2
Bad Manners
We’re getting a lot of traffic from Reason’s Hit & Run blog in response to Travis’s latest and most-excellent Two-Minute Townhall. (Travis responds to H&R here.)
The guy who posted the link, Jacob Sollum, has a polite kvetch or two to convey and the commenters have seemed pretty nice so far. Which got me to thinking: why let that stop me from mocking them? Like a clown Luther, I stand holding a cream pie saying, “ich kann nicht anders.” And here’s where I lob it at our polite company:
From comments to Travis’s post:
The parody of Jacob Sullum might have been funny if he had ever argued in support of the Bush administration. Sullum’s a libertarian and libertarians are generally disgusted with this administration and its war overseas and at home on the privacy of U.S. citizens.
(My emphasis.)
Which libertarians? And what do you mean by “generally”? Why, I’m tempted to utter a catch phrase! Something like… Regretably, False! Sadly, No!
There’s the Reason endorsement of that noted privacy stalwart Samuel “All Your Uterus Are Belong To Us” Alito, which really pissed me off at the time.
Then there’s Reason’s position that police brutality against anti-war hippies is a real laff-riot subject. Bwahaha indeed, now let’s go shopping at Brooks Brothers!
And then there is the whole Matt Welch problem.
But maybe I’m being philosphically unfair as well as a rude host. Perhaps I should be more like my friend digamma, who considers the good stuff in Reason to be “libertarian” but the bad stuff, not.
Maybe. But then I’m a social democrat/greenie/scientific-realist type and agree with this characterization of a Reason article, so I can’t be as generous as all that.
Hmmm. A proposal. I’ll be inclined to be a much better host to libertarians if they promise to launch all their html ICBMs against Glenn Reynolds whenever he cranks up that “But I’m a Libertarian!” bullshit again. Deal?
Derelict said,
June 2, 2006 at 14:18
The vast bulk of people who today call themselves “libertarians” have no clue what the term means. For them, Libertarianism comes down to
1.) I must be allowed to own as many guns of all types as I want, and
2.) All taxation is theft.
This is not Libertarianism. Indeed, it’s not even a political philosophy. It’s simply a childish way of not thinking about the world or society. That’s why these “libertarians” have no problem whatever with someone like Alito–sure, he thinks that the government can trample all of your rights at any time for no reason. But he believes in unrestricted gun ownership and no taxes!
Retardo said,
June 2, 2006 at 14:31
Just to comment on The Poor Man link:
After writing this post I climbed into the time-machine and when I climbed out into the future — after humankind’s environmental impact had been mitigated either by technological innovation or de-evolution (both coming from government mandated-funded power, i.e. a socialistic remedy) — I saw that the laissez-faire globalwarming-denier crackpots were pretending, like many conservatives today with regard to the civil rights movement, to have been accomodating all along. To have recognised its ethical logic and moral imperative all along.
That’s how it’ll be with a lot of them while at they same time they’ll try more laissez-faire bullshit (”well, we fixed it, now we can let the energy companies self-regulate again!”).
Reactionaries, especially such fanatical ones, can never really change even as they take credit for that which they tried so hard to obstruct because reaction for them is as much a temperament as it is an ideology.
There’s an understandable branch of libertarianism; it’s put in such phrases as “leave me alone”, “toke it up, dude”, “My home is my castle”, “get the fuck off my land”, “would someone please arrest the jackasses who keep breaking into my house?”
Such a libertarianism is pragmatic and sensible. The problem is that libertarianism for some reason attracts the dogmatic. Therefore the movement as a whole lacks perspective. It recognises no heirarchy of rights, much less a heirarchy of property rights. For them there’s not much difference in a human’s ownership of a home or personal sentimental possession, and a corporation’s ownership of a chemical storage facility.
Nor do they recognise that person’s rights to put what they want in their body, to sleep with whomever (with consent), to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, to enjoy wholesale free speech and expression and assembly, etc, should be, and are, more protected, more inalienable (sic) than an *entity’s* “right” to, say, pollute at its leisure. But you can’t tell them that, because “freedom is freedom” and hippies who demand a cleaner earth and environmentally-friendly policy are just commie scumbags.
Hence, propertarians and propertarianism, de facto corporate whore-ism, “yay pollution is progress” and “global warming isn’t real!!!1!!”.
Heffer said,
June 2, 2006 at 14:52
What part of “please stop using violence against me and mine in order to lavish favors on you and yours” don’t you guys understand?
Clif said,
June 2, 2006 at 14:55
Uh, Heffer, that would be the “violence” part.
Mal de mer said,
June 2, 2006 at 14:55
God spare me from libertarians. Without exception, every one I’ve ever met is either simply too intellectually lazy to try and understand diversity of thought or is simply so solipsistic-it-borders-on-autism that you can’t help wonder whether they should be considered a danger to themselves, or others.
I’ve heard of a few “principled” libertarians, but they seem to engender a following that sensible people would consider embarrassing. I’m guessing embarrassment for libertarians is statist, or something.
Chadwick said,
June 2, 2006 at 15:04
Admirable restraint, Retardo- I find it difficult not to point out that Somalia is a libertarian paradise according to the faithful in these debates.
(Btw, how is that precious little “Free State” program going for them these days?)
Clif said,
June 2, 2006 at 15:18
Libertarians are nothing more than Republicans that like to smoke dope.
Clif said,
June 2, 2006 at 15:24
Commenter Timothy at Hit & Run came up with an even better and funnier “shorter” Sullum than my previous comment:
ChrisS said,
June 2, 2006 at 15:27
Libertarianism made sense when I was in 8th grade, and anarchy seemed to hold the attention of those rebellious junior high kids, as well. Then, well, then I grew up.
fish said,
June 2, 2006 at 16:11
Libertarianism made sense when I was in 8th grade
Yeah, so did Ayn Rand. But now? Sadly, No!
Dreamweasel said,
June 2, 2006 at 16:26
Calling oneself a Libertarian is the political analogue of saying, “But I’m really bisexual.”
Doghouse Riley said,
June 2, 2006 at 16:26
Libertarianism made sense when I was in 8th grade
That confirms the consensus around the Geriatric Ward, which is that the national debate is being conducted by a ninth grade civics class on a particularly hot day one week from the end of school. And all because Ronald Reagan ran for president for sixteen years, and then was proclaimed a miracle worker when times grew bad enough for him to be elected.
Children in their formative years should be kept away from anything or anyone purporting to have all the answers. The people I know who became libertarians in college generally got over it halfway through Atlas Shrugged or after the world punched ‘em in the nose once or twice. But at 12 or 13 it’s like the first girl to grant you a feel under her blouse but over the bra: even if there’s nothing there you may wind up chasing the thrill for the rest of your life.
Mal de mer said,
June 2, 2006 at 16:42
I credit a very decent high school education for bringing Ayn Rand to my attention very early in life. When I was 16 (1978), an inexplicable fad swept through the small, backwoods town I lived in at the time where everybody was reading The Fountainhead and was becoming delirious with dialectical epiphanies. The English teacher I had at the time (the French teachers reject Ayn Rand out-of-hand) decided, on his own (he had that kind of freedom) to assign The Fountainhead. After a month-long healthy debate about the pros and cons of hero-worship, objective reality, flawed or damaged personalities and cultism, everyone pretty much came to the conclusion that a person as old and experienced (and dead) as Ayn Rand probably merits a very critical approach.
And that was the end of that.
JeremÃas said,
June 2, 2006 at 16:49
Foolish leftos. You too will embrace libertarianism when you realize it is the only political philosophy in the history of state societies that approaches public power skeptically and critically.
Mal de mer said,
June 2, 2006 at 16:51
Oops. Ayn Rand wasn’t dead in 1978. Although, in a sense, she was.
Chadwick said,
June 2, 2006 at 17:01
Foolish leftos. You too will embrace libertarianism when you realize it is the only political philosophy in the history of state societies that approaches public power skeptically and critically.
As evidenced by Glenn Reynolds and the Reason Boys (inc. Cathy “Moral Equivalence” Young) fellating a sitting president.
Maybe it’s time we changed the “No True Scotsman” fallacy to the “No True Libertarian” fallacy.
Ryan said,
June 2, 2006 at 17:04
Libertarian thinking was corrupted by Ayn Rand and her very selfish philosophy. Original libertarianism advocated for small, limited, but effective government - it is less able to infringe our rights, but still able to provide necessary services (universal health care, national defense, education, etc).
Real libertarianism promotes women’s rights (oh noes!), personal responsibility (oh noes!), and respect for the lives and rights of all others (oh noes!). Those three things right there disqualify the majority of conservatives from claiming to be libertarian.
I’d guess that most libertarians are neo-conservative on foreign policy and ultra-conservative on social issues, but Reaganomic on economic issues, so they claim they’re libertarian in order to feel better about themselves.
Mal de mer said,
June 2, 2006 at 17:13
The real joke about libertarianism, as well-intentioned as its roots may be, is that libertarians would have to employ statist measures to prevent non-libertarians from organising socially, for the purpose…*gasp*…of forming a state.
Hence, the conundrum…and the ideological vacuity that libertarianism (at heart, primitivism) really is.
Sexy Sadie said,
June 2, 2006 at 19:29
Libertarianism is the political party for people who don’t like people.
Andrew A. Gill, SLS said,
June 2, 2006 at 20:11
Hmmm. A proposal. I’ll be inclined to be a much better host to libertarians if they promise to launch all their html ICBMs against Glenn Reynolds whenever he cranks up that “But I’m a Libertarian!” bullshit again. Deal?
According to your deal, I’d have to read Reynolds. No dice.
kiche said,
June 2, 2006 at 20:20
a libertarian is what a republican calls himself when he wants to get laid.
that being said, i’ve never encountered a “real” libertarian. most libertarians are of the glenn reynolds “i hate taxes, kill the muslims” variety. in never fails to amaze me how “anti-tax libertarians” seem to not realize that, well, wars cost money, A LOT OF MONEY. and that money comes from taxes. in the run up to the iraq debacle all the libertarians i knew were cheerleading this disaster because “iraq’s oil would pay for the war”. this was delusional and A REPUBLICAN PARTY TALKING POINT. so much for “libertarianism”. i will take libertarians seriously when they start to purge conservatives from their movement. may i suggest starting in the pages of reason magazine. the flagship “libertarian” intellectual magazine. a magazine in which you can regularly read conservatives expressing disdain for the rights and liberties of the individual.
joe said,
June 2, 2006 at 20:26
Hi, I’m joe. You’ll probably see my comments in the in the Hit & Run comments threads because I’m a liberal who likes to argue with smart people who disagree with me, and I’m sure as hell not going to find them at any right-wing blogs. So I argue with the libertoids instead. It’s kind of fun - I’m usually outnumbered about ten to one, so it’s a fair fight. :-)
Anyway, I’ve been observing the species for a long time, and I think you’re way off to conflate Reasonoids with Republicans, or accuse them of carrying water for Bush. Certainly, there are the Reynoldses and Volokhs who latch onto the term so they can be Republicans and still stand a chance of having sex once or twice a decade, but the Reasonoids are the real deal. Some of them, like Julian Sanchez or Matt Welch, could even be said to be vaguely leftish.
Which is not to say you shouldnl’t beat up on them, their silly ideas, and their appalling intellectual inconsistency. But to accuse Jacob Sullum, who keeps writing books with the theme “End the drug war because drugs never hurt nobody” of being an authoritarian conservative is just plain silly.
khonsu said,
June 2, 2006 at 20:30
I thought Libertarianism sort of stemmed from taking Nozick’s writings to heart, while borrowing Mills’ good ideas and running with them, all while. I don’t agree with paternalism either, but how in the HELL did they decide property is the be-all-end-all?
ljm said,
June 2, 2006 at 20:42
As the post is in response to my initial response, I should respond!
It’s disingenuous to say that Reason “endorsed” Alioto. Some Reason writers liked him, some didn’t. Your link goes to one opinion of one Reason writer.
Your link that purports to show “Reason’s position that police brutality against anti-war hippies is a real laff-riot subject” shows nothing of the kind. It shows protesters being arrested, none of whom are being brutalized. It even makes fun of the cops for the reasons they’re arresting the protesters. You’ll find Reason has little patience for police overstepping their authority. Your accusation is dishonest, plain and simple.
Then Matt Welch has the gaul, the temerity to voice an opinion of the war in Iraq that doesn’t include opposing it.
If anyone here (and there may be some of you) actually bothered to read the articles at Reason, you’ll find plenty, and I mean plenty, of harsh criticism of Bush et al for a variety of reasons. Probably less than 5% of the regular posters at their entertaining and educational blog, Hit ‘N’ Run, defend the Bush administration for anything. Most are disgusted by the war and the dishonesty behind it. There are regular Democrats there, too, who defend the party vigorously and reasonably.
People with libertarian beliefs (as opposed to “Libertarians,” who may or may not actually exist) are just like liberals and conservatives in that some are honest and some are dishonest. Some are reflective and some are reflexive.
The reflexive response I’ve seen here to libertarian beliefs is not unlike the kind of thinking one sees at Town Hall or Free Republic. It’s utterly reflexive, cartoonish (yes, libertarians want to abolish all taxes and see poor people suffer! of course!), and unconstructive.
I, myself, don’t consider myself to be a libertarian. I share some beliefs of people who do, but then I also share some beliefs of Democrats, and I think the Democratic party is just as useless and disingenuous as the Republican party.
chucklehead said,
June 2, 2006 at 20:49
It’s funny how those links to Reason’s “endorsement” and “position” don’t actually link to Reason.
GILMORE said,
June 2, 2006 at 20:51
Glad to see you all educating each other on something none of you seem to have the first clue about. Good luck with that.
You can characterize a position as “libertarian” from any end of the political spectrum. It’s a vertical axis, not horizontal. Statism vs. Individual rights. It’s basically summed up in the Bill of Rights, probably the most libertarian document on earth. You can be left wing and totalitarian, like Castro, or right wing and totalitarian, like El Duce… same with left wing/right wing anti-statist. And anti-statism isnt the same anarchism, as some latch on to. It’s the belief that there are clearly defined limits on the role of government. That the government can’t legislate indescriminately any area… a la this kind of thing. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/02/washington/02records.html Those amendments are there for a purpose..
But of course, you all would understand this if you took the time to read Reason, rather than carp like a bunch of teenagers in a basement going,”yeah, jocks/nerds/goths are such dicks”.
Lastly, there’s a difference between using the term as a noun vs an adjective. I’m not sure you guys grasp the difference there. You can describe anarcho-capitalists as ‘libertarian’, but that doesnt make them ‘Libertarian’… like the difference between democratic, and Democrat?
“Libertarians are republicans who smoke dope”? Perhaps. You could also say they’re democrats who passed Economics class.
Cheers,
JG
ljm said,
June 2, 2006 at 21:01
JG said it much better than I did. Thanks, JG.
Evan said,
June 2, 2006 at 21:02
Could at least one of you bothered to at least skim through some of Reason’s articles?
Sadly, No!
Mal de mer said,
June 2, 2006 at 21:06
You can characterize a position as “libertarian� from any end of the political spectrum. It’s a vertical axis, not horizontal.
I stopped here. Pasty probably got even worse, but the prissy tone and Klonopin-induced hallucinations are really not the kind of drama I find enjoyable.
Evan said,
June 2, 2006 at 21:08
Yikes. The more I read, the more I am amazed. First, the Sadly, No! folks make a big fat error by assigning typical Townhall values to a writer whose columns happen to be syndicated there. Then, after being called out on their horseshit, they cherry-pick even MORE horseshit, most not even from Sullum himself, and none actually within the Reason site itself, as a defense of aforementioned big fat error. Yes, yes, dig your hole ever deeper.
Just admit that you fucked up big time, and were too lazy to actually verify the facts.
The comments here are even better…let’s bash libertarians with tired old quips, because it makes us all feel better about our own insecure political beliefs…ahhh, that’s better…
Travis G. said,
June 2, 2006 at 21:08
I think the Democratic party is just as useless and disingenuous as the Republican party.
A-ha! That’s it! I know you say you’re not a libertarian, ljm, and I have no reason not to take you at your word, but I’m going to use your comment to illustrate the point I’ve been groping at all morning. (In other words, humor me.)
At one point during the writing process, the shorter I’d written for this week’s Sullum column was, “As a libertarian, I believe it’s all bullshit, anyways.” I abandoned it because it was too vague, but it I wish I’d kept whittling away at it. Like a lot of liberals, I share some core values with libertarians. But, ultimately, every time I argue Democrat-vs.-Republican politics with a libertarian, we’ll eventually reach a point where he’ll throw up his hands and make some variation on the theme that all politicians are crooked and whaddya gonna do?
And that dismissive cynicism is what I find so maddening about libertarians.
chucklehead said,
June 2, 2006 at 21:13
Yeah, the truth hurts.
GILMORE said,
June 2, 2006 at 21:15
Mal de mer said = “Klonopin-induced hallucinations are really not the kind of drama I find enjoyable”…
…whatever that means..
Here, try this for visual aid.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
You have to get to the end of the thing to see an example, or else click on the ‘composers’ example here http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/composers.php
Jeez, you wouldnt think i’d have to draw you a picture..
Derelict said,
June 2, 2006 at 21:21
ljm and JG–Your defense is noted, but most of us are stuck with the self-described Libertarians we see, talk with, and know from day to day. I have several friends who are proud Libertarians–and their entire political philosophy comes down to “I want guns and I don’t want to pay any taxes.” (Although, to be fair, one of those people also advocates mass genocide of muslims.)
Meanwhile, we look at Reason over the last six years and we notice very, very few hard-edged dissents from the Bush agenda. Instead, we see much euphoria over the tax cuts, and a general hard-right lean. And precious little notice of the evisceration of civil liberties.
ljm said,
June 2, 2006 at 21:23
And that dismissive cynicism is what I find so maddening about libertarians.
Well, that’s something I can understand. I have to fight that cynicism in myself. But I don’t dismiss all politicians out of hand, without knowing their record. Once I know their record, THEN I dismiss them! I kid. I vote in every election, sometimes for Democrats, sometimes for Republicans, but I vote. And I write letters.
But it’s hard not to be cynical when the Democrats talk about Hillary Clinton (anti-flag burning, anti-video game, pro-drug war, pro-death penalty, pro-Patriot Act, war-powers voting Hillary Clinton) as being a possible candidate in ‘08. Two politicians I respect are Russ Feingold and Ron Paul. I disagree with both of them a lot of the time, but they’re honest and aren’t afraid to disagree strongly with their parties. But the parties reject them because the simply are not interested in honestly trying to make government work better, but rather stay in power. I wish everyone would reject both parties until they start to stand for something other than, “we’re not the other guys!”
Evan said,
June 2, 2006 at 21:24
Travis,
First, why do you find it so maddening? What if I asked you to choose between the Third Reich and Al Qaeda as your leaders?
Second, you are again being disingenuous when you say “every time I argue…” Either that, or you happen to be talking to the same 1 or 2 libertarians all the time. Browse through the Reason archives. Look at the articles, and the comment threads @ H&R. Yes, there will be a good amount of “they both suck”, but there will also be many nuanced, in-depth discussions of the issues at hand—and I’m talking, the actual parts and pieces of the issue, rather than just “The Democratic Side” vs “The Republican Side”. Just because you can’t peg libertarians down, it pisses you off. Cry me a river. Sometimes, life is hard, and sometimes, people discuss issues in terms other than partisan affiliation. If that makes your head hurt, oh well. Reason has a whole site that disproves your little “What’re you gonna do?” quip.
Lastly, I find it amusing (and sad, actually) that you criticise libertarians for not shacking up with a particular political party, but then you criticise Sullum and others for SUPPOSEDLY shacking up with the Right. So, the right is unacceptable. Neither is unacceptable. Apparently, according to you, the only “acceptable” position is yours.
You were lazy. Your backpedaling, obfuscating, grasping-for-straws reply is, well, pathetic.
Evan said,
June 2, 2006 at 21:28
Derelict:
“I have several friends who are proud Libertarians–and their entire political philosophy comes down to “I want guns and I don’t want to pay any taxes.â€?
Your friends notwithstanding, it’s irresponsible and lazy to ascribe this narrow justification to all libertarians—and then go so far as the claim that you’re “stuck” with said lazy justification.
In other words, your friend’s reasons for being libertarians make an easier target than, say, principled ones like LJM and JG presented, so, you’re “stuck” with them. No, you’re sticking with them because it makes them easier to dismiss.
“Meanwhile, we look at Reason over the last six years and we notice very, very few hard-edged dissents from the Bush agenda.”
Yes, and 5+5=3. Look, it’s one thing to be lazy, Derelict, but it’s quite another to just outright lie. Then again, if you have to lie to make your point, well, there’s probably not much point arguing with you in the first place.
Mal de mer said,
June 2, 2006 at 21:33
First, why do you find it so maddening? What if I asked you to choose between the Third Reich and Al Qaeda as your leaders?
Wow, that’s not only libertarian, it’s glibertarian.
It’s probably maddening because nihilism, cynicism and inaction are not solutions to anything. It’s just whining, which seems to be plaguing the affluent pretty badly lately.
Is GILMORE a bot, btw?
jpj said,
June 2, 2006 at 21:37
Wait a minute, Evan claims that the choice between the Democratic and Republican parties is equivalent to a choice between “the Third Reich and Al Qaeda as your leaders?” and then accuses Travis of “obfuscating” and “grasping-for-straws”???
Perhaps he can point to a particular article in the vaunted Reason archive that clearly shows that the US politics are no different from Germany under Hitler or Afghanistan under the Taliban.
And here we all are thinking libertarian thinkers are unrealistic, pie-in-the-sky utopians rather than clear-headed political realists.
Matt Tievsky said,
June 2, 2006 at 21:38
“Both parties suck” is “nihilism, cynicism, and inaction”?
To the contrary, it can (and does) lead a libertarian to take one of many paths: vote for the lesser of the two evils; vote for a third party; abstain from direct political action, as a form of protest; and then, yeah, there’s the “throw your hands up and say ‘it’s all bullshit’ approach,” because not everyone thinks politics is the sum of all life.
Jesse said,
June 2, 2006 at 21:38
Then you’re lying with your claim that you “look(ed) at Reason over the last six years”.
Evan said,
June 2, 2006 at 21:38
“It’s probably maddening because nihilism, cynicism and inaction are not solutions to anything.”
No, they’re not. Nobody said they were. Just because you wish to ascribe those qualities to libertarianism in general doesn’t mean they’re correct or valid.
The funny thing about this whole flame war is that most of you commenters are fervently attacking this big Straw Man Libertarian that you’ve built up in your mind. And the possibility that any libertarian might venture from this preconceived Straw Man just confounds your whole criticism of libertarianism, so you just keep repeating the same tired old shit over and over again.
Travis G. said,
June 2, 2006 at 21:39
It’s probably maddening because nihilism, cynicism and inaction are not solutions to anything.
Yes. (Now that is lazy writing.)
zach said,
June 2, 2006 at 21:45
Very clever idea. Seizing on a sentence and characterizing that as someone’s entire political position. I am going to re-post the important part of Evan’s comment, because a simple “go back and read the whole thing” obviously will not fly with this crowd.
Yes, there will be a good amount of “they both suck�, but there will also be many nuanced, in-depth discussions of the issues at hand—and I’m talking, the actual parts and pieces of the issue, rather than just “The Democratic Side� vs “The Republican Side�. Just because you can’t peg libertarians down, it pisses you off. Cry me a river. Sometimes, life is hard, and sometimes, people discuss issues in terms other than partisan affiliation. If that makes your head hurt, oh well. Reason has a whole site that disproves your little “What’re you gonna do?� quip.
Of course, his main point calls for more reading. So I don’t know why I’m wasting my time.
ljm said,
June 2, 2006 at 21:46
Meanwhile, we look at Reason over the last six years and we notice very, very few hard-edged dissents from the Bush agenda. Instead, we see much euphoria over the tax cuts, and a general hard-right lean. And precious little notice of the evisceration of civil liberties.
Then I submit you haven’t really looked at Reason at all. A minute of searching and I find these articles, all critical of the Bush agenda.
http://www.reason.com/links/links111504.shtml
http://www.reason.com/links/links090403.shtml
http://www.reason.com/links/links090203.shtml
http://www.reason.com/links/links122704.shtml
http://www.reason.com/links/links011005.shtml
http://www.reason.com/0206/fe.bd.john.shtml
http://www.reason.com/0206/fe.bd.watching.shtml
Warren said,
June 2, 2006 at 21:46
But, ultimately, every time I argue Democrat-vs.-Republican politics with a Democrat or Republican, we’ll eventually reach a point where he’ll throw up his hands and make some variation on the theme that the other team sucks.
And that ‘our guy’s farts smell like roses’ habit is what’s so maddening about establishment pawns.
ljm said,
June 2, 2006 at 21:46
Meanwhile, we look at Reason over the last six years and we notice very, very few hard-edged dissents from the Bush agenda. Instead, we see much euphoria over the tax cuts, and a general hard-right lean. And precious little notice of the evisceration of civil liberties.
Then I submit you haven’t really looked at Reason at all. A minute of searching and I find these articles, all critical of the Bush agenda.
http://www.reason.com/links/links111504.shtml
http://www.reason.com/links/links090403.shtml
joshua corning said,
June 2, 2006 at 21:48
Like a lot of liberals, I share some core values with libertarians. But, ultimately, every time I argue Democrat-vs.-Republican politics with a libertarian, we’ll eventually reach a point where he’ll throw up his hands and make some variation on the theme that all politicians are crooked and whaddya gonna do?
And that dismissive cynicism is what I find so maddening about libertarians.
We would appoligize for not hating who you hate as much as you hate them or liking who you like as much as you do but then that would just be a hollow appology wouldn’t it.
ljm said,
June 2, 2006 at 21:48
Meanwhile, we look at Reason over the last six years and we notice very, very few hard-edged dissents from the Bush agenda. Instead, we see much euphoria over the tax cuts, and a general hard-right lean. And precious little notice of the evisceration of civil liberties.
Then I submit you haven’t really looked at Reason at all. A minute of searching and I find these articles, all critical of the Bush agenda.
(I’ll post them one at a time, because I tried to put them all in one and the post was flagged, understandably.)
http://www.reason.com/links/links111504.shtml
ljm said,
June 2, 2006 at 21:49
Meanwhile, we look at Reason over the last six years and we notice very, very few hard-edged dissents from the Bush agenda. Instead, we see much euphoria over the tax cuts, and a general hard-right lean. And precious little notice of the evisceration of civil liberties.
Then I submit you haven’t really looked at Reason at all. A minute of searching and I find many articles, all critical of the Bush agenda. I tried to post links, but I wasn’t allowed to.
Matt Tievsky said,
June 2, 2006 at 21:50
I’m a libertarian and a common reader of Reason, and this all seems pretty simple to me: Travis implied that Sullum is a deep down Bush/Republican supporter, which is clearly false if you follow what he writes. It’s a mistake he made by assuming everyone falls into one of two political categories.
Renato’s defense is pretty poor. He doesn’t even cite anything Sullum wrote–just other Reason writers–and he doesn’t actually cite any endorsements of Bush/Republican policies. Those do exist, of course, but you can find at least as much opposition to those policies on Reason. Though what you should look at is Sullum, not everyone else.
Travis’s defense on his blog is also pretty poor: “[Sullum's] arguments are usually so tepidly advanced or buried deep within his columns that it takes a couple of readings to discern exactly where he stands. That cautious subtlety is the aspect of his writing that I’ve chosen to highlight through mockery.” The Sullum column that started this whole tiff had this subtitle: “Is the NSA’s phone call database legal because the president says so?” How can Travis be serious that “it takes a couple of readings to discern exactly where [Sullum] stands”?
ian said,
June 2, 2006 at 21:50
derelict said:
“Meanwhile, we look at Reason over the last six years and we notice very, very few hard-edged dissents from the Bush agenda. Instead, we see much euphoria over the tax cuts, and a general hard-right lean. And precious little notice of the evisceration of civil liberties.”
it would be great if you could provide some links to show this…esp the part about not caring about civil liberties
Evan said,
June 2, 2006 at 21:52
JPJ,
I see that you’ve never heard of hyperbole-for-effect. In the event that you’re actually that dense, and not (as I suspect) just trying to latch on the chinks in the armor, allow me to explain: I was not asserting that the left & right are like Hitler & Osama - I was asserting that both are undesirable, so I refuse to make a choice between two undesireables.
“And here we all are thinking libertarian thinkers are unrealistic, pie-in-the-sky utopians rather than clear-headed political realists.”
And here I was thinking that the people reading this were at leats marginally intelligent, and could understand the point I was trying to make, rather than reflexively misconstruing it.
Evan said,
June 2, 2006 at 21:54
Yeah, Ian, I gotta wonder how someone could actually type the words “And precious little notice of the evisceration of civil liberties” with regards to Reason (care to name any site on the web who cares MORE about civil rights??) and then hit the ‘Submit Comment’ button, without being just a little bit insane.
GILMORE said,
June 2, 2006 at 21:55
Derelict said =
“We look at Reason over the last six years and we notice very, very few hard-edged dissents from the Bush agenda…and precious little notice of the evisceration of civil liberties.”
?!?!?
You have got. to. be. kidding… this is either some other magazine you’re talking about…or you’re just willfully making stuff up??
jesus mary mother of god. start with these! You dont have to look far
Sullum on liberties = http://www.reason.com/sullum/052406.shtml
Editorial staff all over the NSA story http://www.reason.com/hod/nsa051206.shtml
Gillespie being pilloried as a “liberal” for criticing GOP immigration insanity http://www.reason.com/gillespie/interview050506.shtml
More civil liberties concerns http://www.reason.com/links/links042506.shtml
MORE more civil liberties http://www.reason.com/0604/co.rb.rant.shtml
Want civil liberties? try, MORE http://www.reason.com/sullum/042606.shtml
Criticism of the victim politics of the religious right http://www.reason.com/cy/cy040406.shtml
More making fun of Bush http://www.reason.com/links/links051606.shtml
Dude…. thats whats on the *homepage*. Theres also an archive….and the blog…which are *bottomless pits* of ‘dissent against the admin’ and ‘defense of civil liberties’.
So, you want to try and rephrase that comment?
JG
ljm said,
June 2, 2006 at 21:58
Meanwhile, we look at Reason over the last six years and we notice very, very few hard-edged dissents from the Bush agenda. Instead, we see much euphoria over the tax cuts, and a general hard-right lean. And precious little notice of the evisceration of civil liberties.
Then I submit you haven’t really looked at Reason at all. A minute of searching and I find many articles, all critical of the Bush agenda. I tried to post links, but I wasn’t allowed to. Maybe they’ll show up later. But as other posters have said and clearly demonstrated, the characterization of Sullum as a Bush supporter or Reason as a supporter of Bush policy has been disingenuous from the start.
GILMORE said,
June 2, 2006 at 22:04
Mal de mer said,
Is GILMORE a bot, btw?
If by “bot”, you mean, “guy who has to explain very simple political concepts (like that there is more than one dimension to political theiry other than “left/right”) to you”…
…then yes, you caught me.
JG
Matt Tievsky said,
June 2, 2006 at 22:10
Whoops, I wrote “Renato” for some reason when I meant “Retardo.” Guess I was being a bit retardo myself.
Julian Sanchez said,
June 2, 2006 at 22:13
“Meanwhile, we look at Reason over the last six years and we notice very, very few hard-edged dissents from the Bush agenda. Instead, we see much euphoria over the tax cuts, and a general hard-right lean. And precious little notice of the evisceration of civil liberties.”
There is just no way anyone who had actually looked at the last six years of Reason could write that with a straight face.
Mal de mer said,
June 2, 2006 at 22:22
To the contrary, it can (and does) lead a libertarian to take one of many paths: vote for the lesser of the two evils; vote for a third party; abstain from direct political action, as a form of protest; and then, yeah, there’s the “throw your hands up and say ‘it’s all bullshit’ approach,� because not everyone thinks politics is the sum of all life.
Sorry, Democracy isn’t just about voting, and people who think other people believe politics is the sum of all life don’t really grasp politics.
I’ve never argued very long in person with a libertarian because the evidence of having only a superficial grasp of democracy (lack of activism of any kind, evidence of very little reading on the subject, a certain disdain for ’stupid people’, etc.) is all too evident for me and I point that out quickly.
Online, it’s simply hopeless. Glibertarians think solipsism and talking a lot is substantial activity. Where they get this bizarre notion is a mystery. I think it has a lot to do with affluence.
Pinko Punko said,
June 2, 2006 at 22:25
JG I think means “libertarian equals Objectivist Munchwagon”
Hey, loafnuggets, since you have such a hard time explaining what it is you really are about, why not advertise it? Could it be that it is so steeped in sociopathic longing for a “perfect” society based on the Reason of Likeminded Solons who are actually infantile chumpwads?
Of course, I’m just paraphrasing.
joshua corning said,
June 2, 2006 at 22:26
Online, it’s simply hopeless. Glibertarians think solipsism and talking a lot is substantial activity. Where they get this bizarre notion is a mystery. I think it has a lot to do with affluence.
you forgot about the money….we are a free market sort so instead of actually going out and being active we prefer to just pay someone else to do it for us. :)
By the way reason takes donations…cato does to…same with the aclu and the eff
zach said,
June 2, 2006 at 22:26
I think it has a lot to do with affluence.
That would be nice…
Jesse Walker said,
June 2, 2006 at 22:29
There is just no way anyone who had actually looked at the last six years of Reason could write that with a straight face.
Sure they can, Julian. You just have to remember that “very, very few hard-edged dissents from the Bush agenda” is a code phrase for “tons of sharp-edged criticism of Bush and his agenda,” “precious little notice of the evisceration of civil liberties” is code for “extensive coverage of the evisceration of civil liberties, with much more criticism than has been offered by most leading Democratic politicians,” and “much euphoria over the tax cuts” is code for “some references here and there to the tax cuts, some of them generally positive, but with an understanding that they don’t mean much without spending restraint.”
Jesse said,
June 2, 2006 at 22:33
I’ve never argued very long in person with a libertarian because the evidence of having only a superficial grasp of democracy (lack of activism of any kind, evidence of very little reading on the subject, a certain disdain for ’stupid people’, etc.) is all too evident for me and I point that out quickly.
Whereas Mal de Mer is the sort of person who would never exude disdain for “stupid people.” And I can’t imagine him talking about a subject — say, libertarianism — that he’s done very little reading on.
MCH said,
June 2, 2006 at 22:47
Ouch. AS much as it pains me to say it, the S,N! team (the big boys and the peanut gallery, that is), while certainly on the scoreboard, seems to be taking a bit of a drubbing here.
“Seems” because I haven’t read Reason and thus cannot confirm whether they are principled libertarians or self-mislabeled hacks. (The possibly-unrepresentative sample of their writings [and those of other self-identified libertarians] often displayed in my local rag’s op-eds leans towards the latter, sadly.) But some of the blanket statements on libertarians seem equivalent to the “Charlie Sheen represents the left” sentiments from another post.
That said, one could reasonably go on to say that some seem to be taking Teh Snark a bit too seriously.
‘Tis been a cringeworthy dustup.
GILMORE said,
June 2, 2006 at 22:47
Affluence?
Gee, wow, that’s insightful. And maybe it’s *class* too….or maybe *gender*…or!Race!…. (you see, my liberal arts degree-of-truth allows me to see through all!)
Or maybe it’s just that you seem to need to find some simple, alternate explanation why other people who ARENT right-wingers find your posture hopelessly naive.
…and whats funniest is that this all discussion erupted over your misinterpretation of Sullum’s position on a topic we actually all AGREE on :) That the NSA hath crossed the line…
But - forgive me - let’s not start having a discussion with any substance *now*…
peace, and a fond farewell.
your bot
JG
Rimfax said,
June 2, 2006 at 22:54
Reason’s non-endorsements of Alito.
Reason’s gripes and accolades for Glenn Reynolds.
You certainly seem to “agree with this characterization of a Reason article” far more than you disagree with any actual Reason articles themselves. Have you ever even read any of this stuff or do you just read the Cliff’s notes from other blogs?
Warren said,
June 2, 2006 at 22:56
Meanwhile, we look at Reason over the last six years and we notice very, very few hard-edged dissents from the Bush agenda. Instead, we see much euphoria over the tax cuts, and a general hard-right lean. And precious little notice of the evisceration of civil liberties
O RLY?
Let’s take a look at, oh I don’t know, say the last six months of Reason cover stories
THE POLITICS OF SKY-HIGH HOUSE PRICES How the government jacks up the price of your home
“MISSION ACCOMPLISHED,” THREE YEARS LATER Iraq’s Troubled Present and Haunted Future
PEAK OIL PANIC Are we running out of oil? What should Bush do about it?
The Agony of American Education How per-student funding can revolutionize public schools
ARE WE READY FOR THE NEXT 9/11? The sorry state-and wasteful spending-of the Department of Homeland Security
AMERICA’S CRIMINAL IMMIGRATION POLICY How U.S. law punishes hard work and fractures families
So two expressly critical articles of Bush, one ambiguous. An exposition of sound education policy based on libertarian principals. An examination of housing costs that does indeed touch upon taxation, amongst other things. And a libertarian defense of open borders more principled and radical than any Democrat could support.
Ignorance is one thing, stupidity another, but dishonesty is unforgivable.
yaphet kotto said,
June 2, 2006 at 23:00
Just wait in four years, the Dems will be in naitonal power and the Repubs will be sidelined, and ALL the roles will reverse:
-Dems will fight against civil liberties (ala neo-Echelon of neo-Clinton) and Repubs will be the ones who are frightened about “privacy”…
-Dems will start another war somewhere against some decrepit state the needs “humanitarian help” (ala Kosovo), while the Repubs will rail for isolationism…
–Dems and Repubs believe in “values”, and so while Repubs get all frazzled about gay marriage the Dems will get all huffy video game violence or something else Timmy is doing that is violent
And of course things will stay the same
-Dems will still join hands with Repubs to fight the terrible drug war, and die-hard liberals still won’t give a damn because the 60’s counterculture was so long ago to matter and somebody’s gotta do something about Timmy smoking the Reefer!
-Dems will join Repubs to increase farm subsidies for “family farms”, and the developing world will be screwed by our subsidized grains and tariffs…
-Dems will join Repubs in gaming the market for Big Oil via giving tax breaks and other perks to oil companies for “national security” or being “green” or some other regulatory bs, thus raising the floor of entry for smaller oil companies…
-Dems and Repubs fight against them fereigners taking our jerbs!, whether globalization or immigration. Chuck Schumer and Tom Tancredo, I’m looking at you…
-Russ Feingold and John McCain will have a make-out session over having a re-vamped McCain-Feingold bill, that will once and for all eliminate any challenges to tenure for incumbants via placing a cap on all that harmful speech in that thar internet…
And liberals will still wonder why libertarians don’t drink the Kool-Aid…
Mal de mer said,
June 2, 2006 at 23:02
Whereas Mal de Mer is the sort of person who would never exude disdain for “stupid people.� And I can’t imagine him talking about a subject — say, libertarianism — that he’s done very little reading on.
What are you? Nine? I don’t have disdain for ’stupid people,’ although it’s true I don’t suffer fools all that well…especially since March 2003. As for reading about libertarianism, I’ve read enough to come to the conclusion that it’s basically utopian and dismisses the fact that humans are, fundamentally, social animals, regardless of the fact that we take actions as individuals.
Let me say that I respect other people’s choice to call themselves libertarians (if it is, in fact, a choice, and not some cop-out). But that doesn’t mean I have to agree with or even respect libertarianism, which I find fundamentally flawed.
joshua corning said,
June 2, 2006 at 23:10
I’ve read enough to come to the conclusion that it’s basically utopian and dismisses the fact that humans are, fundamentally, social animals, regardless of the fact that we take actions as individuals.
If we are fundementally social animals why on earth do we need governement to set up social systems and institutions?
especially considering that small groups setting up social systems and institutions are far more apt at adjusting to change and inovating.
I think you are confusing government with sociaty and culture.
yaphet kotto said,
June 2, 2006 at 23:16
[i]As for reading about libertarianism, I’ve read enough to come to the conclusion that it’s basically utopian and dismisses the fact that humans are, fundamentally, social animals, regardless of the fact that we take actions as individuals.[/i]
Which is why I will never be a liberal, because they will always insist that YOU TOO are a social animal and must join the herd, and that bag of Lays and the Little Debbie snack cake is bad for you and the tribe and so must be taxed for your own good, or how about all that money you made building your own buisness, I mean you took on your own risk and whatnot, but people NEED and so we’ll be taking that money from you and your children’s inheritance for your own good, and guns may be ok by the Constitution but that was a different time and you’ll put your eye out, oh not to forget how Nancy Pelosi made a really good comment on how eminent domain can help the whole town if city snags your home so we can build our friends chain of Wal-Mart because that builds up our tax base while you need to suck it up since you are a social animal…
And liberals will still sit while the drug war burns on…
emme said,
June 2, 2006 at 23:17
“As for reading about libertarianism, I’ve read enough to come to the conclusion that it’s basically utopian”
Utopian? How so? I’ve always thought that the libertarian attitude was while markets may not be perfect it’s naive to think a central planner could do a better job. To me that libertarian line of thinking seem anti-utopic.
Rimfax said,
June 2, 2006 at 23:21
quoth Mal de mer:
I feel so respected. Can we hug now?
tigrismus said,
June 2, 2006 at 23:21
Jesus, Travis whiffing a snarky Shorter regarding Sullum engenders the most earnestly dull thread in the history of the site. Libertarians, toss us a bone here: some word play or wisecrackery, please! I demand Nonsense from the readers of Reason.
Jesse said,
June 2, 2006 at 23:25
So you don’t have disdain for “stupid people.” You just respond to criticisms with comments like “What are you? Nine?” OK.
If you’ve “read enough” libertarian literature “to come to the conclusion that it…dismisses the fact that humans are, fundamentally, social animals,” you haven’t read much libertarian literature. The fact that we’re social animals is one of the most basic assumptions in the work of F.A. Hayek, Herbert Spencer, Adam Smith, and other not-so-obscure libertarian and classical liberal writers. One thinker revered among libertarians, Albert Jay Nock, practically frames his whole political worldview around the distinction between “social power” and “state power.” There may be some teenage Randites and moss-eating survivalists out there who think society is a myth, but most libertarian thought is all about social cooperation.
zach said,
June 2, 2006 at 23:25
I feel so respected. Can we hug now?
Sorry Rimfax, you have been deemd by the Personal Choice Oversight Commission to actually have copped out and not made an actual choice, so your choosing abilities are temporarily suspended, feel free to appeal.
Mal de mer said,
June 2, 2006 at 23:26
Go hug The Cato Institute, glibertarian scum. ;)
That’s what true liberalism (and respect) is. You agree to live and let live and that your beliefs are your own to have….you don’t agree that you have to like everything.
Mal de mer said,
June 2, 2006 at 23:28
So you don’t have disdain for “stupid people.� You just respond to criticisms with comments like “What are you? Nine?� OK.
It wasn’t the criticism I was reacting to…it was the passive-aggression, which I find generally manipulative and migraine-inducing.
Very much like glibertarians, to tell you the truth.
yaphet kotto said,
June 2, 2006 at 23:33
That’s what true liberalism (and respect) is. You agree to live and let live and that your beliefs are your own to have….you don’t agree that you have to like everything.
Gee, doesn’t that sound awfully familiar to what libertarianism also proclaims…
Except of course when the issue is FOR YOUR OWN GOOD, then we gotta stop that whole live and let live nonsense and roll up our sleeves for some good old fashioned taxin’ and regulatin’, because if it was good enough for FDR then it’s good enough for me :)
hugo said,
June 2, 2006 at 23:35
“As for reading about libertarianism, I’ve read enough to come to the conclusion that it’s basically utopian�
Did you just browse wikipedia or something? In a “libertarian world” there will be of course winners and there will be losers just like today. No libertarian I’ve read presents anything like a utopia. Maximizing liberty of course, but nothing utopian.
Mal de mer said,
June 2, 2006 at 23:39
Why am I being lectured on libertarianism? Aren’t their swines out there corrupting the noble idea who could really benefit more than I from the pearls being cast about here?
By the way…callling me “stupid” isn’t a really a compelling argument. Just an FYI.
Warren said,
June 2, 2006 at 23:39
I’ll say this for S,N! at least your squirrels are young and well fed. (except for the one in the clock)
joshua corning said,
June 2, 2006 at 23:41
Nor do they recognise that person’s rights to put what they want in their body, to sleep with whomever (with consent), to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, to enjoy wholesale free speech and expression and assembly, etc, should be, and are, more protected, more inalienable (sic) than an *entity’s* “right� to, say, pollute at its leisure. But you can’t tell them that, because “freedom is freedom� and hippies who demand a cleaner earth and environmentally-friendly policy are just commie scumbags.
I do belive what you are describing is a problem with the commens rather then a problem with property rights. Our problem is with government ownership and expansion of the commens which alwasy leads to greater pollution and moral hazard is far less effective at protecting the health and enviornment then individuals protecting thier own intrests through cooperation…Ducks unlimited anyone? The nature conservancy anyone? Consumer reports anyone? the list goes on and on and on.
ljm said,
June 2, 2006 at 23:42
“Glibertarians!” That is hiLARious. You just added a “g” to make a whole new word! So, while you’re diverting from the fact that you actually haven’t done any reading on libertarian philosophy, you can simultaneously judge a whole group of people without worrying about nuance or individuality. Wow! That’s brilliant and bigoted at the very same time! ;)
GILMORE said,
June 2, 2006 at 23:51
What the…
Gee, every single comment i made here was deleted. Nice! nothing like thought police to help keep people comfortably uninformed.
so much for the liberal notion of free speech…
JG
Sexy Sadie said,
June 2, 2006 at 23:51
“You were lazy. Your backpedaling, obfuscating, grasping-for-straws reply is, well, pathetic.”
Yes, let’s talk about grasping at straws, Ev. You claim that most of us here have not read through the Reason articles. Now how on Earth could you possibly know that? Are you related to Miss Cleo?
“Could at least one of you bothered to at least skim through some of Reason’s articles?”
Sadly, yes! Some of them I agree with whole-heartedly; others I find utterly idiotic. Stick that one in your cap.
yaphet kotto said,
June 2, 2006 at 23:54
Why am I being lectured on libertarianism? Aren’t their swines out there corrupting the noble idea who could really benefit more than I from the pearls being cast about here?
Well gee buddy, I dunno?
Maybe it’s because all of you took some stupid cheap shots on our side, and then when we tried to defend how our brand of libertarianism is different from Glenn Reynolds you guys then had the gall to start lobbing such brillaint gems of insight such as “I thogut libertairanism was cool in the 8th grade, now it’s the SUX00R LOL!!!11!!”
Oh, and for apologetics for the destruction of civil liberties, if I could get a penny for all the liberals/pregressives who were/are apologetic (if not starry-eyed in admiration!) to Communism or to it’s retarded-schmuck spawn like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez I’d be a millionaire…
So, yes, I will be taking my pearls from here, because why bother with people who even compare themselves to swine since that means they don’t even care if they eat/sleep/think covered in their own filth…oh, that was a joke like the satire of Jacob, this will make it better
;)
Libertedian said,
June 2, 2006 at 23:55
Boy do I regret wandering over here from the Hit N Run —
joshua corning said,
June 3, 2006 at 0:03
never mind this..it is just to kill the italics
dhex said,
June 3, 2006 at 0:11
so this is like a vice mag with no photos of boobs type thing?
anyway, i’m just waiting for a democrat to get back in office so you guys can go back to not paying any attention to politics, like the good old 90s. i used to think the “angry white men” were annoying; how sorrowfully wrong i was on that account.
mediageek said,
June 3, 2006 at 0:13
“Let me say that I respect other people’s choice to call themselves libertarians (if it is, in fact, a choice, and not some cop-out).”
Well, that’s just peachy keen. Glad to see you hew to the same sort of introductory line used by your typical bigot in a misguided attempt to soften the focus of their irrational hatred.
If you actually respected libertarian thinking, you’d advocate leaving us alone.
Mal de mer said,
June 3, 2006 at 0:17
Maybe it’s because all of you took some stupid cheap shots on our side, and then when we tried to defend how our brand of libertarianism is different from Glenn Reynolds you guys then had the gall to start lobbing such brillaint gems of insight such as “I thogut libertairanism was cool in the 8th grade, now it’s the SUX00R LOL!!!11!!�
When did I say SUX00R LOL!!!11!! I would never use many exclamation marks.
Oh, and for apologetics for the destruction of civil liberties, if I could get a penny for all the liberals/pregressives who were/are apologetic (if not starry-eyed in admiration!) to Communism or to it’s retarded-schmuck spawn like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez I’d be a millionaire…
Oh, my God…are you having a dialectical ephiphany? I feel like such a voyeur.
So, yes, I will be taking my pearls from here, because why bother with people who even compare themselves to swine since that means they don’t even care if they eat/sleep/think covered in their own filth…oh, that was a joke like the satire of Jacob, this will make it better
;)
Kids….sure keep ya hoppin’, don’t they?
Mal de mer said,
June 3, 2006 at 0:18
er…”epiphany”
By the way, I closed the tag. Yes. Thank you.
Pinko Punko said,
June 3, 2006 at 0:19
Who left the tag open? Of course, I’m sure that is your personal right.
Where is Gov. Tarkin with his “You are all that’s is left of your strange religion”. I’m sure it is my right to misquote Star Wars.
Sorry about the school yard crap. I agree the S,N! team is not up to the task. I think that it is because they cannot fathom how fundamentally stupid and depressing the pie-in-the-sky ubercapitalism of John Stossel chumploafs really is, and how they wouldn’t want to read about some mind-numbingly inane claptrap that most certainly graces the occasional page of Reason. I’m sure when I am sitting in the CEI lobby, I’ll have a copy of Reason to peruse. Then I will come back strong, and ready to roll.
mediageek said,
June 3, 2006 at 0:20
“When did I say SUX00R LOL!!!11!! I would never use many exclamation marks.”
Ooh, look, needless pedantry.
Mal de mer said,
June 3, 2006 at 0:21
If you actually respected libertarian thinking, you’d advocate leaving us alone.
What a whiner. I’m not over at The Cato Institute calling the Randites a bunch of Maoist ideologues now, am I?
Rimfax said,
June 3, 2006 at 0:23
quoth Sexy Sadie:
Thank you, Sexy Sadie, for getting it. We don’t want you to agree with us. We want you to stop calling us what we’re not.
mediageek said,
June 3, 2006 at 0:24
The point being that it’s impossible for you to claim to respect something whilst at the same time adhering to a sociopolitical worldview that would actively seek to extinguish the freedoms of those who adhere to it.
Not whining. Pointing out your inconsistent doublethink.
Hugs ‘n’ kisses,
mg
Mal de mer said,
June 3, 2006 at 0:25
Who left the tag open? Of course, I’m sure that is your personal right.
It was that traitorous, counter-revolutionary Zach, I believe.
Ooh, look, needless pedantry.
Thank you.
tigrismus said,
June 3, 2006 at 0:27
If you actually respected libertarian thinking, you’d advocate leaving us alone.
Okay, in a long thread chockablock with visiting critics, that was pretty damn funny.
joshua corning said,
June 3, 2006 at 0:28
there were multiple tags open…i know becouse I closed them…first in one post then with five or six in my last.
A suggestion to the web master…put a close tag at the end of the comment template.
So much for libertarians being against social cooperation eh?
Warren said,
June 3, 2006 at 0:32
“pie-in-the-sky ubercapitalism”
That must be Pinko speak for “greatest wealth generating engine that has lifted more people out of poverty than any other institution known to man”?
verplanck colvin said,
June 3, 2006 at 0:37
How is government ownership of land different than corporate ownership? The corporate ownership I speak of is the large kind, because they have the most impact on the land. They are as isolated from the land as the government in DC is.
When it comes to the environment, it isn’t effective to use the principles of governing man to govern nature. In economics, the game will have haves balancing have-nots. Until there is a way that our society can balance the development vs. conservation debate (in which development inevitably wins most of the time) libertarian environmentalism is bullshit.
I think that it’s this issue that puts me over the line and makes me liberal instead of libertarian. Some things just have to be administered on a centralized basis, kinda like the military.
Rimfax said,
June 3, 2006 at 0:38
How about this? Feel free to mock us as corporate toadies, druggies, porn fiends, polluters, technophiles, welfare scolds, immigrant lovers, isolationists, pimps, hyper-federalists, utopian minarchists, privacy nuts, and lots of other things that we arguably might be. Just try not to mock us for being lock-step Republican toadies when we kick their nuts about as often as we kick the Democrats.
That way we won’t have to mock you for being a Pat Buchanan proxy site and you won’t have to delete our mundane posts when we come barking over on your turf.
joshua corning said,
June 3, 2006 at 0:42
Some things just have to be administered on a centralized basis, kinda like the military.
ouch
Rimfax said,
June 3, 2006 at 0:46
What’s the count on deleted posts, by the way?
I’ve had one yanked from the Townhall post that started this thing. I can’t really imagine why it was yanked.
Anyone else?
joshua corning said,
June 3, 2006 at 0:49
you just deleted my comments…and the italics closing tags with them…really smart there guys…verplanck colvin now looks like an idiot for responding to comment that was deleted
jpj said,
June 3, 2006 at 0:54
Well, I often find conversations with libertarians lapsing into utopian schemes. I point out something good that the government has done, say, the interstate highway system and am met with the answer, “The private market would have come up with a similar system and without taxation!” Well, maybe but how does one argue with such a counterfactual claim?
The libertarian position is basically, “If it is good, the market will provide it. If it is bad, the market won’t.” Take it on faith because there is simply no empirical way to prove it.
Daniel said,
June 3, 2006 at 1:14
JPJ says
“Take it on faith because there is simply no empirical way to prove it.”
No empirical way? Then what do you call the horrible failures known as “formerly socialist countries” ? Wouldn’t the failure of command economies imply that the free market is indeed the engine of prosperity?
Gregor Samsa said,
June 3, 2006 at 1:16
LIBERTARIAN PEOPLE!!!! Enough with the RUSH. They suck!!! Tom Sawyer BAD SONG!!!1
Put down your books and your pseudo-intellectual arguments and your 12-sided dice and go outside and visit the real world, which exists in such BEAUTY and COMPLEXITY that even Ayn Rand CANNOT understand it! So please stop EATING IT!!! IT’S not yours to EAT alone as you do not own it and NEVER will!!!!
Warren said,
June 3, 2006 at 1:18
Seriously, isn’t all of human history enough empirical evidence for you?
Gregor Samsa said,
June 3, 2006 at 1:19
Also SADLY, NO! offers free (don’t say it, I’M WARNING you) end of ITALICS script so close ‘em up COCONUTZ!!!!!
Mal de mer said,
June 3, 2006 at 1:24
I blame the free market for unclosed tags. In Soviet Russia, the People never had to endure this.
Gregor Samsa said,
June 3, 2006 at 1:30
ExactaMENTE Mal de MER!!!! We have all the script here in ABUNDANCE. Don’t be GREEDY though!!!
tigrismus said,
June 3, 2006 at 1:31
Wouldn’t the failure of command economies imply that the free market is indeed the engine of prosperity?
Perhaps if market regulation were all or nothing, but it isn’t, it’s a spectrum. Actually, even if it were binary, the failure of certain command economies wouldn’t necessarily prove the concept itself was flawed, it might just prove their implementations were.
Knock knock.
Sexy Sadie said,
June 3, 2006 at 1:32
Okay, Dan, I disagree. I am a staunch liberal hippie (not in any sense a libertarian, except in a civil liberties sense) and I LOVE the song “Tom Sawyer” by Rush.
Kwix said,
June 3, 2006 at 1:32
How is government ownership of land different than corporate ownership? The corporate ownership I speak of is the large kind, because they have the most impact on the land. They are as isolated from the land as the government in DC is.
Well, let’s start with large government and it’s land holdings. The number one polluter in the US is the US Government. The US Gov. is responsible for military vehicles that were never designed for emmisions, toxic waste dumps at many locations around the country including nuclear waste and toxic waste ponds (http://www.adti.net/environment/bndunlop_kasten_1000.html) and allowing elected representatives to lease gas guzzling vehicles for their daily commute from Richmond to DC (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060313/NEWS06/60313001).
Are all of these environmental hazards known? Of course not! National security takes precedent over any environmental concerns the public may have. Don’t belive me, try a FOIA request and see how many pages you get that are blacked out. What happens if one of these waste sites is found to be polluting ground water? Are you going to sue the government. If you do, and you win, who pays? The government doesn’t make money, it extracts it from the public citizenry. In other words, if you sue and win, you are just winning back your (or fellow citizens) money.
Corporate land ownership with big government is not much better. In this set up you have large corporations like Exxon-Mobil, PG&E or GeorgiaPacific making massive campaign contributions to lawmakers in exchange for the one thing they can do, draft laws that favor the large corporations. Corporate and government bedfellows are reasponsible for the leasing of logging permits on government lands , the revised EPA rules that favor polluters and the no-bid contracts for Halliburton in Iraq and Afghanistan. The larger the government hand the more corrupt it becomes. It is amazing just how many pies the government sticks it’s finger’s into. Then the government drafts laws limiting the amount of liability that companies are responsible for.
Corporate land ownership with small government. GP want’s to log on land’s it doesn’t own. It has two choices, convince the land owner to lease the rights to log (under full contract not to clear cut or what ever the land owner feels is appropriate) or make an offer to buy the land outright and maintain it. Exxon want’s to make billions of dollars on oil production, then they will have to fully fund the appropriate infrastructure including pipelines and pay for the proper land leasing. Sure, it will drive the cost of oil up but it will mean that businesses will produce more fuel efficient cars to compensate. Lastly, if you sue a company for violating your personal or property rights and you win, you hit them where it hurts most, in the wallet. None of this “Government Negotiated Settlement” crap either, but an honest to goodness lawsuit.
Gregor Samsa said,
June 3, 2006 at 1:35
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz! What did I just say about the peudo-intellectualism AND the 12-sided dice and NOT EATING IT? Can you read or did you go to a PRIVATE school?! Must I break out my stash of Cobags??!
Gregor Samsa said,
June 3, 2006 at 1:39
THIS is not HIGH SCHOOL people!!! THOSE pimples on your FACE are never going to go away! Go OUTSIDE!!! THE INVISIBLE HAND DEMANDS IT!!!!!!
Gregor Samsa said,
June 3, 2006 at 1:44
sexy SADIE? So sad!!!1 DO NOT TRUST the MARKET. Neil PEART BAD DRUMMER like a MACHINE, that is SOUL LAcking!
Daniel said,
June 3, 2006 at 1:55
By the way, folks. Nice to see you’re deleting posts. Guess that freedom of speech thing only applies to those who don’t contradict you.
Pinko Punko said,
June 3, 2006 at 1:59
Wait, Corporations bribe corrupt government to do bad things, so somehow removing govt. doesn’t grease the wheels for more bad things?
The only way this could get better is for John Stossel to poof out of thin air and repeat his privatize the FDA bullshit. Because corporations would never lie, and perfect markets most certainly dont’ require the absence of monopolies AND educated consumers, so I’m really happy that large corporations won’t use their monopolistic leverage to say, misinform consumers about say the dangers of smoking, the dangers of the food they consume, pollution, global warming, etc. etc.
ALL I can add is that when you discuss Tom Saywer, you need to do the *psew* *psew* Ba-na-na-NAR *pseeeeeeeewwwwwwwwww*
Mal de mer said,
June 3, 2006 at 2:00
What is this low-class dodge? I haven’t noticed any deleted posts.
…although, I don’t really care either. The glibertarians have really been behaving badly today….
Retardo said,
June 3, 2006 at 2:55
“By the way, folks. Nice to see you’re deleting posts.
I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. I just got here so I’ll try to fix the broken html in a bit, but I havent messed with any posts, much less deleted any.
Kwix said,
June 3, 2006 at 2:55
Pinko Punko,
Umm, nobody ever said that corporations don’t lie. Let me ask you a question, how many choices for purchasing electricity do you have in your neighborhood? Every where I have lived I have only had one choice for electricity and if I am lucky a different company for gas. Can you say Government sponsored (mandated) monopoly? Since the deregulation of the airline industry, prices have dropped over 30%, and that is with the massive fuel increases of late. Since deregulation of the telecommunications industry phone prices have dropped from $1/min long distance to the $.028/min that I pay. That is a reduction of over 97%. Tell me again how government controlling businesses is good for the public? I acknowledge the need for the FDA, EPA and other watchdogs but I don’t see the benefit in the government telling me that I can only have one power provider or one trashman for that matter. By allowing the government the control of business you are inviting BIG business to manipulate the government into doing thier bidding at the expense of smaller, more nimble and environmentally friendly competitors.
Rick H. said,
June 3, 2006 at 3:05
What is this low-class dodge? I haven’t noticed any deleted posts.
If you don’t “notice” it, it’s like it never happened!
The glibertarians have really been behaving badly today….
Yeah, imagine defending someone against being misrepresented, providing links to his actual words. What evil, boorish brutes.
Retardo said,
June 3, 2006 at 3:06
By allowing the government the control of business you are inviting BIG business to manipulate the government ”
And just why is the government corrupted by Big rather than small business? Could it be because of the legalized bribery coming from ultimately libertarian conflation of “money=speech”?
Big has more “speech” than little, just as rich has more “speech” than poor, hence the favoritism and corruption. And because the rich and the corporate are by nature sinless entities (greed is good!), all the blame goes to the corrupt, bribed politician, rather than the amorally fucktardious corrupting entity.
Campaign contributions are bribery; that’s the propertarian system (it’s teh FREEEDOM!!!1!!!!1!!). Thus, plutocracy. It’s a bit more complicated than it used to be, but essentially propertarianism has won and the dream of atavistic dreams — a rollback of the New Deal and the Progressive Era reforms — has already come true.
Kwix said,
June 3, 2006 at 3:07
As for “missing” posts, there are a few that were here and are now no longer. All but one by GILMORE, all by Joshua Corning, all by Warren.
To quote:
Magically, there are no posts remaining referencing RUSH made by anybody from Reason H&R. I suppose I will just chalk it up to your server eating them. It was said that prior to having all postings removed both Joshua and Warren recieved this message when they attempted to post:
Mal de mer said,
June 3, 2006 at 3:10
I guess the government and “The People” really aren’t the same thing anymore. And on that, I agree with the glibs. Maybe they should start voting again. Also, why doesn’t someone break the link between money and power with some kind of electoral reform? Tighter contribution and spending limits and public financing for campaigns?
Glibs: Awwk! That sounds really hard! Can’t I just sit around and whine about the government? Isn’t that good enough?
Mal de mer said,
June 3, 2006 at 3:14
Yeah, imagine defending someone against being misrepresented, providing links to his actual words. What evil, boorish brutes.
Glibs need more love…and help with sarcasm and humour, obviously.
If you don’t “notice� it, it’s like it never happened!
How would I know? I swear, I haven’t noticed. Maybe they did get thrown into the spam queue…that’s happened to my comments here a few times.
Why not wait for evidence before attributing malice? Don’t Glibs like evidence?
Retardo said,
June 3, 2006 at 3:15
Propertarian guys:
I think I just fixed the italics bleed but since I’ve never edited comments before, I havent yet found whatever posts the spam filter supposedly ate. I’m loooking and will restore what I can or refer it to someone more skilled.
Regardless, we don’t delete posts around here for content unless it outs someone or is threatening. No one is censoring you, though word press (a soulless entity, like your friend, the corporation!) might be accidentally.
Daniel said,
June 3, 2006 at 3:30
I’ll try to keep it simple, so even socialists like yourselves can understand.
Humans are corruptible. This also applies to government officials, despite what you so-called “liberals” believe. So, when you give a government official the power to interfere in the economy, you can be sure that he will grant favours to those who bribe him.
The classical liberal sollution to this is simple : keep the government away from the economy. With the government unable to grant favours, no one will to try to buy them.
Instead, what do people like you advocate ? More and more restrictions on freedom … That’s just treating the symptoms, not the cause.
PS You could at least be honest enough to admit that you’ve been deleting posts. After all, it’s your right to do so.
Jesse said,
June 3, 2006 at 3:32
I doubt the spam filter ate the missing posts. They weren’t blocked from going up here: They *were* up here, and now they’re gone.
They were good posts, for the most part. More to the point, they were arguments from actual libertarians who believe the thing libertarians actually believe, rather than imaginary cartoon characters who say “the rich and the corporate are by nature sinless entities” and the other idiocies being attributed to them here.
Special note to Mal de Mer: Since you mentioned “help with sarcasm and humor,” I thought I’d offer a little friendly advice myself: the “glibertarian” thing isn’t getting any funnier with repetition. Keep it up, and you’ll sound like one of those warbloggers who still think it’s clever to call people “moonbats.” (How long has it been since Ishmael Reed wrote that essay about “Gliberals”? 30 years? 40? Long enough that any variations on the jibe are going to taste stale…)
Retardo said,
June 3, 2006 at 3:41
Look, propertarians, we just got this software last week. And in going into the comments, I’m doing something I’ve never done before.
I’ve found the thread finally and am manually restoring them. I dunno why they are in moderation but that’s what it fucking says.
joshua corning said,
June 3, 2006 at 3:47
yeah all my posts have been deleted…warren’s have as well and GILMORE’s also…there might be others. You guys are lame for doing it.
SixSigma said,
June 3, 2006 at 3:50
I thought liberals were against generalizations?
I mean all anyone’s really written here is, every libertarian I’ve known is crazy, so they all have to be.
Libertarian response: Here’s some links that I think disproves you so I think your characterization is wrong.
Sadly No repsonse: Every libertarian I’ve known is ….
It seems a little childish to conflate limited knowledge of a few with total knowledge of an entire group, Hell - think of the difference between Christians, those that don’t judge, and those that judge everyone except themselves. Catholics are almost evenly split in voting demographics.
Either way - Kudos though for admiting to the error in post deletion and attempting resolution. While prejudices may run wild around here, at least someone has integrity.
Retardo said,
June 3, 2006 at 3:50