Tex in Tex's definitions
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 libertariansmug. The path that God has provided for reconciliation with him. He has disclosed himself to humans through the experiences of selected people, notably Abraham and his descendants through his son Issac. These people were brought into immediate contact with God in trials and blessings so that people might come to love and trust him. The record of these experiences are recorded in the Bible. These experiences are examples and invitations for everyone.
God is tripartite: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The penultimate event in human history was when God the Son assumed human identity in the form of Jesus of Nazareth. He lived a perfect life and then allowed himself to be crucified by the Jews and Romans then in power in Judea. Ultimately, the crucifixion was a crucial part of the original plan to redeem humans from the sin they fell into in the Garden of Eden after God had created perfect humans in a perfect world. Each human falls into sin himself/herself through their own choices recapitulating Adam and Eve's original sin. Jesus assumed humans' sins and paid the retributive price to God the Father for them. Jesus was then resurrected from the dead three days later to overcome death for all humans and to verify his divine identity to humans.
Jesus loves all people, including those who have ridiculed him on this website. He reaches out in love to them. All it takes for a relationship with him is to accept his sacrificial death on the Cross to cover our sins from God the Father. This acceptance is a pure act of faith that does not first require attempts to justify oneself in God's eyes. God simply requires that a person accept his Son as his/her Savior and his/her Lord.
If a person rejects God by rejecting his Son, then God will grant the wish of the person to be left alone for eternity. But when God's presence is not manifest, then nothing good is present to be enjoyed. People in Hell are quarantined from the rest of God's Creation which enjoys his full presence. These people receive only just punishment for their sins committed while on Earth.
The act of faith that reconciles the person with God is a rational act that is supported by the historical accuracy of the Bible and the verification of such miracles as Jesus' resurrection (if he did not rise from the dead, then why did not his adversaries display his dead body? If the disciples stole his body, why did they willingly allow themselves to be tortured to death when they could have revealed what actually happened to his body and cut a deal with the Roman and Jewish authorities?) As Pascal observed, belief is rational because it is a good bet--nothing to lose and everything to gain, while the non-believers' payoff matrix is the reverse of the believers' matrix. As William James observed, this decision is required by each of us whatever one might decide.
God is tripartite: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The penultimate event in human history was when God the Son assumed human identity in the form of Jesus of Nazareth. He lived a perfect life and then allowed himself to be crucified by the Jews and Romans then in power in Judea. Ultimately, the crucifixion was a crucial part of the original plan to redeem humans from the sin they fell into in the Garden of Eden after God had created perfect humans in a perfect world. Each human falls into sin himself/herself through their own choices recapitulating Adam and Eve's original sin. Jesus assumed humans' sins and paid the retributive price to God the Father for them. Jesus was then resurrected from the dead three days later to overcome death for all humans and to verify his divine identity to humans.
Jesus loves all people, including those who have ridiculed him on this website. He reaches out in love to them. All it takes for a relationship with him is to accept his sacrificial death on the Cross to cover our sins from God the Father. This acceptance is a pure act of faith that does not first require attempts to justify oneself in God's eyes. God simply requires that a person accept his Son as his/her Savior and his/her Lord.
If a person rejects God by rejecting his Son, then God will grant the wish of the person to be left alone for eternity. But when God's presence is not manifest, then nothing good is present to be enjoyed. People in Hell are quarantined from the rest of God's Creation which enjoys his full presence. These people receive only just punishment for their sins committed while on Earth.
The act of faith that reconciles the person with God is a rational act that is supported by the historical accuracy of the Bible and the verification of such miracles as Jesus' resurrection (if he did not rise from the dead, then why did not his adversaries display his dead body? If the disciples stole his body, why did they willingly allow themselves to be tortured to death when they could have revealed what actually happened to his body and cut a deal with the Roman and Jewish authorities?) As Pascal observed, belief is rational because it is a good bet--nothing to lose and everything to gain, while the non-believers' payoff matrix is the reverse of the believers' matrix. As William James observed, this decision is required by each of us whatever one might decide.
If you were to die tonight and were to come face to face with God, why should he let you into his Heaven? The answer that Christianity provides is: Because of the price Jesus paid for my sins on the Cross and my acceptance of this sacrifice to atone for my personal sins.
by Tex in Tex February 5, 2008
Get the Christianitymug. Aunt Pittypat Hamilton was a character in the novel and movie, *Gone with the Wind.* She was the older maiden aunt of Scarlett's first husband, Charles. She was also the aunt of Melanie Hamilton, Scarlett's friend and romantic competitor for the affections of Ashley.
After the death of Charles during the war, Scarlett moved from her home at Tara in Jonesboro to live with Aunt Pittypat in Atlanta. When General William T. Sherman and the Federal army attacked Atlanta in the summer of 1864, he deliberated shelled the civilian population of Atlanta. In the story, Aunt Pittypat flees the city to escape the bombardment shrieking "Yankees in Georgia!" just after a shell explodes as she boards a carriage.
During the Battle of Atlanta, Melanie who is "with child" gives birth. Scarlett's slave, Miss Prissy, promises to help deliver the child if needed. Scarlett goes to the doctor for help only to find him overwhelmed with the wounded from the battle. Scarlett reluctantly returns home to Aunt Pittpat's house. She turns to Miss Prissy for the promised help when Miss Prissy famously begs out saying, "Oh, Miss Scarlett, I don't know nothing about birthing no babies." Scarlett slaps her and then proceeds to deliver the baby herself.
After Melanie gives birth, a stray Yankee soldier enters the house looking for loot. Scarlett confronts him on the stairs and he attacks her. Unknown to the soldier, Scarlett is packing a pistol and shoots him in the face as Melanie comes up from behind Scarlett brandishing a sword.
A restaurant in contemporary downtown Atlanta is named "Aunt Pittypat's Porch" in honor of Aunt Pittypat and the culture that she represented.
After the death of Charles during the war, Scarlett moved from her home at Tara in Jonesboro to live with Aunt Pittypat in Atlanta. When General William T. Sherman and the Federal army attacked Atlanta in the summer of 1864, he deliberated shelled the civilian population of Atlanta. In the story, Aunt Pittypat flees the city to escape the bombardment shrieking "Yankees in Georgia!" just after a shell explodes as she boards a carriage.
During the Battle of Atlanta, Melanie who is "with child" gives birth. Scarlett's slave, Miss Prissy, promises to help deliver the child if needed. Scarlett goes to the doctor for help only to find him overwhelmed with the wounded from the battle. Scarlett reluctantly returns home to Aunt Pittpat's house. She turns to Miss Prissy for the promised help when Miss Prissy famously begs out saying, "Oh, Miss Scarlett, I don't know nothing about birthing no babies." Scarlett slaps her and then proceeds to deliver the baby herself.
After Melanie gives birth, a stray Yankee soldier enters the house looking for loot. Scarlett confronts him on the stairs and he attacks her. Unknown to the soldier, Scarlett is packing a pistol and shoots him in the face as Melanie comes up from behind Scarlett brandishing a sword.
A restaurant in contemporary downtown Atlanta is named "Aunt Pittypat's Porch" in honor of Aunt Pittypat and the culture that she represented.
by Tex in Tex February 15, 2008
Get the Aunt Pittypatmug.