My Copy/Paste Response to Why I Won't Join the Libertarian Party

As of late I have been hit by loads of Big L Libertarians who are confused or otherwise upset as to why I will not be joining their party, voting, or partaking in any political events. I am writing this as a detailed explanation as to why I have no interest in any of that.

First, let's get it out of the way my biggest issue with Big Ls. Big Ls are dishonest. Libertarians are pretty smart for the most part-I never turn down a civil discussion with one but they do the same thing anyone else who believes in government does when you tell them that their use of government to control others is immoral and cruel. They deny it. They dance around it. They ignore it. Some admit it and cite some greater good and I'll get into that later.

Big Ls (BL) are like I said, smart for the most part and that's why I go extra hard on them in this area. They KNOW they are being dishonest. They KNOW government is violent subjugation of innocent people and they bust out some "nut uhs" when it suits their belief structure. This is probably the biggest turn off to joining any cause you may have. If you are willing to ignore, excuse, or pretend you don't know that government is violence directed at certain groups then I do not consider you trust worthy enough to even show me where the bathroom is at Chuck E Cheese, nevermind join you in some political endeavor.

Government is human ownership. Libertarians again don't usually disagree but then think something to the effect "Well what if we had nice owners? owners I LIKE?" No, again it's intellectually dishonest and to me personally comes off kinda pathetic.

The most common thing I hear is "Anarchy isn't practical and will never happen why not shrink the government instead?" Well boy howdy have we come to the crux of the matter...I freely admit that humans are for the most part not ready to live in anarchy and that the state isn't going anywhere any time soon. But again BL are bullshitting themselves if they think that a political process can ever make the state go away or reduce it to a point where daily life becomes more free. I chalk this up to intellectual dishonesty, fear, or naivety. Already covered the intellectual dishonesty-just plug it in here, fear; I say fear because I think again most of these people are smart and they realize "oh shit...the government IS way too powerful, what can we do?". And instead of realizing it's too late and giving the finger to any would be rulers they convince themselves that there MUST be some "legitimate" way out of this. " Heh hey look at me...I'm voting, this will make me more free for sure! heh heh *nervous glance...." Or naivety. Most people are really good souls and genuinely good people. Most BL are...I don't think I've met one and thought he would make a shit neighbor....well maybe a few-but overall ok as neighbors. This makes it difficult for them to imagine the mindset of a power happy sociopath who doesn't care (maybe even likes?) about causing harm and mayhem. You have to understand that most of these people in suits smiling on tv asking for a vote or telling you about a new bill they're voting on are at best distant authoritarians who are somewhat indifferent to your plight and at worst, complete maniacs. Now...understanding this-what makes you think the system would ever allow good people in? Look at all the evil, chaos, woe and misery brought on by the state. Don't you think if good people could be elected to fix it that it would have happened by now? And don't give me any Ron Paul nonsense-he himself admitted he couldn't change anything.

Which brings me to my next point. WHY did Ron Paul say this? Why did he admit that he didn't really change anything?
Do you think he was saying "Hey guys I went in there and stuck true to some decent principles and couldn't change much so you know.....keep voting and stay out there! Yeah, just keep doing the same thing you've been doing-it'll turn out!" or do you think it was more of a message of "I don't think this can be fixed from the inside." Which one? Which one seems more likely? If you have the capacity to be honest with yourself, now is the time.

The next thing I am told is that I have to surrender my principles for the sake of practicality. Well.....if I throw them away then they aren't principles are they? If you want me to throw away my desire to live a life where I don't condone, excuse, or cause harm to anyone else in the name of "liberty" then forget it, you have no idea what the word even means. I can't just go around saying I believe in not harming anyone and then go vote for government to do something...government can hardly do anything without hurting anyone. Even the one you are imagining right now. Pick one, you abide the non aggression principle all the way or you wear the label of aggressor. If you wear such a label then don't talk to me about freedom or liberty.

It can't be so black and white! Yeah, it can. Either there is aggression or non aggression. Something isn't KINDA violent or KINDA peaceful-these two states of being are absolute. Again, you are being intellectually dishonest and bullshitting yourselves.

Some BL come out and say that they condone violence especially on the border issue. Some do. And they always cite a "greater good". But the greater good argument is used by any scared statist for anything that well....scares them. "If we dont protect the border then it'll be a catastrophic welfare state etc etc" Yeah and you may be right but I thought you guys were about shrinking government not expanding it? Shouldn't the solution be to use your BL super powers of voting or whatever and end the welfare state-not you know beg the government to grow itself in the way of border patrol? You sell out your OWN principles at the drop of a hat and are confused or angry that I won't join you? I think BL are smart-I just think most are unprincipled. And if you're hot under the collar because I mocked your inability to end the welfare state by voting then good...think about WHY that pisses you off and go from there. You can't whip out the greater good argument and consider yourselves different from any republican or democrat.

There are though the BL who are insufferable and elitist. They have their nice suit on in their profile picture complete with the overlay of the statue of liberty filter or something and they look down their noses at me and ask "What are YOU doing for liberty?" First it's laughable to think less of me because I'm NOT begging the masters to whip me more softly and secondly I am doing more than you ever could. The message of self ownership is not mainstream. It CAN'T go mainstream on tv or on main internet outlets. Your message does go mainstream-it gets mocked and rejected by most but it's possible to see LP on tv talking about stuff. I am telling people the obvious-that they own their life, body, decisions etc and that no man or group of men have any rights or claims to any of that for any reason. This is true no matter how bizarre it may sound. I am telling people the truth while you are merely trying to play a game that is designed in a such a way that freedom cannot be won. You're essentially being played for a chump while being smug and arrogant about all the shit you will never change. I am changing people's minds. That is something widely frowned upon by the power structure. I am essentially off the game grounds playing outside of the rules by telling others what the masters do not want them to hear and you act as if such a thing is ineffective...it only shows how hopelessly enslaved to the system YOU still are and the arrogance I think is just a tough front-I don't buy it. Again I think you're smart enough to know better but still cling to the political system out of fear.

One of the things this small subset does is ask me incessantly why I am not joining them. When I ask why they aren't joining me instead it's usually haughty laughter about what is "realistic". As I said I labor under no illusions. But if you think the LP can ever win a presidency or major control in any branches then take that word "realistic" and put it in a box and lock it away. BOTH ideas seem unrealistic currently but only one of them will create victims of government violence. Yours. I know you don't like hearing how the senate will not be controlled by Ron Pauls but that is also not reality-stop kidding yourselves.

On a personal level I am somewhat perturbed by BL because I think they have a lot of potential. They can organize well, speak well etc. Most are fairly likable. But at the end of the day it's just another political party that will be dishonest, unprincipled, and fearful. It's another group who wants to hold the whip. They SAY that they will be kind and let me live in peace but almost all BL want a government military. Once you give a monopoly of weaponry and force to a group they become superior to others. "All men are created equal" only you don't believe that. If all men are equal then no one can ever have the right to boss another around. You think I should be obedient to YOUR form of government and if I am not then I am a malcontent who's rights don't matter. Again-principles right out the window.

You can laugh at me, hate me, say I am the reason why the Libertarian Party isn't running all three branches of government or whatever-that's fine. I don't care about the personal attacks I care way more about BL legitimizing the use of force against others while having the gall to call it freedom and liberty. Do you know how damaging that is to people? People for the most part are already mentally helplessly enslaved to the idea of being owned. Then you come along tell them that the owners can be kind and you call it liberty? Get the fuck out of here.

At the end of the day I don't hate the LP or BL...I just want you guys to stop lying. Stop lying to yourselves, stop lying to other people, stop lying about what you believe...This is why I see you like republicans and democrats-they lie to themselves and others all day. In this you are the same.