Mad props to Humble Libertarian for coming up with this:
“Libertarian thought often starts with “me” and says to others “you shouldn’t violate my rights,” which is certainly true, but somewhat off-putting because it’s egocentric. Aside from being off-putting, it’s the moral low-ground. It’s moral and true, but it pushes the moral imperatives of libertarian thought off on someone else. The moral high-ground is to accept and practice the moral imperative for yourself. Libertarians would always do better to say, “I shouldn’t violate your rights- I won’t violate your rights.” In practice this makes a world of difference. On the issue of welfare and property redistribution, for example, the first approach would sound like this: “Who are you to take my hard-earned money and give it away to the poor? Even if I should give it to them, you have no right to confiscate my property from me.” The second approach is a sharp contrast to the first in both tone and content: “Who am I to take your hard-earned money and give it away to the poor when I’m likely not even giving enough myself? Even if you should give it to them, I have no right to force you to, especially when I’m not giving enough myself. How hypocritical of me would that be?” See how much more humble that is and sounds?
The first example is a challange. Its tone is antagonistic and its premise is egocentric. The second example is an invitation and a catalyst for conversation. Its tone is humble and its premise is philanthropic- motivated by love and concern for other human beings and their rights. The distinction here can ultimately boil down to these alternatives, egocentric libertarianism on the one hand, and philanthropic libertarianism on the other.“
I liked that a lot, not me me me, rather you you and me… so I visited her website and it all seemed great, until I got to the end with the t-shirt logo… it sort of implies that “we” are the ones doing the treading and we promise not to do so even though we never did nor would we ever do so. The logo implies we might and a person needs this declaration proving we won’t like we’re some kinda lying two-faced Demorepublicrat. Or is that just me?
Kicking around that idea some more:
That t-shirt might make more sense and appeal to me if it were an image of a donkey with sharp hooves with one raised, an elephant with one leg raised, both next to the coiled rattle snake with the caption “I” won’t tread on you… or “I” won’t tread on you, but they will.
Still, this whole be nice, be positive when confronted by them doing their statist thing is tough. This must be what it’s like to work with the mentally handicapped… you can’t get upset with them for acting ignorant, or strange or ignoring reality. Not everyone has the talent to do so, or the patience. How-freaking-ever;… er I mean, however; patience is learned. I may just have to say “Hmph,… alright then” for awhile instead and watch how you do it.
Well, it´s an ongoing thing.
Positive thinking is not “feel good” stuff – because it doesn´t feel good. It feels a lot better to tear one´s hair out, scream ripe imprecations and call the statists murderous thugs..
But, once you see anyone as an enemy and utterly evil, then of course you´ve bought into a dangerous and contagious logic.
Statists or socialists are not evil..neither is what they propose evil..they want a competing and lesser “good”..
That is true of any goal man pursues. No one can pursue an evil of itself..
Milton´s Satan with his “evil be thou my good” is a romantic creation.
Christianity sees evil as something far weaker and less heroic.
People pursue the “good” in whatever it is they seek….even when that good is an evil to someone else. I like the Greek term Hamartia..falling short..more than evil.
Being calmer about what we debate does help make us become more effective, and it probably helps a few people on the other side calm down too..and helps everyone think a bit..
And from thinking something productive might eventually come.
The flying fur is very exciting and gives a public relation coup for about a month… and then after that, the victory of the moment becomes a talking-point, and you know the statists do most of the talking, so don´t rely on history to present the facts as they were.
History is written by the victors..so we wouldn´t be wise to put our trust in it.
But we can trust something else…that something else that believers call God.
In other words, I´m trying to say that influencing the public debate is a good thing..but influencing at all cost and in whatever manner possible may mean sacrificing the principle at stake for the sake of winning the contest.