Why are Libertarians Picking Sides in the Battle for the Alabama Senate Seat?

NO ONE is Defending Pedophilia and Roy Moore is NOT DEFINITELY Innocent

Roy Moore, Doug Jones, Alabama Senate Race, Libertarian, Minarchist, Anarchist

Over the past few days, I have watched my Facebook feed blow up with the latest outrage.  The latest outrage we see today is the Roy Moore accusations he either engaged in sexual misconduct, or even possibly a rape, of girls ranging from 14 to 18 when he was in his early 30s, some 40 years ago.

As I watched the type of people, people that I know, and how they have participated in the latest game of outrage, I cannot help but notice the number of people who claim to be minarchists, libertarians, and even anarchists, fully engaged and picking sides in what is, when you boil it down to its essence, a battle for a finger pressing the yay or nay button in the senate.

Each finger will press yay or nay in defense of certain aspects of daily human living and against other aspects of daily human living.  There will be some overlap, but there will be plenty of differences.  THIS is what is going on.

Whether Roy Moore is guilty or innocent, it doesn’t really matter in this political war.   The very nature of the war is, I can reasonably assume, “immoral” by the standards of the people I am addressing here.

What matters here has little to do with whether Roy Moore is a rapist and/or a pedophile.  All that matters in this ruthless political war is that yay or nay button-pressing finger.

And BOTH sides know it.  Were Moore a Democrat, the positions of the Dem supporters and the GOP supporters would exactly switch.  And. I have little doubt, the carrying on of minarchists, libertarians, and anarchists who are telegraphing their preferences, would ALSO exactly switch.

Keep that in mind as I continue my rant.

Republicans are not defending pedophilia. They are ruthlessly fighting a political war to determine what finger gets to press the yay or nay button in the Senate. They are doggedly determined to press the narrative that Roy Moore is clearly innocent and this is all just a democrat operation and that all these women are lying.

Women have come forward. Were they pressed by Dem operatives to do so? I don’t know, AND NO ONE ELSE DOES for sure, unless you were ACTUALLY one of the Dem operatives or one of the women (IF that would turn out to be true).   To say that this man is completely innocent flies in the face of the circumstantial evidence we have seen so far, as well as the fact that Moore has been caught lying in how he has responded to these allegations.

Women have come forward and the Dems, understanding that they are fighting a political war to determine what finger gets to press the yay or nay button in the Senate, are seizing on the opportunity to score political hit points against their enemies, including Moore and, in this case, including Hannity.
This is the type of political fighting that takes place in a land where those who control the levers of power are able to affect so complete a range of daily human living choices for action.  The stakes are tremendously high, and both sides of this political war know it.

Roy Moore may or may not be guilty of the allegations leveled against him.  NO ONE can say he is certainly innocent NOR can they say he is certainly guilty.  His responses, though, certainly have not helped his case, but they don’t prove his guilty either (as of the writing of this post, November 15th, 2017, 8:20AM EST).

This is a political war being fought by two sides that want to do one thing, reinforce and pass laws that give people with guns special “privileges” to use those guns to stop people from doing things that do not directly harm others.

Both sides have some similar aspects of daily human living they prefer to see unimpeded and aspects of daily human living they wish to impede, but both sides ALSO have oppositional ranges of impeding and un-impeding daily human living.

If you reject that model of governance, you have no real “side” to take, outside of perhaps choosing what aspect of your daily human living you’d most NOT want to see potentially threatened by government guns.

I am absolutely confused at how many of you seem to want to jump on one or the other narrative against the other side while allegedly claiming to not have a side in this, unless you just want to openly admit you lean towards this side or that side because of the threat they impose to a particular aspect of daily human living that you value over others.

On that front, I understand. But do let’s be honest with ourselves.  Otherwise, you come across as a bunch of hypocrites.  And don’t be surprised if those who prefer to ‘protect’ a different aspect of human daily living from potential coercive action engage in the same level of discourse that you yourself are engaged in.

Neither one of you can claim any ‘moral’ high ground.  You have both decided to dive in to the coercive enterprise’s political battle, and to do so, you pretty much have to enable, to some degree, the coercive enterprise model itself.

It would be nice to see you not participating in the disinformation war being fought by both sides, but hey, if you think this is a battle you need to help the other side win, well, have at it, but know, on the inside, you’re just enabling dark actors, no matter which side you choose, and if the side you’re favoring wins, it will still have victims, victims that matter just as much as the potential victims you might think you’re protecting, even if the potential victim is yourself.

I also have a ‘side’ that, all things being equal, I’d prefer to see win in this ruthless, immoral political battle (even if you remove the Roy Moore accusations, it’s STILL immoral, by my subjective standards, as political battles in and of themselves are a violation of my standards).

That side is with Roy Moore, despite the fact that I am no fan of this man, that I see in him a lot of the dangers I see from the political American Christian right (the faction I’d mostly place Moore in), a tendency to gravitate towards near-theocratic positions.

Roy Moore will threaten “illegal” immigration.  He will support a stronger war on drugs.  He will support a stronger police force.  He will support more bombings overseas, a bigger military.  He will be no friend to homosexuals.  He will tend to favor “Christian” “rights” over most others’ “rights.”

Doug Jones will support “Extra Special” rights for homosexuals and minorities.  Doug Jones will support assaults on free speech.  Doug Jones will support raising more taxes, and definitely raising taxes on me directly.  Doug Jones will support a complete takeover of Healthcare in America by the Federal Government.  Doug Jones will support gun control, even gun confiscation.

So yeah, they both stand to attack some critical aspects of daily human living, but as it so happens, Doug Jones, as I perceive it, threatens aspects of daily human living that more directly threaten me, those actions being the ability to own, possess, and carry firearms, the ability to not have AS MUCH of money stolen from me, and not being placed on a government-controlled healthcare plan that will, in the not-so-distant-future, determine if I’m worthy enough to live or die.

Doug Jones’ yay or nay button-pressing finger, not objectively, but entirely subjectively, threatens me more than Roy Moore’s yay or nay button-pressing finger does.

But I have NOT participated in defending Roy Moore and pushing the disinformation campaign of the GOP.  And I certainly haven’t participated in the disinformation campaign of the Dems.  I am not saying I have made the objective morally-correct decision, but I am OFFERING an alternative to those of you who HAVE chosen to pick a side and advance one or the other disinformation campaigns.

To render the coercive enterprise model feckless, at some point we should stop engaging in the game.  Many of you participating in this political war are self-avowed non-voters.  I for one don’t take an absolutist stance regarding voting, though I think it’s a waste of time.  I am also not taking an absolutist stance on whether you should participate in this political battle or not, though I’d argue it doesn’t, mid-term, even long term, really help the ‘cause.’

But, if you’re going to take the stance that voting is feckless, then why are you participating in their war, their game?  I realize that Moore “favors” me, in the sense that I might not get beat as hard by this guy as I would the other guy.  On that front, whoever Moore is or is not bears LITTLE practical relevance to me.  The fact that he’s running for Senate already makes him a pretty awful person to begin with.

But even though Moore “favors” me (will beat on me less), I realize that while he MIGHT beat me less, he WILL beat others more.

Within my framework of preference, to have the power to have as much ability as possible to make my own daily human living decisions without having to balance the threat of physical force in the equation, I see a real advantage to having others around me afforded that same power.  Because of this preference, and the standards that emerge from that core preference, I cannot participate in a political war that, while it may potentially benefit me, will potentially harm my neighbors.

I believed that many of you, the ones actively participating in this charade, had the same core preference.  I guess I was wrong.

Facebook Comments
About Paul Gordon 1610 Articles

Paul Gordon is the publisher and editor of iState.TV. He has published and edited newspapers, poetry magazines and online weekly magazines.
He is the director of Social Cognito, an SEO/Web Marketing Company. You can reach Paul at pg@istate.tv