Goodness me, I go away for a day ...

"Call it a plan (or mission perhaps), but we intended you to post and
comment on the article - yes, we wanted you to react this way. Indeed,
the entire article was constructed to get this exact response. And
being dense, humourless, self-indulgent Randroids, you bought it hook,
line and sinker. Our initial reaction was to burst into laughter. At
you. Similar were the reactions of those that have read the article,
realised its purpose and then seen your ridiculous reactions (see:
everyone)."

Ah ha Doug and Matt so I see you have fallen in to our little trap. Little did you know we planted a spy in your midst who caught wind of your little plan. On hearing about your wicked intentions Lindsay acted just as he knew you'd expect him to, knowing that this would lead you on to his website. You see, while you were gloating over what you thought was your victory, other boys and girls were studying! Now they have an edge which you may never hope to get back! Come exam time you'll be at least one Hardly Boys esque stories worth of knowledge and preparation behind the rest of your peers! dramatically and irreversibly damaging your prospects of careers in whatever the hell it is you are studying! Yeeeees, yeeees, that's right, craaaaawl little mousies, crawl right in to uncle Lindsay's trap! Fall! Fall right in line with our wicked, ingenious, conveniently secret plan! Oh the dastardleyness of it all! THE DASTARDLEYNESS! MWA HA MWAHAHAHAHA!

Well played, sir. Well played.

P.S
By the by, Gregster, re: the "Objectivist Beehive" thing - usually, when one throws rocks at a beehives, the denizens therein become agitated, flying about and stinging things. You see how the insult works? Now, all hives have queens. Without the queen, the hive dies. So now we have come to a crux: you must elect a queen, and sting her possible rivals to death. You should pick the most objectively suitable candidate, or let the free market decide. Or both.

You've *all* been had. It's me pretending to be Scherk pretending to be the Brothers H.

"To conclude: You got served.

P.S: We know you're going to be very tempted to call us infantile, immature, childish, foolish, etc etc etc. Please try to resist this, and just accept that you've been outwitted."

You know you've lost an argument if you resort to this.

"Socialism may be dead, but its corpse is still rotting up the place." -Ayn Rand

If that’s the best you can do for amusement then I was correct at ascribing you “pea-brains.”

Outwitted? Oh fuck-what do we have here? Very sad. Worse than the misguided souls you pretended.

"effectively throwing rocks at the Objectivist beehive." This is lame. Daft.

Rather than being stirred, I appreciate your pebble throwing at the "Objectivist beehive"- Wtf?

"Ayn Rand, a charming lady who looks a bit lie [sic] a more mannish Helen Clark."

Must try harder.

I hope you feel better now, Matt and Doug.  

Elitism, forever!

You may remember this event: On the 1st of May President George W. Bush stood on the USS Abraham Lincoln and proudly announced “This is a mission accomplished”.

These words echoed our thoughts and feelings when we were informed of the transcription and posting of our article on this fine website.

Call it a plan (or mission perhaps), but we intended you to post and comment on the article - yes, we wanted you to react this way. Indeed, the entire article was constructed to get this exact response. And being dense, humourless, self-indulgent Randroids, you bought it hook, line and sinker. Our initial reaction was to burst into laughter. At you. Similar were the reactions of those that have read the article, realised its purpose and then seen your ridiculous reactions (see: everyone).

It may hard for you to grasp, but you've been had. So well done chaps, you’ve succeeded in making fools of yourselves.

Now, to address some of your specific absurd complaints.

In reference to criticisms of “WAH THESE ARE TYPICAL LEFTIST MISUNDERSTANDINGS” and such like. We know. We put them there on purpose. To provoke you into ranting, hooting and hollering. And it worked. SSomalia: We made several references to Somalia because we knew your reaction to our doing so would be hilarious.

It amazes us that you could have taken any part of the article as being serious in any way, shape or form (we’re looking at you Mr “WHY DID YOU TALK ABOUT SOMALIA RARRRRR”). For gods sake, we refer to Lindsay Perigo as COMRADE. Surely this would have at least hinted that we were effectively throwing rocks at the Objectivist beehive.

On the upside, the angry comments that've been posted are pretty much the best thing over, objectively speaking. Mark Hubbard in particular has been fantastic. Here is a selection of the best:

"I'm so pissed off with my career lately, and partly because I'm working in a system run by Doug and Matt." I'm sorry Mark, if what you say is true, you must encounter many people who laugh at you on a daily basis. At you, not with you. If so, we apologise for your frustrating career.

"Don't believe that these people believe such a thing as rational thought exists." Callum, I don't really know what this means. You didn't construct the sentence rationally enough.

"I also hope you do pen a response to their editorial, or whatever you want to call this vomit that has spewed from their quills." Mark, editorials and spew are not synonymous. Also, quills cannot vomit.

"Hitler Youth Again, Again!" Making you the Jews?

Lastly:

"I certainly wouldn't touch either of these two." Phew.

Anyway, gentlemen and ladies, we bear you no ill-will. If laughter is the best medicine, you must all have PhDs. Perhaps in Somalia...?

To conclude: You got served.

P.S: We know you're going to be very tempted to call us infantile, immature, childish, foolish, etc etc etc. Please try to resist this, and just accept that you've been outwitted.

Hello Craccum!

In the recent article smearing the LibertariaNZ (and, although not directly related, the Sense of Life Objectivists), there were so many questionable generalities in the article that it's hard to respond to them all - but the one that is annoying me most at present is the notion that Ayn Rand is the founder of BOTH Libertarianism AND Objectivism. It is to the credit of the LibertariaNZ that their libertarian party is so strongly derived from Rand's ideas. Arguably, no other libertarian or classical liberal party in the world can make the same claim, least of all the now-abysmal, ever-worsening Libertarian Party here in the United Police States. The philosophy of individual liberty, unlike Objectivism, predates Rand a few centuries to John Locke, and was implemented politically by this fellow named Thomas Jefferson (a far more accurate example than Somalia).

And while I've never claimed to be an intellectual (pseudo or otherwise), I do enjoy the international forum of SOLO, since as a life-long Californian I am unable to vote for the LibertariaNZ.

...there were so many questionable generalities in the article that it's hard to respond to them all - but the one that is annoying me most at present is the notion that Ayn Rand is the founder of BOTH Libertarianism AND Objectivism. It is to the credit of the LibertariaNZ that their libertarian party is so strongly derived from Rand's ideas - arguably, no other libertarian or classical liberal party in the world can make the same claim, least of all the now-abysmal, ever-worsening Libertarian Party here in these United Police States. And the philosophy of individual liberty, unlike Objectivism, predates Rand a few centuries to John Locke, and was implemented politically by this fellow named Thomas Jefferson. (a far more accurate example than Somalia)

Since the folks at Craccum may be reading this discussion, that was one of my biggest complaints about the article, humorous intent notwithstanding. I was in college when I went from left-anarchist to anarchist and eventually to libertarian. So I'm maybe not as quick to dismiss hostility toward libertarianism since I began my 'higher education' with similar hostility before I learned how much I agree with libertarianism. As a good friend of mine says "People are deceived en masse, but enlightened one at a time" ...

http://www.craccum.co.nz/submitletter.php

Excellent. Save me Googling through crud, though, can you please provide a link to their online submission.

Although, these guys better have far, far, far, far more ethics than the malignant lot at Salient, who had a penchant for holding back posts, and if not changing the wording of posts, in order to groom their own cancerous outlook on life.

I'm just a regular contributor to Craccum, not the editor - to the extent that I 'represent' Craccum here, it's in suggesting an explanation for the piece that doesn't involve sheer malice against Libertarians/Objectivists. I know that the authors are already aware of this discussion, but I'll leave it up to them whether they respond to your question or not.

If you don't have the time to write an article, send a letter. You don't need to write any more than you did in your last comment, and there's a form for online submission on the website. As you say, the floor is yours.

Yes, I think the distinction between Libz and SOLO does need to be made.

I also hope you do pen a response to their editorial, or whatever you want to call this vomit that has spewed from their quills. Perhaps you could add, just in case Matt and Doug are nearing the end of their studies and are turning their minds toward using what they have learned at University toward making money, the following useful link.

They can now buy Lotto tickets online.

... I invited all my detractors at Salient to front up here and debate, rather than just abuse me on their web site. They did a no-show. Ditto the folk at Nexus. I daresay it'll be the same with Craccum. But yes, they're welcome anyway.

I might do a reply on behalf of SOLO. I think Bernard's doing something for Libz. At the very least, those boys need to know that we're two quite separate entities, and Libz are not the political wing of SOLO.

The tone of the piece is immaterial. Light or not, the writer/s are still purporting the trite, and completely wrong and ill-informed arguments given, as serious refutations against Libertarianism. They are not. Even satire can only make a serious point when the satire strikes at the 'Truth' of the matter satirised. Intellectually these guys are light weight chumps, or that would have to be my assumption given their words on the page.

I have to give them an E (for empty headed).

Personally, I have no time to be writing replies, and would prefer, as you seem to represent the source magazine, that you get Doug and Matt along here, and see if they have the intellectual wherewithal to answer the question I posed below, and that just for starters. Repeat, vis a vis the Somalia comparison:

Given that the type of irrational, collectivist, tribal nihilism that Somalian society is based on is precisely the opposite of the central tenets of a Libertarian State, being a constitution that enshrines the rights of the individual and the non initiation of force, perhaps you can explain to me just how you can possibly connect that country with Libertarianism?

Gentlemen (snort), the floor is all yours. 

Callum, perhaps I didn't express myself very clearly. What I meant was that the article in its entirety is a long way from 100 percent serious. So I don't have any evidence as to why it should be taken seriously, because it isn't supposed to be serious. You've cottoned onto my point. Well done.

Incidentally, if SOLO is keen to put together a response, I'm sure Craccum would be happy to consider it for publication. The Craccum site isn't up and running yet, but it does include the editor's email. Just drop him a line.

Blogger pasta said .....

"I see no alternative to the government forcing people to have children. When people are given the option of not having enough children, they tend to do so. Light incentives don't work, we already have had them in Europe for a long time. What is necessary, is for the government to decide who should have children and how many and then tax everybody, intentionally not obliging to this demand, so highly that he or she has to exist at welfare level for all his or her life. Having enough children must be seen as a duty to society, similar to military service."

Luke says:

As well as free advertising for libertarianz.org.nz and solopassion, they have done us a favour in knowing just how short we are falling in trying to explain our position.

Our explanations have been out there for many years. Certainly we should be constantly refreshing them, furnishing up-to-date examples etc., but no explanation will ever be to the satisfaction of these Hitler Youth types because they're skanks, as we saw amply during the various kerfuffles over my Salient articles. What we can reasonably hope is that in responding to skanks we might win over the non-skanks. The odds are against us for reasons Jason lists, but not to try is not an option.

"this is actually a pretty concise summary of the problems and difficulties people have understanding libertarianism in general"

It is for sure. The typical university liberal arts student (or for that matter business student) from any part of the world will hold the same assumptions about capitalism and argue them in much the same (snotty) way. On the surface this seems silly and unimportant. The reason why this actually is important is that far more of the world's young population attends universities these days than at any time in the past and it seems like this trend will continue. "Hitler Youth" might be an over the top label, but it almost fits.

We are at a major disadvantage with regard to activism because academia is a state funded giant that just keeps growing and spreading. Curriculums are overwhelmingly agenda driven. Do ALL students really need a multiculturalism requirement? Do business students really need to be required to read Noam Chomsky and John Kenneth Galbraith? Is it really necessary for tax payers to subsidize bachelor’s degrees in afrocentric womens studies or masters courses in “environmental psychology”? And how do tiny libertarian movements make a dent in this juggernaught? I don't see the all powerful corporations stepping in to fund pro-capitalist education (with a few small exceptions).

- Jason

Looking past the snarky I'm-way-more-cynical-and-clever-than-you student magazine style of writing, this is actually a pretty concise summary of the problems and difficulties people have understanding libertarianism in general, and the view that left-wingers have of Libertarianz in particular.

We can use this as the basis of an FAQ about common misunderstandings of libertarianism.

As well as free advertising for libertarianz.org.nz and solopassion, they have done us a favour in knowing just how short we are falling in trying to explain our position.

"have any of you considered that this might be less than 100 percent dead serious?"

Can you show us your evidence as to why it should be taken seriously?

"Socialism may be dead, but its corpse is still rotting up the place." -Ayn Rand

Erm...

Consider me another cog in your increased Alexa rankings if you will. But I just had to ask: have any of you considered that this might be less than 100 percent dead serious? Like the "How To Be Right" article from about this time last year, or any other piece of satire Craccum has published over the last few years? 

The problem with people like Doug & Matt H is that they misrepresent libertarianism and Libertarianz.

The cornerstone of the entire Libertarianz philosophy is that people will always act in their own rational self interest

This isn't a cornerstone of libertarian philosophy. The concept of the rational actor comes from economics (as Doug & Matt H acknowledge). Libertarians advocate capitalism. Capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods and services, and thus the only moral economic system, regardless of whether or not people always act in their own rational self interest.

The reason Libertarianz cling to the "rational actor" concept with such passionate ferocity is because it's only part of the larger philosophy they subscribe to - Objectivism.

We don't, and it's not.

Even at a glance, it is clear that the only criteria used to develop [Libertarianz policies] were "will it cost me MY MONEY?" and "can THE MARKET do this?"

The only criterion used to develop Libertarianz policies is the NIOF principle.

The entire system of ethics and morality espoused by Libertarianz goes no further than "FUCK YOU, I GOT MINE,"

Where on earth did they get that idea?! Libertarianism is a political ideology, not a moral system. Libertarianism's moral foundation is not egoism. In essence, it is no more and no less than the idea that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are instituted solely to protect men's unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

A right to slander is a good one indeed. But will these little fuck wits give Solo the right to respond. Or do they prefer to stay in their nappies?

That was slothful and ignorant. Little Attillas. They find the ideas threatening.

It's a positive, to be discussed even by filth, Linz.

It rather proves the point about the Sir Robert Jones quotation I posted yesterday.

As Mark said - dullards.

Correct Callum.

Linz - TYPO. Honest

Don't believe that these people believe such a thing as rational thought exists. The entire socialist philosophy is built on the refusal to acknowledge that it does.

"Socialism may be dead, but its corpse is still rotting up the place." -Ayn Rand

This is only excerpts. You should see the full obscenity!

The word is "tenet," not "tenant" btw.

I seriously don't believe that the current product of our universities are employable: I certainly wouldn't touch either of these two.

The article is just so shallow. By about one third of the way in I knew I'd be reading the tired, utterly fatuous Somalia 'argument' again.

Okay Doug or Matt: given that the type of irrational, collectivist, tribal nihilism that Somalian society is based on is precisely the opposite of the central tenants of a Libertarian State, being a constitution that enshrines the rights of the individual and the non initiation of force, perhaps you can explain to me just how you can possibly connect that country with Libertarianism.

But of course you can't. And the rest of your argument is as flawed and shallowly conceived. I'm so pissed off with my career lately, and partly because I'm working in a system run by Doug and Matt. It's just so damned disappointing.

Anyway, all is not lost: perhaps someone could put up the full names of these two dullards: I just want to make sure I never mistakenly employ them.

Should you wish to experience firsthand the results of
Libertarianism, you can either move to Somalia and seek your
fortune/death, or play the wonderful game Bioshock, which involves running around a leaking, unsafe underwater city while mutated libertarians and objectivists try to steal your blood.

I see the problem here, they're learning about politics and philosophy from video games....

Incidentally, Bioshock is a helluva game, I just don't treat it as a morality tale any more than I do Starcraft or Crysis.

Ha ha...all rather amusing.

Hopefully they visit solopassion.com en masse and boost the Alexa rankings.

(There is nothing on the craccum website, though)