The Libertarian Party's Donald Trump: The Truth About Austin Petersen

Some of us “party insiders” have been saying for a while that Austin Petersen is not good for the Libertarian Party. I put “party insiders” in quotes as a bit of a joke, because anyone that actually involves themselves in what we do on a day-to-day basis understands that there pretty much are no “insiders” in our party.

In reality, all it takes to be an "insider" is run for the board of your state or county affiliate, which anyone can do as long as they are a registered Libertarian. Just know that if you disagree with Austin's tactics, you would automatically be part of the "great conspiracy" to keep him out. 

This article is not intended to be a hit piece on Austin Petersen. I don't want Johnson supporters to share this just because it happens to attack Austin. Likewise, I don't want Petersen supporters to assume that I'm taking a cheap shot at their guy. I care deeply about this party and this movement, and much of what I describe here is certainly not limited to Austin or his supporters. 

That being said, Austin does have a role to play. Only he can decide if he wants to be remembered as a valuable piece in a much bigger puzzle, or as the troublemaker that only seemed to upset people and cause discord. 

Libertarian in-fighting is an artifact of our ideology and will always be around, but if we can't learn to disagree agreeably, then our ideas are not useful to anyone. That is why I'm writing this. 

If I do nothing else here and you, beloved reader, take nothing else away from it, let it be successfully setting the record straight. I know many people personally that took a liking to Petersen, based on a few debate performances. But they usually drop their support, once they discover what he's really been doing to the party. 

It's not like I don't think he's capable of being a genuine voice for Liberty if he wants to be. Clearly he can. He served as Outreach Director of the party, and was a creative force behind bringing a key Libertarian voice to television. He's also very charming and likable when he wants to be. He'd done his homework, and knows the philosophy well. I don't overlook any of this stuff. 

But having said that, we cannot let the man off the hook. His terrible treatment of activists in the movement is disgusting, and the party is more divided than ever because of the enmity he creates.

To that end, I want to clear up a lot of misinformation surrounding this guy. And boy, there's a lot go through. Everyday, he lies about something new. 

Most recently, he lied about Gary Johnson's campaign supposedly buying up all the hotel rooms for the National Convention, and that John McAfee's campaign manager quit. Both of these claims are provably false, but that is just the tip of the iceberg.

If you wish to support Austin Petersen at the end of this, be my guest. All I can do is report the facts, give you my personal opinion, and let you decide the rest.

This is important, because the message of Liberty applies to everyone, and it matters who we choose to communicate that message. 

There will be millions of soon-to-be disenfranchised, non-Libertarian voters looking for another option, and what will they think if they turn to us and see that we nominated a 35 year old Trump?

He's also made several disparaging remarks about our female activists. There are plenty to choose from, but this one was enough to be included in an article written by the same person: 

In others, he refers to women as "butter face," and suggests that breasts are helpful distractions for ugly women. I wish I was making this stuff up. 

Those should give you a good idea of the sort of individual we're dealing with, but here is one more. This one is a particular favorite of mine:

 

That is my favorite, because of all the figures that I would associate as “sleazy”, Kerbel is probably the last person I would think of. 

Being that he’s from Colorado, I’ve spoken with Kerbel a number of times. He is one of the sharpest, nicest, most consistently Libertarian guys I know. I would not have been at all upset if he was our nominee. I still think Johnson is better because of experience and name-recognition and all that jazz, but Kerbel is one legit dude. 

But if you're Austin, who cares? Most of his supporters associate Colorado as that place that banned him from debating (a fact that he misinformed his supporters about, which I’ll discuss in a moment). So most of them probably believed that Kerbel really was sleazy, even though Austin offers absolutely no evidence for saying so (something he does repeatedly). 

Again, this is not supposed to be a hit piece, but this stuff matters. Many smart, rational people are tentatively supporting him on the basis that he is a sharp, professional candidate that speaks our values well. I believe many will be aghast to learn that he is engaging in these things.

But we're just getting started.

The truth, as if it needs to be stated, is that all of our candidates would be exceptional alternatives, but only one of them is an internet troll masquerading as a presidential candidate. And I wish I could take credit for being the first to point it out, but clearly I’m not.

Lately, he is starting to take some outlandish actions, and to call them “missteps” would reflect a misunderstanding of the very nature of the campaign he is running. 

Many viewers watched the Stossel debate and took a liking to Austin. It’s not hard to see why. He seemed like a pretty ideologically consistent Libertarian that spoke well and genuinely seemed to love Liberty. His attack on Johnson’s position on anti-discrimination laws did not come off sounding like an adolescent sibling rivalry, but more like a real candidate with a legitimate point to make. 

It shifted a lot of energy away from Johnson and onto him, too, which means it was an effective attack. It showed that he is capable of going on the offensive without resorting to ridicule, mockery, or outright lying.

But if you are one of those viewers that took a liking to Petersen because of his better-than-usual performance in that debate, let me try and paint a more complete picture of Austin Petersen (as if I haven't already). 

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Johnson supporter. I was also one of the board members in Colorado that voted to direct the Convention Committee not to extend an invite to Austin Petersen to attend our debate. 

I can’t speak for the board, and I won’t go into any of the details of that decision. But I can tell you why I personally supported that decision. 

At that point in time, Austin Petersen had already publicly expressed his disinterest in and repudiation of the Statement of Principles of the Libertarian Party. He also continues to ridicule anyone that uses the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) as a means to communicate, simply, what Libertarianism is all about. 

If that was it, maybe there would have been less support for not inviting such a character to our debate. If someone has a rational argument to make for no longer using the NAP as a tool for communicating the ideas of Liberty because it over-simplifies things and infantilizes our ideology, then let’s hear it. Our membership will decide (unfavorably, I’d expect) whether it agrees or not. 

I am not a Libertarian purist by any stretch of the imagination. My last post should have made that abundantly clear. So if that was the case, I would have loved to hear his argument. 

But that was not the case. And the more Austin used social media as a mud-slinging device, the more I realized that he is not interested in rational discussion at all. In fact, he admits that he is not interested in this. He actually seems to enjoy being an agitator.

It was evident then in many ways, like the aforementioned demeaning of members who do prefer the NAP and use it often. He had taken a few swipes at his fellow candidates as well (referring to Gary Johnson as Gary “Flaccid” Johnson, for example), and they were enough to convince me that this man was not fit to run an outreach booth, much less lead the nation. 

The most alarmingly unprofessional statement to me at the time was what he said in his interview (if you can call it that) with Cantwell, whom very few people in the Liberty movement can even stand. The interview is like watching two Donald Trumps argue with each other about who has the largest banana in their pocket. 

More specifically, the part where Austin said this, in response to Cantwell saying he gets laid more often than people think: 

“I’ll bet you do, you tubby piece of s***. You couldn’t even approach the pyramid pile of p**** that I swim in on a regular basis. And it’s because I have class, mother f*****!”

Yes, he said that. 

It’s not that I think that these sorts of statements should always bar a Libertarian from ever getting to run for office. Most of us have said things like this at a time when we never thought we’d ever be running for office. Us regular citizens have that luxury. We don’t have to worry about the morality police combing through every recorded word we’ve ever said or written.

Having said that, though, it might be the only time I’ve ever heard a pro-life candidate talk about how he is swimming in p**** on a regular basis. Plus, none of these statements were friendly. He was not poking fun at Cantwell, he was viciously attacking him. Not that I'm a fan of Cantwell, but two wrongs don't make a right.

In fact, this interview is probably the most honest depiction of Austin Petersen that actually exists on the internet. Again, I can’t speak for the board, but to me, this was actually the dealbreaker. 

According to the bylaws of our party, his opposition to our Statement of Principles alone would have justified the decision we made. In fact, the National Party could technically dis-affiliate any state that chose to endorse a candidate that did so. Not that this was ever likely, but it is a fact. 

Again, if a candidate wanted to persuade me that those rules are too strict, I would love to hear his case. But for me, I was not merely following rules. I actually think those particular rules exist for guys like Austin Petersen. They exist for anyone that wishes to use our party for cheap ballot access, and for those who wish to portray a very incorrect image of Libertarianism. 

His dismissal of our most basic principles reflects a deeper problem that doesn't just rub the purists in the wrong way. His behavior is also a bit of a subjective thing to measure, but when he begins to tell lies, it is no longer subjective. It is a problem that we all need to recognize.

The first time I actually observed his campaign’s willingness to spread lies was actually regarding our board decision. He told his followers that we excluded and banned him from attending, which was never true. 

Once he reached out to us, it was settled that he was attending. There was no more debate on the matter on our end, because we never voted to exclude him. None of us freaked out, and there were no emergency meetings. We did not change our votes or backpedal. In fact, he was even offered a free meal by our Convention Committee Chair, which he arrived too late to receive. 

In spite of all this, he sent out a mailer that said, “Petersen Campaign Triumphant After Attack From Party Establishment Insiders.” 

There is simply too much fail in that headline to unpack.

He also told his followers that our board members were gagged because of a second vote we took regarding communications with Petersen's campaign. A clear violation of free speech! 

Well, this was not true either. Board members were always free to interact with Petersen and his campaign, just not in an official LPCO capacity. This was a reasonable expectation, given the willingness of Petersen’s campaign to spread misinformation. 

You know, like telling them we were all gagged. Why would we vote to do that? It makes no sense at all, but Petersen's supporters believed every word of it.

In any event, Petersen came, was warmly welcomed, and the debate occurred without incident. Taking a principled position to not formally invite him actually turned into positive publicity for Colorado and for the party. Many other Affiliates applauded us, as did many of our members. 

Those members in Colorado that were angry with us were precisely those members that received the bad information I just referred to. When it became clear to our members that, not only was he not excluded but was expected to appear (and was even included on our marketing materials for the event), they largely agreed with our decision. 

A big reason why this misinformation existed in the first place was a poorly-sourced article on alibertarianfuture.com, which contained much of these falsehoods. But Austin is not the sort of person that is going to follow up on it and verify if it's true. It benefits him more to have a dragon to slay, and he raised quite a bit of money trying to slay LPCO. 

It also bears noting that, although he attempted to involve himself in the affairs of an affiliate by urging all of his supporters to vote LPCO's entire board out of office, none of that came to pass. All of the board members that sought re-election at our Convention were re-elected without objection. There was not a single member of our delegation that even mentioned our decision, or any other issue, as being cause for concern for the board's integrity. You would think that Austin's sabre-rattling would have led to at least one member voicing dissent. 

If I could go back and do anything differently, the only thing I would have changed is that I would have suggested the disinviting to include ALL candidates that have repudiated our party’s principles. 

It would have changed nothing in reality because Austin was and still is the only one who has, but it would have driven home the point a bit more clearly that we are not just picking on Austin. Austin is doing it to himself. If you don't support our party's principles, fine. But find another party. 

That’s the real point here. Austin oscillates between proud agitator and victimized outsider, and people are calling him out on it. 

Gary Johnson called him out on it in Texas, and for the first time, everyone got to see it. He had the gall to say that Gary Johnson — a successful businessman, two-term Governor, and plaintiff in a suit against the Debate Commission — was a defeatist. The nazi cakes was one thing, but this is just silly. It was the height of hubris. (watch video here; exchange begins at 1:28:30)

He is treating this race like a personal vendetta, but against whom we can never be entirely sure. His narcissism has gone beyond even Trump, because at least Trump doesn’t act like he speaks for the party or for any movement. 

Austin has repeated the famous Isaac Newton quote, "If I can see farther, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants." But does he actually believe this? His actions seem to suggest otherwise. 

He is not above throwing heavy-lifting advocates of Liberty under the bus whenever it suits him. He picks fights with them instead, which is the least Libertarian thing you can do. 

One of the best examples of him picking a fight with the strangest of enemies is the time he whined about losing to "Uncommitted" in Missouri. 

Because of a technicality, Gary Johnson was not on the ballot in this state, which holds a Primary instead of the more traditional (for a third party, anyway) Caucus. As a result, Gary Johnson supporters chose "Uncommitted" instead. But when the LP National’s Facebook page reported (factually) that Austin Petersen came in second behind “Uncommitted” and he felt snubbed, how did Austin choose to respond? 

By accusing the LP National Facebook page of shady practices (with zero evidence), and by posting the cell phone number of Nick Sarwark, the LNC Chair, and encouraging his supporters to go and harass him. 

Now I know Nick personally, too, because he’s also from Colorado. He’s a big boy, and he can handle this sort of treatment. He’s been dealing with it since day one, in fact. But who else gives out the cell phone number of people he doesn’t like, and encourages his followers to harass them? 

That’s right. Donald Trump. 

Austin has a massive messiah complex. He thinks he’s white-knighting for Liberty, and that means he’s never wrong. Many of his supporters would rather quibble over details than admit that this is not healthy, presidential behavior. It certainly doesn't help the movement.

He says things like, “a prophet is never welcomed in his own land.” He says that because he thinks he's the Libertarian savior coming to rescue us from ourselves. Have you ever heard of a more anti-Libertarian ethos than that? 

Libertarians do not need saving, least of all from an insecure self-promoter like him. When he speaks, it is not the suffering of a man that spent three days in the belly of a whale, but the jilted bitterness of a troll that spent three minutes in a chat room. 

Any criticism is simply perceived as persecution by Austin, even when he is the one throwing the sharpest objects and seeing what does the most damage. 

But here's the good news. 

The more sharp objects that Austin Petersen throws, the sloppier he’s going to get. His attack of Gary in Texas is evidence of that. He has gotten so sloppy that even his own supporters are starting to turn on him. One of his supporters just posted this on the very website that Austin Petersen founded: 

“To be clear, I like Petersen. But his personal behavior and his attacks against the other Libertarian presidential candidates have made me switch my support. I liked his willingness to criticize Johnson. But the attacks have gone too far.” 

This actually gives me hope for the party. 

It means that its members are smart enough to spot a charlatan when they see one. They know that he doesn't care if the Libertarian Party grows, especially when he's posting stuff like this: 

This time, it’s not about Libertarian purity, it’s about something else. 

If Austin wants to step up and be the better man for a change, he might actually get my vote. I want to see more of that side of Austin that many already respect and admire. I don't think his young age has to count against him, on that I agree with him. I want to see the best Austin Petersen that he can be. 

And if you remain an advocate of this man, feel free to persuade me. 

I'm not kidding. I will listen. 

I will gladly change my opinion if Austin changes his attitude and his behavior. I had hoped he was willing to do this, based on the professionalism he displayed at our debate in Colorado. It's proof that he CAN do it if he wants to, but he's choosing not to. 

But whether he wises up to any of this, I cannot predict. Regardless, we can all learn from it. The great thing about our community is that we do not put up with this sort of thing for very long. It's not what we're about. 

We're about respecting each other, and building each other up through voluntary exchange. Criticism and competition are wonderful things, because they help us arrive at the best solution. But if we cannot show the world how to do this in a healthy way, then we are wasting our time. 

Convince me that his divisive rhetoric and negative campaigning is good for the party and for the movement. I don’t think you can, because cutting people down for your own benefit is in the nature of behavior that runs counter to the NAP. I would criticize anyone who thinks likewise.

But then again, Austin is not a believer in the NAP anyway.

Gary Johnson Is Wrong On Discrimination, And I Don't Care

Photo: alibertarianfuture.com

This has been building for a while now, and now that the cat’s out of the bag, someone has to say it: Libertarians that have a problem with Gary Johnson’s position on anti-discrimination need to get over themselves. Seriously.

Radicals in the Libertarian Party are responding to Gary Johnson's stance on anti-discrimination laws - a stance they've always known he had - like the fainting damsel in distress at the sight of the bad guy. 

"Woe unto us Libertarians! Heaven's no! Wherefore art thou Liberty?"

Don't do that. 

We're talking about Gary Johnson. Lest you forget, here is a guy that managed to get elected as a Republican in a state that was 2 to 1 Democrat, and manage to ACTUALLY cut spending. Does that compute, you “principled” Libertarians? He actually DID it. He also vetoed hundreds of terrible bills, and still managed to get re-elected. 

You can comb through his record and probably find a few things that are not so Libertarian, but that is why you need to read this carefully. 

STOP THAT!

What is wrong with you? Do I have to agree with everything the man says? Can’t I just support him because he’s actually effective at minimizing government? Can’t he be imperfect? 

“No!” some of you say. 

Ok. 

Walk me through this then.

“He failed basic Libertarianism. Freedom of association is Liberty 101.”

He didn't fail. 

If you are not already familiar with Johnson’s position on anti-discrimination laws, I’ll sum it up: he wouldn’t change them. That's pretty much it. 

He supports the Civil Rights Act, which makes it unlawful for private businesses to discriminate against people on the basis of religion, sex, race, etc. In the recent debate on Fox, he defended this, even if it meant forcing a Jew to bake a cake for a Nazi. 

That does sound pretty horrible, until you realize that is exactly how it is now. Right now, a neo-Nazi could sue a Jewish baker for refusing him service. That’s kind of been the source of a lot of humor among Libertarians lately, in light of the incidents with Christian bakers and photographers. 

The point here is not to say this is just or Libertarian in any way. It’s not. 

My point is: So what?

Sometimes the Libertarian position is not always the practical position, which pretty much sums up Gary Johnson’s campaign. He’s not a sellout, because I’m sure he believes this. But does that mean he can’t be a Libertarian?

Dude, if Gary Johnson can’t be a Libertarian, then we are ALL screwed.

If you actually listen to the way he defended this position, it reveals a couple of things. While the end result may still be incorrect from a Libertarian standpoint, he demonstrates an understanding of what governing is really like. He says things like “people will get hurt,” after painting a picture of a town with only one baker. The fact that the free market will theoretically be there to supply any underserved customers is besides the point. 

In his scenario, racial and ethnic discrimination can take on a mob-like nature that the state may not be able to manage, even if it wanted to. We’ve already seen how governments fail to respond to riots (even if we Libertarians like to wax poetic about the times in which the government is all TOO good at it).

So I don’t think Gary Johnson is thinking about this issue in an abstract, philosophical way. He just simply can’t believe that getting rid of these laws at this point in time would be a good idea. There are some places in this country where, if the laws were repealed tomorrow, people probably would get hurt. 

It’s an argument worth pursuing, and if all the Libertinos would just stop shouting for two seconds, maybe we can learn something. 

But it’s safe to say this is NOT Liberty 101. Like many issues, it’s complex when translated to reality.

But maybe you still disagree. Fine. Libertarians are stubborn, myself included. I get it. But you should at least be able to see why this is a smaller issue than you realize. 

Think of it this way. Any time a politician eliminates a tax, unjust law, or government program, it is a plus 1 for liberty. Every time a politician does the opposite, it is a negative 1. If a politician says he won’t change an unjust law, that is disappointing, but not a negative. 

You can say that we shouldn’t be keeping score, but why not? Is that what we do in a way when we decide who to vote for? This candidate has more stars in the “pro” column, and that candidate has more stars in the “con” column? If you take into account his experience, his relatively good manner of speaking about issues and his ability to suggest actual solutions instead of just rhetoric… I mean, c’mon. 

All of his pluses CLEARLY outweigh the negatives. 

I mean seriously, he’s not talking about closing up the borders and shipping out the illegals. His lists of government programs are lists of programs he wants to GET RID OF, not create. Stop acting like he's the next LBJ.

The strange thing is that Gary Johnson’s critics seem to acknowledge that he would probably be the most effective President of all the Libertarians running, but they would rather shoot him down than respectfully correct him and move on. 

“He just put the final nail in the coffin of his campaign!”

If you say so. That’s a bit like a self-fulfilling prophecy. And you know what’s really ironic? The radicals who are shooting him down the most are the ones that like Austin Petersen even less, and he’s exactly the person they are going to hand the nomination to.

Austin was pretty much the runner-up to Gary, and he’s weathered the storm of Libertarian in-fighting just fine. He’s smart enough to get support from outside the party, and the radicals are ensuring his victory. 

Remember, this is the guy that goes on rants about secret Libertarian elite conspiracy theories, and has openly stated that he does not support our party’s Statement of Principles. He has done everything he can to alienate some of the most energized members of our party, and has made personal attacks against other candidates and activists. Perhaps more importantly, he has a lot going against him, like his lack of qualifications, no name recognition, young age, etc. 

The very same people who see that in Petersen are going to ensure his victory. And it reminds me of a story that I was told at the convention recently. 

Years ago, when the window of opportunity opened like it has now, the Libertarian Party was set to nominate a person that would have been fantastic for the party. People inside and outside the party knew who he was, and he was by most measures a compelling candidate. When it came time to give speeches, though, another candidate gave a very rousing speech and the delegation ended up nominating him instead. When it was too late, they found out that the guy had almost no money and no campaign staff. He ended up being a terrible candidate, but the delegates chose him anyway because he said all the nicey words that Libertarian radicals like. He passed the purity test, but a huge opportunity was squandered to do it.

This has to stop. IT HAS TO STOP.

I could not be more opposed to the Libertarian Radical Caucus at this point. I was starting to warm up to them, but that’s just because the idea of having principles is Romantic and sexy. But principles without pragmatism is suicide. We may as well go off and start a book club and learn to pick up snobbish dialects so that we can all sit around and navel-gaze.

We’ll be 100% correct and principled in our prison cells, while the country burns to the ground.

Gary Johnson is wrong on anti-discrimination laws, and I don’t care. 

You can spit in the face of the guy that is suing the debate commission to get into the debates. You can hate the most qualified person we have to actually be president. 

The more you talk about how Gary Johnson is not Libertarian enough, the more you turn Libertarianism into an exclusive club, populated by whackjobs. 

Cut him some slack, guys.

Dear Progressives: A Word Regarding Your Favorite Candidate

Iowans caucus today, and that means primary season has officially begun. Assuming you intend to vote, when it is your state's turn, do you know who you are supporting? If it's the most progressive candidate in the race, then I know who that is. He's the one that has been tearing it up on the campaign trail and making mincemeat out of the media. He’s the politician whose main funding doesn’t come from Wall Street, so he tends to say things that you normally can’t say if you’re a serious candidate. People love that. Progressives love that. 

That's why progressives love Donald Trump. 

If you consider yourself a progressive and are not totally salivating at the mouth for a chance to see someone like him in the White House, I have to seriously question whether you're a progressive at all. You should be thrilled at all of his plans for how he would make this country great again. 

A progressive is someone that has to close the Parking Panda app on his phone so that he can Tweet about how America produces nothing good. They typically experience contempt on a daily basis, and are strangely directing much of it at Trump himself. 

Right now, the far left is policing the far right, and vice-versa. Each officer in the respective camp is trained to be on high alert when certain words are spoken. 

So let me cut through all this silliness and break it down. Hopefully by the end of this, you’ll know whether “progressive” is a term you wish to use to describe yourself.

First of all, get over your need to criticize Trump. To most, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel anyway, and it doesn’t cost you anything. No one is going to accuse you of oversimplification, insensitivity or intellectual laziness and dishonesty if you describe an American businessman with bad ideas and an absence of tact as being another Hitler. You’re safe, and you know that. 

Second, stop acting like you have nothing in common with Trump. If you’ve ever used his name to grandstand and give a long speech about “the country,” you are probably related to him in some way.

For example, I actually had a co-worker say, regarding Trump supporters, “There’s a lot of stupid f---ing people in this country, it’s scary.” 

This kind of statement is par for the course, but it came right on the heels of another conversation about religion, in which he said, “All of the world’s religions are solely responsible for all of the pain and suffering in the world.” 

I’m sorry, but personally, that is a really dumb thing to say. I find that to be at least as offensive as anything Trump has ever said, and my co-worker probably believes it, too.

I’m glad he said it, though, because it made me realize: isn’t that what would happen if most of us ran for president? Wouldn’t all of us say some pretty ignorant things? Wouldn’t coffee-table politics be capable of ruining everything just like Trump, and isn’t that what we’re seeing? Would my co-worker be any less tyrannical than Trump, if he had his hand on the nuclear trigger, or at the very least, the Treasury? 

Let’s be honest, most of us have dreams of power and control that would be deeply disturbing to everyone if they were broadcast unfiltered. Most of us have said things along the lines of, “What they really oughta do is…” followed by some insane policy that would never work, and would never be considered Constitutional, reasonable, or even sane. 

And the more I thought about why so many people seem to be on the offensive with Trump, despite these lingering and deep-seeded desires for power, the more it made me realize that progressives should actually be in love with him. 

Sure, they may not like his rhetoric, but if they are being honest with themselves, they already love his policies. He’s a better Democrat than Hillary would ever be, and he is popular for the same reason Bernie is popular: he “tells it like it is.” (For more on why Trump is a lot like Sanders, read this and this and especially THIS)

If you are a progressive, then you probably don’t realize that he’s your best candidate. Just look at what he actually wants: a single-payer healthcare system (which Hilary has recently come out against); restrictions on trade with China and other countries in order to bring jobs back to America; higher taxes for hedge fund managers and no taxes for people making less than 25,000; fixing welfare programs, including social security, and encouraging wealthy people to voluntarily relinquish their social security benefits; a ban on assault weapons; and an end to certain attempts to nation-build in the middle-east. 

He doesn’t seem to care about social issues like gay marriage, and although he wants to defund Planned Parenthood, it seems to be more an issue of money than ethics. He’s been fairly pro-choice in the past, and probably still is.

He also supported Obama’s handling of the banking crisis, and has publicly disparaged some forms of excessive greed in the private sector. He doesn’t like the trend of rising CEO salaries and thinks the whole board room system of business management is “disgraceful,” and would keep some form of corporate tax in place. 

Indeed there are plenty of reasons a liberal progressive should want to support Trump, and the only reason they don’t is simply the fact that he’s just plain mean. There really are no other distinctions. 

“But wait…” you’re thinking, “what about all that xenophobia, and stuff…”

In the case of Trump, xenophobia is a red herring. His policies are progressive, and his reasons for supporting them are immaterial. Interesting how that works with progressive policies, isn’t it? 

If you think his authoritarian approach to crime and national security makes him different, you would be wrong. There is no right-wing progressivism and left-wing progressivism. It is the same thing.

For instance, the notion that the government should never have the authority to take a human life cannot be regarded as a progressive idea. It is a classically liberal one (i.e. Libertarian). Therefore, when Trump throws his support behind capital punishment, he is merely signaling his approval of yet another government solution. 

I know some of you probably won’t see the parallels between right-wing progressivism and left-wing progressivism, but that’s cool. I know that cognitive dissonance is a hard thing to deal with, so let me give you a few more examples. 

When Trump says that the way to handle the riots in Baltimore is to send in the National Guard, he is thinking like a progressive. When he talks about surveilling, raiding, and shutting down mosques, he’s thinking like a progressive. 

When he uses (and abuses) eminent domain for the sake of “urban renewal,” he’s also thinking like a progressive. He’s admitted that there would be no Trump without eminent domain. This is one that Democrats really like to take advantage of, as most major cities in which this sort of thing is commonplace are run by Democrats. If your city has ordinances banning or restricting the homeless, as well as certain breeds of dogs, it is also probably governed by Democrats. Them Dems love progressivism!

And finally, when Trump talks about immigration, he is super duper progressive. He talks about it like it is a big central planning project, saying, “it would take 18 months to 2 years to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants with ‘really good management.’” It doesn’t really matter if some Trump supporters love these policies because they are xenophobes, or because they are just ignorant. Folks like the very hispanic Marco Rubio have recommended much of the same fence-building, business-babysitting policies, and the idea of Rubio being a xenophobe (on immigration, anyway) is something I just don’t buy.

When local governments fail, send in the big dogs. It’s a perfectly acceptable excuse to use whenever justifying policies that often destroy lives. That is the path of progressivism. 

It doesn’t stop there, though. If you consider yourself one of those liberal progressives I’ve been talking about, listen closely because I’m about to blow your mind. 

If you take progressivism to its logical conclusion, it necessarily leads to war. It has to. Once you accept that force is a legitimate tool for change, you open the door for it.

Why wouldn’t you? You would feel like not going to war was the inhumane thing to do. 

If you really believe that there is so much injustice in this country and you need to use force to fix it, not going to war for humanitarian reasons with other countries that are guilty of human rights violations would basically be akin to those Nazi enablers who chose not to get involved. Wouldn’t you be a hypocrite for not wanting more war? 

Wouldn't you feel morally obligated to go to war with as many countries as possible until they all stop being cruel (or until we run out of taxpayers to plunder in order to pay for it)?

History actually proves this to be true, especially for liberal Democrats. In fact, most of the wars the U.S. got into during the 21st century were started by Democrat administrations. Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia and both World Wars were started by Democrats. The Republicans had the Gulf War, and later Afghanistan and Iraq, but even though no administration has had the decency to wait for an official Congressional Declaration of War since WWII, the Republicans at least had those wars authorized by Congress. 

Sorry for the history lesson, but it’s kind of important that you see this connection that I’m about to make. 

The narrative of the left during these later wars was a mish-mash of “war… what is it good for?” and “no blood for oil.” Those are two different narratives, but in reality, no one on the left really seems to care about the first one unless a Republican is in office. If you don’t believe me, grab your nearest liberal friend and ask them how many countries we’ve bombed since Obama took office. 

The answer is seven, and your liberal friend probably doesn’t know that. 

None of his friends care that Pakistani children have nightmares that the next drone strike will “accidentally” hit their house, as has happened many times. They probably don’t even know about the Nobel-Peace-Prize-winning Commander-in-Chief bombing the Nobel-Peace-Prize-winning Doctors Without Borders, and they would probably dismiss it if you pointed it out.

So why is the left so hush-hush about all of this bloodletting being carried out by the president they supported? Are they simply being partisan? I think not.

Deep down, war is completely legitimate to a progressive. It’s simply another manifestation of the skewed perspective progressives have about what justice and human rights looks like. 

Progressives will keep quiet about it, so long as it’s their guy doing the warring. They will learn to be silent about it, just like they suddenly became silent about warrentless wire-tapping and meta-data collection, along with many other things that seemed to have had them at wits end during the Bush years. 

They’re ok with these things now, because they always were.

So if you’re a progressive, you should learn to love progressivism, no matter which party. It’s all the same thing.

So you should support Trump.

Today, I Enjoyed My First Un-Birthday

-->

I made a concerted effort this year not to mention my birthday to anyone, and I’m so glad that I did. I don’t like birthdays, and I definitely don’t like mine. I never have.

The only birthday I can remember enjoying was my 18^th, and for reasons you can probably imagine. I really enjoyed that one, and it was probably the last one I had during which I did not care how anyone else treated me on my birthday.

I went to the store and I bought one of everything I could finally purchase legally: a scratcher ticket, cigarettes, spray paint, BB’s, a lighter, pipe tobacco, a rated-R movie and a Playboy. I might actually still have the BB’s somewhere, because I never wanted to get rid of them. That birthday was one that I enjoyed because it was symbolic, and I could enjoy that fact on my own.

After that, it was all downhill. I’ve worked all but one of my birthdays since, and most of them sucked. My 21^st was one of the worst, as a really close friend of mine canceled plans we made three months in advance for a new squeeze she’d been dating for about two weeks. (I’ve since forgiven this person, and we are really good friends again)

Early on, I had this belief that everyone should be celebrated on his or her birthday. I never doubted it, even on my 21^st.

But I must have reached a point, not long after that birthday, when I gave up. Everyone I knew, up to that point, would get something from me on their birthday. It might have just been a phone call, but it would be something. And I would soon realize that when my birthday came around, these same people were absent every time.

The number of those recognizing my birthday existed at all, pre-Facebook, never exceeded ten.

So pretty soon, I stopped caring. I became bitter about birthdays, as I was about Christmas and various other days.

Then when Facebook took over, birthdays always just seemed like a convenient way to pretend you care about someone. Your news feed tells you when someone is having a birthday, so no one actually has to know you that well in order to care. I now blame Facebook for this more than my friends, but I used to take it really personally.

It finally came to a head for me about three years ago, when the only people who even mentioned my birthday at all were the ones on Facebook. The only exception was a text message I received, and that was it. I thought, “Well, there’s no excuse. Everyone knows it’s my birthday, but all I’m getting is a post on my wall. No one’s even bothered to call me and ask how I’m doing.”

Yet so many of my friends don’t go through what I seem to go through on their birthdays. They either don’t care (as I now don’t), or they get huge parties thrown in their honor. People bake cakes for them and buy them expensive bottles of Scotch or tickets to a fancy theme park. Those are not things I get, and I haven’t gotten them in years. That’s just because it’s me, though. Or so I used to think.

Nothing much has changed in reality, but I’ve realized that thinking about this day as if it was any other day seems to make much more sense to me.

This year, I told no one about my birthday. Some co-workers at one of my two jobs knew that my birthday was coming up, but none remembered. I found some interesting results, though.

In my email, I received a birthday greeting from astrology.com, linkedin and Creative Cow. At work, the system greeted me when I clocked in, too.

Some of my family reached out to me on Facebook (where I removed my birthday entirely), and a client of mine sent me an email. But that was it this year.

And I felt this odd sense of relief.

I figure, if I don’t advertise my birthday and you STILL remembered it, and thought well enough about me to reach out to me on my birthday, then that’s something I want to hang on to.

One friend told me months ago that I should care more about birthdays, and assured me that mine would not be forgotten. Not only did this person forget, I just discovered that I was recently unfriended by them (I don’t know why or when). Par for the course.

But I’m not surprised that my family reached out to me, and I’m kinda glad because this proves the point.

Many frustrating things happened to me on my birthday this year. My smoke alarm went off for no reason while I was in the shower. I was almost late for work because I forgot my shirt. My bank confirmed it doesn’t know where my new debit card was sent, and I was over-charged for an omelette. A two-hour shift turned into an eight-hour closing shift because another guy quit.

And yet, only when I think this day should be any more special than the rest would I be tied to feelings of sadness and frustration. Why is this happening today of all days, I could have asked.

But yesterday was a day like any other. And I shouldn’t take it as personally as I have in the past that I won’t be noticed on this day unless I scream from the rooftops.

I’m with Humpty Dumpty on this one: Un-birthdays are the way to go.

Sandy Hook Is A Call For Kindness

I hadn't even heard the news of the shooting before reading several new political rants about gun control and other things. In fact, it was these rants that informed me of the days events, and upon reading of the Sandy Hook tragedy, the rants faded into the background completely.

I stared at the headline: "26 Killed, Including 20 Children In CT Elementary School Shooting."

I was horrified, and I cried. I couldn’t scroll down to read the story for at least a full minute. I didn’t need to know the details. It was a moment that felt like an eternity, when the need for the ‘why’ is overshadowed by sadness so great, you want to believe it didn’t happen.

I thought it hadn’t, at first. In that eternity of seconds, a war raged within me. I could see this happening in a movie, right as the hero is the most lacking in his faith. I could see it happening in a dream, where I get to wake up and ponder what it meant in the comfort of reality. But this happened in reality.

I finally scrolled to read the details, none of which stuck out to me at the time. I still had my Facebook open, so I returned to post a status about how I felt, and then went for a walk.

A storm system that arrived after many dry months in Southern Arizona had just peaked. Tucson was covered in a dark blanket in the middle of the afternoon from one horizon to the other, and it all felt terrifyingly synchronistic. 

I had a lot to think about. 

I thought about how this would change our world and specifically our country. I thought about how it would change me. I thought about the devastation of those parents and teachers directly affected.

I was shocked to realize that this shooting affected me more than 9/11 ever did. We all knew 9/11 was big, and it changed everything. But somewhere deep down, even as a high schooler watching the footage of the towers live, I always knew something like this could happen. I knew there were bad people who would stop at nothing to get what they want, and to destroy us.

But Sandy Hook was different. It is still unclear why the killer did it, but I don’t really think it matters. There is no reason that would make sense.

9/11 made sense, in a jingoistic sort of way. But this makes no sense. I cannot understand what the thought process would be of a person who would slaughter not one, but twenty small and screaming children. Even as I type these words, my hands shake.

It upsets me that we blame each other for this, too. In times like these, we bargain and blame, because we can’t make sense of it as a society, either.

And I was also angry. I was angry at the blame game I saw on my social network. The bodies of the victims were still warm, and already the drumming had begun for one political agenda after another. If only we had less guns… If only we had more guns… If only we had universal healthcare that covered mental health… If only we hadn’t turned our backs on God… If only we hadn’t chosen to follow God… If only…video games. If only…the parents. If only…public education. And on and on and on.

I would have jumped into this constant torrent of opinion, and it was my first instinct to do so when I first read the headline.

But this one is different. It is too serious for that. The truth is, how in the world could you treat someone who disagrees with you politically as if he was one and the same with this killer? I don’t care what your political stripes are, nearly no one is this evil. This is as evil as it gets. 

Even the most insensitive, selfish TV pundit would never do anything like this, and so it’s important to place your very genuine and legitimate rage where it belongs: the killer.

This is the exact sort of event that should bring us together, not give us cause to turn on one another. There is no doubt we will learn and grow from this tragedy, but it is in vain to do so if we disrespect these losses with our own selfish preaching.

And I have to be honest: I have been guilty of this, too. It is so easy to hear a story and take the bits from it that serve your purpose, so that your reason for relaying it has less to do with its own significance and more to do with your own ego. I have sinned big here in the past. I have been part of the problem, and it is my wish that my friends would smack me down if ever I do it again.

I also learned another lesson: Even I can forget the goodness of people. Though some people on Facebook took to ranting, most did not. Most offered up condolences and prayers, and nothing more. Some of them are those who are otherwise very political people, and it tells me a good deal about them that they chose not to do it now.

As an optimist, I tend to see the good in all people, and I believe most people are good. When a tragedy like this happens, our tendency is to give the killer the most face-time, but I believe this changed with the Batman shooting. The majority of those who posted stories about that killer were met not with approval but with indignation and criticism.

I responded to the news of the Sandy Hook shooting by going to a movie. 

I don’t have children, but if I did, I would have played with them instead. What I do have is movies. It’s why the Batman shooting hit me as hard as it did. As Kevin Smith explained: for fans and makers of movies, the theater is like your sanctuary, and an event like that shooting is like an attempt to rob you of something sacred.

I saw The Hobbit in the new HFR 3D format, and even as I had the massacre in the back of my head the whole time, I reveled in the magic that was the next great evolution in cinematic technology. I might as well have been in a pre-historic forest during a cold night, huddled with others over a fire and listening avidly to the storyteller, whose story offers yet another account of that rebellious, beautiful and kind human spirit.

When I got home, that was when I discovered the backlash on Facebook against those seeking to politicize the events. It seemed more and more like I was not such a loner in my genuine grief, or in my stubborn reluctance to cave to cynicism.

And I’ll end on that note: The love of people for each other will eventually conquer all. The cliché is accurate. We are capable of such great and beautiful things, even if we are capable of acts as heinous as this shooting. I won’t say what I think needs to be done just yet, but one thing is almost certain: more kindness. We’ll never know if a pat on the back from a respected elder or a genuine hug from a sibling or peer would have been enough to remind a killer like this what kindness feels like, but it couldn’t hurt.

Paul Ryan and Tom Morello Should Get Married

Why Paul Ryan and Tom Morello are NOT making mad passionate monkey noises together in the back of a roach coach is beyond me. Maybe they are, actually.

They are the perfect marriage. Political allies of the most curious kind, bound to one another by hypocrisy like big government foot-stink.

I’ll bet the conversation went something like this:

Agent: “Hey Tom, guess what? Your band has a fan!”

Tom: “A whole fan? Really?! Oh please tell me who!”

Agent: “Paul Ryan.”

Tom: “Seriously?”

Agent: “Yup.”

Tom: “Um. I don’t know what that means.”

It means a bromance made in heaven. I don’t know if that’s how it went down, but I know he eventually came to his senses and attacked Paul Ryan anyway. It seems to be quite popular.

And God bless Mr. Morello for his passion. He’s placed his rage in all the right places. Definitely. It’s good to have a powerful man worth $60 million going after the embodiment of the 1%, because…

Oh wait a minute. $8.4 million, that’s the threshold for the 1%, right? (shhhh… don’t tell Tom he’s in the 1%…)

Anyways, it’s good to experience such brilliant anti-establishment art as the music of Rage Against the Machine. I just love that they donated their time and energy to those so-called Warner brothers who are just like you and me. That indie film – oh what was it called?

The Matrix. That’s right.

And it just warms my heart that they’ve decided to stick with an indie label, too. I don’t know if you’ve ever heard of Epic Records? Probably not. That’s because…

Oh. Owned by one of the “Big Four”? You don’t say.

Well, it’s no matter. At the end of the day, I just prefer my rock idols to be really really angry. Doesn’t really matter why, just as long as it’s directed at the right people. And I don’t care how much they make. I know in the end they really care about me. Like all the folk that also write for that newsletter that published his article. Small newsletter called Rolling Stone. You may have heard of it?

But I know he wouldn’t just try to capitalize on people’s hatred of Paul Ryan, because he has every reason to love Paul.  Paul Ryan is Tom’s representative in Congress. I mean, surely he sees that.

Paul Ryan does hate things. And if the system Tom’s group has raged against was to be changed into a system of the very kind of rage that fuels his own, it would come in the form of someone like the Congressman. So be proud of your Congressman, Tom. He’s got your back.

Or, to put it another way: They would go down with the ship together in honor. The women and children would still go first, then the real men. Then, the people like you and the Congressman would stay. Because douchebags go down with the ship, and they feverishly play “Fight The Iceberg” on the cello while those who know how to save themselves fail to care.

“Fist in the air in the land of hypocrisy,” you once raged.

I agree completely.

4 Arguments Against the Dislike Button

I know it might be an unpopular position to take, but I don’t think Facebook having a Dislike button is a good idea. I know that disliking things is very popular right now, and a good many of my friends really want the chance to dislike things openly. Disliking things is fun, requires zero effort and allows you to put a dent in a reality that you find offensive without getting involved. But that’s sort of why it’s a terrible idea. There is nothing constructive about the Dislike button, and I believe the narcissism already present on the Internet would be only intensified and made destructive if allowed to exist. That is because the desire for the Dislike button comes from the remnant of a primitive brain which seeks to tear down and control the reality of others, and rejects communication, cooperation and respect for other people.

First of all, there is a practical reason why Facebook shouldn’t have a Dislike button, and it’s the same reason why it never will: A Dislike button is bad for business, especially if your business is social networking. Think about it. Why in the name of all things sacred would a business based around the idea of creating and building relationships introduce an element that could only break one down? How soon after they introduce the Dislike button would you see a rapid decline in activity on Facebook? How could a dislike button possibly contribute to a dynamic that is supposed to be all about sharing, and not about division and hate?

Some argue that using a Dislike button to show empathy could build relationships, such as for comments like “I just lost my job,” or “My wife and I are getting a divorce.” But why wouldn’t you rather leave a comment for these types of posts anyway? Why would you clamor for an alternative that allows you to sympathize without actually doing any work? I would sure rather see a comment from a friend as opposed to a bunch of dislikes. Not to mention there have already been suggestions for alternatives, such as a Hug button, to differentiate these sorts of things.

But in the absence of these alternatives, how would Facebook differentiate these types of posts from others that people just don’t like, such as, “That new Katy Perry song is awesome!” If Facebook filters its feed on the basis of how many likes a shared item or status update receives, wouldn’t it just bury the “My dog just died” posts as well? The list of problems goes on.

But let us not forget the other reason it’s bad for business: Sponsors. Imagine you were Coke, and Facebook just announced it was adding a Dislike button. Do you think Facebook would be a good place to advertise after that? I don’t think so.

But in case you think that’s just as well, realize that it applies to ALL businesses, including that concert that you and your band were thinking of creating an event for. Your local mom and pop could get slammed with dislikes, making Facebook no longer a place to network and communicate with its fanbase. Not only would Facebook be hit with a loss in advertising revenue, which would affect how well it operates and whether or not it can expand, but it would make it even harder for smaller businesses to compete.

Again, this is all to say that the Dislike button would do very little to build relationships, but would do everything to break them down.

It is very fortunate for everyone involved that the Dislike button will never become a reality. But why would people keep arguing that it should?

Well the second argument that it shouldn’t is a philosophical one: A Dislike button wouldn’t add more choice, but it would make choosing unpleasant for everyone. People act like they have a fundamental entitlement to a Dislike button, and the fact that they don’t is an affront to their freedom of choice. They want to be able to dislike something, and they can’t, and it’s just not fair. Well this view of choice is very immature, because it reflects a very poor understanding of what choice actually is.

The word “choose” comes from the latin verb gusto, which means “to taste.” It is also the origin of the modern “gusto,” which means enthusiastic enjoyment or pleasure. The action of taking, tasting, eating and enjoying is inherent in the idea of choosing. If you did not enjoy something, then you couldn’t say you chose it. To NOT pick the apple from the tree is NOT a choice. You can’t say, “I chose not to pick that apple.” You could say, however, “I didn’t chose to pick the apple.”

So if you decide not to pick the apple, what is that called, if not a choice? I would call it a rejection. I would even say it is an inaction until you consciously decide not to pick the apple. Once you decide you don’t like the apple, then you move on. But it’s not a choice, it’s a rejection. In other words, there is always a yes involved in choice, because that’s what choice IS. It’s you saying yes to something. Even when you use the word, that’s understood. If you choose red not blue, you don't say,“I choose not blue.” You say “I choose red."

So if you see something come up on your Facebook feed that you don’t like, don’t choose it. And if you really want a Dislike button, you won’t be getting the freedom to choose, you’ll be getting the freedom to reject.

Having said that, it should be clear just how unpleasant it would all become to ACTUALLY choose something in an environment filled with rejection. If something comes up in your feed that you like, but others publicly dislike, your liking it is now an open invitation to be harassed for it. The more dislikes, the more likely you are to get hassled for liking it, making you less inclined to like anything. The repercussions of your decision to like something would always have to be considered when choosing to like something. And that is very sad.

Facebook should be a place where everyone can have the experience they choose to have, to like what they want, even if there’s only one other person that agrees with them. You don’t get to decide that for them, even if you know they’re crazy.

That leads me to the sociological argument: When it is known how unpopular a thing is, the quality of the discourse diminishes. This seems like a no-brainer. Think about how kids react to knowledge that a certain kid is unpopular. All they need is a little bit of encouragement and they turn into monsters. Many of them are good kids, actually, but if lead by the hand and given the ok, they will go along with all of the awful things the truly awful kids are doing.

We like to think that we are not like them, that we are grown adults. But we are kidding ourselves if we think that’s the case. Think about every alliance that formed in your workplace between those looking for a scapegoat and those few whipping boys who actually pull their weight. Think of all the gossip magazines we read and all the popular TV shows where we all get to watch a family fall apart. We enjoy it because we know that millions of other people are watching it too, and so its ok. But imagine a world in which watching “Hoarders” made you more deplorable than its own subjects. Imagine if you didn’t have the support you needed in the dislike of celebrities and politicians. What would you do?

You would make your case, that’s what you would do. You would have to do so intelligently, coherently, concisely and passionately. This is what happens on discussion boards and forums where the article or subject did not include a like or dislike button.

If you do not know how many people are on your side, you are more inclined to form your own opinion, or abstain when you feel you are lacking in the knowledge with which to comment.

To be fair, this argument is true for the Like button as well, since the popularity of an idea often carries the ethos of credibility. But undoing the damage of a bad idea with a lot of Likes is as simple as posting a link in the comments section. Undoing the damage of a good idea with a gazillion Dislikes is close to impossible. Plus, in most cases, there is no harm done by clicking Like.

 If you are reading this and you really want to help create a better world both on- and offline, then the final argument should matter a lot to you: The absence of a Dislike button is Facebook’s version of “innocent until proven guilty,” and that’s a very good thing. This is the moral argument, and I’m not sure that many of the people I talk to about the Dislike button are aware of this.

I think the Dislike button represents something in all of us that needs to die out. It is the power to destroy, motivated by the desire to control the reality of others.

It is much bigger than simply being able to say, “I really don’t like lolcats.” It is as if you think that every piece of media that passes before your eyes begs the question, “Do you think this should exist?” People have been exposed to so many things that they don’t like, they just really want the chance to make it go away, and they feel like they ought to have a right to do so.

The Dislike button at least gives you the gratification of saying, “No.” You don’t even have to be personally involved in the thing you don’t like, you don’t have to think about it for very long, and beyond that you can just let your gut tell you if it's good or not. No regard needs to be paid to the person who made it, or the others who like it.

But here’s the thing: It still exists. You are not going to get rid of something in cyberspace just by disliking it.

Maybe you think, “People will stop making this sort of thing if enough people dislike it, and that is alright with me.” Not only is this an unrealistic assumption, it once again demonstrates your desire to control the reality of others. What is actually happening is people are connecting to one another by an experience, and you are trying to destroy it for them. It is not your experience, but you don’t care because you don’t think it was fair that you were exposed to it in the first place. Well I say you need to grow up, if that’s what you think.

To be clear, I’m not saying that actually disliking something is wrong, and I’m certainly not saying that making a comment to that effect is bad. In fact, I’m saying the opposite. Your efforts to voice your displeasure should be one-to-one and co-operative, not top-down and authoritative. The Dislike button is a replacement for conversation, and it contains no insight, criticism or respect for the content's creator.

Part of that conversation that MUST be present is evidence. If you are displeased with something and voicing your displeasure in the form of a Dislike could have a very negative impact on the content’s creator, you should be required to explain yourself. You should not be allowed to take an action like Disliking a video without having to – or at least being able to – defend it.

This is crucial for building a better world for all of us. Only in the last few hundred years did we learn a very important moral lesson which has helped us become better people. One of the core principles of Western philosophy is the idea that a person’s guilt should never be assumed, and that everyone has the right to defend themselves. You shouldn’t be able to send me to the chair just by pointing your finger at me, and I should never be able to do the same to you.

This is such a profound ethical achievement on humanity’s part, and we’ve come too far in our real life to allow this idea to die out in our digital world. Once it disappears online, we will see it less and less in the real world. We will go back to the way things used to be decided: By tyranny, where a totalitarian ruler decides. or by mob rule, in which an individual is defenseless against the many.

We are already seeing it now with every major criminal case, from Gabby Giffords to Treyvon Martin. Everyone has an opinion, but nobody knows the facts. And nobody cares that they don't have the facts.

The argument doesn’t even have to be that big. Think about it on a personal level: How would you tell someone to their face that you don’t like what they’ve made? I suppose a few of you reading this might actually be just as blunt in real life. But even if you are, wouldn’t you then include your reasons or would you just say, “It sucks,” and leave it at that?

I suspect most of you would either lie and say you liked it, or you would try to find a nice way to say it. You might even re-examine your dislike and find that it’s not that bad after all. There are many reasons why a Dislike button eliminates avenues of communication that would lead to relationship-building, but instead it drives a wedge between two people who are potentially very much alike.

If nobody likes something, it won’t get shared and it won’t last long. The Dislike button is not necessary, and it will introduce much harm to a world that is just starting to get built. There are so many problems in the world, and we can’t let it fall apart just because we’ve introduced a relationship-destroying element into our community. There is no content that is so Disliked that it can’t either be debated with or flagged. As human beings, we should be wanting to like and create, not finding things to dislike and destroy.  

 If you would like to hear more about this from others, I would recommend this guy, who has a lot to say about it. I would really like to know what your thoughts are on the subject, so please leave a comment!