I actually do agree. There is a fundamental contradiction between the core of libertarianism (Hands off!) and the core of conservatism (Our laws must represent and enforce our best values).

But it is my hope that there is a middle ground where both can come together. It begins when libertarians admit that conservatives have a point; and when conservatives admit that libertarians have a point. It deepens when they respect each others’ points and positions.

IF libertarians can identify that set of conservative positions and laws that are MOST important and support them, even though they do not view them from an individualist position as strictly necessary, then in my view we are better off.

Equally, conservatives can agree that not every law that can be considered beneficial from a strictly moral viewpoint should be passed – that as much as possible, without violating integrity, you can leave free choice to the individual, then in my view we are better off.

And around the debate on what is important, and what can be compromised, is where I hope the coalition can be rebuilt.

I agree with your views concerning New York, as well as my view that Rudy cleaned it up (New Yorker’s view as well), Mike.

However, many of the policies, in today’s world, that can further traditional values, as you put it, requires progressive and pro-active actions and legislation. This is the potential conflict I am illustrating. People should not believe that tradition is only conservative. Tradition is also progressive, especially when fighting against regressive organizations like the Left and the looters of civilization.

To me, a movement of responsibility back from National to State governments fits precisely with the intent and spirit of the 10th Amendment. Indeed, even with a casual reading of the damn thing! We ignore it completely these days.

But I’ve always considered the idea of the 10th Amendment to be a conservative position, not a libertarian position. The libertarian position to me would be: If it’s not worth the national government doing it, then it’s not worth the state government either, nor ANY government. Hands off! So the question of local vs national control is to me a conservative position, not a libertarian one.

Y, I had New York City in mind. It suffered a “broken window” descent and a bankrupty descent at the same time, both while liberals ran the show. The focus was on honoring victimhood, with no one being to blame nor at fault for anything. A permissive, anything-goes approach. A permissive approach to crime and criminals – they are victims, too, and not at fault! Times Square descending into physical and psychic squalor. The liberals, quite frankly, see nothing wrong with collapse and squalor, as the state of New York City at that time clearly evidences.

The aspects of conservatism I am promoting here is that the government must be tough on crime; the city government must maintain clean streets; promote regular business, and yes, move the sleazy, seamy businesses off into the shadows, where they will still gain their business. Be aggressive on impending squalor: graffiti is not art, it is a despoiling of the civic environment, and broken windows lead to worse, so fix them immediately.

Two things in particular: civic responsibility is a traditional value, not a libertarian value; moving the sleazy and seamy businesses off the main streets back into the “shadows” of the back streets is not a libertarian viewpoint; it is a traditional one.

I do believe in strong community values. I think part of the problem with the decline in our community values is the more and more things are being usurped by a far-away federal government. People have less responsibility and feel less connected to the decisions their government makes. That’s what I meant about the fact that my neighbors will cheerfully applaud Obama for making abortion as easy to obtain as pierced ears (easier, indeed, because of the lack of parental notification), but would have an entirely different approach if one of their daughters came home pregnant. Libertarianism as I envision it — which simply means less federalism — would force people to deal on a community by community basis with social policies, and my bet is that they would lean conservative.

What does that actually mean in terms of policies? Traditional values are traditional because they aren’t there to “change” anything. However, if you want to fight the Left and their polices, you must Change them. Change them back to the tradition, which requires that you put more laws about stopping other laws that infringe on individual choice. This is very tricky since government laws are usually designed to deny rights or inflict cruelty and penalties on people violating a certain regulation or standard.

But if you punish and regulate the Leftists, good things will result. That is not “Traditional values” but it is a very effective way to get back to traditional values by using an untraditonal method.

********************************************

Say a man approaches you on the street with a proposition:

“See that guy over there?” He indicates a big, strapping fellow, his 6’4″ frame enrobed in 300 lbs. of muscle. “He’s coming over here to wrestle you to the ground and choke you out for a million dollars. If you can pin him instead, I’ll give you the million.”

“B-but,” you stammer, “I don’t want to wrestle him!”

The man sniffs. “Doesn’t matter — he wants the million. Here he comes — best of luck!”

How does it feel to suddenly have this contest thrust upon you? To have to worry about your performance, and how it will stack up to his experience level? For all you know, he could be very good at wrestling — and even if you, yourself, are no slouch in the ring, he’s clearly way outside your weight class. And much, much stronger. As he begins to sprint toward you, you notice he’s a lot faster, too.

How’s it feel now?

Let’s try a different tack:

Same set up, except the man says, “All you have to do is touch him, and I’ll give you the million instead.”

Feel any different?

How about if we qualify that touch a bit — “All you have to do is break something inside of him.” And you’ll get the million.

In the first case, the contest is sprung upon you, you’re not prepared, you’re being asked to compete with the man’s physical size and athletic ability. You’re being asked to perform at a level most of us can’t reach. You’re being asked to compete in such a way that is clearly unfair, and puts you at a disadvantage.

We could just as easily set up a scenario where you are suddenly tasked with debating international monetary policy, before an audience, with someone who may or may not be a Nobel laureate in economics. We’ve all got the basic tools, the components to compete in such a contest — we can speak out loud, we have experience with finances and money in general — and yet, the idea makes me sweat. Most of us can expect to get hammered and humiliated, everything we say twisted back on us with a sneer and derisive laughter from the audience.

In the second case where, “All you have to do is touch him,” there is no performance pressure — we can all reach out and touch the guy, even if he wants to wrestle us. In fact, there’s really no way you can lose — how can he wrestle you down & choke you out without you touching him at some point? It’s so simple it’s ridiculous.

And sure, that “touch” can easily be used to break something inside of him, as in the slightly more difficult scenario. We all know he can’t successfully wrestle you without you crushing his groin or gouging an eye at some point. Everything he would want to do just pulls you in nice and close to those delicate anatomical features. Another easy win.

All of the above highlights another distinct difference between competition and violence — that impending competition brings with it performance anxiety as you realize you will be required to pit your skill against unknown thresholds (what if he’s the better wrestler? or speaker?). It’s the worry that your meager skills will be outclassed.

When we remove the competition and go instead to a win condition that is not dependent on unknown thresholds (i.e., nothing about the other guy factors into the equation) there is no dread or anxiety.

Now, I know what you’re thinking — what about performance anxiety around getting violence done? Well, how anxious did you feel about merely touching the guy, above? Really? Outside of counting coup, did your anxiety increase when it was qualified as causing an injury (“…break something inside of him.”)? If the answer is yes, then

YOU’RE STILL LOOKING AT VIOLENCE AS COMPETITION.

Violence, as the absence of competition, has no performance anxiety component. It really is just touching, if we mean it in the same way that we would smash a soda can flat, or slam a car door, or break a stick on the curb. The physics and biomechanics involved are all the same. Any considerations beyond that are imaginary. Hang ups, if you will.

As with pretty much everything in this work, the solution is mat time. It’s the second best place to learn that competition has nothing to do with anything in violence, that size, speed and strength have no bearing on who wins and who dies. Those who still view violence as a form of competition, a high-stakes one, act hesitantly on the mats; they keep their distance (even when they think they’re penetrating), flinch, hide and otherwise give poor reactions, and rarely employ bodyweight. They behave as if they are fundamentally frightened of what’s going on. Which they are.

Those who have figured it out by physically burning the idea out of their heads with hours of mat time throw themselves into the work with great relish, applying themselves bodily to every problem presented them.

The physical realization that violence is about a failure to compete, an end-run around competition, is liberating. Gone is the worry about being big enough, fast enough or strong enough. The other guy’s skill counts for absolutely nothing. It’s all about you, and only you. The other guy is prey to be taken, meat to be butchered.

The pressure’s off and you’re free to do as you will.

Chris Ranck-Buhr
Master Instructor
Target-Focus Training
http://www.targetfocustraining.com

Beautifully said!

11B40 (#3)
>> We are in a lengthy era of cultural decline primarily due to the lack of awareness that a culture’s “mores” require some form of enforcement. >>

I agree. I’m reminded also of Book’s libertarians vs conservatives post, where – while it wasn’t clear to me – Book appeared to advocate the libertarian approach of laws based on individual rights, with no laws based on traditional community values.

I think that approach is problematic, though I do lean strongly libertarian. I have, over the years since 9-11, come to value the strength of traditional values, and I recognize their worth as passed into law. I don’t want to see this reduced. I think the “broken window” syndrome is not fixed by a focus on libertarianism; it is fixed by a focus on traditional values.

The sooner both sides realize we need both – a strong mix of both – the better off we’ll be, is my opinion.

The only disadvantage to hand to hand killing ability is the range and the rate of fire. If they are in my range, .5 feet to 6 feet, they are going to die or be seriously and permanently maimed for life, suek.

The nice thing about criminals is that they tend to want to get up close and personal to you. If they have a firearm, they will want to get really close up. You ever see videos of convenience store robberies with a firearm you will know what I am talking about.

The closer they get, the higher the chance that they are going to get surprised by someone like me. These people also never look around them, like at their backs, because they don’t expect someone to attack with them when they have the almighty gun. In this sense, Hollywood has done people like me a favor. So long as they overestimate the power of the gun and think it is a substitute for fighting ability, they are extraordinarily easy targets for people like me.

What happens if one Target Focussed Trained individual meets another? What prevents people with bad intentions from getting the training?

This is suek’s question to me from another thread. I have been absent from reading here for a few days, so apologies for the lateness of my answer.

Concerning “what prevents people with bad intentions from getting the training”, the answer is “nothing”. The fact that it also doesn’t matter is a double nothing.

Serial killers, rapists, murderers, and so forth were never trained in the use of violence. Contrary to Hollywood stereotypes, most criminals and people with assault weapons are not former military. At least not in America.

Criminals already have the “training” because they comprehend how violence works on an intuitive level. Give me your money and you are going to get hurt by me, and you will continue to be hurt by me until you give me what I want.

It is civilians and military personnel, law abiding citizens, that need training in the use of violence, suek. They are the ones that are at a disadvantage and they are the ones that must have this training to get rid of people with bad intentions.

As for what happens when one TFT trained member meets another, that will rarely happen except in family groups that share this information amongst each other. For when it does, it will be no more problematic than two strangers that meet on a road in the middle of nowhere. Social restrictions still hold, laws still hold, and if they don’t hold, then it doesn’t matter if you are TFT trained or not. Violence will work for the criminal whether he is trained or not. Violence will work for you whether your opponent is a martial art black belt or not.

Now for what you need to do against a TFT opponent, the primary objective is to injure them. Once injured, all their knowledge, training, and intentions become moot. THey are as helpless as babes. And you can crush a baby’s head very easily. Palestinians have demonstrated that in Israeli settler towns very often.

British folks, for example, need TFT more than almost anyone else in Europe (except people living in Paris or third worlds. Then again, in third world nations you don’t have laws banning firearms mostly so it is better to acquire mines, explosives, and firearms instead). Tim Larkin recently held a 500 dollar 2 day live training in Britain, with two consecutive sessions. The people that attended that session are now more dangerous to the criminals than vice a versa. That’s a good thing, btw.