Heidegger, the standard (from the last post) has gone from public officials criticizing "anti-government rhetoric" to people being put in jail? Forgetting for a moment that peaceful protesters were put in jail, and that law inforcement agencies actively infiltrated peaceful protest groups, you seem to have moved the goalposts. But whatever. I'm not sure why I'm responding to you anyway.
So far, many on the left have been careful. Most of the blogs I read, for example, have pointed out that this guy had no obvious connection with Palin or Beck, but was just crazy. Doesn't mean that Palin and others don't need to tone things down a bit, though.
Scott, you didn't say infringe upon, you said deny. That implies that they want to ban all guns. They don't even want to ban most of them. At least, this is their public position, and there's no real evidence to contradict it.
Of course, we've always known that Democrats tend to eat their own.
Still, my point was simply that everybody does it, and what gets counted as anti-government tends to be highly (negatively) correlated with who's in power. I suspect Bob, like many conservatives, thinks it’s largely a left-wing/liberal phenomenon, even though he lived through the 60s (and judging by his heavy and semi-random use and abuse of Voeglin terminology and entire sentences, might have partaken of the 60s a bit) and the 00s.
Of course, anti-government rhetoric from the "left" was stifled under the Bush administration. When it wasn’t simply disallowed (arrests, free speech zones at political speeches, etc.), it was described as treasonous, providing aid and comfort to the enemy, or even actively supporting terrorism. People on the “right” were upset a couple years ago when the government appeared to be targeting right wing groups, but they didn’t have any problem with the government under Bush targeting left wing groups.
The problem with decrying anti-government rhetoric is that over time it ultimately means decrying most dissent, because what “anti-government rhetoric” amounts to depends largely on who’s in power. And that’s probably the biggest sign that “anti-government” rhetoric as a broad category is specious and dangerous.
Tom, honestly, what does this comment say? That the authors of this blog should make a concerted effort to criticize liberal bloggers who say intemperate things about the right? Is that their purpose? It's never seemed to me to be that, or to make a concerted effort to criticize conservative bloggers who say intemperate things about the left. Once again, you seem to be doing little more than butting up against the edge of trolldom.
p.s., you know what they really think but won't say, because you're psychic, or because you just read between the lines, or because you read the tea leaves, or as a result of any other method of divination, doesn't count.
Which Democrats, by name, want to take away your right to bear arms? I don't mean which want assault weapons bans, or which want to close the gun show loophole, both of which are pretty common Democratic positions, but which want to actually take away your right to bear arms? Because I don't recall any of them actually stating that. So I wonder if you can provide some names and sources (preferably quotes, their actual websites, or voting records). I'd love to see that.
Mike, the "gnostic Muslims" thing is just Bob regurgitating, which is what most of what Bob says. It's a script, almost. At least Heidegger has the decency, one might even say the brain power, to spew all sorts of different kinds of nonsense.
I guess they didn't read Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
I like that they read the Constitution out loud and then, immediately after, the first (or at least one of the first) law they propose is blatantly unconstitutional. Not “it’s a matter of interpretation” unconstitutional, but directly contradicting the language of the constitution. And the reason for doing it as a law rather than trying to amend the Constitution? Because, you know, amending it is too hard.
You can’t write comedy like the American House of Representatives (or tragedy like the American Senate).
Robert, I like how you keep acting as though "commie-dem" were the truly offending remark, and not "Kenyan-Marxist." You haven't even mentioned that little epithet. That's particularly interesting given Jason's political orientation. Anyway, your silence on that label is much more informative than anything you've said in your replies to Jason.
Also, I wonder if you understand the difference between criticizing speech and suppressing it. Something tells me that, like Sarah Palin, you don’t.
Bob, I’m not sure if you are just dodging Jason’s question, or if you answer is, “Because it ‘eschews pc silliness,’ racism is now a good thing.” Either way, nice job.
I have to say, while the Kenyan stuff is offensive and stupid, I don’t really mind the “commie dem” nonsense. It has the benefit of at the same time displaying your ignorance and making me laugh, which makes it a definite positive. I am, however, tempted to refer to Republicans/conservatives as fascist-repubs in any thread that you comment in. The label would, at the very least, be no less accurate than “commie-dems.”
James, this kinda sucks, because I was happy to see that you (and Jason, though he transitioned earlier, and DAT, and Jon) were going to be exposed to a larger audience by moving here. One of my favorite things about the blogging you guys do is that the vast majority of your posts, regardless of whether they’re educational, or I agree or disagree, or really what my opinion of any particular post is at all, are incredibly conducive to discussion. The number of comments you guys got once you came here is evidence of that, as is the fact that, even with significantly fewer commenters over at Positive Liberty and The One Best Way (No, That Name Really Sucks), discussions often went into the hundreds of comments and lasted days, even a week or more, which is virtually unheard of in the blogging world. I liked having you guys all collected in one place, but that was simply because it made my life easier. But at least you’ll still be blogging.
Jason, I don't mean philosophically, I mean practically. We don't think like that, so that when we try to come up with minimal criteria like these, they can quickly be undercut by others. Nietzsche once said that he profits most from philosophers who live their philosophy. To my mind, the best way to "define" libertarianism, or any other ideological position, is simply to live it (in this case, I'd include writing it). Libertarianism is what libertarians say and do, and there's no one set of conditions that comprise that.
Also, I highly suspect that most people would say that their political party embodies those two principles, but the other one doesn't.
I suspect, nay, I’m quite certain that if you asked 100 conservatives/Republicans and 100 liberals/Democrats in the U.S. whether they agreed with your 1 and 2, that is, people are better at running their own lives than those of others and that coercion should be a last resort if at all, you’d find that 95 of each group did agree. This is partly because those two criteria are pretty abstract, vague even, but also because they seem like common sense. But when you build up from them, or around them, then you quickly find that the devil is in fact in the details, as 62across said, and that the resulting differences in interpretation, combined with inherent differences in world views, result in those 190 people being able to justify just about anything their favored political party does.
That doesn’t mean, or at least doesn’t necessarily mean, that those two things aren’t an important part of a political philosophy, just that they’re not very good candidates for a “mere” libertarian, or else just about everyone is a mere libertarian.
Not being a libertarian myself, I wouldn’t want to even attempt to define what one is, at either the minima or the maxima. I would, however, as someone who studies concepts, and who’s quite familiar with how we represent and use them, suggest that trying to distill libertarianism down to its essence is a losing cause, because like every other concept of this sort (that is to say, abstract, social, and human), an “essence” is probably not there to be found. It’s going to be a family resemblance sort of thing, with a label much better suited for reasoning about individuals or ideas than for rigid designation. This particularly true when, as for libertarianism, the abstract social construct we’re trying to define is itself built upon other abstract social constructs, which are in turn…
Of course, this lack of an identifiable essence to exactly the sort of perversion of the term, or at least unwanted use, both by opponents and seeming proponents, that leads to misunderstandings. It’s not surpsing, for example, that some see libertarians as being in favor of increased corporate power when there are visible individuals who use the label to describe themselves and act in such a way to increase corporate power. It’s also not surprising that some see libertarians as being selfish egoists, because of all the Randian crap that gets bandied about by some libertarians (I’ll leave aside whether they’re accurately reflecting Rand’s philosophy). I suppose you have two choices if you want to avoid association with the uses of the term libertarian that you find inapt: use a different term to describe yourself, which will at some point result in repeating the process for the same reasons, or if you think it’s important, work hard to point out why the particular views of libertarianism with which you disagree don’t apply to you. It sucks to have to do that regularly, but it is the price one pays for using a label, and it’s a price that’s paid all the more by people who use a label to describe themselves that most people wouldn’t. Jason and James obviously do this well, but I’m afraid that you’re both going to be doing it for a long, long time.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Government and Violence”
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/dec/15/00012/
On “A Closer Look at Jared Lee Loughner”
Heidegger, the standard (from the last post) has gone from public officials criticizing "anti-government rhetoric" to people being put in jail? Forgetting for a moment that peaceful protesters were put in jail, and that law inforcement agencies actively infiltrated peaceful protest groups, you seem to have moved the goalposts. But whatever. I'm not sure why I'm responding to you anyway.
"
By the way, people on the left aren't the only ones blaming the other side for this shooting:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/tea-party-group-blames-leftist-for-giffords-shooting/69153/
"
So far, many on the left have been careful. Most of the blogs I read, for example, have pointed out that this guy had no obvious connection with Palin or Beck, but was just crazy. Doesn't mean that Palin and others don't need to tone things down a bit, though.
"
It's gotten play. It doesn't excuse any others using violent rhetoric.
On “Government and Violence”
Heidegger, start with Ashcroft, December... something... 2001 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. After that, you can have more.
On “Rep. Gabrielle Giffords shot at Tucson rally”
Scott, you didn't say infringe upon, you said deny. That implies that they want to ban all guns. They don't even want to ban most of them. At least, this is their public position, and there's no real evidence to contradict it.
But since you've read their minds...
On “Government and Violence”
Of course, we've always known that Democrats tend to eat their own.
Still, my point was simply that everybody does it, and what gets counted as anti-government tends to be highly (negatively) correlated with who's in power. I suspect Bob, like many conservatives, thinks it’s largely a left-wing/liberal phenomenon, even though he lived through the 60s (and judging by his heavy and semi-random use and abuse of Voeglin terminology and entire sentences, might have partaken of the 60s a bit) and the 00s.
"
Of course, anti-government rhetoric from the "left" was stifled under the Bush administration. When it wasn’t simply disallowed (arrests, free speech zones at political speeches, etc.), it was described as treasonous, providing aid and comfort to the enemy, or even actively supporting terrorism. People on the “right” were upset a couple years ago when the government appeared to be targeting right wing groups, but they didn’t have any problem with the government under Bush targeting left wing groups.
The problem with decrying anti-government rhetoric is that over time it ultimately means decrying most dissent, because what “anti-government rhetoric” amounts to depends largely on who’s in power. And that’s probably the biggest sign that “anti-government” rhetoric as a broad category is specious and dangerous.
On “Rep. Gabrielle Giffords shot at Tucson rally”
Tom, honestly, what does this comment say? That the authors of this blog should make a concerted effort to criticize liberal bloggers who say intemperate things about the right? Is that their purpose? It's never seemed to me to be that, or to make a concerted effort to criticize conservative bloggers who say intemperate things about the left. Once again, you seem to be doing little more than butting up against the edge of trolldom.
"
p.s., you know what they really think but won't say, because you're psychic, or because you just read between the lines, or because you read the tea leaves, or as a result of any other method of divination, doesn't count.
"
Which Democrats, by name, want to take away your right to bear arms? I don't mean which want assault weapons bans, or which want to close the gun show loophole, both of which are pretty common Democratic positions, but which want to actually take away your right to bear arms? Because I don't recall any of them actually stating that. So I wonder if you can provide some names and sources (preferably quotes, their actual websites, or voting records). I'd love to see that.
On “Limits? What Limits?”
You gonna answer the question?
"
Heidegger, when and where did Lee suggest that Bush had something to do with 9/11? Or is this just another of your many made-up “facts?”
On “A Sterile Constitution”
Punching a police officer is significantly different from being born.
Eh, six of one...
On “An “I Told You So” Post”
Mike, the "gnostic Muslims" thing is just Bob regurgitating, which is what most of what Bob says. It's a script, almost. At least Heidegger has the decency, one might even say the brain power, to spew all sorts of different kinds of nonsense.
On “A Sterile Constitution”
Steve King's bill on birthright citizenship.
I guess they didn't read Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
"
I like that they read the Constitution out loud and then, immediately after, the first (or at least one of the first) law they propose is blatantly unconstitutional. Not “it’s a matter of interpretation” unconstitutional, but directly contradicting the language of the constitution. And the reason for doing it as a law rather than trying to amend the Constitution? Because, you know, amending it is too hard.
You can’t write comedy like the American House of Representatives (or tragedy like the American Senate).
On “An “I Told You So” Post”
Robert, I like how you keep acting as though "commie-dem" were the truly offending remark, and not "Kenyan-Marxist." You haven't even mentioned that little epithet. That's particularly interesting given Jason's political orientation. Anyway, your silence on that label is much more informative than anything you've said in your replies to Jason.
Also, I wonder if you understand the difference between criticizing speech and suppressing it. Something tells me that, like Sarah Palin, you don’t.
"
So your answer was "It's OK to be racist if it's eschewing pc silliness." Got ya.
"
Bob, I’m not sure if you are just dodging Jason’s question, or if you answer is, “Because it ‘eschews pc silliness,’ racism is now a good thing.” Either way, nice job.
I have to say, while the Kenyan stuff is offensive and stupid, I don’t really mind the “commie dem” nonsense. It has the benefit of at the same time displaying your ignorance and making me laugh, which makes it a definite positive. I am, however, tempted to refer to Republicans/conservatives as fascist-repubs in any thread that you comment in. The label would, at the very least, be no less accurate than “commie-dems.”
On “So long, farewell, auf wiedersehn, adieu”
James, this kinda sucks, because I was happy to see that you (and Jason, though he transitioned earlier, and DAT, and Jon) were going to be exposed to a larger audience by moving here. One of my favorite things about the blogging you guys do is that the vast majority of your posts, regardless of whether they’re educational, or I agree or disagree, or really what my opinion of any particular post is at all, are incredibly conducive to discussion. The number of comments you guys got once you came here is evidence of that, as is the fact that, even with significantly fewer commenters over at Positive Liberty and The One Best Way (No, That Name Really Sucks), discussions often went into the hundreds of comments and lasted days, even a week or more, which is virtually unheard of in the blogging world. I liked having you guys all collected in one place, but that was simply because it made my life easier. But at least you’ll still be blogging.
On “Aggrieved libertarians”
Heidegger,
"A satellite campus of both MIT and CalTech." Man, you crack me up.
On “The Art of Letting Go”
Jason, I don't mean philosophically, I mean practically. We don't think like that, so that when we try to come up with minimal criteria like these, they can quickly be undercut by others. Nietzsche once said that he profits most from philosophers who live their philosophy. To my mind, the best way to "define" libertarianism, or any other ideological position, is simply to live it (in this case, I'd include writing it). Libertarianism is what libertarians say and do, and there's no one set of conditions that comprise that.
Also, I highly suspect that most people would say that their political party embodies those two principles, but the other one doesn't.
"
I suspect, nay, I’m quite certain that if you asked 100 conservatives/Republicans and 100 liberals/Democrats in the U.S. whether they agreed with your 1 and 2, that is, people are better at running their own lives than those of others and that coercion should be a last resort if at all, you’d find that 95 of each group did agree. This is partly because those two criteria are pretty abstract, vague even, but also because they seem like common sense. But when you build up from them, or around them, then you quickly find that the devil is in fact in the details, as 62across said, and that the resulting differences in interpretation, combined with inherent differences in world views, result in those 190 people being able to justify just about anything their favored political party does.
That doesn’t mean, or at least doesn’t necessarily mean, that those two things aren’t an important part of a political philosophy, just that they’re not very good candidates for a “mere” libertarian, or else just about everyone is a mere libertarian.
Not being a libertarian myself, I wouldn’t want to even attempt to define what one is, at either the minima or the maxima. I would, however, as someone who studies concepts, and who’s quite familiar with how we represent and use them, suggest that trying to distill libertarianism down to its essence is a losing cause, because like every other concept of this sort (that is to say, abstract, social, and human), an “essence” is probably not there to be found. It’s going to be a family resemblance sort of thing, with a label much better suited for reasoning about individuals or ideas than for rigid designation. This particularly true when, as for libertarianism, the abstract social construct we’re trying to define is itself built upon other abstract social constructs, which are in turn…
Of course, this lack of an identifiable essence to exactly the sort of perversion of the term, or at least unwanted use, both by opponents and seeming proponents, that leads to misunderstandings. It’s not surpsing, for example, that some see libertarians as being in favor of increased corporate power when there are visible individuals who use the label to describe themselves and act in such a way to increase corporate power. It’s also not surprising that some see libertarians as being selfish egoists, because of all the Randian crap that gets bandied about by some libertarians (I’ll leave aside whether they’re accurately reflecting Rand’s philosophy). I suppose you have two choices if you want to avoid association with the uses of the term libertarian that you find inapt: use a different term to describe yourself, which will at some point result in repeating the process for the same reasons, or if you think it’s important, work hard to point out why the particular views of libertarianism with which you disagree don’t apply to you. It sucks to have to do that regularly, but it is the price one pays for using a label, and it’s a price that’s paid all the more by people who use a label to describe themselves that most people wouldn’t. Jason and James obviously do this well, but I’m afraid that you’re both going to be doing it for a long, long time.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.