How Anger Ruins Liberty
The libertarians are right about many things, and the general populace is notably libertarian in many ways. And yet, relatively few people have any interest in the libertarian “movement.” At this point, two or three generations of libertarians have wondered why they couldn’t get more people, but they have few answers, save for being more and more flamboyant.
There are many reasons for the lack of libertarian ideas spreading of course, but my point today is a very simple one:
Libertarians major in anger, and that chases millions of decent people away.
I’m sympathetic, you understand. Once you see what coercive institutions have done to mankind, it’s completely understandable to become angry. But if our writings are a one-note symphony of complaints, we doom ourselves to the fringes, no matter how right our ideas may be. There has to be more than that if we’re going to draw people in.
Doing more of the same things that are failing – but doing them louder and with more “edge” – hasn’t worked. If we want people to receive our ideas, we’ll have to give them a positive image to move toward, and few libertarians ever do that.
Positive Libertarianism?
Yes, positive libertarianism. Please see this article, which makes the case for it pretty directly.
Many libertarians complain simply because it seems to be “the libertarian model.” But that’s a silly reason. And what’s worse is that complaining ties us to the things we complain about. That keeps us from covering new ground and keeps the same old abuses in the forefront of our minds. In other words, it’s a recipe for stasis.
What the World Sees
A young friend of mine is particularly engaged in this issue and recently sent me these comments:
These people are very angry… they all seem to talk with a “screw you” tone of voice and connotations.
People with this philosophy are almost universally lacking in kindness. Perhaps they have it, but they don’t express it in their words.
In my head, the philosophy is a kind one. When you think through the logical implications, you realize that this would produce benefits… but you have to actually tell people that, rather than just say, “Screw you; taxation is theft!”
The delivery of the message is sending people away.
It’s not about the taxes. It’s about people. It’s about respecting and valuing people, and libertarians are really failing at that.
Where Anger Ends Up
I hate to post the following images, but I think they’re important to see. All of these come from the social media feeds of people who boast of “freedom,” “ancap,” “libertarian,” “anti-state,” and so on. This is where anger can lead, and part of the pathology involves picking on women.
Yes, I know this isn’t representative of all libertarians (thank God), but the people who post this kind of filth have hundreds of thousands of followers and likes.
So, the libertarian movement has a problem, and at the root of it lies anger.
Anger Is Poison
Let’s get to the bottom of this: Anger, while it may be an understandable response to abuse, is highly toxic if not purged. And it is definitely not suitable as a modus operandi.
Not all libertarians deal in anger, of course, but the many who do are poisoning their own progress. Pointing out evil is fine at times, and occasionally necessary… but not all the time.
If the choir we’re preaching to demands negativity, it’s a choir we need to leave behind. If our “click-numbers” sag, then so be it; if we can’t put goodness above numbers, we’re poisoning the people who give us their time and attention.
We need to build what’s right, not to complain about what’s wrong.
* * * * *
If you’ve enjoyed Free-Man’s Perspective or A Lodging of Wayfaring Men, you’re going to love Paul Rosenberg’s new novel, The Breaking Dawn.
It begins with an attack that crashes the investment markets, brings down economic systems, and divides the world. One part is dominated by mass surveillance and massive data systems: clean cities and empty minds… where everything is assured and everything is ordered. The other part is abandoned, without services, with limited communications, and shoved 50 years behind the times… but where human minds are left to find their own bearings.
You may never look at life the same way again.
Get it now at Amazon ($18.95) or on Kindle: ($5.99)
* * * * *
Paul Rosenberg
[Editor’s Note: Paul Rosenberg is the outside-the-Matrix author of FreemansPerspective.com, a site dedicated to economic freedom, personal independence and privacy. He is also the author of The Great Calendar, a report that breaks down our complex world into an easy-to-understand model. Click here to get your free copy.]
“We need to build what’s right, not to complain about what’s wrong.”
Sophistry at its finest.
You want anger look at the progressives. Libertarians are almost to a man some of the most inoffensive and laid back folks on the planet.
Libertarians think that everyone else wants independence and the risks associated with real liberty when less than 5% of the population has any interest in that kind of lifestyle. It also requires a large degree of self sufficiency, an easy going nature especially as it concerns people with radically different perspectives and a desire for small government and an a law abiding nature. How many people do you think that applies to?
The idea of a libertarian government appeals to a very small number of people. “Anger” and how that is perceived by the Leftists (who consider any disagreement with them and their programs a form of “hate”) is not their problem, at all.
Absolutely, the anger description is bullshit just like something being “offensive”. To the ever-softening creampuff nation, today’s truth is tomorrow’s hate-speech. So todays cordial statement is tomorrows “anger” as well.
The problem is simple while lacking any simple solutions; cowards demand tyranny and the vast majority of people are cowards.
… From Michael Emerling-Cloud’s Essence of Political Persuasion
(It was a large and expensive home.)
It was a large and expensive home. The architecture radiated impeccable taste. Seated around the dining table were five people: three moderates, a conservative and a libertarian. The conservative was a multimillionaire — and a generous political contributor. After dinner she turned to the libertarian and said, “Our hosts tell me you’re a libertarian. Maybe I’m a little naive, but I don’t know what that word means. Could you tell me about your beliefs?”
“Sure. I can explain them in a sentence: ‘Fuck the State!’ Libertarians want to get rid of as much government as they can.”
The woman was stunned. She dropped the subject and guided the conversation into other areas. In her mind, two things were associated with ‘libertarian’: bad manners and gutter language.
HSF says: Libertarians are almost to a man some of the most inoffensive and laid back folks on the planet.
We are HSF, until you shove us against the wall and force our mouths open to accept that which we find abhorrent .
I have posted many of Rosenberg’s columns and even bought his latest book, although I haven’t read it. I disagree with virtually everything he said on this one. Liberty has been, is, and always will be the product of anger. Nobody has ever achieved any measure of liberty by quietly discussing their differences of political philosophy with the powers that be. When has power ever yielded to rational argument? How could America’s founding fathers have thrown off the British yoke if they weren’t way beyond anger, in fact, raging mad? They risked their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor, everything, to fight their British overlords. These were men of the enlightment, who believed in science and rationality, but they knew that no amount of argument and disputation would secure for them the liberty they cherished. I’ve written my share of articles extolling the virtues of freedom, and the opportunities it presents, but I’ve also written my share of articles of the type Rosenberg condemns, because I know that to change the way things are, passion and righteous anger are essential. That may frighten some and turn others away, but liberty has rarely been a cause embraced by the majority, although it benefits most.
I also find the pictures Rosenberg posted incredibly offensive. To condemn Libertarian anger by using patently disgusting images and linking them to people who affix a libertarian label to themselves amounts to an ad hominem attack. Rosenberg is free to argue Libertarian principles and tactics, but to try to say that the morons who post that sort of garbage are anything more than morons, that they somehow are representative of libertarians, is disingenous at best, and undoubtedly far worse. Rosenberg would never traffic in such filth, and he should give true Libertarians the credit for not doing so, either.
Suddenly, I want to side with bb in hating Joos.
Doesn’t understand Libertarians. Doesn’t understand anger. Doesn’t understand life. But, he always thinks he does with his pie-in-the-sky horseshit.
Of all the regular web authors Admin posts, this assclown is THE worst.
I slice and dice Paul at every opportunity, but this time i think Stuck and Robert cover it perfectly. I darn sure don’t anybody telling me not to be angry. Nice work.
Rosenberg’s off his game on this one, and as much as I hate to agree with Gore, freedom actually entails a bit of hate, always and everywhere.
THE WRATH OF THE AWAKENED SAXON
by Rudyard Kipling
It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late,
With long arrears to make good,
When the Saxon began to hate.
They were not easily moved,
They were icy — willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the Saxon began to hate.
Their voices were even and low.
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show
When the Saxon began to hate.
It was not preached to the crowd.
It was not taught by the state.
No man spoke it aloud
When the Saxon began to hate.
It was not suddently bred.
It will not swiftly abate.
Through the chilled years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the Saxon began to hate.
Rosenberg didnt just get it wrong, he got it the exact opposite of correct.
If being logical and not angry worked why did Ron Paul gain a small following while Donald Trump is riling up the masses while making some of the same points?
Many respond to emotions instead of logic, which is why anger is effective.
Being logical and expecting people to respond positively to logic a d not getting angry or aggressive worked for the Jews, didnt it?
Simple, tyranny walks over those who allow it.
Our founders tried talking things out but when push came to shove, they did what needed to be done, they shot the motherfuckers in the face.
Harry. Plus one for your ending.
Goddam. Rosenberg just made me angry. I’m gonna whip his ass now, and I ain’t even a libertarian.
For what it’s worth liberty is an act, not a philosophy. You either behave as if you are free and liberate yourself from the tyranny of government/social strictures and conventions/popular opinion or you do not. Thinking about being free while tethered to the chains of docility and public acceptance counts for shit.
And anger- to me at least- implies reckless reaction to external stimulus. Someone or something keeps annoying you until you react in anger, that is not the same thing that Kipling talks about in the poem. Righteous indignation seems to be the best phrase to succinctly sum it up. You expect people to behave a certain way (that doesn’t infringe on your liberty), then you ask them nicely, when they repeatedly reject or intentionally continue to spite you you develop a logical and rational response to their repeated violations and seize your rights back. You can be as calm or as hot headed as you like when you do, but it doesn’t imply that you made your move based on an emotional response in the moment.
Anger and a legitimate defense of rights have been conflated deliberately to neuter men from taking action.
Screw you, taxation is theft! Fuck the state!
There. I feel better.
They that are desirous of victory do not so much conquer by might and prowess, as by truth, compassion, piety and virtue. Fight without any arrogance, for victory is certain to be there where righteousness is.
— Sanjaya, Bhishma Parva, Mahabharata Book vi.21.10-11
It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected. Sun Tzu, The Art of War. (http://suntzusaid.com/ if you haven’t read it yet)
Thanks to Mr. Gore and Mr. HSF,
your comments are quite to the point,
and aligned with what I would have said.
The images PR “hated” to post are antithetical
to Libertarianism. And, yes, Libertarianism is
a lifestyle as much as it is a philosophy.
As for the book, I purchased it as well…18% in and
I could not continue to read it. I am known to read
anything really, maybe I will take a second look. The
premise was promising but the product failed to inspire.
BTW, I appreciated the other commenters just as much.
Suzanna
Again, our Hardscrabble Farmer gets to the heart of the matter. Libertarianism is a minority philosophy, a fringe political position. It is the credo of those who want to live independently, and say ‘leave me alone, and I’ll leave you alone!’ There simply is not a high demand for this sort of arrangement in today’s modern society/civilization, where everyone takes great interest in wanting to make other people think and do what they think the other people should think and do.
The symbol of the Libertarian party (if it really is one in the first place) should be the cat — wandering off on its own, and not paying much heed to anything other than its own concerns, which may be quite different from all the other cats, not to mention any other species!