Tex in Tex's definitions
Katie Scarlett O'Hara is the main character in the novel and movie, *Gone with the Wind.* In the story, Scarlett is the oldest daughter of an Irish/Catholic immigrant and his French aristocratic wife in mid-nineteenth century Georgia. The family builds an opulent plantation they name Tara just south of Atlanta in Jonesboro. Scarlett loves her father and her home but is otherwise completely self-absorbed.
Before the Civil War, Scarlett is the coquettish belle of the ball attending soirees where she flirts with and torments young men who fall in love with her beauty and burning sexual energy. Scarlett is in love with melancholic Ashley who is love with Melanie. At one of these parties, Scarlett throws herself at Ashley as they are alone in a drawing room. Ashely rebuffs her advance and withdraws. Scarlett throws a vase against the wall in a rage only to find Rhett Butler lying on the couch who has overheard the previous exchange between Scarlett and Ashley. Rhett is immediately intrigued by Scarlett's beauty and energy as are most men. The audience, though, immediately recognizes that Rhett is the man for Scarlett. He is the only one who can tame and domesticate her, which is what she needs.
The story unfolds as the tension builds between the two properly matched couples, Ashley/Melanie and Rhett/Scarlett. Scarlett resists Rhett while being intrigued by him as she marries several other men along the way toward finally marrying Rhett. The entire time, she dreams of marrying Ashely who is married to Melanie. Finally, Scarlett wrecks her marriage with Rhett only realizing what the audience saw all along--that she was intended for Rhett, not Ashely.
Scarlett comes to her senses too late as Rhett walks out the door saying to Scarlett in reply to her question what will happen to her if he leaves her, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn." The final scene in the story finds Scarlett pulling herself together after crying over Rhett's leaving and her worrying over how to get Rhett back saying, "I can't let him go. I can't. There must be some way to bring him back. Oh I can't think about this now! I'll go crazy if I do! I'll think about it tomorrow. (She closes the door.) But I must think about it. I must think about it. What is there to do? (She falls forward onto the ascending stairs.) What is there that matters?...Tara!...Home. I'll go home, and I'll think of some way to get him back! After all, tomorrow is another day!"
Scarlett represents both the Old South belle and the New South businesswoman. In both settings that change so drastically in the story and in reality, Atlanta moves from a semi-feudalistic society of manners and morals to a raucous business climate in which everything goes. Scarlett uses her beauty, charm, and craftiness in both social climates to attain her ends. Scarlett gains most everything she thinks she wants through sheer willpower and moral compromise with the exception of Ashley only to realize too late that she has lost her integrity and what she really needs. The story unfolds as a mirror to Atlanta as it has sold itself out for money and acceptability. This is why Atlanta's Southern culture is tragically "Gone with the Wind."
Before the Civil War, Scarlett is the coquettish belle of the ball attending soirees where she flirts with and torments young men who fall in love with her beauty and burning sexual energy. Scarlett is in love with melancholic Ashley who is love with Melanie. At one of these parties, Scarlett throws herself at Ashley as they are alone in a drawing room. Ashely rebuffs her advance and withdraws. Scarlett throws a vase against the wall in a rage only to find Rhett Butler lying on the couch who has overheard the previous exchange between Scarlett and Ashley. Rhett is immediately intrigued by Scarlett's beauty and energy as are most men. The audience, though, immediately recognizes that Rhett is the man for Scarlett. He is the only one who can tame and domesticate her, which is what she needs.
The story unfolds as the tension builds between the two properly matched couples, Ashley/Melanie and Rhett/Scarlett. Scarlett resists Rhett while being intrigued by him as she marries several other men along the way toward finally marrying Rhett. The entire time, she dreams of marrying Ashely who is married to Melanie. Finally, Scarlett wrecks her marriage with Rhett only realizing what the audience saw all along--that she was intended for Rhett, not Ashely.
Scarlett comes to her senses too late as Rhett walks out the door saying to Scarlett in reply to her question what will happen to her if he leaves her, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn." The final scene in the story finds Scarlett pulling herself together after crying over Rhett's leaving and her worrying over how to get Rhett back saying, "I can't let him go. I can't. There must be some way to bring him back. Oh I can't think about this now! I'll go crazy if I do! I'll think about it tomorrow. (She closes the door.) But I must think about it. I must think about it. What is there to do? (She falls forward onto the ascending stairs.) What is there that matters?...Tara!...Home. I'll go home, and I'll think of some way to get him back! After all, tomorrow is another day!"
Scarlett represents both the Old South belle and the New South businesswoman. In both settings that change so drastically in the story and in reality, Atlanta moves from a semi-feudalistic society of manners and morals to a raucous business climate in which everything goes. Scarlett uses her beauty, charm, and craftiness in both social climates to attain her ends. Scarlett gains most everything she thinks she wants through sheer willpower and moral compromise with the exception of Ashley only to realize too late that she has lost her integrity and what she really needs. The story unfolds as a mirror to Atlanta as it has sold itself out for money and acceptability. This is why Atlanta's Southern culture is tragically "Gone with the Wind."
Scarlett O'Hara: "Where will I go, what will I do?"
Rhett Butler: "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn."
Rhett Butler: "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn."
by Tex in Tex February 15, 2008
Get the Scarlett O'Hara mug.The Italian sociologist living in the early 20th Century observed that the distribution of wealth and income remains roughly the same in modern industrialized societies no matter what governmental policies are pursued. A corollary of the Iron Law is the "circulation of elites" where groups vie to be the dominant group under various guises including equality and social justice, but there is always an elite no matter what.
Liberal elitist humanitarian: Let's pass legislation to make a more equal, fairer society.
Conservative realist: That will get us no where except you leftists will be in power rather than us. There is the brutal fact of Pareto's Iron Law. We cannot escape inequality of result.
Liberal elitist humanitarian: Well, I know, but at least we will be ahead of you conservatives. We hate you because you do not love everyone as we leftists do.
Conservative realist: That will get us no where except you leftists will be in power rather than us. There is the brutal fact of Pareto's Iron Law. We cannot escape inequality of result.
Liberal elitist humanitarian: Well, I know, but at least we will be ahead of you conservatives. We hate you because you do not love everyone as we leftists do.
by Tex in Tex February 25, 2008
Get the Pareto's Iron Law mug.A continuation of the Bohemian "tradition" originating in France around the turn of the 20th Century. These folks were anti-bourgeois, anti-Victorian, and anti-traditionalist. They were avant-garde artists who disdained what they considered ordinary but ended up in a futile cycle of radical change for the sake of change soon drifting into silliness and nihilism.
The Beat Generation and then the Hippie movement tried to pick up this stand of thought and way of life in the mid twentieth century. The existential hero who is cool and detached, not caring what anyone else thinks of him is also a mid century fashion that picked up on this theme.
The cool hipster assumes a persona of crass selfishness, irresponsibility, mindless rebellion, cynicism, ironic mocking of anything meaningful or noble, cold reserve, uncaring indifference toward others while paradoxically advocating a politics of compassion toward certain groups favored by leftists, a dull, dumb countenance, and most of all, being constantly out of sorts--a real sour puss. They usually take on a studied disheveled appearance to further the affection of not caring what others think of them. They also prefer to dress in black.
Of course, most of these folks are as phony as you can get. They look as though they are dead on the inside--enthusiasm or being earnest or being genuine are completely missing from their emotional repertoire. They shun kindness,loyalty, spirituality, or empathy as uncool.
The Beat Generation and then the Hippie movement tried to pick up this stand of thought and way of life in the mid twentieth century. The existential hero who is cool and detached, not caring what anyone else thinks of him is also a mid century fashion that picked up on this theme.
The cool hipster assumes a persona of crass selfishness, irresponsibility, mindless rebellion, cynicism, ironic mocking of anything meaningful or noble, cold reserve, uncaring indifference toward others while paradoxically advocating a politics of compassion toward certain groups favored by leftists, a dull, dumb countenance, and most of all, being constantly out of sorts--a real sour puss. They usually take on a studied disheveled appearance to further the affection of not caring what others think of them. They also prefer to dress in black.
Of course, most of these folks are as phony as you can get. They look as though they are dead on the inside--enthusiasm or being earnest or being genuine are completely missing from their emotional repertoire. They shun kindness,loyalty, spirituality, or empathy as uncool.
"Man, like, I dig myself and fuck you, man, like."--An example of a hipster sentence. Complete sentences, of sorts, are few and far between for these folks who are too cool to talk in coherent language.
by Tex in Tex February 2, 2008
Get the hipster mug.The fundamental motivation for humans. Lucifer fell from Heaven in his attempt to become God--the ultimate power grab. Lucifer, as Satan, acting through the Serpent, suggested to Adam and Eve (the first humans created by God in his image) that they could become God luring them into rebellion him. Following the pattern set by their original parents, all humans are driven by a desire to be God.
Humans, now in a fallen condition, are continually trying to one up each other. Even members of one's own family or friends attempt to gain power over each other. As Nietzsche pointed out, virtually all human behavior is motivated by the "Will to Power." Nature even rewards people with more power as they live longer, feel happier, and have higher levels of serotonin in their brain. People band together in an attempt to dominate other groups even more thoroughly. Wars, racism, economic competition, cutting remarks at parties, domestic violence can all be traced back to the urge to dominate others.
Subtly, even attempts to equalize wealth, income, social status, racial disparities are attempts by those without power to pull down and dominate those who are currently in power. Equality of result is motivated by resentment and envy. Efforts to equalize people's conditions are movements by those who are presently less powerful to gain power over those who have dominated them. Many times these less powerful people are aided by those with power who feel guilty that they have power but then assume power over the minorities they claim to help. For example, witness the recent assertion by the Clintons that Martin Luther King and the black leadership in the Civil Rights Movement were not as effective in actually achieving their social goals until their cause was championed by white leftist liberals such as LBJ and themselves--meaning in clear language--shut up, stay in your place, and do not vote for that uppity Barack Obama.
The desire for power makes the entire project of the Left an impossibility. People are selfish, sadistic, and power-crazy. This urge for dominance will never change until the world as we know it ends. There is no exception in human history to hierarchy and inequality. A more reasonable goal is to limit those in power and induce them to serve the common good as classical liberalism sought to do.
Humans, now in a fallen condition, are continually trying to one up each other. Even members of one's own family or friends attempt to gain power over each other. As Nietzsche pointed out, virtually all human behavior is motivated by the "Will to Power." Nature even rewards people with more power as they live longer, feel happier, and have higher levels of serotonin in their brain. People band together in an attempt to dominate other groups even more thoroughly. Wars, racism, economic competition, cutting remarks at parties, domestic violence can all be traced back to the urge to dominate others.
Subtly, even attempts to equalize wealth, income, social status, racial disparities are attempts by those without power to pull down and dominate those who are currently in power. Equality of result is motivated by resentment and envy. Efforts to equalize people's conditions are movements by those who are presently less powerful to gain power over those who have dominated them. Many times these less powerful people are aided by those with power who feel guilty that they have power but then assume power over the minorities they claim to help. For example, witness the recent assertion by the Clintons that Martin Luther King and the black leadership in the Civil Rights Movement were not as effective in actually achieving their social goals until their cause was championed by white leftist liberals such as LBJ and themselves--meaning in clear language--shut up, stay in your place, and do not vote for that uppity Barack Obama.
The desire for power makes the entire project of the Left an impossibility. People are selfish, sadistic, and power-crazy. This urge for dominance will never change until the world as we know it ends. There is no exception in human history to hierarchy and inequality. A more reasonable goal is to limit those in power and induce them to serve the common good as classical liberalism sought to do.
"Two people fall in love when each thinks they are getting someone they don't deserve." Seinfeld on the subtleties of the will to power.
by Tex in Tex January 31, 2008
Get the power mug.Liberal Christian offshoot of the Southern Baptist Convention. CBF's focus is on egalitarian social and political policies along with presenting a hazy view of theology. While most CBF members are not as far to the left as clearly apostate denominational elites such as found in the United Methodist Church, the CBF would be more accurately characterized as part of the mushy middle or moderates.
CBF does not explicitly deny the truth of the Bible, but they emphasize that individual believers can interpret the Bible any way that they choose. This tact on interpreting the Bible can easily provide a liberal Christian with the license to make the Bible into a wax-nose so that one can twist the Bible to justify whatever one wants to read into the text. This loose approach to reading and being instructed in the Bible comes from CBF's so-called "Four Freedoms": (1)Soul Freedom-a direct relationship with God without intermediaries (2)Bible Freedom-each person can interpret the Bible for himself without direction from anyone but God (or who one can easily deceive oneself into believing is God, viz. oneself who wants what he wants and wants it now) (3)Church Freedom-local church autonomy (4)Religious Freedom-as defined by egalitarian leftists at the ACLU. The CBF is affiliated with the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, which opposes such benign policies as allowing for Ten Commandment displays.
CBF does not explicitly deny the truth of the Bible, but they emphasize that individual believers can interpret the Bible any way that they choose. This tact on interpreting the Bible can easily provide a liberal Christian with the license to make the Bible into a wax-nose so that one can twist the Bible to justify whatever one wants to read into the text. This loose approach to reading and being instructed in the Bible comes from CBF's so-called "Four Freedoms": (1)Soul Freedom-a direct relationship with God without intermediaries (2)Bible Freedom-each person can interpret the Bible for himself without direction from anyone but God (or who one can easily deceive oneself into believing is God, viz. oneself who wants what he wants and wants it now) (3)Church Freedom-local church autonomy (4)Religious Freedom-as defined by egalitarian leftists at the ACLU. The CBF is affiliated with the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, which opposes such benign policies as allowing for Ten Commandment displays.
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship member reflecting on Deuteronomy 24 after his wife has burnt the toast: "I see here right in the Bible that I can divorce my wife if she displeases me. So, I shall divorce her and marry my sexier secretary. After she gets some mileage on her, I shall trade her in, too. I am so glad that I read the Bible and follow God's Word."
by Tex in Tex August 23, 2008
Get the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship mug.A term coined by Austrian economist Murray Rothbard to describe people who call themselves libertarians defining liberty as moral license (see libertine). They are former Marxists, contemporary liberals, practicing drug-users, homosexuals, self-appointed members of the avant-garde, haters of tradition, anti-religious (especially anti-Christian) atheists, alienated teens and young adults, politically correct leftists, humanitarians who see the established culture and morality as equally or more threatening than an expansive government. They also reject the classical liberalism that the United States of America is founded upon. In fact, many of these people have not read or do not care to read the writings of the Founders of the United States or the philosophers who influenced them. If they do appeal to the Founders, they cite quotes taken out of context to support their leftist views. They also care little for community, culture, or history.
These "libertarians" have taken on the name to justify a nihilistic view of the world, where restraint of any kind is removed so that they can indulge their appetites. Many modal libertarians have an appreciation of the free market because they realize the market can supply their drugs, pornography, and prostitutes more effectively. They confirm the fears expressed by Daniel Bell of the cultural contradictions of capitalism where increased levels of wealth produced by capitalism undermine the traditional values based on self-restraint that make capitalism successful. The same ethic of self-indulgence explains their support for abortion on demand and unrestricted euthanasia. The logic here is to kill anyone who cannot keep up and is deemed to have an inferior "quality of life."
Former *Reason* magazine editor, Nick Gillespie, personifies this anti-social trend. He praises as "Heroes of Freedom" Madonna, Dennis Rodman, Larry Flynt, and William Burroughs alongside such true heroes as Milton Friedman and Barry Goldwater. Gillespie epitomizes this brand of libertarianism by posing as the angry young man hipster too cool for the rest of us poor unimaginative slobs.
These so-called libertarians are more interested in civil liberties that undercut law enforcement not because of fear of an abuse of power but because of their rejection of the imposition of pain including just punishment. Instead, they unrealistically believe that if all people are treated as equals and given opportunity to get rich in the market, then there would be no crime.
Although more traditional or paleo-libertarians such as Ron Paul are strict constitutionalists, modal libertarians are all in favor of using judicial activism to further their social goals of removing barriers to self-destructive behavior or placing barriers in the way of law enforcement and national security without regard to precedent or the text of the Constitution.
These bits of meliorism go hand in hand with their non-interventionism in foreign policy. Instead of opposing foreign wars to protect the lives and traditions of citizens of their own country, they believe that if wealth and opportunity can be expanded, then people would live harmoniously together in a peaceful cosmopolitan world. The basic assumptions about human nature and the human condition only differs from the leftist internationalist by replacing a super-statist/socialist order with a super market capitalist order that would transcend the nation state and particular local cultures. The same leftist vision is simply implemented by a different strategy. This line of thinking explains their support of mass immigration. It also explains why one does not hear these libertarians defend freedom of association.
Modal libertarians disdain tradition or any sense of social stability. They relish change for the sake of change. They crave novelty and destruction of anything that they have become bored with. Virginia Postrel, now writing for the *New York Times*, is a prime example of this love of frenetic activity. She misquotes Hayek on the nature of change as a thorough-going, radical process that countenances no constancy or commitment.
Modal libertarianism could be called left libertarianism. There is a variation of libertarianism which stresses voluntary collectivist social and economic arrangements that are still respectful of the right to private property and non-intervention by the State. These libertarians argue for people to choose to pool private property and live communally in various frameworks. This is not modal libertarianism. This type of leftist libertarianism is still consistent with the more traditional libertarian framework because each individual in such communities chooses to participate. There is a long history of such communities in the United States. Modal libertarians are more interested in re-shaping the world to fit their mold and defining the results as achieving freedom. Modal libertarians seem to slip on the term, 'liberty,' moving from what Issiah Berlin called "negative liberty" to "positive liberty." John Stuart Mill fell into this confusion in his writing as he tried to blend liberalism with egalitarianism. Mill is the cross-over figure from classical to modern liberalism. Something similar is going on with modal libertarians.
A lot of people calling themselves libertarians on the internet are teen-agers and young adults who are simply stuck in a mindless rebellion against all authority. Modal libertarians tap into this unrelenting, destructive rebellion in many young people who have been neglected or mistreated by self-absorbed parents. Ayn Rand's writings look especially inviting to these folks.
Even though some of the language and the policy positions cohere with those of Locke, Jefferson, Montesquieu, Mises, Hayek, Friedman, et al., the meanings they pour into the terms and phrases used by traditional libertarians and classical liberals are completely different. Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party has departed from their earlier candidates such as John Hospers, Roger MacBride, and Ron Paul and have moved to this liberal/leftist vision. We are now witnessing Bob Barr flip-flopping all over himself to appease these nihilists who have taken over the mantle of libertarianism.
These "libertarians" have taken on the name to justify a nihilistic view of the world, where restraint of any kind is removed so that they can indulge their appetites. Many modal libertarians have an appreciation of the free market because they realize the market can supply their drugs, pornography, and prostitutes more effectively. They confirm the fears expressed by Daniel Bell of the cultural contradictions of capitalism where increased levels of wealth produced by capitalism undermine the traditional values based on self-restraint that make capitalism successful. The same ethic of self-indulgence explains their support for abortion on demand and unrestricted euthanasia. The logic here is to kill anyone who cannot keep up and is deemed to have an inferior "quality of life."
Former *Reason* magazine editor, Nick Gillespie, personifies this anti-social trend. He praises as "Heroes of Freedom" Madonna, Dennis Rodman, Larry Flynt, and William Burroughs alongside such true heroes as Milton Friedman and Barry Goldwater. Gillespie epitomizes this brand of libertarianism by posing as the angry young man hipster too cool for the rest of us poor unimaginative slobs.
These so-called libertarians are more interested in civil liberties that undercut law enforcement not because of fear of an abuse of power but because of their rejection of the imposition of pain including just punishment. Instead, they unrealistically believe that if all people are treated as equals and given opportunity to get rich in the market, then there would be no crime.
Although more traditional or paleo-libertarians such as Ron Paul are strict constitutionalists, modal libertarians are all in favor of using judicial activism to further their social goals of removing barriers to self-destructive behavior or placing barriers in the way of law enforcement and national security without regard to precedent or the text of the Constitution.
These bits of meliorism go hand in hand with their non-interventionism in foreign policy. Instead of opposing foreign wars to protect the lives and traditions of citizens of their own country, they believe that if wealth and opportunity can be expanded, then people would live harmoniously together in a peaceful cosmopolitan world. The basic assumptions about human nature and the human condition only differs from the leftist internationalist by replacing a super-statist/socialist order with a super market capitalist order that would transcend the nation state and particular local cultures. The same leftist vision is simply implemented by a different strategy. This line of thinking explains their support of mass immigration. It also explains why one does not hear these libertarians defend freedom of association.
Modal libertarians disdain tradition or any sense of social stability. They relish change for the sake of change. They crave novelty and destruction of anything that they have become bored with. Virginia Postrel, now writing for the *New York Times*, is a prime example of this love of frenetic activity. She misquotes Hayek on the nature of change as a thorough-going, radical process that countenances no constancy or commitment.
Modal libertarianism could be called left libertarianism. There is a variation of libertarianism which stresses voluntary collectivist social and economic arrangements that are still respectful of the right to private property and non-intervention by the State. These libertarians argue for people to choose to pool private property and live communally in various frameworks. This is not modal libertarianism. This type of leftist libertarianism is still consistent with the more traditional libertarian framework because each individual in such communities chooses to participate. There is a long history of such communities in the United States. Modal libertarians are more interested in re-shaping the world to fit their mold and defining the results as achieving freedom. Modal libertarians seem to slip on the term, 'liberty,' moving from what Issiah Berlin called "negative liberty" to "positive liberty." John Stuart Mill fell into this confusion in his writing as he tried to blend liberalism with egalitarianism. Mill is the cross-over figure from classical to modern liberalism. Something similar is going on with modal libertarians.
A lot of people calling themselves libertarians on the internet are teen-agers and young adults who are simply stuck in a mindless rebellion against all authority. Modal libertarians tap into this unrelenting, destructive rebellion in many young people who have been neglected or mistreated by self-absorbed parents. Ayn Rand's writings look especially inviting to these folks.
Even though some of the language and the policy positions cohere with those of Locke, Jefferson, Montesquieu, Mises, Hayek, Friedman, et al., the meanings they pour into the terms and phrases used by traditional libertarians and classical liberals are completely different. Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party has departed from their earlier candidates such as John Hospers, Roger MacBride, and Ron Paul and have moved to this liberal/leftist vision. We are now witnessing Bob Barr flip-flopping all over himself to appease these nihilists who have taken over the mantle of libertarianism.
Traditionalist libertarian: "I am looking at the Libertarian Party platform and see mostly a leftist agenda. What is going on here?"
Modal libertarian: "Yes, we modal libertarians have moved away from that rightist repressive model of liberty to true liberty. The real enemy of the people is not the State so much as it is traditional morality, bigotry, Christianity, and nationalism. Conservatives are the real enemy now."
Modal libertarian: "Yes, we modal libertarians have moved away from that rightist repressive model of liberty to true liberty. The real enemy of the people is not the State so much as it is traditional morality, bigotry, Christianity, and nationalism. Conservatives are the real enemy now."
by Tex in Tex June 17, 2008
Get the modal libertarians mug.According to the dictionary, one set of definitions of 'license' is
"1. Lack of due restraint; excessive freedom: “When liberty becomes license, dictatorship is near” (Will Durant).
2. Heedlessness for the precepts of proper behavior; licentiousness."
The definition of 'license' that is synonymous with 'licentious' evolved from a very different definition:
"1. a. Official or legal permission to do or own a specified thing. See synonyms at permission.
b. A document, plate, or tag that is issued as proof of official or legal permission: a driver's license.
2. Deviation from normal rules, practices, or methods in order to achieve a certain end or effect."
These meanings are derived from "Middle English licence, from Old French, from Medieval Latin licentia, authorization, from Latin, freedom, from licens, licent-, present participle of licere, to be permitted."
License in the context that I want to focus on in related definitions such as libertarian and libertine is the lack of proper restraint or licentiousness.
Defenders of liberty have traditionally gone to great lengths to distance liberty from license. Tragically, modern leftist liberals and modal libertarians have conflated the the two. License is a perversion of liberty that has morphed into its opposite.
"1. Lack of due restraint; excessive freedom: “When liberty becomes license, dictatorship is near” (Will Durant).
2. Heedlessness for the precepts of proper behavior; licentiousness."
The definition of 'license' that is synonymous with 'licentious' evolved from a very different definition:
"1. a. Official or legal permission to do or own a specified thing. See synonyms at permission.
b. A document, plate, or tag that is issued as proof of official or legal permission: a driver's license.
2. Deviation from normal rules, practices, or methods in order to achieve a certain end or effect."
These meanings are derived from "Middle English licence, from Old French, from Medieval Latin licentia, authorization, from Latin, freedom, from licens, licent-, present participle of licere, to be permitted."
License in the context that I want to focus on in related definitions such as libertarian and libertine is the lack of proper restraint or licentiousness.
Defenders of liberty have traditionally gone to great lengths to distance liberty from license. Tragically, modern leftist liberals and modal libertarians have conflated the the two. License is a perversion of liberty that has morphed into its opposite.
Modal libertarian: I love to exercise my liberty by watching some porn while I smoke pot.
Paleo-libertarian: You are confusing liberty and license.
Paleo-libertarian: You are confusing liberty and license.
by Tex in Tex July 2, 2008
Get the license mug.