Conformity

Just to add a little bit to the end of my last post:
Using established norms is shunned by most free-thinkers. Probably because they're free-thinkers. However, I think it is not only important, but also beneficial to use established norms and ideals to your advantage. If you can manipulate systems to your advantage, I feel it is necessary to do so.

For example:
WHY is the Ron Paul campaign not using phone banks, television commercials (although I'd heard about one out there somewhere), etc. to get out its message? I'm not entirely sure, although I'd guess that it's because "mainstream" doesn't appeal to those running the campaign. You have to seem mainstream in order to seem legitimate to the typical mainstream voter. And, frankly, that's for whom they need to be vying. That normal (yes, used as a noun here) who thinks, "You know, that Ron Paul has some good ideas," but won't ever end up voting for him because he didn't have the organization to get people out there on and before election day.

So, is it because he didn't have the organization, or is it because the Ron Paul campaign doesn't think its base of supporters is socially capable of reaching out to mainstream America (see previous post)?

In either case, there should've been TV ads. Where is all this money going?!?

Some Observations on Typical Libertarians.

This weekend I met a whole new group of folks while campaigning for Ron Paul. Once more, I was severely disappointed with the caliber of person I met. One or two of the folks seemed decent. They were normal, insightful, well-informed. And they expressed their views with civility and clarity.

There were, however, several of the "typical" libertarians about. I'm defining "typical" not as the majority, but rather as the ones who stand out most in my eyes. The typical libertarian is that ubiquitous crazy. He's the one who carries around flags and yells at people in the street and protests other candidates' rallies. He's the one who gets the normal people involved in his bullshit, and he's the one who ends up making ALL libertarians look insane to the rest of the world.

The typical libertarian has intelligence. He does. What he doesn't have is any semblance of social skill. Oh, and he's a male. He's usually obnoxious to those who don't "get it." If he gets attention--for even a brief moment--from a female, he announces it to all who will hear, for this attention is novel.

Each group of libertarians has its one guy--usually the one blessed with naturally good looks--who leads the pack. The other guys in the group look up to him and envy his ease with women. They don't understand that, really, it's not that difficult.

Free Talk Live has a "shrine of female listeners," depicting those women who "validate" that they're listeners of the show. I get it, females don't usually listen. However, I've not pinpointed the exact reason for actually having this webpage. Is it so libertarian boys can get off on looking at liberty-minded women? Is it to prove that liberty-minded women exist?

As I'm writing this, I'm thinking that it might be the other way around. The typical libertarian woman seeks male attention with her intelligence and her "wit," (in quotes because the wit usually only appeals to its intended audience, and I am of the opinion that real wit is more universally accepted than that). It's not in her nature to seek male attention with her looks. Reasons for this will go unexplored in this entry; there are just too many. This, I think, is the reason that there is a shrine of female listeners: to give the typical libertarian female an outlet for flaunting herself physically. It was an untapped market (and arguably should've remained so).


This week, I was told by a guy working on the Giuliani campaign that I'd "changed his views on libertarians." I'll admit that I'm far from normal. I'm borderline insane, even. I do, however, think it's OK to conform to an extent. As long as you know that you're doing it. You acknowledge it, you accept it, and you take off with it.



Disclaimer: if you think I'm talking about you in this blog, I'm probably not. I tend not to befriend most of the "typicals."

Let's Do the Damn Thing.

Most of you would call me an "armchair," to which I take no offense. However, I have sat for too long on the sideline, watching others being made fools of. Many of you are too smart for your own good, and I acknowledge that it's probably not within your control. Many of you consistently need a cause, and I cannot fault you to the extent that yours overlaps with mine. Many of you don't really know anything about libertarianism, except that you have a friend who is one.

You've all heard me call myself, at one time or another, "your friendly neighborhood libertarian," and I take this title more seriously than it may sound.

I'm extraordinarily regular. I guess I mean mainstream. I am swayed by advertisers and I watch J.J. Abrams' shows and I appreciate designer bags. And it is because of--not in spite of--this that I find my opinions to be different. I shun those who shun the status quo, but I attempt to do it with the subjectivity that I find they so consciously lack.

Read. Or don't read. Debate. Or glaze over.

Just know that, if you care to listen, I'll be voicing my opinions on this here blog, and I intend to remain, respectfully,

Your Friendly Neighborhood Libertarian.