I realize that you probably dislike thinking of yourselves as primitive beasts wedded to uncivilized methods and goals. In fact, you probably have quite the opposite conception of self. You consider yourself to be sophisticated, educated and possessing an appreciative and lucid regard for that ever elusive “third way” of moderate centrism. I know because I have studied carefully comrades who, like you, voted for Obama.
And while I confess that you bear a superficial veneer of sophistication as far as dress, speech and appearance go, closer examination confirms that you are indeed beastly savages. You may not consume raw meat or dwell in caves, but you share with cavemen the single most crucial element of distinction; that is, you think like one of them.
You deny this? Perhaps I must remind you of your not-so-distant brothers and their ways. Cavemen carried large sticks with them everywhere which served a two-fold purpose: as a means of self defense and a means of procurement. The caveman mentality was simple; if you want it, take it. That’s what the club is for. If your neighbor’s woman strikes your fancy and your neighbor is reluctant to accommodate your lechery, beat your neighbor until he is more cooperative, and then beat his wife too, if need be. The same applies to your neighbor’s property, whether it is his goat or his fields or any other possession of his which appeals to you.
“But that was then,” you protest. “We are reformed. We do not use clubs anymore.” True, you’re too advanced for simple sticks. Perhaps you will recognize them easier as rifles. And now you are at ease, for how can I possibly draw any link between you and cavemen where firearms are concerned? For you are vocally anti-gun, and consistently elect representatives to enact legislation that hampers and restricts gun ownership.
But do not put your backward, barbaric consciences to ease so readily. You may well deny yourselves and your fellow man the right to own any useful clubs of his own, but that does not mean that you are a peaceable society which no longer recognizes or employs the function of clubs.
Of course not. They are too integral to your aims to ever throw away. You want many things – “free” education, “free” healthcare, a “greener” economy, etc. – and you naturally want to spend as little as possible of your own funds to achieve such. Predictably, when it comes to your neighbor, you are much less reserved about spending his money.
“But don’t scold us so,” you stutter innocently. “We only want to make our rich neighbors pay.” How sensible of you, and so obviously selfless; I must applaud! Convenient, is it not, that no matter what one’s station in life, it is but a small chore to identify a neighbor materially better off than oneself? Of course, your wealthy neighbors do not necessarily share the same impulse when it comes to your ambitions to spend their money. They may even resist weakly and vote Republican. This is unfortunate because theirs is not a very effective or meaningful vote as recent years of Republican leadership have demonstrated, but that’s an aside. In any event, you wish for many things and all your coveting leads to clubbing. It has to. For which of your grand schemes can you truly achieve without your ever constant companion, compulsion?
Still, you resist my allegation, confidently insisting that you do not club, for you do not own clubs. Yes, I remember now, you’re the camp that’s decidedly against clubs. And here is the point upon which you are ensnared in a deceptive delusion. It is true that you do not personally club your neighbor, for you yourself do not possess a club. Yet to whom have you entrusted all the clubs? It’s Uncle Sam. And are you not continually insisting that it is Uncle Sam alone who can be entrusted with all the clubs? And is there not very little which you ask of Uncle Sam that does not require him to use the clubs on your behalf as a means of procurement? I don’t see you collecting the taxes necessary to fund all your wild schemes on your own, do I?
Do not mistake me for advocating a society without clubs, though I certainly long, as I’m sure you do, for the day when clubs are not necessary. But in the meantime, while humans remain the same sordid, sinful lot they’ve so long been, I recognize, along with other Libertarians and our Founding Fathers, the right to self defense and, concomitantly, arms. Indeed, Libertarians are thoroughly adamant about the right to self defense, recognizing it as a principle human right, without which the other rights are in constant danger.
But just because I and other Libertarians and our Founding Fathers are principled defenders of clubs does not put us in the same primitive class to which you belong. Note carefully this distinction: we acknowledge the right to clubs and their usage only in their proper, lawful sense, that is, the right to self defense.
You are the primitives who predatorily utilize clubs as a device of procurement, a powerful and effective tool for getting the things you want without actually having to work for them and earn them lawfully. Of course, you claim innocence because you entrust to Uncle Sam all the dirty details of your craven ambitions. You have forsaken clubs, and so you call yourselves sophisticated gentlemen. Nonsense, you are still Neanderthals; you’ve simply lost all your fur.
Jeremy Hicks is a 2008 political science graduate, the founder of the Cal Poly Libertarian Club and a Mustang Daily political columnist.
Instituting a graduated tax system(something the United States had for decades) is the same as the violent act of shooting someone (or hitting them with a club?)If you’re so against paying taxes to receive services in society, and paying a little more if you happen to do extraordinarily well,please just “go Galt” already and leave the rest of us alone.
@samantha
I think the connection is pretty obvious. Jeremy is not saying that taking taxes is the same violent act as murdering others with a club. He is saying that in a state of nature, savages take things simply because they want them and use clubs to do so if violence is necessary. The club he is referring to that our government is the weapon of taxes, specifically those with less money who use taxes as a club to steal from the wealthy. Our society feels entitled to free and subsidized everything: education, health care, unemployment, mortgages for irresponsible homeowners, etc. So what do we allow happen? Well the RICH have money to spare, so lets legislate (club) the money out of them, so we can pay for all the stuff we are entitled to.
The entire point of the article is that legislation is the modern weapon of theft. That would be the area to criticize if you disagree, not that Jeremy chose to use a club as his metaphor.
Mr. Hicks, preaching neo-conservative hip deep bull excrement. What Mr. Hicks preaches is what one gets when one lives in books and not the real world. They sit in a round circle of chairs (there is a term for that but I won’t use it in polite company) in a room with like-minded ideologues fantasizing of “if onlys.” The only converts they are able to garner are nutcases like that insane skinhead who killed those three policemen in Pittsburg because he believed the right wing neo-con ranting today that the left was going to take one of his gods, his guns away. His other god is his money. And boy does he hate poor people. He loves his guns but does he ever hate poor people! He loves his money! But does he ever hate poor people. Look out middle class they are coming hard after you. The kind of world Mr. Hicks envisions is long gone France where America is a land of rich land owners and power is concentrated in the hands of a wealthy few families and everyone serves them. Only the families today are corporations who have more rights now than a human being does! That don’t bother Mr. Hicks though because thats where his god lives.
A classic rant where you address nothing of substance. First, you refer to Jeremy as a neo-con, which he is not. Being the founder of Poly’s Libertarian club is evidence enough to me, in addition to his articles, that he is probably a Libertarian. I’ll leave it to you to educate yourself on the difference, but it will require more effort than throwing around cliches are mislabels.
Your allusion to Richard Poplawski is useless. It’s just a cheap tactic, by talking about him in this thread, to associate Jeremy’s ideology with that of someone you admit is just an insane lunatic.
The Libertarian thought is that a welfare state deters people from achieving personal independence. More and more taxes feeds the Fourier Complex that harms our liberty. You don’t have to like that philosophy, but need to respect that it is a principle our nation was founded on.
Just based off the level of writing in this piece, I’m shocked you not only made it to college but that the MD editors let this be printed. Second, give up comparisons, you’re really no good at them. Third, while your loose premise somewhat describes the ways in which California voters vote, it does not represent the goals Obama has presented. He has made it clear from the beginning that the path we’ve elected to go down will require sacrifice, from all of us. Personally, I want my country to be great, not sub par so I can keep my wealth and only idiots that have wealthy parents can get health-care and higher education. If we did that, well all articles would read like this one.
"Blah, blah, blah." I voted for Obama, but your article–so obviously meant to raise my blood pressure–merely put me to sleep. Your writing could use some pith, not to mention some sense.
Jeremy IS a neocon and NOT a “libertarian” and here’s how you know: libertarians, at least in theory, have allies both right and left. Many of us were Ron Paul supporters until it became obvious that our guy wasn’t getting noticed – at which point we were forced to choose between Obama and McCain (unless we wanted to, essentially, waste our vote in a pointless symbolic gesture). So, Jeremy, those of us who were with you a year ago are now despised “cavemen” simply because we ordered our preferences Paul-Obama-McCain, instead of Paul-McCain-Obama? Or is it because we’ve decided to give our great nation’s newly elected president at least a modest chance during a time of profound crisis? True libertarians don’t seek to polarize the electorate based on party or policy. True libertarians seek to transcend tired political dichotomies with truth. As truth is something of a moving target, a true libertarian seeks it both right and left. Hicks’ tactics of labeling (seriously, dude… EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO VOTED FOR PRES. OBAMA is a CAVEMAN?! Come off it, already!) and sweeping, final denigration of what amounts to well over half of the entire electorate… these tactics are straight out of the Karl Rove, neoconservative playbook, whatever Hicks chooses to call himself. Change your approach, Jeremy – if not because it’s despicable, then how about because it simply isn’t serving the GOP… and that’s who you serve, isn’t it? Don’t tread on you? I’m NOT! So don’t tread on ME, okay? It’s counterproductive, and worse… it’s just plain stupid. The time for pouting, name-calling, and throwing childish tantrums is over. It’s time to build bridges.
I don’t think you have quite a firm grasp on libertarian ideology. You describe libertarianism as “…allies on left and right…don’t seek to polarize…transcend tired political dichotomies”, etc., but none of that describes any actual libertarian principle. Maybe I’m confused with your post, but combining your statement about truth being a moving target and giving Obama a modest chance during a period of profound crises, I am assuming that you believe libertarians somehow would flex their beliefs in free markets, limited government, and minimal taxes because we are in a crisis. And that somehow, by disagreeing with this, Jeremy is a neocon and not a libertarian.
A libertarian would never flex his or her belief in these three things, especially during a period of profound crisis. This is the most important time to reaffirm our belief in limited government, because now is when those in Congress and the White House see an opportunity to expand their control over something they have no business being a part of. This recession has strengthened my libertarian principles because every problem you see is a result of government intervention (eg The Fed, the housing market), or a lack of government intervention when we trusted them to regulate (i.e. Fannie and Freddie).
Your response really shows how NOT libertarian you are. Libertarians understand that even though the two party system may prevent smaller groups such as the Libertarians from being elected, going for the “lesser of two evils” and voting for Obama/McCain is not an option. I proudly voted for Bob Barr, and especially in CA I feel like my vote stands for much more than your own. Since it was already decided that CA would go to Obama, why not vote for something you ACTUALLY believe in and not cop out.
High five for saying what needed to be said in such a clear and precise manner.
Mike: you take me to task effectively; allow me to clarify. My central point is that a true libertarian tends to favor policies that many liberals would call “conservative” as well as others that many conservatives would call “liberal.” It doesn’t make any sense, therefore, for a person calling himself a libertarian to label and dismiss an entire political movement. Had Jeremy Hicks denigrated the entire conservative movement or all McCain voters, I’d have written the exact same response. My observations of late are leading me to believe that, in the massive “re-branding” of the Republican Party currently being attempted by conservatives, one of the recurring tactics will be to continue to push the neoconservative agenda, while calling it “libertarianism.” I believe that’s what Jeremy Hicks is doing, and that was my only point. If you are a libertarian, Mike, my advice is to keep a close eye on folks who think like Jeremy Hicks – they are positioning themselves to hijack the libertarian movement, just as they hijacked organized religion.
I understand what you are saying with the overuse of labels. I guess my initial response would be that where libertarians tend to disagree with liberals the most would be in economic policies. Today, it’s all about economics and not social issues, which is where libertarians tend to be more aligned with the liberals. So ripping on liberals is more appropriate because the focus of our nation has been on the economy, and not wars or social issues, at least since the new president took over.
Honestly I had a hard time following the article. Maybe it was because I was reading too fast, or that it is written poorly. The similes weren’t very effective either. Anyways, I can appreciate Mr. Hicks expressing his opinion. So I believe he was alluding to the fact that our “government” is adopting a lot of socialist policies. And I would have to agree. The one thing I strongly agree on is that Obama supporters are gullible people. He was voted on his rhetoric, not his character or his beliefs. He has reversed his position on everything he campaigned on. That goes to show you the real person he is. Weak. His executive order of “closing” Guantanamo Bay did not close the facility, I believe that it basically said that he was make a decision whether or not to close it at the end of the year. To conclude randomly, but thoughtfully, anyone who voted for Obama or McCain is a corporate drone.
Dear Crivy, screw you. Your conclusion was a long way from thoughtful. If it was, the information you so pompously espouse wouldn’t come from some conservative geared talk show or news bent on bashing derivative opinions. Here’s a suggestion: try looking at things from both sides.
Thanks for the nice gesture Ceranna. Indeed I try to look at things from not just both sides, but all sides. I know there are not just two sides like you seem to believe. Corporate media gave two choices for presidents that were not going to bring any real change, change that Americans need like separations from Israel and the opposition from the Fed and international bankers, so I saw that the only worthy presidential candidates were running as third party. Had any of the third party candidates been able to debate Obama or McCain, we could see that they just shit rhetoric out of their mouth (Obama does a much better job, hence why he was elected). But as we know, third party candidates were given practically ZERO airtime by the corporate news sources where sadly the vast majority of Americans get their news. So that is how I came up with the conclusion that “anyone who voted for Obama or McCain is a corporate drone.” I know that is a little harsh generalization, and could be stated much better, but it still hits home what I’m trying to say. Many of the voters voted within the boundaries that corporate powers established.
So, Obama has increased taxes a little on the rich, and the federal government has guns and takes the taxes, therefore liberals are cavemen who take what they want from the rich. Was that fair?
First, you take a historical perspective based on Bugs Bunny cartoons (no, seriously, pre-historic tribes were relatively egalitarian). If liberals really are as bad as you say, then cavemen would be insulted.
But you also wildly mischaracterize the liberal rationale for a widened social safety net. We don’t want it because we’re greedy and we think we can get free stuff by stealing from the rich (oh, those poor investment bankers!), we want it because we think it works better. To take healthcare as an example–we currently pay more than half-again as much as any other country for our healthcare system, and we have some of the worst healthcare outcomes in the industrialized world. Moreover, every single other industrialized country has some form of socialized medicine. We think that the free market simply eats its own tail when it comes to healthcare, and therefore some government intervention can help efficiency enormously.
And what is this conservative obsession with gun control? My family owns several guns and we all voted Obama. No major Democrat has mentioned gun control as a critical issue, and Obama has repeatedly said he has no new gun control laws planned.
Yet conservatives keep carping about it. Why?
So b/c you think the government can run healthcare better that gives you the right to take from whoever you choose (even if its just 1% of the population) in order to finance your healthcare?
If you think the gov can do a better job then pay them yourself, but dont force others to pay in more than they receive.
I shouldn’t be forced to buy government healthcare or subsidize yours if I like my plan better.
Millions of people come to the states every year from countries that have state ran healthcare bc it doesn’t work as well as you think.
i’m glad everyone here is so caught up in their bullshit anti-anti-racist rhetoric that no one has called him out on the fact that jeremy is making an incredibly racially charged claim
Unfortunately, Mike, it’s this kind of shit that makes me wonder if I even want to be a Libertarian anymore. The worst part is that conservatives are trying to mask themselves as Libertarians now. They don’t use the "L-word", per se, but still…
What really infuriates me about the Right (Republican, conservative, Libertarian, Evangelical Christian, Nazi, whatever you want to call them) is their double-speak, and why it isn’t painfully obvious to more people. Every argument they contend against the Left can be thrown right back at them.
They accuse the Left of robbing the rich, while they rob the poor and middle-class. The very mention of free government services makes them scream "socialism", while the many free government services we already have (police, fire, mail, public schools) doesn’t bother them. They accuse the Left of wanting a welfare state when we already have one, except the biggest welfare bums, by a long shot, are big corporations. They accuse the Left of taxing the shit out of the American people, while they do the same (just for what THEY want). They decry government interference in people’s lives, but have no problem with it when it’s THEIR government (wiretapping, anyone?). They accuse anyone who questions the government (particularly the president) of treason, except, once again, when it’s not their own.
I have always considered myself politically balanced, but now I feel like I’m losing that balance, and am tumbling headlong into Incense and Tie-Dye T-shirt Land, and the Right is to blame. I used to be a registered Republican, and wanted to vote for McCain in 2000 (before he was compromised by the Bible-thumpers) If the Right could come up with ONE reasonable argument, rather than relying on the same bullshit rhetoric and scare-tactics, I might tip the other way again. I don’t see that happening any time soon.