The First Thing We Do, Let’s Kill All The Libertarians

Guest Post by The Zman

In the old fantasy game Dungeons & Dragons, there was an alignment system to plot types of players and characters in terms of their moral code. For instance, a player that was lawfully good, strictly followed a moral code, even when that code worked against their self-interest. A chaotically good character was willing to junk the rules to do what they believe was the right thing. The former would deport all illegal aliens because the law required it, but the latter would let them stay as long as they promised to behave.

That always comes to mind when I read about when a serial killer is finally caught or a libertarian is pulling some crap like this.

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)

After her family’s shiba inu died of cancer, Dawn Sabins decided to surprise her 7-year-old son with a new puppy. In March 2015, she dropped into a San Diego-area pet store looking for an English bulldog. She walked out with a golden retriever.

That wasn’t so strange, even if $2,400 was more than she’d intended to spend. (There’s a reason pet stores put puppies in the window.) The odd part came a few weeks later, when she and her husband were going over their credit reports and saw a $5,800 charge from a company they’d never heard of.

The Sabins had bought their new dog, Tucker, with financing offered at the pet store through a company called Wags Lending, which assigned the contract to an Oceanside, California-based firm that collects on consumer debt. But when Dawn tracked down a customer service rep at that firm, Monterey Financial Services Inc., she learned she didn’t own the dog after all.

“I asked them: ‘How in the heck can I owe $5,800 when I bought the dog for $2,400?’ They told me, ‘You’re not financing the dog, you’re leasing.’ ‘You mean to tell me I’m renting a dog?’ And they were like, ‘Yeah.’ ”

Without quite realizing it, the Sabins had agreed to make 34 monthly lease payments of $165.06, after which they had the right to buy the dog for about two months’ rent. Miss a payment, and the lender could take back the dog. If Tucker ran away or chased the proverbial fire truck all the way to doggy heaven, the Sabins would be on the hook for an early repayment charge. If they saw the lease through to the end, they would have paid the equivalent of more than 70 percent in annualized interest—nearly twice what most credit card lenders charge.

Curious about the moral nullity behind this dog leasing idea, I looked up Dusty Wunderlich and found that he is not a boiler room operator living on the edge of society. He is a proud member of the new economy. He even has his own blog.The values section is the most entertaining because it is a dog’s breakfast of stuff he picked up as an undergrad, that he could use to manipulate and take advantage of people. It is a moral code, even if it leads to immoral ends, which is why the term “lawful evil” is appropriate.

That’s always the problem with libertarians. They assume that if something is allowed to be done, it should be done. Since the law allows this guy to prey on the emotionally vulnerable, in order to get them to sign off on leasing a casket for their dead granny, then there’s nothing wrong with it. Since libertarians believe the law should only enforce contracts, protect private property and provide physical protection, grifters fleecing the unwitting becomes a feature of society, rather than a defect.

That’s fine, as far as it goes, which is not very far as few people wish to live in the transactional hell-scape that is the libertarian paradise. Humans understand that what holds a society together is the collection of unwritten rules that we think of as our common morality. The law rests on the foundation of the common morality. An amoral grifter like Dusty Wunderlich may be operating within the letter of the law, but he is living outside the spirit of the law. No society will tolerate that for long and eventually the law is changed.

The Old Right has always understood this. Societies can evolve unwritten ways to deal with guys like Dusty Wunderlich. Ostracism or a Tom Doniphon are two examples. Or, they will create written ways to deal with him. The public will demand it. If the leaders fail to provide the solution, then new leaders will be found. The Right prefers organic social institutions, the unwritten rules, while the Left prefers an authoritarian custodial state, the written rules. Those are the choices and there is no third choice.

To be fair to libertarians, the old guys like Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul understood and embraced this reality. They accepted the fact that an atrophied state would leave a void to be filled by organic social institutions. The end may not be the libertarian paradise of maximum liberty. It could lead to a theocracy, like Utah or Massachusetts, but it would at least result in a set of rules in line with the dispositions and desires of the citizens. Modern libertarians reject all that and embrace a form of utopianism.

It is why the Dissident Right should treat modern libertarians like plague carrying rage zombies. Economics is down stream from culture, far down stream. The willingness of libertarians to stab the Right in the back over culture issues just so they can score some rhetorical points over economics makes them more dangerous than the Left. Every war is a culture war, even the shooting kind. It is one group aiming to prove that their gods, their ways, their culture is superior, by imposing it on others, by any means necessary.

It’s why Buckley Conservatives are a failed movement now. They embraced the transactionalism of the libertarians, over the traditionalism of the Old Right. They have spent countless hours fussing over how best to move commas around the tax code, while the Left is marching from victory to victory in the culture war. The corruption is so thorough that they can no longer muster a reason to oppose guys like Dusty Wunderlich, ravaging the economy like locusts.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
25 Comments
AAAV8R
AAAV8R
April 28, 2017 8:21 am

What a poorly conceived article.

There are those that believe in liberty, and those that just talk about it. The Republican Party members like to wrap themselves in the flag and jawbone about freedom, but in the end, they are indistinguishable from big government liberals that want to legislate away freedom under the guise of “keeping us safe”.

It was obviously lost on the author that, despite a myriad of laws already in place to “protect us”, the idiots highlighted in the article signed a contract without reading it. So now we need the Republicans to ride in on their white horse to pass even more laws to protect the galactically stupid from themselves. Brilliant.

Maybe the “freedom loving” Republicans can also usher in more visionary legislation to help “keep us safe” like mandatory helmets while driving a car. Think how many lives would be saved!!!

Dawn
Dawn
  AAAV8R
May 11, 2017 11:01 pm

My name is Dawn Sabins you ignorant doofus. Before you go passing judgement you should know that the “contract” was not given to me at the time and it is a much more complicated situation with more parties involved than this small article is detailing. It could have been brought to a court of law and that is why when threatened with investigation-all was offered to make the situation right. So you see. Don’t pass judgement because you have nothing else better to do. Thanks.

WIP
WIP
April 28, 2017 8:26 am

The law has created endless forms and agreement contracts. Libertarians didn’t do that. People should stop signing these. As soon as someone pushes a small print form in front of you, simply walk away. It is written to FUCK you.

Bellicose Owl
Bellicose Owl
April 28, 2017 9:13 am

I would argue that with a viable frontier, the risk takers can take their risks and live on the edge, while civilization can continue to function as a grounding foundation.

thomas
thomas
April 28, 2017 9:14 am

Agree with all the comments. The article is pretty fucking stupid.

Iska Waran
Iska Waran
April 28, 2017 9:32 am

“the idiots signed a contract”

The operative word is “idiots”. Libertarians don’t seem to comprehend how many people are truly incapable of comprehending things of minor complexity and the vast number who border on insane – or have crossed the border. None of us here would lease a dog because to do so would be insane. It’s funny how many people will defend the inventor of dog-leasing but will quickly jump to accuse a TBTF bank of defrauding a mortgage borrower (most of whom lived for free for years, making no payments) because of some purportedly inadequate disclosure or a failure to document the borrower’s income. Where are the “hey you signed the contract, dumbshit” people then?

AAAV8R
AAAV8R
  Iska Waran
April 28, 2017 10:19 am

You never sign a contract without reading it. If you are faced with a contract that is a few inches thick (such as you do when buying a house), and you do not have a legal background, you hire a lawyer to review the paperwork.

“But I can’t afford a lawyer”

Oh…..so you can afford the $800,000 McMansion, but can’t afford the $3000-5000 fee to a lawyer who will keep you from being defrauded out of your life savings?

Sorry but once again, this is a personal responsibility issue. Ironic that after dozens and dozens of articles on TBP about the credit bubble and irresponsible spending we are supposed to feel sorry for some California Snowflakes that put a dog on layaway (without reading a contract). A frickin’ dog!!!

Well here’s a novel idea – if you want a dog and have no money, go down to the local pound and adopt a rescue dog. No money needed, and no contract to sign.

Good gawd…….this country has jumped the shark.

Pieter in ZA
Pieter in ZA
  AAAV8R
April 28, 2017 11:52 am

A fool and his money will…Aw fuck it. We’re all fucked.

Anon
Anon
April 28, 2017 9:41 am

What idiot would rent a dog? Seriously, did these people not READ the fucking contract? This does not sound like a problem with libertarians, this sounds like a stupidity problem. And frankly, if you are stupid enough to enter in to a contract TO RENT A DOG, the DOG should probably be YOUR owner, as the DOG is clearly the smarter one.
This is why bankster crooks get so many people, it is not that the banksters are the ‘smartest guys in the room’, it is that their marks are such rubes that they will agree to ANY type of ‘financing’ they offer just so they can get that ‘shiny new thing’.
Libertarians are not bad people, Libtards are. Libertarians attitude is that laws should be limited to things that violate other peoples rights. The above example is not a case of these folks rights being violated. A human has the right to be a full on dumbass if they want to be. However, when that full on dumbass decides to rob someone else’s property, rape them, kill them etc. , that is where the law should get involved. Not drug wars, speed limits, and the various other 40000 or so laws for ‘moral’ sake. You cannot legislate morality, period. Every politician tries it, and eventually it becomes nothing but a hammer of control. I think the author needs to understand WHAT a libertarian stands for before criticizing.

Ed
Ed
April 28, 2017 9:45 am

“They assume that if something is allowed to be done, it should be done. ”

Sounds more like a demopublican politician than a libertarian. Zman must not know any libertarians.

Rdawg
Rdawg
  Ed
April 28, 2017 10:44 am

+1000 Ed, you beat me to it. This was the dumbest fucking sentence in a dumb fucking article.

And the title? The *first* thing to do is to kill the libertarians? The libertarians are what’s holding us back, fucking everything up? I can think of a good dozen ideologies that need killing (oops violated the non-aggression principle there) before even considering libertarianism, and I haven’t even had breakfast yet.

BL
BL
  Rdawg
April 28, 2017 11:29 am

Ed and Dawg- I don’t know it for a fact but as time goes by I am convinced that (Z) is for (((Zimmerman))), If you know what I mean. Liberal would be top of my list, ZMAN is showing his colors.

Ed
Ed
  BL
April 28, 2017 3:47 pm

Bea, let me go on the record as saying that I feel it is a bad idea in general to kill the libertarians.

Ed
Ed
  Rdawg
April 28, 2017 3:41 pm

What’s almost as dumb is the way he conflates a serial killer with a financial fraud, before jumping to the conclusion that the fraudster is a libertarian. There’s no hope for such a ninny.

digitalpennmedia
digitalpennmedia
April 28, 2017 9:55 am

God forbid people are actually held accountable for their own decisions and may even have to do research into a company to see if its legit. Libertarians believe that one is responsible for the freedoms they are given and all consequences that come with that freedom. This author seems to be crying out for the same things liberals do… “Please dont hold me accountable for me decisions, someone else shouldve told me (albeit in a different methodology, but it all ends the same )”…

On the one hand is mentioned the “grifter” skirting the lines of current law, and yet somehow if the old right took charge they would come up with way to deal with the “grifter” be it laws or other methods. So how would you then deal with “grifters” that skirt the lines of those laws? Dealing with someone other than with WRITTEN LAW is arbitrary MOB RULE.

We have a similar mob rule now as any semblance of a republic has died, but given situations that one believes there should be a certain moral guidance to is entirely b.s. The arbitrary, “I feel this is right and that is wrong” is the exact same thing the ANTIFA groups are doing and is the same thing christian conservatives (the organic institution I figure is being refered to) would do if they were given total control. Everyone wants to believe their way is better and their way is right but in the end it is just that person or entity or belief system wanting control.

In the end the law DOES NOT rest on a common morality nor would any conservative institutions, it cant, all laws would all have to be defined because there is no “spirit of law”… how many judges ruled “in the spirit” ( I believe Obamacare was ruled in such a manner after a legislating bench maneuver). Spirit of law results in personal biases and more regulations and less freedoms that in fact lead right back to a situation that we are in now that I am sure the author complains about.

These types of “conservatives” dont want freedom, they want government….just a government that follows their beliefs and their “moral code”, somehow believing that their method will fix the “grifters” and the laws all the while still restricting freedom and shirking responsibility for actions. In the end, if people took accountability for their actions and used some intellect and did some research (especially with the spread of information via tech today) we could have less laws and less regulation… but then there would be more consequences.

Iska Waran
Iska Waran
  digitalpennmedia
April 28, 2017 10:12 am

I assume that, unlike Admin, you’re not a fan of The Big Short. Those Wall Street “quants” who sold investors pools of No Doc mortgages were fully following the letter of the law. And when you’re getting dragged down the aisle of an oversold jet like a Vietnamese doctor, remember that you’d clicked the box on the 4 point font of a 2,000 word disclosure at Travelocity.com where you’d agreed to give up your seat without protest.

Ed
Ed
  digitalpennmedia
April 28, 2017 3:43 pm

Penn, good work. I can read your post much better with the spacing.

suzanna
suzanna
April 28, 2017 10:09 am

Z,
what is wrong with you? Your piece is out of sync.
Usually you make brilliant points!
Libertarians…kill them for the crooks they are?
Yikes.

Did the dog fraud happen to a loved one? Buy a dog from
a breeder, or go to the pound and adopt. I paid $800. each for
my last to 2 dogs…and that was steep. (doberdoodle and full dobe)
$2400? On credit? No way.
Suggest no one does the doodle thing, the dogs have confused
identities.

CA
CA
April 28, 2017 10:10 am

Beyond all that, if u couldn’t afford to pay cash for something u didn’t really need, why did u buy it. Don’t they give dogs away for free at humane societies. Fuck the morons, good lesson for them.

Iska Waran
Iska Waran
April 28, 2017 10:18 am
KaD
KaD
April 28, 2017 10:52 am

Anyone this stupid deserved to be scammed, and will probably learn their lesson from it. Paying huge money for a dog is stupid in and of itself. A dog is a money pit. In one study (most underestimate since they are done by the pet food/ dog products industry) the cost of having a medium size dog, eating only Walmart quality kibble (and who feeds their precious furbaby that?) and getting only routine vet care (the horrors!) would be about $1200 a year. If your dog lives to 14 that is over $16,000 spent. No wonder so many dog owners are always crying broke! I wish the SO could get into rehab to kick his mutt addiction, that money could be MUCH better spent on other things, like principle payments to the mortgage. Not to mention the liability. If your dog bites someone, the average cost of a dog bite settlement, for one bite, is over $30,000. Your homeowners insurance will at least double, IF you can keep it. The average in a pit bull attack is over $500,000. If your dog bites someone in the face, that alone is a six figure injury since it will likely require multiple surgeries by specialists.

Trapped in Portlandia
Trapped in Portlandia
April 28, 2017 12:32 pm

I usually enjoy Zman’s writings and agree with his viewpoints. But he must be smoking some crack today based on what he wrote.

Ed
Ed
  Trapped in Portlandia
April 28, 2017 3:45 pm

Me too, TiP.

constman54
constman54
April 28, 2017 12:41 pm

Maff is hard. $165.06X36= $5,942.16!!!! 4 a dog

gaikokumaniakku
gaikokumaniakku
April 28, 2017 4:44 pm

” a player that was lawfully good, strictly followed a moral code, even when that code worked against their self-interest. A chaotically good character was willing to junk the rules to do what they believe was the right thing. The former would deport all illegal aliens because the law required it, but the latter would let them stay as long as they promised to behave.”

First, players don’t have alignments. Characters have alignments. So you can’t have a player who is Lawful Good. You can only have a player with a Lawful Good character.

Second, a Chaotic Good character would not necessarily negotiate with aliens, or trust aliens to keep their word. A Chaotic Good character might do ANYTHING that seemed good to that character. Robin Hood is the typical Chaotic Good role model – he believes he is doing the right thing, but he doesn’t respect other folks’ authority, dignity, traditions, etc.

Third, note that the alignments are formed from two adjectives, not one adverb and one adjective. There is no “ly” suffix in Lawful Good, and there is likewise no “ly” suffix in Chaotic Good.

Fourth, contact your Friendly Local Gaming Store to improve your sadly subpar Dungeons & Dragons skills.