[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Griff

There is a line of thought running all through UG's writings. There is this idea that the individual cannot take care of himself and his.

I don't have that idea, and wonder where you ever got that notion. Prove it if you think you can.

He doesn't seem to understand that all of us are fully capable of violence.

Another notion unsupported by the evidence of my writing. I understand this fully.

If we keep that capability for ourselves, it is governed by our ethical considerations. If we hand our capabilities over to others with their own set of goals, we have divorced morality and action. That is why soldiers fight for each other in government's wars rather than for government policy. They are putting their actions on a moral footing by fighting for someone they know.

I think this part makes sense.

Your fundemental contempt for the individual is what separates you from libertarian thought.

As a libertarian, I do not have a fundamental contempt for the individual. That is why I'm a libertarian. I also am freethinking enough not to trust lockstepping philosophically with any political group -- which is what annoyed Radar so much, I think. He became angriest with me on that score. I do not treat political attachments as a form of religion -- I don't have to sign off on all thirty-nine Articles of Faith, and I will shred the man who insists I do.

This is not some high brow argument for wonks. This is about viewing the world as a place where each individual's choices matter and have impact rather than a world where ant armies battle for their queen. In psychological terms, I want a society where people have an internal locus of control not external. That is the thing that used to make Americans different. We really believed in our own abilities. Now we shift that belief to the State, that is not libertarian.

These points are well made. I pin my hope of a better world on my faith in our own ability to swing the pendulum of this trend back the other way. The individual's choice not to permit any queen's ant armies to kill him, by destroying that ant army and that queen, is to my view highly libertarian and ought therefore not to be disparaged by libertarians, small L or large.

For libertarianism to grow up sufficiently to take its place among the major players, it will need the ability to destroy its bitterest enemies. This isn't really even in dispute between us, being I think self-evident.