The Political Problem of Pornography

[Fleiur]

Well, "can't put the genie back into the bottle" is, strictly speaking, a nonsense argument because it can be implied to any policy. Want to do something about California's homeless problem? "Can't put the genie back into the bottle." Want to do something about SJWs in control of giant corporations? "Can't put the genie back into the bottle.nd I don't believe libertarianism is true. You'd have to first prove libertarianism to me.

Well, "can't put the genie back into the bottle" is, strictly speaking, a nonsense argument because it can be applied to any policy. Want to do something about California's homeless problem? "Can't put the genie back into the bottle." Want to do something about SJWs in control of giant corporations? "Can't put the genie back into the bottle." Want to stop radical Muslims from taking over your country? Sorry, "can't put the genie back into the bottle!" The fallacy here is in assuming that because the problem seems difficult to solve, we ought not to do anything about the problem and should accept this new status quo.

The "you can't trust government" argument assumes libertarianism is true, and I don't believe libertarianism is true. You'd have to first prove libertarianism to me.

Why you don't believe libertarianism is true? Just curious.

 

[almostinsane]

Well, "can't put the genie back into the bottle" is, strictly speaking, a nonsense argument because it can be applied to any policy. Want to do something about California's homeless problem? "Can't put the genie back into the bottle." Want to do something about SJWs in control of giant corporations? "Can't put the genie back into the bottle." Want to stop radical Muslims from taking over your country? Sorry, "can't put the genie back into the bottle!" The fallacy here is in assuming that because the problem seems difficult to solve, we ought not to do anything about the problem and should accept this new status quo.

The "you can't trust government" argument assumes libertarianism is true, and I don't believe libertarianism is true. You'd have to first prove libertarianism to me.

Knowing that you can't put the genie in the bottle is inextricably related to not trusting the government. Society is profoundly hedonistic in this day and age. More people are likely to vote for porn to be mandatory than to put any restrictions on it. There is not a moral conviction to enforce your policies. To be generous, the last time there was the moral conviction to do it was the 80's/90's.

Right now (assuming you're American), we live in a representative republic where power switches hands from one side of the spectrum to the next. The US is probably the most conservative country in the West right now barring maybe Israel. It is even less likely to enforce your policies.

So, if you try giving government the power you are suggesting in the US or Europe, assuming that the party in power conforms to your moral and ethical beliefs, that just means that you are giving power to the leftists to enforce peak degeneracy the next time they get into power and that might just be the next election as the majority of men in the West (and everywhere else porn is available) like their porn and enough of them will swing left to get it back.

The only way to prevent this would be to suspend elections for a generation which carries its own problems, particularly if you value democracy.

 

[Terthna]

Dehumanisation and exploitation contribute to moral decay in arguably the most profound of all the ways that pornography causes problems. The desensitisation of the users of pornography to the prospect that the images they are viewing may be of slaves or the brutalised is the beginning of a systematic reduction in one's ability to have empathy with other humans.

I'm sorry, but you cannot blame pornography for that; not when pretty much every industry on the planet exploits and brutalizes people somewhere along the chain of production. There's a stronger argument that capitalism is what reduces one's capacity to empathize with others, but even that's nonsense; the truth is, a human being's capacity for empathy was never that strong to begin with, and getting rid of pornography won't increase it one iota.

I've implied this before elsewhere, but I'll just say it straight up now; pornography is in no way a source for the evils of society, and if you're one of those who insist that it is, well I'm sorry, but in my book that just makes you part of the problem. Bacle was right in pointing out that this subject is a perfect example, of why the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" trope is bullhonky; everyone has their own ideas on what is right and what is wrong, and those ideas rarely line up perfectly.

 

[The Name of Love]

Why you don't believe libertarianism is true? Just curious.

I think it comes down to a difference in how I view human nature, ethics, and politics.

First, libertarians mistakenly believe that there is a "right to do wrong"; that is to say, they believe you have a right to violate the moral law so long as it does not violate the rights of others. But if the moral law gave people the right to do what it itself said was intrinsically immoral, it would undermine itself, so such a right could not exist. But libertarian philosophy seems to be committed to the proposition that everyone has a "right to do wrong." So, libertarianism would undermine any notion of transcendent moral law as traditionalists would understand it.

Second, libertarians prioritize liberty as the highest political end, if not the highest end, period. But abstract liberty cannot exist outside order. People in a society in which everyone is violent and treacherous cannot be free in the libertarian sense. Order must first be established before we can start debating how much freedom to give individuals. The radical individualism assumed by libertarianism is destructive to order because it leads to the dissolution to civic bonds that promote trust between individuals, leading them to seek to reestablish order by any means necessary. It was no surprise that totalitarianism was the allergic reaction by people to the atomizing forces of individualism.

Third, libertarians seem to believe that order can arise spontaneously by the "invisible hand" mechanism. In other words, it is self-interest and market transactions that holds civil society together. But in order for the market to exist, certain rules must govern the market. Now, in order for you to see yourself as being bound by the rules of a society, you must first see yourself as part of that society, bound together by shared language, territory, culture, and history. Religious, ethnic, and cultural ties and loyalties run far deeper than considerations of abstract right and rational self-interest.

Fourth, libertarians have this idea that the state is a man-made invention arising from human convention or social contract. Therefore, it's plausible to suggest that the state is some "great oppressor" whose pretentions towards the common good are always and everywhere smokescreen for the self-interest of public officials. This is simply false. The state is a natural institution that is necessary for the fulfillment of human nature and the growth of human civilization. Human beings are political animals; by engaging in civil society, human beings can consider the common good rather than his own individual good and can become more self-actualized by being a good citizen. Now, this isn't to say that some government official could become corrupt, but it's because the individuals running the state have no sense of noblesse oblige, no concept of government as a sacred trust vouchsafed to men by God for the public interest, that they become corrupt and subordinate their duty to the common good in favor of pursuing their individual passion and interests.

Fifth, libertarians believe that we do not have any positive obligations that we do not explicitly consent to. But, in fact, many such obligations are incumbent upon us: to our parents, children, and other kin; to our country; and to members of society who are in extreme need. Each of us plays an irreplaceable role in the overall social body, and failing to recognize that role will invariably lead to the society's slow decline.

These are the five main reasons that I am not a libertarian, though they aren't the only ones. I can point to the inadequacy of the non-aggression principle, the indeterminacy of the so-called "self-ownership axiom," the intellectual flatulence that is "libertarian neutrality," inadequacy of methodological individualism to explain certain phenomena like tribalism, the unwillingness, if not inability of libertarianism to deal with the problem of corporate power, and the arrogance with which libertarians make unjustified assertions about reality. I mean, I've been hearing for years how libertarians have the only internally consistent moral system and this justifies dismissing all other political philosophies. So forgive me if I am a bit tired of hearing the same libertarian talking points with regards to social conservative legislation being trodden out time and again even as the Left succeeds in cramming down its agenda onto us. Sorry, been there, done that. Didn't work out the first time 'round.

Knowing that you can't put the genie in the bottle is inextricably related to not trusting the government. Society is profoundly hedonistic in this day and age. More people are likely to vote for porn to be mandatory than to put any restrictions on it. There is not a moral conviction to enforce your policies. To be generous, the last time there was the moral conviction to do it was the 80's/90's.

Right now (assuming you're American), we live in a representative republic where power switches hands from one side of the spectrum to the next. The US is probably the most conservative country in the West right now barring maybe Israel. It is even less likely to enforce your policies.

So, if you try giving government the power you are suggesting in the US or Europe, assuming that the party in power conforms to your moral and ethical beliefs, that just means that you are giving power to the leftists to enforce peak degeneracy the next time they get into power and that might just be the next election as the majority of men in the West (and everywhere else porn is available) like their porn and enough of them will swing left to get it back.

The only way to prevent this would be to suspend elections for a generation which carries its own problems, particularly if you value democracy.

I am assuming that the party in power that will enact my policies conforms to my moral and ethical beliefs, yes. I think you'll agree with me that no mainstream political parties today will even consider censorship of pornography, and I don't see a reactionary party coming to power in a democracy because I believe democracy is in many ways rigged against reactionaries. Liberal egalitarianism is only tolerant towards those that accept its premises, after all. Dissident reactionaries will be exiled into the political wilderness. Therefore, there is no way to practically implement the policies I am describing unless the status quo radically shifts and makes reactionaries a viable political force.

Now, assuming a right-wing party does (somehow) come to power, I see no reason why it couldn't force its views on a wider public that disagrees with them. I mean, the Left was able to force same-sex "marriage" and mass immigration upon an unwilling public without difficulty. I see no reason why a reactionary government in the future would forgo (ab)using the same institutional power to achieve the opposite ends.

 

[GoldRanger]

...huh... assuming Israel's Porn Ban is exactly what you say it is I'm ALMOST okay with that sort of "porn ban"... which is fascinating because I was expecting any porn ban proposals to be absurdly privacy invading and/or free speech violating but that one is actually kind of fine...

As an Israeli, fuck that (no pun intended). If I want to consume porn I have to log in my sexual preferences with an ISP? And that's because someone wants to impose on me the ridiculous view that "not enough religiosity" is bad for my family?

Nope, nope, nope.

You push me hard enough on the issues of religion and sexuality and I might just flip to the progressive side and so are millions of other secular center-right people who are currently horrified by the left's insanity. You have been warned.

 

[Captain X]

Personally I think the people who want to live in a theocracy ought to go live in one and leave my country the hell alone.

 

[The Name of Love]

As an Israeli, fuck that (no pun intended). If I want to consume porn I have to log in my sexual preferences with an ISP? And that's because someone wants to impose on me the ridiculous view that "not enough religiosity" is bad for my family?

Nope, nope, nope.

You push me hard enough on the issues of religion and sexuality and I might just flip to the progressive side and so are millions of other secular center-right people who are currently horrified by the left's insanity. You have been warned.

Good-bye!

Personally I think the people who want to live in a theocracy ought to go live in one and leave my country the hell alone.

I agree with this irrelevant comment!

 

[Fleiur]

I think it comes down to a difference in how I view human nature, ethics, and politics.

First, libertarians mistakenly believe that there is a "right to do wrong"; that is to say, they believe you have a right to violate the moral law so long as it does not violate the rights of others. But if the moral law gave people the right to do what it itself said was intrinsically immoral, it would undermine itself, so such a right could not exist. But libertarian philosophy seems to be committed to the proposition that everyone has a "right to do wrong." So, libertarianism would undermine any notion of transcendent moral law as traditionalists would understand it.

Second, libertarians prioritize liberty as the highest political end, if not the highest end, period. But abstract liberty cannot exist outside order. People in a society in which everyone is violent and treacherous cannot be free in the libertarian sense. Order must first be established before we can start debating how much freedom to give individuals. The radical individualism assumed by libertarianism is destructive to order because it leads to the dissolution to civic bonds that promote trust between individuals, leading them to seek to reestablish order by any means necessary. It was no surprise that totalitarianism was the allergic reaction by people to the atomizing forces of individualism.

Third, libertarians seem to believe that order can arise spontaneously by the "invisible hand" mechanism. In other words, it is self-interest and market transactions that holds civil society together. But in order for the market to exist, certain rules must govern the market. Now, in order for you to see yourself as being bound by the rules of a society, you must first see yourself as part of that society, bound together by shared language, territory, culture, and history. Religious, ethnic, and cultural ties and loyalties run far deeper than considerations of abstract right and rational self-interest.

Fourth, libertarians have this idea that the state is a man-made invention arising from human convention or social contract. Therefore, it's plausible to suggest that the state is some "great oppressor" whose pretentions towards the common good are always and everywhere smokescreen for the self-interest of public officials. This is simply false. The state is a natural institution that is necessary for the fulfillment of human nature and the growth of human civilization. Human beings are political animals; by engaging in civil society, human beings can consider the common good rather than his own individual good and can become more self-actualized by being a good citizen. Now, this isn't to say that some government official could become corrupt, but it's because the individuals running the state have no sense of noblesse oblige, no concept of government as a sacred trust vouchsafed to men by God for the public interest, that they become corrupt and subordinate their duty to the common good in favor of pursuing their individual passion and interests.

Fifth, libertarians believe that we do not have any positive obligations that we do not explicitly consent to. But, in fact, many such obligations are incumbent upon us: to our parents, children, and other kin; to our country; and to members of society who are in extreme need. Each of us plays an irreplaceable role in the overall social body, and failing to recognize that role will invariably lead to the society's slow decline.

These are the five main reasons that I am not a libertarian, though they aren't the only ones. I can point to the inadequacy of the non-aggression principle, the indeterminacy of the so-called "self-ownership axiom," the intellectual flatulence that is "libertarian neutrality," inadequacy of methodological individualism to explain certain phenomena like tribalism, the unwillingness, if not inability of libertarianism to deal with the problem of corporate power, and the arrogance with which libertarians make unjustified assertions about reality. I mean, I've been hearing for years how libertarians have the only internally consistent moral system and this justifies dismissing all other political philosophies. So forgive me if I am a bit tired of hearing the same libertarian talking points with regards to social conservative legislation being trodden out time and again even as the Left succeeds in cramming down its agenda onto us. Sorry, been there, done that. Didn't work out the first time 'round.


I am assuming that the party in power that will enact my policies conforms to my moral and ethical beliefs, yes. I think you'll agree with me that no mainstream political parties today will even consider censorship of pornography, and I don't see a reactionary party coming to power in a democracy because I believe democracy is in many ways rigged against reactionaries. Liberal egalitarianism is only tolerant towards those that accept its premises, after all. Dissident reactionaries will be exiled into the political wilderness. Therefore, there is no way to practically implement the policies I am describing unless the status quo radically shifts and makes reactionaries a viable political force.

Now, assuming a right-wing party does (somehow) come to power, I see no reason why it couldn't force its views on a wider public that disagrees with them. I mean, the Left was able to force same-sex "marriage" and mass immigration upon an unwilling public without difficulty. I see no reason why a reactionary government in the future would forgo (ab)using the same institutional power to achieve the opposite ends.

Thank you.

 

[ShieldWife]

I have this sense that pornography does cause some problems in society, but it’s probably itself more of a symptom of increasing materialism, degenerate culture, nihilism, and the disintegration of the family. One thing to consider is that in many advanced nations, just about every young man views pornography at some (and likely many) points in his life. If pornography made men violent or sexually rapacious, the Millennials would be a generation of Reavers (from Firefly) rather than being less violent and less promiscuous than previous generations.

I’m not saying that pornography doesn’t have negative effects, it probably does, but if we as a society and going to collectively decide to use violence against people who create and/or consume pornography, then we better be very certain about exactly what those negative effects are and why it is so important to prevent that it would be worth a police state doing so would create.

In the current political climate that we have now, outlawing pornography would be impossible. In fact, even if the state were to pass these laws despite public opposition (which should concern us) then they would have to be enforced with draconian harshness to be effective or they would not be effective and ineffective laws are a recipe for corruption and unfair enforcement.

So the best way to minimize the amount of people who consume pornography isn’t to talk about banning it. That just turns away potential converts. Instead make arguments for why pornography is bad, convince men that they shouldn’t watch it, convince parents that they should actually take some responsibility for raising their kids instead of just foisting them off on the nanny state.

If parents actually parented more often, actually took interest in what their kids are doing, actually put some effort into teaching morality to their kids - then the legality of pornography would matter much less because not only could those parents prevent their kids from viewing it, but because if (when?) they end up seeing it anyway, they will have a strong grounding in morality that will protect them from the worst of pornography’s questionably bad influence.

There was some mention above that the most powerful group will always enforce its beliefs on those with less power. I don’t agree with this. There aren’t such distinct groups, there are numerous groups like a Venn diagram and every individual belongs to many overlapping groups. Any one of the Venn diagram circles may be a minority, but I can agree with the other people in the community that if they don’t ban what I do that they don’t like, I won’t ban the things they do that I don’t like. That is how we have a peaceful society where people with minority practices, beliefs, or characteristics aren’t persecuted.

The political elites in this country and likely elsewhere aren’t going to ban porn anyway and if they suggested such a thing, it would probably be to get their foot in the door to silence dissent. So if we are to discuss the possible problems of pornography, it is better to do so from the perspective of those without power rather than those with power.

 

[ShieldWife]

I don’t advocate for a libertine anything goes society either. In fact, it’s my belief that you can’t have libertarian free markets if you don’t have a healthy amount of conservative social values. It’s just that I also think that sub values can’t be enforced at the point of a gun, but that they must arise from the people, from communities, and propagated through upbringing and social pressure rather than forced on people from government authority.

I would also apply this standard to leftist social beliefs that the left (and government) have been violently shoving down our throats for decades.

 

[Cherico]

Good-bye!



I agree with this irrelevant comment!

Let me explain why losing people like gold ranger and many others is a bad idea.

The left right now are trying to censor you, they are trying to eliminate your ability to conduct fincial transations are going after peoples jobs, and we have a nation wide left wing terrorist organization called Antifa that has congress critiers publically trying to get it money and are being protected by prosicutors.

It doesn't matter if your religious right, libertarian, paleconservative, moderate or even a left wing liberal who just doesn't agree with the latest act of insanity. We are in a surivial situation.

What ever problem you have with porn does it matter more then having the ability to do banking, losing your first and second amendment rights? Losing your right to due process, and having some one throw acid in your face for your political beliefs with the firm knowledge that if they kill you the prosecutor and judge will smile and wink and look the other way?

Because that's the current year and what we live in.

 

[Terthna]

Let me explain why losing people like gold ranger and many others is a bad idea.

The left right now are trying to censor you, they are trying to eliminate your ability to conduct fincial transations are going after peoples jobs, and we have a nation wide left wing terrorist organization called Antifa that has congress critiers publically trying to get it money and are being protected by prosicutors.

It doesn't matter if your religious right, libertarian, paleconservative, moderate or even a left wing liberal who just doesn't agree with the latest act of insanity. We are in a surivial situation.

What ever problem you have with porn does it matter more then having the ability to do banking, losing your first and second amendment rights? Losing your right to due process, and having some one throw acid in your face for your political beliefs with the firm knowledge that if they kill you the prosecutor and judge will smile and wink and look the other way?

Because that's the current year and what we live in.

The problem is, The Name of Love does not care. He's a religious fundamentalist through and through; reason and logic have nothing to do with why he believes as he does, so trying to use those things to dissuade him from those beliefs is a lost cause from the start. I mean, the guy honestly believes that seeking medical attention is a sin; there's just no arguing with a person like that.

 

[Arch Dornan]

The Victorians were not able to ban porn, the prison system isn't able to get rid of porn.

Any person with a camera can create porn, any person with a pencil and paper can create porn, the massive servaliance state that would be needed to get rid of pornography would be massively expensive kill innocent people and would also fail horribly. I mean seriously the efforts to get rid of prostitution, the war on drugs and prohibition show that its better to simply accept that vices exist then try to ban them.

If someone was left alone on an island would they treat an extra curvy piece of driftwood as porn?

 

[Cherico]

If someone was left alone on an island would they treat an extra curvy piece of driftwood as porn?

My grandfather was in the navy during world war 2.

The left alone on an island part is not needed.....

 

[Arch Dornan]

My grandfather was in the navy during world war 2.

The left alone on an island part is not needed.....

I also discovered random info during the American civil war that pictures of nude women or lewd novels were used for porn.

You saying he was stuck on an island or a ship?

 

[almostinsane]

Give me some demonstration of how "spiritual revival and social pressure is the way to fight this" first.

The point still stands. You can't deflect a question with your own.

So far, you haven't said how your policy would be implemented or how your fantasy government will get into power or stay in power with this policy.

So do you have any support for how this will happen besides wishes and fairy dust?

 

[Liberterrarium]

Our society is built on a marketplace of ideas. If something like pornography causes trouble for a religion, that should be addressed at the religion's end.

 

[GoldRanger]

Good-bye!

I know you think your'e being clever, but you really, REALLY don't want to push the center that's currently with you into the arms of the progressives because of some petty authoritarian bullshit issues. That's exactly what the progressives are doing right now, and what it did is to get them Trump and Brexit. At some point you'll need to choose between being snarky on the internet and not having President Bernie or President Cortez winning in a landslide and granting Mexican illegal immigrants voting rights.

 

[Captain X]

Personally I don't mind him being snarky, it's just that I'm floored at the other stuff he says. I kind of like having the reminder that the old moral crusaders are still around threatening theocracy. It just serves as a reminder of why the power of the government should be limited, and frankly why I'm going to look just as close at any Republican I might be thinking about voting for as any Democrat (of which there are very, very few). Funny thing is, my state voted out one of the few Democrats to ever go against her party on gun control (as in, she's pro-gun rights), and who was very consistent on supporting individual rights, basically just because she was a Democrat. It's sad to think that such moderates exist, but they keep getting pushed out by barking moonbats.

 

[Deleted member]

I think it comes down to a difference in how I view human nature, ethics, and politics.

First, libertarians mistakenly believe that there is a "right to do wrong"; that is to say, they believe you have a right to violate the moral law so long as it does not violate the rights of others. But if the moral law gave people the right to do what it itself said was intrinsically immoral, it would undermine itself, so such a right could not exist. But libertarian philosophy seems to be committed to the proposition that everyone has a "right to do wrong." So, libertarianism would undermine any notion of transcendent moral law as traditionalists would understand it.

Second, libertarians prioritize liberty as the highest political end, if not the highest end, period. But abstract liberty cannot exist outside order. People in a society in which everyone is violent and treacherous cannot be free in the libertarian sense. Order must first be established before we can start debating how much freedom to give individuals. The radical individualism assumed by libertarianism is destructive to order because it leads to the dissolution to civic bonds that promote trust between individuals, leading them to seek to reestablish order by any means necessary. It was no surprise that totalitarianism was the allergic reaction by people to the atomizing forces of individualism.

Third, libertarians seem to believe that order can arise spontaneously by the "invisible hand" mechanism. In other words, it is self-interest and market transactions that holds civil society together. But in order for the market to exist, certain rules must govern the market. Now, in order for you to see yourself as being bound by the rules of a society, you must first see yourself as part of that society, bound together by shared language, territory, culture, and history. Religious, ethnic, and cultural ties and loyalties run far deeper than considerations of abstract right and rational self-interest.

Fourth, libertarians have this idea that the state is a man-made invention arising from human convention or social contract. Therefore, it's plausible to suggest that the state is some "great oppressor" whose pretentions towards the common good are always and everywhere smokescreen for the self-interest of public officials. This is simply false. The state is a natural institution that is necessary for the fulfillment of human nature and the growth of human civilization. Human beings are political animals; by engaging in civil society, human beings can consider the common good rather than his own individual good and can become more self-actualized by being a good citizen. Now, this isn't to say that some government official could become corrupt, but it's because the individuals running the state have no sense of noblesse oblige, no concept of government as a sacred trust vouchsafed to men by God for the public interest, that they become corrupt and subordinate their duty to the common good in favor of pursuing their individual passion and interests.

Fifth, libertarians believe that we do not have any positive obligations that we do not explicitly consent to. But, in fact, many such obligations are incumbent upon us: to our parents, children, and other kin; to our country; and to members of society who are in extreme need. Each of us plays an irreplaceable role in the overall social body, and failing to recognize that role will invariably lead to the society's slow decline.

These are the five main reasons that I am not a libertarian, though they aren't the only ones. I can point to the inadequacy of the non-aggression principle, the indeterminacy of the so-called "self-ownership axiom," the intellectual flatulence that is "libertarian neutrality," inadequacy of methodological individualism to explain certain phenomena like tribalism, the unwillingness, if not inability of libertarianism to deal with the problem of corporate power, and the arrogance with which libertarians make unjustified assertions about reality. I mean, I've been hearing for years how libertarians have the only internally consistent moral system and this justifies dismissing all other political philosophies. So forgive me if I am a bit tired of hearing the same libertarian talking points with regards to social conservative legislation being trodden out time and again even as the Left succeeds in cramming down its agenda onto us. Sorry, been there, done that. Didn't work out the first time 'round.


I am assuming that the party in power that will enact my policies conforms to my moral and ethical beliefs, yes. I think you'll agree with me that no mainstream political parties today will even consider censorship of pornography, and I don't see a reactionary party coming to power in a democracy because I believe democracy is in many ways rigged against reactionaries. Liberal egalitarianism is only tolerant towards those that accept its premises, after all. Dissident reactionaries will be exiled into the political wilderness. Therefore, there is no way to practically implement the policies I am describing unless the status quo radically shifts and makes reactionaries a viable political force.

Now, assuming a right-wing party does (somehow) come to power, I see no reason why it couldn't force its views on a wider public that disagrees with them. I mean, the Left was able to force same-sex "marriage" and mass immigration upon an unwilling public without difficulty. I see no reason why a reactionary government in the future would forgo (ab)using the same institutional power to achieve the opposite ends.

I love everything you have said in this post. I have to hope that the absolute moral superiority of Reaction would be demonstrated by a vigorous debate on the points of your last paragraph between the likes of Lord Campbell and Lord Lyndhurst, but that is the only corrective I might apply; everything else is perfect. I would however say that, strictly speaking, your critique applies only to libertarianism as it is pronounced by Voluntaryists. Paleolibertarians and minarchists in general have entirely different philosophical underpinnings though they are, I grant, obscured by the vocal extremity of Voluntaryists in most cases.