiment:

Suppose a libertarian government gets elected

 

and declares MJ will be decriminalized.

Several state governments, responding to their constituents, recriminalize MJ and tell the fed to mind its own damn business under A10.

Whatcha gonna do?

If getting stoned were a right then the federal government would be obligated to defend stoners up to and including the use of force; ala Eisenhower using the 101st Airborne to enforce desegregation.



"We're just here for that mad chronic."


Whatever is a right should be protected by law.

Whatever is law must be guarded by force.

How many people are you willing to imprison -- or worse -- to enforce what you want?

I challenge you to turn off the TV for one month

I've lived comfortably without TV for over 2 years, ****-you very much. Making baseless assumptions is insulting, especially when accompanied by the implication I've succumbed to the bilge thereon. That's rather disappointing considering I tend to enjoy your posts.

BTW -- I'm in CO. I think Amendment 64 was stupid both as a policy and as a constitutional amendment. Had they passed it through the state legislature then it would merely be a stupid law instead of the constitutional farce it is. Even still I advocate the state's right to do so under A10; because to me, their right of self-governance is worth defending, even by force.

[Big Dog]

**** Rothbard and Rand. I got so sick of anarcho-capitalists citing them in cultish chanting I'm over it.

Your loss. Hard to see how you can understand a philosophy, even with the intent to intelligently oppose it, without learning what it actually says.

Thought experiment:

Suppose a libertarian government gets elected

 

and declares MJ will be decriminalized.

Several state governments, responding to their constituents, recriminalize MJ and tell the fed to mind its own damn business under A10.

Whatcha gonna do?

Assuming that you are actually saying "Suppose a libertarian Federal government gets elected", I'll do exactly what I do in every instance where a particular action is not a violation of Federal law, but is a violation of a State law. You know, like speeding, or shoplifting, or cattle rustling, or murder. I'll obey the law.

If I care enough to want to see an outlawed action made legal, I'll use the Constitutionally enumerated freedoms to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances, to talk to my state legislators and make the case for repeal of the laws.

Damn, that was easy! I bet you thought you had me there for a second   

If getting stoned were a right then the federal government would be obligated to defend stoners up to and including the use of force; ala Eisenhower using the 101st Airborne to enforce desegregation.

Whatever is a right should be protected by law.

Whatever is law must be guarded by force.

Are you sure? I'll let you take a Mulligan on this one, if you want.

I've lived comfortably without TV for over 2 years, ****-you very much. Making baseless assumptions is insulting, especially when accompanied by the implication I've succumbed to the bilge thereon. That's rather disappointing considering I tend to enjoy your posts.

I apologize for insulting you, and for making an assumption without evidence.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Hard to see how you can understand a philosophy, even with the intent to intelligently oppose it, without learning what it actually says

So, Rand and Rothbard are just SO-O-O-O awesome I need only hear the truth of their gospel and the scales shall fall from my eyes as I step into True Enlightenment...

...unless I'm too stupid/ptarmigan-headed to understand.

Maybe, just maybe, I examined each argument as it was presented -- perhaps even feeling a modicum of sympathy at times -- but in the end the inevitable course those prescribed ideals lead to a society I would not wish to inhabit and the actions of their advocates became so distasteful I rejected them as seed unfit to be sown regardless of the fruit promised.

Assuming that you are actually saying "Suppose a libertarian Federal government gets elected", I'll do exactly what I do in every instance where a particular action is not a violation of Federal law, but is a violation of a State law. You know, like speeding, or shoplifting, or cattle rustling, or murder. I'll obey the law.

If I care enough to want to see an outlawed action made legal, I'll use the Constitutionally enumerated freedoms to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances, to talk to my state legislators and make the case for repeal of the laws.

OK.

I consider elective abortion to be state-sanctioned killing without due process. If/when Roe v Wade can be overturned I am willing to enforce the prohibitions against doctor-provided elective abortion up to and including the use of force against any doctor that violated the prohition. I would use force to compel a state to end segragation. I would use force to enforce voting rights.

I would not use force to compel contributions to welfare, legalize meth for pregnant mothers or participation in public schools and Social Security.

Unless someone is willing to use force to enFORCE a law, what is the point? Unless you're willing to use force don't bother because you'll just be ignored.

[Big Dog]

So, Rand and Rothbard are just SO-O-O-O awesome I need only hear the truth of their gospel and the scales shall fall from my eyes as I step into True Enlightenment...

...unless I'm too stupid/ptarmigan-headed to understand.

Nope. Didn't say that, nor anything resembling it. I don't think Rothbart, Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, John Locke, or Ayn Rand (one of these things is not like the others) are soooo awesome, and I think each of them has at least one weakness. But each of them articulates a coherent social, political, or economical philosophy in which the central theme is liberty. And liberty is awesome.

Maybe, just maybe, I examined each argument as it was presented -- perhaps even feeling a modicum of sympathy at times -- but in the end the inevitable course those prescribed ideals lead to a society I would not wish to inhabit and the actions of their advocates became so distasteful I rejected them as seed unfit to be sown regardless of the fruit promised.

Maybe, just maybe, a discussion of different philosophies is not an argument. I am not here to convert anyone to think and live as a libertarian, or as a Stoic (the philosophy I practice, which integrates nicely to right-libertarianism). If you are interested in the writing of prominent libertarian philosophers or economists, I recommended the most representative works of the best-known authors. If you choose not to read any of them- or reject them outright based on the "arguments" of third parties- that is your choice, an exercise of your liberty. I don't get a commission, or a toaster oven, or anything like that if you read The Road to Serfdom or The Ethics of Liberty. The George Washington biography is excellent, no matter your politics; you may consider reading it (note: I get a toaster oven if you do).

I consider elective abortion to be state-sanctioned killing without due process. If/when Roe v Wade can be overturned I am willing to enforce the prohibitions against doctor-provided elective abortion up to and including the use of force against any doctor that violated the prohition. I would use force to compel a state to end segragation. I would use force to enforce voting rights.

I would not use force to compel contributions to welfare, legalize meth for pregnant mothers or participation in public schools and Social Security.

Unless someone is willing to use force to enFORCE a law, what is the point? Unless you're willing to use force don't bother because you'll just be ignored.

Laws =/= rights. Enforcing a law =/= enforcing a right. Rights cannot be enforced, only asserted/used by the individual or infringed/denied by the state. Hayek talks about that in one of those books you rejected.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Laws =/= rights. Enforcing a law =/= enforcing a right. Rights cannot be enforced, only asserted/used by the individual or infringed/denied by the state.

Cannot?

It's impossible?

No government anywhere ever has or could enforce rights?

A property owner filing charges against a thief? An accident vicitm suing the negligient party? Blacks going to court to demand their right to keep and bear arms be recognized?

Jailing the thief is denying his rights? Compelling compensation for an accident victim is an infringement?

Then why did the founders work so hard to create a government? In a previous post you spoke of recognizing the constitutional legislative process should a state opt-out of a federal decriminalization. Yet, that is a government process.

You cite Jefferson but you forget he also wrote, "...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."

This is why Rothbard fatigues me. I don't know if the anarcho-capitalists seek him out to justify their inanity or if he breeds them from otherwise reasonable people but it seems this exact line of argument inevitably arises amongst every sigle one of his adherents.

Government isn't the problem; people are the problem. Self-centered, self-absorbed people. That's why Franklin said we had a republic -- if WE could keep it. PEOPLE would decide what the government would become, not the other way around. And if you want to see what sort of government would be created by those self-absorbed enough to live the stoner lifestyle you need look no further than Zucotti park. Spare me Rothbard's theories, the living proof was on the front page every day for 9 months. Those idiots aren't fit for self-governance, let alone to make law to govern their betters. Ironically, without exception the stoners who would be shielded by libertarians would bring the sword of leftist Marxism because they are not self-sufficient, rugged indiviualists but because they believe their lifestyle is their right and all others must yield to their rights.

You may not agree but the proof is chronicled day after day in the DUmpster for more than a decade now. Why do I care what Rothbard supposes should be when I have a practical demonstration of what it becomes, time-after-time without exception. The Marxists tell me, "Well, we just haven't had a true go of it yet." The jihadists tell me, "Well, you just haven't read the Koran in its original Arabic yet." Saying, "Well, you just haven't read Rothbard the right way." shall find no purchase. If I had use for Rothbard I'd be hanging with drooling sychophants at lewrockwell.com, not here.

Or...

Perhaps you misspoke. Perhaps you did not wish to couch it in such absolutist terms and you choice of argument was misstated.

[NHSparky]

Are libertine-arians tyrants?

I would say so, in a manner of speaking.  Learned Hand would agree with me:

What is this liberty that must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not the freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check on their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few — as we have learned to our sorrow.

[Splashdown]

There goes any hope of a peaceful sleep for ME tonight....Thanks, MSB.

 

[wasp69]

I would say so, in a manner of speaking.  Learned Hand would agree with me:

What is this liberty that must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not the freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check on their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few — as we have learned to our sorrow.

A community may possess all the necessary moral qualifications, in so high a degree, as to be capable of self-government under the most adverse circumstances; while, on the other hand, another may be so sunk in ignorance and vice, as to be incapable of forming a conception of liberty, or of living, even when most favored by circumstances, under any other than an absolute and despotic government.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Hence, my coinage of "libertine-arians."

I like BD, I genuinely do; but the line of argument is not new to me. I've had dozens of Randroids bombard me for years. I found our old home after being banned from one of their sites after protestwarrior.com shut down. They infested PW as well.

ETA:

The “scum villages,” as critics have called them, would lie in isolated areas and provide only basic services to their unwilling residents. According to details of the plan reported by Der Spiegel and the BBC, residents will live in “container homes,” under the watchful eye of social workers or police. The residents themselves might not make very good company. According to the BBC, they’ll include families that engage in repeated, small-scale harassment, like bullying gay neighbors or intimidating police witnesses.

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/12/04/amsterdam-proposes-scum-villages/

Amsterdam?

Amsterdam.

Let's see...what is Amsterdam famous for?

Oh, that's right! It's libertine attitudes towards sex and drugs.

Except now it seems that it has cultivated a culture that has become so ungovernable they now have to guard their liberality with abject tyranny.

EVERY.SINGLE.TIME

Without exception.

Self-governance only works if you govern yourself.

[Splashdown]

Hence, my coinage of "libertine-arians."

I like BD, I genuinely do; but the line of argument is not new to me. I've had dozens of Randroids bombard me for years. I found our old home after being banned from one of their sites after protestwarrior.com shut down. They infested PW as well.

ETA:

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/12/04/amsterdam-proposes-scum-villages/

Amsterdam?

Amsterdam.

Let's see...what is Amsterdam famous for?

Oh, that's right! It's libertine attitudes towards sex and drugs.

Except now it seems that it has cultivated a culture that has become so ungovernable they now have to guard their liberality with abject tyranny.

EVERY.SINGLE.TIME

Without exception.

Self-governance only works if you govern yourself.

Some grouchy dude name John Adams agrees:

While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation, while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candour, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world. Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

[Big Dog]

I missed some discussion since yesterday! I was out last night, contributing to the underground economy 

I tried to look at the page on my phone, and came to one conclusion: I need reading glasses!

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I tried to look at the page on my phone, and came to one conclusion: I need reading glasses!

Or a seeing-eye human.   

[Big Dog]

Or a seeing-eye human.   

She can walk my hearing dog, and I'll just stay home!

[Big Dog]

Cannot?

It's impossible?

No government anywhere ever has or could enforce rights?

A property owner filing charges against a thief? An accident vicitm suing the negligient party? Blacks going to court to demand their right to keep and bear arms be recognized?

Jailing the thief is denying his rights? Compelling compensation for an accident victim is an infringement?

Then why did the founders work so hard to create a government? In a previous post you spoke of recognizing the constitutional legislative process should a state opt-out of a federal decriminalization. Yet, that is a government process.

You cite Jefferson but you forget he also wrote, "...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."

This is why Rothbard fatigues me. I don't know if the anarcho-capitalists seek him out to justify their inanity or if he breeds them from otherwise reasonable people but it seems this exact line of argument inevitably arises amongst every sigle one of his adherents.

Government isn't the problem; people are the problem. Self-centered, self-absorbed people. That's why Franklin said we had a republic -- if WE could keep it. PEOPLE would decide what the government would become, not the other way around. And if you want to see what sort of government would be created by those self-absorbed enough to live the stoner lifestyle you need look no further than Zucotti park. Spare me Rothbard's theories, the living proof was on the front page every day for 9 months. Those idiots aren't fit for self-governance, let alone to make law to govern their betters. Ironically, without exception the stoners who would be shielded by libertarians would bring the sword of leftist Marxism because they are not self-sufficient, rugged indiviualists but because they believe their lifestyle is their right and all others must yield to their rights.

You may not agree but the proof is chronicled day after day in the DUmpster for more than a decade now. Why do I care what Rothbard supposes should be when I have a practical demonstration of what it becomes, time-after-time without exception. The Marxists tell me, "Well, we just haven't had a true go of it yet." The jihadists tell me, "Well, you just haven't read the Koran in its original Arabic yet." Saying, "Well, you just haven't read Rothbard the right way." shall find no purchase. If I had use for Rothbard I'd be hanging with drooling sychophants at lewrockwell.com, not here.

Or...

Perhaps you misspoke. Perhaps you did not wish to couch it in such absolutist terms and you choice of argument was misstated.

I didn't misspeak. I made an error. A huge error. I screwed up. I left out one word.  

One very important word.

Laws =/= rights. Enforcing a law =/= enforcing a right. Rights cannot be enforced, only asserted/used by the individual or infringed/denied by the state.

should read

Laws =/= rights. Enforcing a law =/= enforcing a right. Rights cannot be enforced, only asserted/used by the individual, or protected or infringed/denied by the state.

That was a  huge error on my part.

In libertarian philosophy, one of the essential and legitimate functions of government is to protect the individual rights of its citizens.

However, protecting rights =/= enforcing rights.

Laws, court orders, and civil judgments can be enforced. The moochers' and looters' definition of "right" is the only one which may be enforced; the "right" to take or be given things unearned, at the expense of others. If a "right to healthcare" is accepted as legitimate (which I do not), then the State can force doctors to treat patients at no cost, and imprison or kill them them if they refuse.