Free Speech Monster

By Jessica Geary

I recently had a conversation about ethical, or moral, nihilism with a friend of mine. He called himself an “ethical nihilist” and a “mutualist anarchist”. I asked why he wished to end the state? Was it because of its monopoly on violence and use of coercion? His answer was yes, I then informed him that he couldn’t be an ethical nihilist because he took a ethical objection to the state. He said he was pragmatic, I asked if he would want to grasp the power of the state to meet his own objectives, if this was an idea he was comfortable with, he said no. I told him then that he wasn’t a pragmatist since pragmatism is, politically speaking, a statist view.

Ethical Nihilism also Moral Nihilism:
1. Philosophy

a. An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
b. A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.

Since when is sociopathy a philosophical view? To believe that all human behavior is acceptable, that there is no right or wrong, means that rape, theft, murder, and oppression are equally acceptable as love, compassion, liberty, and generosity. I cannot think of a reason that you would oppose the state then since it is the embodiment of the former set of traits. On the contrary, many statists from both the right and left are ethical nihilists, if not moral relativists, no matter what they claim, and as such embrace the machinery of the state to further their own agendas. It is always under the guise of “the common good”, it’s mantra is “The ends justify the means!”. In other words, human beings are things to be used and discarded in order to reach ones goals.

This is why, throughout history, rebellions start with good intentions, however no matter how noble the beginnings most revolutionaries become what they originally rebelled against. The nature of violence and power are ultimately corrupting and those who participate find themselves eventually abandoning their principles. The ends can never justify the means as they are defined by them. Violence cannot lead to peace, theft cannot lead to prosperity, group hatred cannot lead to love and dehumanizing the enemy can’t lead to compassion. This is why believing that no behavior is immoral isn’t conducive to a civilized society, especially a stateless one.

I’m especially puzzled when I hear anarchists say they are ethical nihilists, it doesn’t seem compatible to me to advocate a stateless society and shun ethics. The only way for a stateless society to work is if it is grounded in natural law based on personal and common ethics. If you don’t believe in ethics it seems like a contradiction in thinking to call yourself an anarchist, as you must have some objection to the state based on some judgment you have made about it’s nature and necessity. To make such a judgment you have to have a basis, a reason you oppose it. In other words, you have found that it has no value. It takes a subjective code of values to come to that conclusion.

Only by semantic contortion can an ethical nihilist answer “why wouldn’t murder be acceptable in an anarchist society?” with statements such “it is undesirable”. What then makes murder undesirable if no human behavior is ethically wrong? For something to be desirable it must be deemed as wanted, if it is wanted it is seen as something that has value. In short we think that it is good, ergo we make all decisions based on our values and they inform both our feelings and our reason. Without meaning to people who claim no ethics must admit some type of value system in order to deem a behavior such as theft as undesirable, to stay coherent they would need to accept such behavior wholly without prevarication, which they don’t.

Maybe the problem is in the association, morality brings to mind religious tones that many people find disturbing. It is considered moral in some religions, and cultures, to sell your daughters into slavery or to shun your son if he is gay. However, ethics are not morals. Morals are more subjective than ethics as they encompass human behavior that isn’t necessarily harmful to others, such as gambling. Ethics are concerned more with behavior that is hurtful to others, such as theft. Morals and ethics do have overlap, but they are not synonymous with one another. Prostitution may be immoral, but there is nothing unethical about it, as no one is hurt. Whereas murder is both unethical and immoral. Morals can change from group to group and individual to individual, but ethics transcend, they are a part the natural law.

This is why I think the whole notion of ethical nihilism is based on reactionary thinking against religion and not a real philosophical position. If you embrace the view that all behavior is equal, no right or wrong, then there is no objection to the state you can make other than “I don’t like to be told what to do”. If that is your only argument, it’s not a logical or reasoned one. As a matter of fact, it isn’t an argument at all, it’s the temper tantrum of a small child. Anarchism will only succeed if people are willing to govern themselves and be voluntarily respectful of others rights. For that there must be a code of ethics and agreement to refute aggression and the valuing of human dignity as it’s core principle. I can see questioning morals, since the people who seem to talk the most about morals very often lack even common decency. Questioning ones values and morals is good, it leads to advancement, but refuting their existence altogether seems to me to be an abandonment of responsibility for one’s actions.

As for my friend, shortly after our conversation he took a philosophical fork in the road, he wrote “Death to ALL Capitalist Pigs!” (emphasis mine), I congratulated him for finally becoming an ethical nihilist. We are no longer friends.

By Scott Mason

Remember the last time I held an auction of media pundit memorabilia?  It was so successful that I had to go out and acquire more of these priceless and timeless pieces of history. Send me your best bids and remember, all of the proceeds go to a very worthy cause, helping to pay James Cameron’s obscenely high psychiatric bills.  Come on people, pitch in and do your part!

Here are some of the items I still have available:

Glenn Beck Marxist Calendar –  I know what you’re thinking – “But Scott, I already have a 2011 calendar and mine has pictures of hot girls in bikinis.”  I get that, trust me, I do.  But my question for you is, does that calendar warn you of America’s takeover by Marxists?  Does it give you historical daily facts about major communist happenings?  Ok, maybe it does both of those things.  But let me ask you, does your calendar correctly predict the exact date the secret marxist plot of Barack Obama will turn us all back into serfs?  Yeah, that’s what I thought!  Winning bidder not only gets the calendar that may save humanity as we know it, but as an added bonus, you get a piece of Glenn’s trademark “free market” chalk.

Jon Stewart White Strips – If you ever watch the Daily Show – and hey, who doesn’t, that Jon Stewart guy totally tells truth to power – you might have noticed something very obvious.  Yes, I am of course talking about the fact that Jon Stewart has incredibly white, sparkling teeth!  This item is perfect for making silly facial expressions in place of having actual punchlines and moronically smiling as a shield for the fact that you don’t really know what you’re talking about and you are completely out of your depth with a smart guess with whom you disagree.

Bill O’Reilly Motivational Dating Guru, Home Edition – You’ve finally worked up the courage to call that chick you like from the tattoo parlor and ask her out, but you have no idea what to say.  No worries, just call her up and anytime you start to say something you shouldn’t – like wondering why they never made a sequel to “Men At Work” – Bill O’Reilly Dating Guru, Home Edition will slap the phone out of your hand and yell at you to stop being a pinhead.  And if you forget what you were going to say, he’ll inspire you to throw caution to the wind, speak from your heart and do it live!  Warning: Bill O’Reilly Motivational Dating Guru, Home Edition may talk dirty to your mother or cleaning lady.

A Day At The Offices of Media Matters – Get a sense of what it’s like to work at America’s premiere media watchdog!  While shadowing the staff, you’ll see them perform exciting daily tasks such as: watching Fox News and whining about how they are brainwashing America, listening to talk radio and whining about how they are brainwashing America and chronicling how racist tea party members are.  You’ll then see all that fun hard work put to good use when Media Matters’ best and brightest spend the rest of their day writing self serving press releases that nobody will care about.  If you behave and really ingratiate yourself to the crew, you may just get the once in a lifetime opportunity to drink champagne out of one of David Brock’s thongs.

Markos Moulitsas‘ Ego – Alex Rodriguez, Lebron James and Floyd Mayweather Jr all have one thing in common.  They are all the best in the world at what they do.  Also, they all like to vacation in Thailand.  Ok, so that’s two things.  But when you have this incredible piece of merchandise, you don’t need to actually be good at anything, because you can just act like you are!  Be amazed as politicians beg you to endorse them, television personalities invite you on their shows – well, it’s MSNBC, so I guess that’s technically television, even if nobody actually watches – and writers all over the blogosphere kiss your ring all despite your complete lack of any useful ability whatsoever.  You’ll be like Kim Kardashian without the big ass and the sextape (At least I really hope there is no Kos sextape…..seriously, oh God, please no!)……..PS: Kim, if you’re reading this, I’m just kidding.  I hear you’re single now and I’d love a piece of that giant rumpshaker, even if it means taking Ray J’s leftovers.

So, as you can see, you may have failed to grab the item of your choice the last time around, but you still have a chance to own several incredible products.  Act now, because once they’re sold, they’re gone for good!  To make your bids, send your best offers to FreeSpeechMonster@Gmail.com or youclearlydontgetsarcasm@youareincrediblygullible.com.

Written by: Devin Ford

Princeton University defines individuality as “a belief in the importance of the individual and the virtue of self-reliance and personal independence”. Basically this is a term used to describe those who hold themselves accountable for what they want in life. They go after what they want, and pursue their goals and priorities with little irrelevant intervention. It can also be followed that their decisions in life are directly made on the probability of personal gain. In other words, they make decisions based on what they can get out of them. It is upon this realization that our lives become much clearer.

Our lives are, and have been, based on the decisions we do, and have made. Everything in your life is a direct result of your decisions. This decision, as Peter McWilliams in Do It! Let’s Get Off Our Butts! States is “not a single, monumental choice, rather, they are the decisions made daily, hourly and minute by minute”.

This may be a big pill to swallow. If you think about it, I’m saying that everything in your life, even if seemingly unrelated to your interests, is there because YOU made the decision to let it be. (OUCH) As hard as it may seem to believe, it’s true.  We make decisions based off what we want out of them, it is this want we must look at further to understand why we live the lives we do.

If you want to change your life, what you do for a living, whom you’re surrounded by, what you may have or not have, then you first must change within yourself.  You need to stop looking to others for answers and begin to look at yourself—the one who has been responsible all along.

Let me take an example of an article I recently read entitled 39 Ways to Live, and Not Merely Exist, (http://www.dumblittleman.com/2007/06/39-ways-to-live-and-not-merely-exist.html). Inside this article the author, Leo Babauta, gives ways to better enjoy your life such as mini-retirements, and watching sunsets daily.  If thinking through the individualistic views these are great ideas (if you like them of course) and are worth a shot at the least.

There were many comments portraying that this lifestyle is foolish, and childish, and is “lived by one with no responsibilities, no kids, and no real job”. Well besides the fact that the author of the article is married with 6 kids, lives in Guam (seriously…), has 5 published books, one of which, The Power of Less, is a new bestseller—this is a ridiculous assumption. It is the same mindset that created this assumption that lives in the heads of those who live their lives out of mere obligation.

An obligated life, is a life you can’t enjoy, it’s a life created by false pretenses, and frequently accompanied by stress and depression. It’s a life that belongs to someone else.  It’s a life lived by someone who makes decisions based on what others want or for the “greater good” and sacrifices their own welfare.

Some people feel they need to sacrifice some of their time or resources for others as a way to feel better about themselves, but if this is the case the problem is more internal then you may know. Instead of making decisions and wandering through your life based on what others want, or what organizations or belief systems want from you, it’s time we began to examine ourselves—what we want. Don’t worry, this is not selfish, it’s merely living the life you’re given, and making the most of it.

There is only one person that will be beside you for the rest of your life—and that’s you, so become acquainted.  Start to make decisions for yourself, and begin to live your life to the fullest. Find those lost passions and goals and start today to reach them. Let’s make this one way street something to brag about!

Were left with a decision… (surprised?) Live your life for you, and accomplish what it is you want through this individualistic view, or live it for others, for people who only are getting what they want—through you. It’s your life; don’t waste it living for someone else.

By Scott Mason

It looks as though the House and Senate are on the verge of finalizing a repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which states that men and women cannot be openly gay and serve in any branch of the armed forces.  The law, which began under Bill Clinton, would likely be repealed following the results of a Pentagon study on it which will be available at the end of the year.

To this news, I have only a one word response: good.

I have heard people say that allowing gays to openly serve in the military would somehow make it difficult for straight people in their units, because of the close living quarters.  This is ridiculous.  The fact is, as several military people I have asked about this have told me, they either had gays in their unit or friends of theirs did, everybody knew it and nobody cared.

As votevets.org Chairman Jon Soltz puts it:

“First off, there are already gays in the military. Second off, we have extremely strict guidelines in the uniformed code of military justice,” said Soltz, a former captain who served in Iraq. “Why can’t we use the same very strict guidelines about public displays of affection with heterosexuals to go ahead and include gay relationships as well?”

In addition, there is also the issue of the 14th amendment to consider, most specifically the equal protection clause.  Brad and I have defended Rand Paul’s statements on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because he believes that the 1/10 of it that bars discrimination by private citizens is an infringement on property rights and freedom of association.

We likewise agree with Paul that as it regards to governmentally institutionalized discrimination, the law must apply equally to all.  Not allowing persons of a certain sexual orientation to serve openly in the military, a government operated entity, is clearly a violation of that principle and it should not be allowed to stand.

I may not be the biggest fan of President Obama, but when he does something right, you can be damn sure I’m going to give him credit for it.  This policy never should have been implemented in the first place and it is truly a shame that it has taken this long for it to be on the verge of being repealed.  I’m glad the decision makers in Washington have finally seen the error of their ways on this one and have decided to change course.

It’s about time.

By Scott Mason

A little more than a year ago, Rand Paul was a largely unknown eye surgeon and grass roots activist in Kentucky.  After he officially decided to run for Senate, the first few months it looked like it was going to be a tough task going up against Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, a man who was well known throughout the state and would be receiving the backing of the Republican establishment.

But a funny thing happened.

Spurred on by legitimate anger at the GOP for abandoning true conservative principles and access to the donors who helped raise a small fortune for his father’s Presidential campaign, Rand Paul just kept picking up steam (including a surprising endorsement from Sarah Palin).  Trey Grayson had the GOP’s biggest guns at his disposal, but Rand Paul, with a name and a message similar to his father’s and the support of grassroots Conservatives/Libertarians across the country, kept pace both financially and in the polls.  Finally, by the winter, Paul had opened up a double digit lead over Grayson.

He never looked back.

Tuesday, the voters of Kentucky had a message for the GOP bigwigs, which included Kentucky’s other Senator Mitch McConnell, former Vice President Dick Cheney, and former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who all made trips to the state to support Grayson.

That message?  Get lost!

Rand Paul trounced Trey Grayson by a margin of just over 23%.  Much like the rest of the country, Kentucky residents showed that they are not happy with the big government conservatism that the GOP has been providing.  By running a campaign based on fiscal sanity and strict adherence to the Constitution, Paul just may be able to do what his father couldn’t: Get to the finish line.

Of course, he’ll have to win the general election first, which will not be an easy task.  Now that Paul has won the nomination, the attacks from neo-conservatives may decrease, but the attacks from the left are just starting.

I don’t want to go into too much detail on it, because Brad has already done a great job of breaking it down, but Paul’s appearance on the Rachel Maddow show earlier this week has caused quite a stir.  Essentially, he said that while he agreed with 9/10 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he disagreed with 1/10 of it, specifically the section that does not allow private business to discriminate based on race.

Maddow was out for blood, invoking memories of Selma, Alabama and asking Paul if he thought it was ok if Woolworth’s refused to let black people sit at their lunch counter.  Of course, as John Stossel pointed out in his masterful handling of Fox News Channel’s female version of Bill O’Reilly, Megyn Kelly, segregation was the law in the south back in 1964.  In other words, it was government action that forced a policy of segregation, not private business.

But what if private businesses were allowed to discriminate against somebody based on their race?  Well, as best selling author Thomas Woods points out, not only would they be willfully throwing away the business of many people who are of that race to their competitors, that business would be picketed out of existence in about ten seconds.

Another great point was made by Allman Brothers Band bassist Oteil Burbridge, who in a letter to Maddow defending Paul, wrote

“If someone in the Klan owns a restaurant and doesn’t want to serve me, why on earth would I want to support him by giving him my money? I don’t want my money going to buy little Klan baby clothes. I’d rather the privately owned establishments wear their racism on their sleeves so I know who to support. If they want to lose my money, and the money of all other minorities and people with brains and a conscience, then fine. Racism is bad business.  There’s two facts none of us can get around. Churches are still the most segregated places in America every Sunday morning. Its called freedom of religion. There are still restaurants where you can’t go in D.C. and I can’t go in Georgia. That’s called tribalism. Integration cannot be forced privately, only publicly. Tribalism cannot be defeated by legislation. Freedom of speech and of religion means also freedom of @!$%#s. I prefer them with their hoods off.”

Burbridge is right and that’s the point: freedom of association and private property rights either mean something or they don’t. Institutional racism is one thing, but you cannot legislate away the freedom of people to be racist, no matter how disgusting their views may be.  Boycotts and picketing is how you deal with a private business’s racism.

Trying telling that to Gawker’s Adrian Chen, though, who had this to say:

“But it’s simple: Rand Paul hates racism, but wants to allow businesses to be racist. He would definitely support a segregated Applebee’s as long as it instantly went bankrupt because no one liked its racist food. He basically loves the idea of the possibility that somewhere in America someone could open up a racist business, but as soon as that business becomes a reality he hates it.”

Ok, I realize Adrian Chen writes for Gawker and they breed idiots, but no, Rand Paul simply supports a restaurant’s RIGHT to serve or not serve who they choose. It doesn’t make him giddy that a restaurant that discriminates can exist somewhere, he simply believes that they should be run out of business by voluntary human action (boycotting/picketing) rather than not being allowed to exist on their terms via force (government making it illegal).

See, what I’m getting at here, genius?  Supporting somebody’s property rights and their right to freedom of association is not the same as being giddy about their right to be a racist.  Even Chris Matthews – of all people – understands this distinction, likening it to a free speech advocate denouncing what a racist may have to say while at the same time recognizing that it is his right to say it.

This is all a big red herring of course, since nobody is talking about repealing Civil Rights Act of 1964 and so these philosophical debates end up doing nothing more than serving as a big distraction from the real issues facing us right now.  That said, if Rand Paul wants to win this campaign, he’d better prepare for the fact that the opposition is going to use every trick in the book – including trying to sidetrack him with irrelevant debates about legislation that was crafted over 45 years ago – to try to paint him as a crazy extremist who must be kept away from Washington at all costs.

For the sake of the country, which desperately needs a true limited government constitutionalist like him in the Senate, let’s hope he can handle the heat.

Written by Brad Osoba

The night after Rand Paul’s Republican primary win for the Kentucky Senate Seat being vacated by Jim Bunning should have been one of celebration and adulation, instead in turned into a hatchet job by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.  Rand Paul graciously appeared on her show the night of Wednesday May 20^th to discuss his campaign victory but was quickly turned into an ambush regarding statements Rand had made about The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and The Americans With Disabilities Act.  Rand in previous interviews on NPR and with local Kentucky Media had made statements that both acts while enacted with good intentions have had detrimental effects on the freedom of association and the ability for private business’ to conduct business as they want too.  Private property rights in the eyes of this commentator, as well as Rand Paul, have been compromised by Federal mandates.  These concerns are not racial in nature, as a matter of fact they allow for people of all races to conduct private business in a manner they see fit.  But as usual, Liberals like Maddow view anybody who believes in total freedom as a racist or a bigot.

Federal mandates rarely work and always have unintended consequences.  Former Presidential candidate and legendary Libertarian Senator from Arizona Barry Goldwater opposed the act during the actual voting because he was afraid it would have lead to quotas, which turned out to be true.  Many of the current crop of civil rights leaders who use the act as a crutch in order to sell out minority children into poor public school, shunning charter schools in exchange for Democratic votes.  The list goes on and on, but in the end the act was good for nine out ten points to end segregation in publicly funded sectors, but over stepped it’s boundary on the tenth point intervening in private commerce.  Like most liberals, Maddow in the haste of throwing around claims of bigotry and racism fails to understand it behooves private business to include all people’s in the pursuit of profit.  This is the beauty of the free market, because at the end of the day economic freedom will overcome all the ills in the world.

Private Business has not been held to the same standard as private clubs.  White students can be banished from black student unions; Christians can be banished from Jewish groups; and even recently in the news Bisexuals have been banned from Gay rights groups.  However, it does these groups no good if they exclude membership and more importantly membership dues, the same principle that applies to the market.   Racism and bigotry is abhorrent and disgusting, but it has also become a crutch for Liberals in their quest for social justice.  Federal mandates and attacks from Rachel Maddow do not bring about social justice, economic freedom does!

Rand Paul put his best intellectual foot forward in defending his position, and rational people understand this.  However, as a candidate in order to reach the common voter he needs to deflect attacks from people like Rachel Maddow and his opponent Jeff Conway.  He needs to speak in simple sound bites, and his answer should have been according to my friend Greg, “The Civil Rights Act is great because it ended discrimination and segregation. It has been confirmed by the Congress, vetted by the Supreme Court and gains its power from the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Next question PLEASE.”   Politics can be a nasty game even if you are on the right side of the debate.

You can view the entire two part debate between Rachel Maddow and Rand Paul here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U4FTd-1m-o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27r0y8hZGRo&feature=watch_response