It's tolerance, NOT "cultural libertarianism"

I posted this comment at Garry Reed's Examiner story "'Cultural Libertarianism' isn't new, it's just gone international."

Ms Southern's major error is suggesting that non-State forms of suppression can be just as bad as State censorship. Yes, the shaming, slanders, boycotts, protests, disinvites, and bans (from private organizations and/or property) can be very unfair. They can even temporarily ruin lives. But they're not nearly as terrible as a policeman's jackboot stomping on your face. Or prison.

Regarding the Breitbart piece: it muddies the waters terribly to call someone a "cultural libertarian" just because he or she's proudly "politically incorrect.". Several of these people support State policies that are anti-immigrant and/or anti-Muslim. There's nothing "libertarian" about that, and particularly nothing "culturally" libertarian.

Cheers to them, and anyone else, who is tolerant of other people's speech and expression. Who protest speech codes, reveal arbitrary and biased censorship on Internet platforms, expose hypocrisy, etc.. But I think the word "tolerance" will do quite nicely. I won't label anyone as any kind of libertarian when they're not.

S&M Christians

I came across this clip from 1986 that originally circulated through the Net a couple of years ago:



What was amazing, absolutely amazing, is how, all these decades later, the perspectives on what transpired and who "won" could be so fantastically different.

Here's one view: Burn In Hell, Frank Zappa!

This blogger, who relishes the thought that Zappa is in hell, believes Zappa was lying when he claimed he was a "conservative," or that Zappa was a RINO (Republican In Name Only). Why is this? Because Zappa believed in freedom of speech.

And the opposite view: Watch Frank Zappa Wipe the Floor With John Lofton

The first comment to this post also cheers Zappa's eternal torment, though most of the rest of the comments ridicule the first one.

I love the irony. Those who condemn Zappa for defending "filth" are themselves totally into S&M. Well, maybe not S&M, more like pure sadism.

After all, what excites them? Police batons, handcuffs, and dungeons. And not just for dangerous people who have done harm to others, but also for people they don't like. See someone doing or saying something you wouldn't say or do? Arrest them! Jail them!

Why do these people believe that Jesus endorses their perversion? It doesn't make sense.

It's not wholly a sectarian or right-wing phenomenon. There are fundamentalists, and conservative Catholics, who are also anarchists. And there are extremely "liberal" Christians who would conduct police raids on bars that allow smoking, or draft your daughter to liberate Zimbabwe. There are libertarian Christians in all sects, and S&M Christians in all sects.

And to the latter I say, please, just keep your weird fantasies of coercion and domination in your fantasy life. Or act them out with a consenting adult. Just leave the rest of us alone!

Government Censorship is Indefensible

I'm trying to be as understanding of other points of view. Many people do have good intentions and are just lacking facts and don't think things through. They know the economic system really is rigged against the masses. They really do want to protect the children. They really are afraid of terrorism. They go on to advocate policies that will exacerbate rather than alleviate their concerns, but their concerns are understandable.

But there are some causes where I just don't see any "good intentions" at all. They seem to me to be nothing but just attempts by selfish people to use the government to get back at enemies or force their utopia on everyone else. One example is campaign laws restricting speech. The government banned a documentary trashing Hillary Clinton during the Presidential campaign, saying it amounted to a political ad.

But the First Amendment is quite clear: Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech, or of the press. The Supreme Court has hedged in the past, making the indefensible claim that "commercial speech" can be regulated, that political campaigns can be regulated, and that campaign ads can be regulated. This is all demonstrably false in the Constitution's clear language.

And even if the First Amendment never existed, the Constitution doesn't give Congress the power to regulate speech or the press.

And even if the Constitution didn't exist, government has no right to censor. Speech, even foul and false speech, does not constitute aggression against another person's body or property. There is no justification for censorship, and there is no justification for the intentions that would make one want to censor others.

Books, Morals, and Stupid People

This isn't by me, but it's delightful, pro-freedom, pro-First Amendment, and well worth reading at the Partial Observer.

French Fascism

So the French government believes it has the authority to ban Muslim headscarves and other conspicuous religious symbols in French schools. But if a private citizen, Brigitte Bardot, merely says something critical about Muslims or other immigrants, well that's also a crime.

What you wear is the business of the State. What you say is the business of the State.

But give France credit: it's an equal-opportunity oppressor: it persecutes Muslim immigrants one day, national treasures the next. They got the égalité down -now they just need to work on the fraternité and, especially, the liberté.