Capitalism is only truly moral social system available to human kind

 

Removing Sanction of Anarchopocco and David "Lizard People" Icke.

Today I broke my own promise to not go onto Social Media while working on my own personal issues. As I looked through my personal updates feed I saw a post that made me need to unlike and remove sanction from an upcoming liberty event. It is called Anarchopocco and at some point I had sanctioned it while agreeing to disagree on anarchism. However, when I saw their list of speakers for this year I had no choice, but, to remove my support for the event.

The event is filled with quacks that are insane and should not be sanctioned by anyone that is not a nut. The list includes the likes of David "lizards rule the world" Icke. This is not a gathering of liberty lovers based on the facts they find that liberty is possible and works. This is a gathering of tinfoil hat wearing nuts that are like minded and basically are like a New Age Cult. Some people going are sane, but, they are the exception.

I refuse to give any moral sanction nor follow the exploits of a bunch of quacks which make individual rights means that reality does not exist and that facts do not matter. Anyone that sees this event will think that all libertarians are nutjobs that think the entire world is a prison out to get them. I do not endorse nor support Alex Jones as a so-called defender of Liberty. I refuse to sanction or endorse David Icke either. It is one thing to be open and tolerant. It is another thing to have such an open mind that your brain falls and the remains are no longer functionally active.

I, here forth refuse to ever sanction this event as a legitimate expression of any true liberty based in any facts of reality. I refuse to deem the event as worthy of my time and would like to express that other reality and facts based liberty lovers to not associate with this group of delusional quacks. It is already in the culture that liberty is somehow associated with hatred of the State and not consistent principles of non-coercion. Not too mention being associated with conspiracy nuts like this all too often as well. Conspiracy theorists are not the friends of individual rights and human rights respecting governance.

What is cultural libertarianism exactly?

Earlier today I found an interesting article on Reason.com about the Brietbart decision to use cultural liberarianism to define the movement against PC and Social Justice Political Correctness authoritarians on the far-far left. It made me think about what a truly libertarian culture would be and if it would match the definition as given by Brietbart. I found myself in agreement that the definition used seemed to simply be the civil libertarian aspect of the broader libertarian philosophy. 

However, while thinking through things I wonder if Brietbart realizes what a truly libertarian culture would entail. It would essentially be a culture where the moral philosophy was a form of the political philosophy known as libertarianism. What would this look like though? Would it match what Breitbart thinks it would? It would allow for freedom of speech for sure, but, it would also allow for so much more than that as well. 

A cultural libertarianism would be essentially a culture that thrived on methodological individualism. In other words one in which each individual lives their life according to their own wishes as long as they harmed none or their property was literally the foundation of culture itself. It means the conservatives at Breitbart would no longer care about socially conservative values. They would allow people that were traditionalists to live said way and also the most contrarian in their own words "degenerate." They would have no claim that "degeneracy" was even a thing as the only thing dictating morals would be whether or not you are treating others as sacrificial animals via some form of forced sacrifice to the "other."

Pornography would not only be legal, but, a moral institution that any religious demoralization against would be seen as an immoral call to sacrifice ones lively hood for the sake of a theocratic state. Similarly, all non coerced sex acts between unrelated adults of the proper age of consent no matter the biological sex or number would be seen as morally good. Sex, real sex, not the corrupted perversion of a predator would need to be seen as a good in of itself because it is a celebration of a primal aspect of life in a safe modern environment. Or at least Risk Aware and fully consensual.

That anything that people choose to do between consenting adults period through mutual informed and understood consent to mutual benefit. As long as it was not harming third parties (which would be illegal in this culture not only immoral) that this would would be seen as the moral good. So, prostitution the worlds oldest profession should not only be legal, but, is a moral and good living for those engaged in it via consensual means. Drug use, as it is not initiating coercion on others, and is using your own body as you see fit would be a moral good. That is of course as long as it is not accompanied by say using it and then driving or using it and then disturbing the peace. Not just pot, but, all drugs are moral. As this would be a culture based on libertarian philosophy also being the determinant of what is good or bad culturally. 

Abortion, if you are a Pro-choice libertarian would not only become the lay of the law. Instead, the fact that you can abort and that you would find the child impeding your own happiness would be the moral good, Being Anti-abortion would thus become seen as the immoral and the pro-abortion stance would become the pro-life stance. Due to it being pro the life of the self-determined couple or single woman to pursue their happiness as they see fit. To not be a sacrifice to a potential life they did not consent to have to raise simply from having hot and heavy sex with loose seed. Abortion itself would become seen as the cultural good and to be against it a cultural evil. 

Similar to this though it would be immoral to try to stop someone from spouting anti-abortion rhetoric using the force of the state. As these people would also need to be seen as morally good if they are not harming others or their property. It would especially be vile for one to stop a anti-abortion person whom did not believe in forcing legislation, but, they themselves to a liberty stance that simply were not culturally libertarian. 

Or it could also go the opposite way too. It would be a double edged sword for there are pro-life libertarians for them this would mean that the overall culture would need to embrace their ethics in their view to become culturally libertarian. As to a pro-life libertarian it is anti-libertarian to be pro-choice in this area as it is the killing of a fellow innocent human. Which means in a culturally libertarian world for them it would mean both complete agreement under the law with granting from conception rights, but, also that the entire culture are in lockstep culturally with this move as well. 

We now see the issues with cultural libertarianism as lovely as it sounds at first. I am not arguing against a culture of liberty, but, there are some issues with trying to make culture conform only to libertarianism broadly. By this I mean the idea that all people everywhere in our culture should agree that as long as something is not coerced it is necessarily still OK, or good behavior or not self-destructive or even destructive without violence of the others around said person. This does not mean that we should not have a culture of liberty, but, it does mean that the real world is complex. There is no way to have every single person agree with this statement. Unless you are in favor of literally brainwashing anyone that disagrees into agreeing. 

What I mean to say is some people will still be more culturally conservative and or puritan. No matter even if the majority of the culture is more socially libertarian if you will. Some people will really not budge on the matters of sexual decency and the matters of drug use. Some people will always believe abortion is murder and some people will always believe it the actual pro-life view. However, I contend there is one form in which a culture can be both libertarian and also not be needing in fact a form of conformity in not conforming at all. That is a culture not of anything being good, but, communities about some definitive things being bad. 

That is if we have a culture in which the prevailing mindset is the government should protect our rights and let us be free to make up our own decisions on our moral frameworks. Where-ever you end up falling without trying to make it, so, that everyone thinks anything goes even if it is legal. You can have a culture which embraces proper rules of law, proper constitutional constraints and proper parliaments where they exist. A culture which says not you have to say anything goes because it is legal. Instead a culture that says I can think anything consensual is good, but, I have no right to try to condition my fellow humans into agreeing with me. A culture which says I might think anything is consensual is good, but, you are free to disagree and I still recognize your humanity within. 

We can have a culture like this without needing to have everyone agree with those whom are totally culturally libertarian. We can have people with all kinds of opinions on things as long as they do not try try to force it down our throats it is fine. This could be considered the best possible compromise for those whom do want to extend libertarianism to its own secular moral frame work within culture and those whom simply want libertarianism to remain a political philosophy. By essentially keeping it just that a philosophy on what the proper role of states are and not trying to persuade every single individual to have a completely anything peaceful is moral outlook. By separating political philosophy about the role of the government and justice from needing to be what guides your every thought or every decision. Essentially make it so the political is not the personal and vice versa. 

This does not mean that a complete live and let live attitude in your own moral framework is not the logical and rational end point of libertarian political philosophy. Nor does the fact that it is ones possible extension of the philosophy into morality mean that is in fact the most logical outlook. The point of this article is that there is a lot of diversity in opinion on many matters that libertarians want to make legal. We should not be looking for a future world where we snap our fingers and everyone agrees with us like a Magic Act in Vegas. We need to be open to a world of tolerance and toleration of a multiplicity of views on morality. As long as most people of each morality refrains from forcing or coercing the other into accepting said worldview. In this sense a cultural libertarianism only works if people are free to disagree with each other; even with the very concept of libertarianism itself. 

Come Dine With Me and assumptions of gayness.

I want to start off this article by stating that I am against bigotry and prejudice towards people based on some sort of assumed collective label one is given by society. I want no one whom reads this to think I am anyway homphobic or even biphobic. I wrote another article similar to this previously about assumptions of orientation on a game show from the UK. This too is about a series that began in the UK, but, was extended worldwide that would be the cooking/reality show Come Dine With Me. 

As much as I enjoy the series in most of its incarnations I have noticed something very annoying. The assumption of male contestants sexuality based on stereotypes and pre-existing assumptions about men in general. For some reason if a man is a "pretty boy" he is assumed to be gay. If someone is fashionable he is assumed to be gay. If a man makes the amazingly crazy decision to wear pink to the dinner he is assumed to be gay. In all of these examples each man turned out to be 100% heterosexual and in certain cases to be married with children.

Yet, each of these people were assumed to be gay based on stereotypes about maleness vs femaleness. Each of them handled the accusations of being gay very well. None of them freaked out, but, they did all assert they were straight when asked. The idea that these people was automatically gay based on their ways of expressing their manhood is very annoying. It is also very sad that people must be gay to express themselves in the way they did. 

I say every dude that is hetero, but, mistaken to be gay should declare if asked the truth in a compassionate, but, powerful way. They should not be afraid to push back assertively the truth if their truth is questioned. Do not be a douche, but, do not let people disrespect you by not accepting your orientation or preferences. Nor should a straight man be afraid to be a pretty boy or wear pink. Do not let society label you with an identity that is not true for you. Express you manhood your way and rock on.