With Hillary Clinton being the presumptive nominee for the
democrats in 2016 the anti-Hillary campaign from the Right has already begun
and we can expect that it will increasingly inundate the blogosphere and the world
of campaign commercials over the next two years. Hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent
to remind voters about Travelgate, Whitewater, Hillarycare, Vince Foster,
disappearing and reappearing documents, Benghazi and the political partnership
masquerading as a marriage with Bill Clinton.
All of this matters, or at least it should, yet it’s also a distraction
from the more fundamental argument for why people like Barack Obama and Hillary
Clinton should not be elected, which is this:
They’re liberals, they’re leftists, and they’re wrong for this country. In fact they’re wrong for ANY country, so
perhaps conservatives should agree to align themselves behind one bumper
sticker for this campaign: “It’s Liberalism,
Stupid!”
Liberalism has given us the welfare nation, the entitlement
society, a nation of illegal immigrants and illegitimate children, a declining dollar,
a shrinking workforce, Obamacare, and a debt crisis that’s about to explode in
our faces and alter life as we know it. It’s
cost the U.S. its world ranking in education, its AAA credit rating, its
credibility and its common sense, not to mention its soul. It’s destroyed nations before and it’s destroying
us. If we can make that case, if we can get that
message across, then the campaign against Hillary becomes quite simple and
it goes like this: “She’s a
leftist. Any Questions?” More importantly, the argument is timeless
and non-discriminatory. It applies to
every leftist that comes along, saving conservatives the time, energy and
resources of reinventing the wheel and building a different case against each
and every opponent, as we now do.
Let us remember that the strategy we have now isn’t
working. We throw everything and the
kitchen sink at them and they throw the same back at us and in the end we lose.
We make it about the candidate, not
about ideas, and when their ideas fail they simply produce another
candidate. It’s time to use our elections – both our
primaries and general elections - to remind and/or educate voters about the
effects of progressivism and what they can expect in the future if it
continues.
˜CW
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWow…"liberals/leftists are wrong for 'merica"…
ReplyDeleteWhat a rock-solid and original argument…
And I suppose POS's like Bush, McCain,and Romney are 'right' for 'merica..???
“’merica?”
DeleteIt figures that someone so intent on fighting straw men resorts to cheap tactics like trying to make me sound like a redneck. The prior anarchist used to do the same thing. I guess the point would be to make yourself look so much smarter by comparison. If that’s what you need to do then that’s what you need to do, I suppose.
Nowhere did I imply that Bush, McCain or Romney were right for American, but they were indeed less wrong than Gore, Kerry and Obama. Can I assume that because you voted for the Constitutional candidate that you believe the Constitution is right for America? Or do these absolutes apply to everyone but you, LOL?
Apparently you are never going to grow out of this fantasy you have that a mere 10% or so of the electorate is sufficient to win an election, and I would bet my last dollar that if Ron Paul could finally win but was running against an even more purely libertarian candidate that you would suddenly see the value of a little realism.
And 'libruls' claim Gore, Kerry, and Obama were "less wrong" than the GOPers whom they ran against…I told you, I deal in FACTS, not baseless speculation.
DeleteAt this stage--w/the evidence available--its pretty dumb to claim that, just because someone has an "R" next to their name, they're the "less bad" candidate.
Reagan expanded govt. more than Carter.
Bush II expanded govt. more than Clinton.
McCain…well, what can be said of this massive POS whom Arizona 'conservatives' keep sending back to congress?
Romney…again, another massive POS.
As bad as Obama has been, its not out of the realm of possibility that they would've been as bad (maybe even worse) in their own way.
‘libruls?’ Again you’re going to resort to this cheap tactic? It’s sad how little confidence you have in your argument that you have to “debate” like a high school kid. If this is what you learned at the Lew Rockwell School of Debate you should ask for a refund.
DeleteAs for the notion that republicans are less bad than democrats, that’s absolutely true and an example of one of the many facts that you’ve failed to see. There are liberal republicans, no doubt about it; but unlike democrats they’re not all liberal (Like Ron Paul for instance. Hey! That’s a FACT!). Show me ONE race where the democrat was the less liberal candidate. I’ll wait. And btw, you’re a complete idiot if you think anything other than liberalism is the greatest threat to this nation. Wars will come and go (spearheaded by democrats, usually), but liberal policies, whether set by democrats or republicans, go on to destroy in perpetuity. Those are the FACTS.
>>”As bad as Obama has been, its not out of the realm of possibility that they would've been as bad (maybe even worse) in their own way.”
That’s just clown talk. The only upside to Obama is that his arrogance and blind faith in the stupidity of the American people may have caused him to overplay his hand and woken up a few folks.
I've already dealt w/the 'constitutionalist' BS you keep blathering about…its irrelevant w/o reference to a politician's or bureaucrat's philosophy/ideology.
ReplyDeleteThe real question is:
Do 'conservatives' have ANY principles (including 'constitutionalism') they're not willing to cast aside in order to be useful idiots for the GOP, OR, do the candidates they end up supporting, in REALITY, actually represent core 'conservative' principles (Israel-firster-ism, military-worship, and Daddy/Police-state authoritarianism)?
Unlike 'conservatives' and 'liberals'--who stay cloistered w/their fellow ideologues in order to ignore reality--as a libertarian I seek out a variety of views.
ReplyDeleteThis is why I'm usually able to predict future political outcomes/trends (unlike 'cons' who thought Romney was gonna win a 40-state landslide).
The thing that strikes me most is how SIMILAR (at their core, nearly identical, really) the two 'opposition' Parties/ideologies are! And yet…you people think you're as different as night VS day! In these latter days of the American Empire, the population gets more insane/delusional every year…
The ONLY thing you cons have going for you, at this point, is the disaster known as ACA…even w/that, I doubt you'll field a candidate who can beat HRC.
'Conservatives'/Republicans, from Reagan on, effectively committed suicide w/their hypocrisy (Reagan, Bush I, Bush II ALL added more nat'l debt than EVERY prior admin COMBINED!), failure to reign in the welfare state (y'all EXPANDED it!), failure to abolish the DOE (y'all EXPANDED it!), and Reagan's Amnesty…no one (except you) buys your BS about 'limited-govt' anymore!
FORGOT ONE:
DeleteAlso add your obsession w/pursuing an idiotic 'culture' war (which you've ALREADY lost) as another reason you're fading into irrelevancy…
And your meat-headed cheering on of GW's wars (though, now that they've turned out to be the disaster libertarians PREDICTED, you'd like to re-write history) won't be forgotten by the voting public for a LOOONG time...
OK, gotta run…glad you manned-up and at least tried to debate for a change!
>>I've already dealt w/the 'constitutionalist' BS you keep blathering about…its irrelevant w/o reference to a politician's or bureaucrat's philosophy/ideology.”
DeleteNice try. Do you really think you can come here and tell me that you’ve answered something you’ve never answered and get away with it? How Obama-esque of you.
Let’s review: you claim that since I voted for Bush et al that I must believe they’re right for America. That’s like telling me I can only paint my car pink or orange, and since I chose orange this must mean I think orange is the best color for the car. And, oh yes, blue was on the menu too but there was only enough to paint 10% of my car, but since I didn’t choose blue that means I hate blue. That’s how dumb it is. But ok, using YOUR OWN convoluted logic and adding the new requirement above, Ron Paul’s political ideology is based upon the Constitution according to his own words. Therefore if you vote for Ron Paul this MUST mean you support his ideology and you believe in the Constitution. That’s according to YOUR OWN logic, and if you think you will come here and hold me to one standard while holding yourself to another standard you are wrong. Don’t come back here with any more of your nonsense or questions for me until you’ve answered MY question. I WILL DELETE ALL OF COMMENTS UNTIL YOU DO.
>>…as a libertarian I seek out a variety of views.”
Well then y’all are not the principle-centered person y’all pretends to be. And I find it truly comical that y’all are still scratching y’all’s head about the dismal response to Ron Paul but still believe that y’all has some grounding in reality. If y’all are so good at predicting political outcomes then y’all should have seen that one coming.
>>”I doubt you'll field a candidate who can beat HRC.”
Gee maybe y’all can give us some tips on fielding a winning candidate, since y’all have been doing such a bang-up job y’all selves.
Yep, there’s been hypocrisy, I’ll agree with y’all on that. It upsets me as much as it does y’all. But this simpleton style of making y’all’s argument with zero context and zero analysis of the relevant FACTS (Hey! There’s that word again!) erases any credibility y’all might otherwise have. It’s like doing an experiment where you don’t have any controls and you take every observation on face value with no thought process involved whatsoever. In other words, it’s meaningless. How’s that for reality?
Every candidate is, at least implicitly, a 'constitutionalist'. I'm not sure what point you think you're making. Obama swore an oath to defend and uphold the const…so did Bush…so does EVERY federal politician. Does that make them all (and their supporters) 'constitutionalists'?
DeleteI voted for Ron Paul in the 2008 Primaries (and have given up voting since, because its pointless) because he was the ONLY candidate promoting freedom-oriented, sane, and rational solutions; the ONLY guy getting at the core problems confronting American society. I also thought he was the most electable GOPer on the nat'l stage too. He may have gotten trounced by BHO, just like McCain did, but he'd've attracted FAR more people to the message of freedom, whereas the only thing McCain did was repel and further discredit 'conservatism'.
For some reason 'conservatives' who TALK about liberty/free-markets seem incapable of realizing that, by having hitched their wagon to GOPers who are ANTI-liberty/free-markets, the IDEA of liberty/free-markets ends up getting blamed for ANTI-liberty/free-market policies.
Hey, most of us knew RP had an extremely unlikely chance at getting the GOP nom. He's WAY too sane for the typical GOP voter--not an AIPAC-approved candidate, pro-peace, pro-decentralization of power, and pro-civil liberties. For some reason (cough, you're commies, cough!) these ideas just don't hold much appeal to 'conservatives'.
The fact is that the American "winner-take-all" political system was/is very poorly set-up and discourages political competition. There is a ridiculously small # of political representation in proportion to the population. The typical American voter is too cowardly to leave the Democrat/Republican Plantation too--because the "more evil" candidate might win, by gosh! God-forbid Americans ever select the BEST candidate, rather than the least-evil! Oh well.
Let's be honest here…you're only voting GOP to maintain the illusion that you have some kind of say-so in how your masters rule you!
Its not hard to predict HRC (or whichever Dem gets the nom) winning in 2016…the tides have turned against the GOP for the reasons I already listed (the suicide of the GOP/con movement). The nat'l debt was under $1 trillion when Reagan assumed office. After 30+ years of the 'conservative' resurgence in America, it now stands $17 TRILLION. Govt. is VASTLY more intrusive and abusive since then too.
Facts, my dear, facts…and the FACT is that y'all serve absolutely NO PURPOSE and do NOT represent a real alternative to Liberalsim/Leftism. What serves no purpose will cease to exist.
Take care.
You’re being coy but I’ll repeat my point - if voting for Bush et al this means that I endorse every position they take then the same applies to you and any candidate you support. You say that the Constitution is crap but then you endorse the candidate most famous for his allegiance to the Constitution. Both of us are making a STRATEGIC decision, not a decision based purely on principle. I will concede that your candidate is probably closer to the principles you hold than my candidates have been to mine, but if we’re making STRATEGIC decisions then the ability to win is not an insignificant part of the strategy.
DeleteAs far as your expectations on Paul’s electability, I think you overestimate people’s yearning for a starkly different national defense policy as well as people’s d to de-criminalize drugs and get rid of the institution of marriage. I’m not debating the merits of Paul’s ideas – that would be a lengthy debate; but he didn’t articulate himself all that well and you’ve misjudged the American public. On top of that, if Obama and friends were able to successfully portray Romney as “extreme” on economics, one can only imagine what they would have done with Ron Paul.
>>” the only thing McCain did was repel and further discredit 'conservatism'.”
You’ll get no argument from me on that one.
>>” Obama swore an oath to defend and uphold the const…so did Bush…so does EVERY federal politician.”
Yes but the difference is that Obama NEVER had any intention of upholding the Constitution. And don’t get me wrong. I’m not excusing Bush or anyone else on the basis of good intentions. I just think someone who stumbles through the Constitution is less dangerous than someone who tramples it intentionally.
>>” The fact is that the American "winner-take-all" political system was/is very poorly set-up and discourages political competition. There is a ridiculously small # of political representation in proportion to the population. “
I don’t necessarily disagree with that but there’s no system that’s ideal when you’re talking about choosing one person to lead a country with millions of people. This is why upholding the Constitution is so important, as it would naturally restrain the kind of tyranny that’s at the heart of the current two-party struggle. Who the POTUS is would be far less consequential in a state where the Constitution was adhered to.
>>”Let's be honest here…you're only voting GOP to maintain the illusion that you have some kind of say-so in how your masters rule you!”
Two can play that game. You supported republican Ron Paul to maintain your own illusions.
>>” What serves no purpose will cease to exist.”
Well it looks to me like libertarianism is struggling as much as conservatism is but we’ll see what happens.
Take care yourself.
Fair enough. I'll stop claiming you support GW/JM/MR 100%.
DeleteIt just seems exceedingly silly that nearly EVERY con or lib I talk to claims the people they vote "aren't cons/libs"…
And, the const. is like the bible--open to broad interpretation. And also wholly irrelevant, esp. since the misnamed Civil War. The fact that in the Party of "small govt"--and among the vast majority of cons--the candidate most loyal to the const. is soundly rejected speaks to this point.
You've accused me of using the strawman fallacy, but the entire notion of the fedgovt. being legitimate rests on the argument from authority fallacy; the legitimacy of the const. also rests on the same fallacy. Something tells me you won't stop resorting to this logical fallacy though...
Its utterly insane how people rationalize having 50% (1/2 slaves) of their labor stolen, incredible infringements on person/property, and even the killing of 100,000's of innocent people by pointing to a piece of paper…I guess this is easier than facing the truth, eh?
Getting people to accurately describe their political ideology is like asking people to tell which way north is on a cloudy day in flat-land Kansas. A century or more of progressivism has created the cloud cover and all but those with the most instinctual sense of direction have lost perspective. They think north is to the right or left of where it really is. For the vast majority of people alive today, the gov’t as caretaker and decider is the norm and calls for changing that are “extreme,” i.e. bad. People see the status quo as the “center,” and in their defense they’ve been trained to think that way.
DeletePeople who see the GOP as simply foisting pseudo-conservatives on an out-of-touch constituency are wrongly assessing the situation, IMO. They underestimate the extent of the population I just described above, falsely believing that the population is more conservative than it really is. That, in part, is why Ron Paul can’t get much traction but frankly he’s just not a very good candidate from a marketing perspective. Not only is he trying to sell what a lot of people don’t want but he’s old and he doesn’t do a good job of getting his message across to the people who need to hear it. Libertarians may believe themselves to have the high ground on principle but in the end they face the same challenge as conservatives do to find candidates that champion their causes AND resonate with voters.
>>”You've accused me of using the strawman fallacy, but the entire notion of the fedgovt. being legitimate rests on the argument from authority fallacy…”
You’re talking about two different things. The straw man is a phony enemy, a boogie man of your own making for the purpose of having an opponent that’s easy to defeat. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the “authority fallacy,” which I assume is a concept you’ve been learning about on sites that claim to be promoting libertarianism. I’m guessing the “authority fallacy” says something about that no one has the right to assert authority over anyone else. That and $3.50 will get you a cup of coffee. It is a useless argument, like telling someone who’s about to kill you that they have no right to kill you, and expecting them to say, “Oh! Okay then. See ya later!”
As long as there are societies of people, government is going to exist in one form or another – period. How do I know this? Because it’s been true since the dawn of time all across the planet. Even primitive tribes have chiefs or groups of “elders” that call the shots for the tribe. That’s government. The tribesmen don’t sit around the campfire wasting time debating the “authority fallacy.” There’s going to be some leadership and there’s going to be some rules and they know it. So if you’re going to use the “authority fallacy” as a basis for claiming that the federal government is illegitimate, don’t even waste your breath.
Pardon my French but gov’t exists because at least half the population, if not more, are assholes. These are the folks that would murder, rape, rob, freeload, and otherwise make life miserable for everyone else. And yes, to answer the charge that’s coming next, the assholes will eventually figure out a way to co-opt the gov’t and carry on their activities under the cloak of legitimacy provided by the framework of gov’t. They will try to steal people’s labor, infringe on their rights, kill some people, etc., etc., etc. That’s the rub, no doubt about it. But that struggle, as “insane” as it is, is inevitable. The alternative is perpetual civil war.
Now you can come back here all angry with me, as the anarchist before you did, and accuse me of being a “grateful slave” and lots of other nonsense but I’ll make you the same challenge I made to him: prove me wrong. Show me the society that’s living peacefully without government and I promise I will bow to your superior wisdom.
You've just committed more logical fallacies here…
DeleteThe Appeal to Common Practice is a fallacy with the following structure:
X is a common action.
Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.
Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
X is old or traditional
Therefore X is correct or better.
If you're gonna call me out for engaging in fallacious logic, you better hold yourself to the same standard.
Yes, I know Ron Paul wasn't good-looking enough to win the GOP nom…and speaking the truth didn't help him much either.
Delete>>”Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done.”
DeleteWell that’s all very nice but I didn’t say it was “better” or “correct,” did I? I said it was inevitable, and that’s absolutely true. It’s simply a fact of human nature.
With respect to what’s traditional or “always been done,” sometimes traditions are carried on out of habit or resistance to change but sometimes traditions continue because they’ve been proven to work well. New managers will sometimes do well by making big changes, but other times they make changes only to find out that there was a reason the company was doing things the way they were, and it was based on a history of trial and error that the new manager didn’t see or bother to ask about.
No, you didn't say it was "better" or "correct"…just that govt. has "always" existed and, therefore, "always" will.
DeleteWhich fits in EXACTLY w/the Appeal to Tradition fallacy.
You've provided no logical or moral argument for the existence of govt. Asserting that "its inevitable" isn't an argument, its an assertion and outright evasion.
Using logic really isn't that difficult. The difficulties arise when logic runs up against irrational belief systems. Most folks, at present, are uncomfortable w/where logic takes them and will usually revert to rationalizing their IBS instead of accepting the consequences of using logic.
And, yes, you are a slave since other people claim to own the value of your labor and, by extension, you. Your masters give you a reasonable amount of license, as long as you obediently follow their rules, don't get too uppity, and surrender the value of your labor which they demand for the privilege of living on their plantation. Plantation USA is pretty big, but you WILL butt up against the borders of other plantations if you go far enough.
DeleteI don't know if you're grateful, but you're certainly in denial--as evidenced by you resorting to logical fallacies in order to rationalize your positions and the fact that other people get to order you around.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
--Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
>>”Which fits in EXACTLY w/the Appeal to Tradition fallacy.”
DeleteThere’s another nice try on your part but I wasn’t talking about tradition. I said gov’t is INEVITABLE. If you’re a student of history, which you seem to believe you are, then you should know this.
>>”You've provided no logical or moral argument for the existence of govt.”
That’s like saying I provided no logical or moral argument for the existence of rain. Is the rain going to stop if I don't provide a moral argument for it? There’s no moral argument for rape. Shall we tell that to the rapists so they’ll stop? IT CHANGES NOTHING. That’s the definition of inevitable – it’s going to happen no matter what.
>>”…you are a slave since other people claim to own the value of your labor and, by extension, you.”
I don’t dispute that but just for the record that definition makes you a slave as well.
Appeal to Tradition/Appeal to Common Practice again. Still no logical/moral argument in support of your position.
DeleteAnd your rain/rape statement is a False Analogy fallacy.
And, yes, I too am a slave.
I just don't have a slave's mentality like you do, nor do I sanction my own slavery by using fallacious logic to rationalize my own slavery. The reason I don't vote is because I don't want to provide moral cover for the masters (why do you think they're so eager to have your participate in the system?).
What's the worst about you is that you eagerly engage in what my brand of libertarianism refers to as "Slave On Slave Violence": you pester your masters to punish people who engage in activities you don't like (drug usage, homosexuality, being from another plantation, etc)…as if there's too MUCH freedom in the world!
For someone who claims such affection for "the founders" and "limited govt", your attitude is oddly similar to that of the "progressives" you constantly rail against.
As long as you and others remain in denial about the reality of your situation nothing will improve.
Is the World Suffering From Stockholm Syndrome?
by Jason B. Romano:
"One of the most frustrating things about discussing the State with its apologists is the seeming reluctance, indeed, the outright hostility in some cases, to being free. The lengths gone to justify the actions of the State in many cases are downright astonishing, and can at times be simply befuddling."
CONT'D
http://anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=399
It’s absolutely pointless to debate with someone whose entire line of reasoning is based on the denial of reality. It is the nature of humans in societies to form governments, whether because they want to impose tyranny or protect themselves from it. That’s a simple fact, and you told me you’re a person who deals in facts. So before I go along with this debate any further I need to know the following:
DeleteDo you deny that gov’t, in one form or another, is inevitable?
I don't deny reality. I simply use logic to determine reality. And the reality is that govt. has little-to-nothing to do w/society. People in society do NOT act like govts. Societies don't form govts. Small groups of violent people do and then forcefully impose it on society, and then all sorts of post-facto rationalizations are created to justify it.
DeleteAlso, the ruling-classes tend to attempt to create a sort of mysticism surrounding the govt. (things like coronation or inauguration ceremonies, the pomp-and-circumstance of military parades, etc.) and intellectual classes (teachers, historians, economists, etc.) spring up to attempt to indoctrinate society. The USA is a perfect example of this--there is a TON of mysticism/propaganda that goes into convincing people like you (no offense) that "we are the govt", the govt. "represents the will of the people", the "founding" mythology, etc.
Yes, I do deny it.
For the fact that an agency w/a monopoly on initiatory violence isn't required in order to provide societal needs. There are people, right here in the USA, that sincerely believe that ONLY govt. can effectively provide healthcare/charity--because they've been propagandized into believing this. There were people in the Soviet Bloc who thought ONLY govt. could provide food/shelter/transportation--because they'd been propagandized into this irrational belief system. You've been JUST as propagandized by YOUR rulers, and so was I. Why else do you think you're FORCED into govt. schools for your 12 most formative years?
"Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever."
--Vladimir Lenin
If you think govt. is inevitable, fine, but please stop pretending it "represents" us (since there is no evidence of this and is impossible anyways), and stop pretending that you're coercively ruled for your own good. Stop pretending that you have any say in how govt. functions, and stop pretending that pestering govt. ("Please, Mr. Politician/Bureaucrat, take more of my money/freedom!") to crush people you don't like (drug-users, homosexuals, foreigners, etc.) is civilized behavior. The ONLY way people should view govt. is as a conquering foreign power that is out to exploit them to the maximum amount possible.
>>“People in society do NOT act like govts.”
DeleteOh contraire. Just about everywhere people congregate we see microcosms of gov’t: ships, churches, corporations, clubs, HOAs, universities, etc., etc., etc., not to mention every town, city, state and country on this planet.
>>”Societies don't form govts. Small groups of violent people do and then forcefully impose it on society, and then all sorts of post-facto rationalizations are created to justify it.”
There are all types of gov’ts formed in a variety of ways. Your friend Moshe once proposed that he and his like-minded friends should buy their own island. He then said that the only rule would be that nobody can hurt anyone else; but of course, this is how gov’t begins. Who gets to define what “hurt” means? Who will enforce the rule? What will happen to those who break the rule? The very fact of making and enforcing such decisions leads to gov’t.
There’s a lot of propaganda associated with gov’ts, no doubt about it.
>>”Yes, I do deny [that gov’t is inevitable].”
Then you aren’t dealing in reality and there no sense in debating with you. Furthermore, whatever it is you’re trying to do has no chance of succeeding. It’s like an engineer trying to design a plane while denying that gravity exists.
>>”For the fact that an agency w/a monopoly on initiatory violence isn't required in order to provide societal needs. There are people, right here in the USA, that sincerely believe that ONLY govt. can effectively provide healthcare/charity—“
Yeah no kidding. Do you read my blog? You’re preaching to the choir.
>>”…stop pretending that pestering govt. to crush people you don't like (drug-users, homosexuals, foreigners, etc.) is civilized behavior.”
I’ve learned to expect hyperbole from you and you don’t disappoint. Nobody’s asking anyone to “crush” anyone, but of course the argument loses a lot of steam when it’s truthfully framed. The argument I have with Andrew over drug-use comes down to a question of whether or not innocent people are harmed by that behavior. That’s the standard right? I assume you believe in the right of people to protect themselves (although you haven’t thought thru how you’re going to do that without some form of gov’t, but I digress).
I don’t pester the gov’t to crush any foreigners unless those foreigners attack or threaten us.
What do you mean when you say I pester the gov’t to crush homosexuals?
No, people in society tend NOT to force themselves or their views on others. I know you don't like drugs, but do you go around kicking in the doors of people who do them? If there is a cause you deem worthy, do you force people at gunpoint to support it? In society, people have a far greater tendency towards "live and let live" than what we see when govt. is thrown into the mix.
DeleteAgain, we can have rules w/o govt. just like we can have charity w/o govt. wealth re-dis programs. If you'd grown up in the USSR, the notion of capitalism would seem just insane to you as my views look to you right now.
I absolutely agree w/the right of innocent people to protect themselves. What I don't agree w/is the kind of Precautionary Principle/Pre-Emptive meddling you support for drugs. Its the SAME irrational arguments used by gun-grabbers and your typical 'progressive' to justify massive govt. intrusions into everything we do. For someone who claims great affection for "the founders", your lack of knowledge about the nature/history of common-law is astounding.
As far as your continued assertions about govt…unless/until you produce a logical/moral argument for it, you're simply repeating the Appeal To Tradition/Common Practice fallacy...
Your "gravity" statement was just another False Analogy fallacy too.
DeleteAnd, Ghost Squirrels absolutely DESTROYED you on that thread…revealing out-and-out falsehoods which you purported to be truth…
DeleteHowever, you seem impervious to facts/logic, so I'm thinking you'll cling to your destroyed position anyways…
The problem w/ignorant ideologues is that they DON'T KNOW they're ignorant ideologues!
>>”In society, people have a far greater tendency towards "live and let live" than what we see when govt. is thrown into the mix.”
DeleteYou’ve never seen society without gov’t thrown into the mix.
>>”… we can have rules w/o govt.”
Who decides what the rules are?
>>”I absolutely agree w/the right of innocent people to protect themselves.
No you don’t. You agree with the supposed “right” of people to do drugs or whatever else they want but you absolutely don’t agree with the right of innocent people to protect themselves.
Unlike drugs the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution.
“>>As far as your continued assertions about govt…unless/until you produce a logical/moral argument for it, you're simply repeating the Appeal To Tradition/Common Practice fallacy...”
Apparently you have no answer for the ‘Inevitability of Human Nature’ argument. Must not be on the lesson plan at lewrockwell.com.
>>”Your "gravity" statement was just another False Analogy fallacy too.”
LOL. Do you or do you not believe in the existence of human nature?
>>”And, Ghost Squirrels absolutely DESTROYED you on that thread…”
Gee, is that your unbiased opinion? With all due respect to Andrew he’s grasping at straws. Prostitution is either illegal or highly regulated virtually everywhere on the planet (unlike Big Gulps, I might add), which suggests that it's pretty much universally perceived as being harmful or potentially harmful to societies.
According to my own logic, its more accurate to say I supported Ron Paul's LIBERTARIAN INTERPRETATION of the const. and the proper role of govt.
ReplyDeleteAccording to YOUR 'logic', you're a Republican (not a 'conservatives') since you vote for people who label themselves "Republicans"...
Hmmm... Didn't Ron Paul run as a republican?
DeleteEXACTLY…just like you consider yourself a "conservative not a Republican"…I consider myself a "libertarian not a constitutionalist".
DeleteHey Unknown,
DeleteChile's in trouble:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e355ad06-5114-11e3-b499-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2lBsIl1Dt
I don't really feel like signing up at that site to read that article.
DeleteAt this point, there really aren't very many other countries on Earth that are trending in a worse direction than the USA.
To get back to your blog-entry and away from scary logic…
ReplyDeleteI agree about much of what you write about liberalism/leftism/progressivism…I disagree that the solution is voting for liberal/leftist/progressive Republicans like Reagan, the Bushes, McCain, and Romney.
And I will also call you out for YOUR liberal/leftist/progressive tendencies on a variety of issues (Daddy/Police-statism, foreign-policy, economic-policy, etc.)…
A question:
If you ADMITTEDLY engage in voting for big-govt. GOPers which YOU don't even really like and whom you ADMIT are simply slightly "less bad" (at best) than the Dem alternative, and who also violate YOUR OWN STATED core principles ('conservatism' and 'constitutionalism')…how in the hell do you expect to:
A) Convince the few % of actual undecided/independent voters to vote Republican instead of Democrat
and
B) Ever effect meaningful reform via the political system?
What I see from the 'Right' is a lot of scorn heaped upon the 'Left' for electing/re-electing politicians like Obama and for continuing to support obviously-failed policies…but don't y'all do the EXACT same thing?
I talk to folks on the 'Left' and do you know what they say?
"I don't agree w/everything Obama has done, but McCain/Romney would've been worse."
"Obama's problem is that he's stuck w/a GOP congress."
"Social safety nets aren't the problem--the Right/Republicans who mis-administer/improperly fund them are the problem."
"We need to regulate capitalism to the nth degree, because people are aholes and if left to their own devices they'd wreck the environment, exploit workers, and kill consumers w/dangerous products."
All of this should sound familiar to you, because w/a few slight tweaks its EXACTLY the same kinds of things folks on the 'Right' say!
>>”I disagree that the solution is voting for liberal/leftist/progressive Republicans like Reagan, the Bushes, McCain, and Romney.”
DeleteThere’s ANOTHER straw man. Did I ever say that voting for liberal republicans is a SOLUTION to liberalism??? You tell me that government should not exist, then spend all your time touting Ron Paul as a presidential candidate. Can I translate that into saying that you see Ron Paul as the “solution” to the existence of government? Stop engaging in silly arguments.
>>”And I will also call you out for YOUR liberal/leftist/progressive tendencies on a variety of issues (Daddy/Police-statism, foreign-policy, economic-policy, etc.)… “
You don’t know my views on any of those issues so your “calling me out” is based on ignorance.
>>If you ADMITTEDLY engage in voting for big-govt. GOPers which YOU don't even really like and whom you ADMIT are simply slightly "less bad" (at best) than the Dem alternative, and who also violate YOUR OWN STATED core principles ('conservatism' and 'constitutionalism')…how in the hell do you expect to:
A) Convince the few % of actual undecided/independent voters to vote Republican instead of Democrat, and B) Ever effect meaningful reform via the political system?”
A) I’m not clear on why you think my voting for GOPers has any bearing on how “Independent” voters decide to vote. Many of the so-called “independents” are moderates who can’t make up their minds just how liberal they want to be.
B) Reform is not going to happen unless and until enough people get a clue as to what progressivism really means. I don’t know if that will ever happen but we’re not even close at this point.
>>”What I see from the 'Right' is a lot of scorn heaped upon the 'Left' for electing/re-electing politicians like Obama and for continuing to support obviously-failed policies…but don't y'all do the EXACT same thing?”
All I can say is that if someone who sincerely wants John McCain to be president is clueless, then someone who wants Obama to be president is doubly clueless. You keep coming back to this same old argument as if we’re voting in a perfect world where it doesn’t matter what everyone else does, but that isn’t reality. To bring about the “reform” you speak of requires getting a lot of people on your side, and those people aren’t there.
Y'all used the "unelectable" meme against Ron Paul, rather than offer any rational arguments against him.
ReplyDeleteI think y'all 'real conservatives' should expect the same treatment in 2016 when someone like Christie is championed as being "electable"!
Is the new Michelle Bachelet government ‘socialist’?
ReplyDeleteWe have had less than one month of the new government of Michelle Bachelet and already we can get a clear idea of what the next four years of this Concertación (coalition) government will be like. It will be a repeat of the policies of the governments of the last twenty years – neo-liberalism.
If anybody on the left still believes that with these people a “turn to the left” or even more radical policies will taken place, they clearly fail to understand, or don’t want to understand, what is happening.
To continue to put hopes in Bachelet government is a big mistake and doing so will give no assistance to building a real, left alternative.
To continue feeding expectations amongst workers and the poor - that this government will be different to the previous government - is to lie to the people. The integration by the members of the Concertación within the capitalist system is too great…
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/2204
Written, obviously, from the POV of hard-core leftism...
Serious question:
ReplyDeleteAre you capable of discussing things w/o resorting to logical fallacy after logical fallacy, or are you simply ignorant of how to use logic/reason?
Back at Ghost Squirrel's blog you used the Red Herring Fallacy ("Laws against murder/rape are valid, therefore laws against drug-usage/possession are too) in support of your pro-prohibition position:
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase.
Your non-argument could also be classified as:
False Analogy: two things of different classes are compared (apples & oranges); assumes that because two things are alike in some ways they are alike in all ways.
I’ll tell you what a “red herring” is. It’s you talking about this “fallacy” and that “fallacy” so you can evade the gist of the argument that I ALREADY clarified above, which is that IT’S A QUESTION OF HARMING INNOCENT PEOPLE. THAT’S the connection between behaviors like murder and rape and behaviors like drug use and prostitution. You may DISAGREE with that argument – fair enough, but just because you disagree doesn’t make it a red herring, and if you think otherwise then you need to go back and study the definition of “red herring.”
DeleteNow I could make my case for why I happen to believe that harm to innocent people is a valid argument against drug use and prostitution (and why presumably most societies think so as well) and we could debate that; however, it’s my understanding that you went to “Hardnox & Friends” and tried to post some rather nasty comments on my post there, so I don’t think I’ll bother. You can decide if you want to debate or if you just want to be a typical a-hole.
Don't know who the hell Hardknox is.
DeleteAnd, again, you're not constructing LOGICAL arguments…for someone who likes to constantly accuse others of committing a Straw Man Logical Fallacy, aren't you being kind of hypocritical/inconsistent here?
I've had Libs say that that NOT having govt. welfare/wealth-redis programs "harms innocent people"…and they commit the SAME exact logical fallacies as you about why guns should be illegal...and when asked for the LOGIC behind their assertions, they do the same as you and say its their "opinion" while also making a whole bunch of weird statements/connections (like you w/your drugs/prostitution assertions)…very sloppy thinking.
I'm sorry, but asserting that an individuals using DRUGS or engaging in PROSTITUTION (not POTENTIALLY doing dumb things while ON drugs or POTENTIALLY psychologically harming "the children" by trading sex-for-compensation) "hurts innocent people" is NOT A LOGICAL ARGUMENT.
You can have the "opinion" that 2+2=71, but LOGICALLY your opinion is worthless and indefensible.
So, please answer:
Are you INCAPABLE of using logic…UNAWARE of what logic is…or just plain intellectually LAZY?
>>”…for someone who likes to constantly accuse others of committing a Straw Man Logical Fallacy, aren't you being kind of hypocritical/inconsistent here?”
DeleteUm, except that you DID engage in straw-man arguments (intentional misrepresentation of another person’s position) and I DID NOT use a red herring (changing the subject). As I explained before and will explain for the last time, the fact that you happen to disagree with what I said doesn’t mean that I changed the subject. It means you DISAGREE. Got it?
>>”…libs… commit the SAME exact logical fallacies as you about why guns should be illegal...and when asked for the LOGIC behind their assertions, they do the same as you and say its their "opinion"…”
It’s interesting that the two anarchists I’ve argued with both insist that only THEY will be allowed to define what constitutes “harm,” demonstrating that they’re just as domineering as those they despise. EVERY law is based on opinion when it comes to the question of harming innocents. Murder, rape and robbery are crimes virtually everywhere because – IN THE OPINION OF MOST PEOPLE – they harm innocents. “Harm” and “innocents” are subjective terms, as evidenced by the fact that there are a wide range of charges and punishments associated with serious crimes. Furthermore there are people who, in their own opinion (and perhaps that of others), claim they are justified in these behaviors, as in your example above when you describe the Left’s justification for forced wealth redistribution (i.e. theft). People will try to justify doing all sorts of things. So what? That doesn’t mean the rest of us must willingly go along with it. In case you hadn’t noticed, life within a society is a constant struggle between people trying to assert what they see as their rights vs. other people trying to protect what they believe is theirs. We have the debate and we decide, with the exception (in theory) of what we agree to be essential rights, as in the case of the right to bear arms.
>>”… asserting that an individuals using DRUGS or engaging in PROSTITUTION (not POTENTIALLY doing dumb things while ON drugs or POTENTIALLY psychologically harming "the children" by trading sex-for-compensation) "hurts innocent people" is NOT A LOGICAL ARGUMENT.”
DeleteWhat’s not logical is this simplistic and disingenuous argument that we must evaluate actions based strictly on the act without considering the potential consequences. I can easily establish that certain behaviors are routinely outlawed without controversy only because of their POTENTIAL to do harm. You can’t drive 120 mph in a residential area because of the POTENTIAL to harm someone. Setting an uncontrolled fire even on your own property is generally illegal because of its POTENTIAL to spread and harm others. Shooting a gun randomly out your living room window (I had a cousin killed this way) is illegal because of the POTENTIAL to harm someone. Do you need more examples? I can make you a long list. It’s common practice to regulate behaviors that POTENTIALLY cause harm. The only question that remains is whether or not drug use/prostitution potentially causes harm. From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Harm: noun \ˈhärm\: physical or mental damage or injury: something that causes someone or something to be hurt, broken, made less valuable or successful, etc.
Or if you prefer Encarta’s definition: to cause physical, mental, or moral impairment or deterioration
Let’s talk drugs first. I know people will argue that it isn’t necessary (or logical) to outlaw/regulate drugs because crimes committed under the influence are already outlawed, but here’s the problem: the agreement ostensibly made between people as to what behaviors constitute criminal behavior (or even aggression, if you prefer to go by the NAP), assumes that both parties are and will be capable of making rational decisions when it comes to the law. That is explicitly why we don’t include children in the agreement and to a certain extent the mentally ill. It’s understood that those groups don’t necessarily have the mental acumen to be expected to understand and adhere to the laws, and we reserve the right to treat them differently. IMO the same logic applies to the use of certain drugs, and we have the right to regulate them if we believe people under their influence can’t be trusted to abide by the law and respect the rights of others.
There’s no question that drug use POTENTIALLY leads to the harm of innocents, whether it’s because of their impaired sense of right and wrong or because they harm/steal to support their habit or because they abandon/neglect their children, etc. The only question is whether or not that potential for harm rises to a level that justifies criminalizing drug use. In your opinion it doesn’t. That’s reasonable. But that’s a DIFFERENT argument from saying that the phenomenon of recreational drug use poses NO risks to others.
As far as prostitution goes, everyone thinks it’s great as long as they don’t have to live next door to it or raise their children around it. It can damage the moral fabric of society and drive down property values in the surrounding areas. In short, it potentially meets the definition of “harm” to those who are innocent bystanders.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion I want to dispel a few of the myths that are swimming around your neo-anarchist brain. I am not on a “crusade” against drugs and prostitution. The ONLY reason we’re talking about it is because Andrew brought the subject up. I don’t think I’ve ever addressed it on my blog, so you can cease with your self-serving hysteria. Second, Andrew’s argument (and yours, I presume) is based on the premise that drugs and prostitution don’t harm anyone but the participants. That’s clearly false. As I noted to you before, some percentage of the world are a-holes. When I lived in Colorado there was an incident a mile from my home involving a 19-year old man who was high on PCP and cocaine. He broke into three homes and shot 3 people (killing 2) and raped one woman who was home alone with a small child. I’m sure he isn’t indicative of most recreational drug users, but people like him are the reason that people like me believe we have a right to say something about drug use. So if you want to be mad at someone be mad at a-holes like him who spoil things for everyone else.
ReplyDeleteSame exact rationale Left-wing Progs use in their anti-gun 'arguments'.
DeleteFallacy: Appeal to Fear
Also Known as: Scare Tactics, Appeal to Force, Ad Baculum
Description of Appeal to Fear
The Appeal to Fear is a fallacy with the following pattern:
Y is presented (a claim that is intended to produce fear).
Therefore claim X is true (a claim that is generally, but need not be, related to Y in some manner).
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because creating fear in people does not constitute evidence for a claim.
Funny that you work so hard to try and mold and squeeze and hammer my arguments to fit the formulas you’ve found in the Handbook for Crazy Libertarians. It’s as if you can’t argue for yourself unless you come up against something that fits the prepared mold.
DeleteWhat is your answer to the examples I gave about speeding in residential areas, shooting randomly out the window or setting an uncontrolled fire to your own property? Do the people who might get run over, shot or burned have any right to say anything about these activities, in your opinion, and if so, why? If not, why?
What is your answer to the FACT (you did say you liked to deal in facts) that we reserve the right to treat children and the mentally ill differently when it comes to matters of the law? Do you think that’s valid or not?
If the argument for the right to regulate drugs is based on fear then so is the argument for laws against murder, rape and robbery. If you see it differently, then explain.
Yes, it’s true that the Left makes a similar argument about guns but is that the deepest your thinking can go on the matter? Do you not see any difference between balancing the right not to be a gun victim against the right to bear arms (and defend oneself) versus the right not to be a victim against the ‘right’ to do recreational drugs? As great as it would be if everyone could do whatever they wanted, often times the exercise of what one person perceives as his rights interferes with the rights of what another person perceives as his rights. That’s another point you ignored in you’re A+B=C fallacy lecture. What is your answer to that dilemma?
False Analogy Fallacy
DeleteHahahahaha! I’ll take that to mean you have no answer, so I think we’re done here. Thanks for playing!
DeleteOK, CW…
ReplyDeleteI can see now that you're just a Right-wing Progressive…incapable of logic.
Enjoy voting for Chris Christie and getting wiped out by Hillary in 2016!
Talking to Right-wing Progs like you (and, to a slightly lesser extent TGS--who at least seems CAPABLE of logical thought) puts me in mind of a conversation I had about 20 years ago (when I was first getting serious about libertarianism) w/an older libertarian who was in the process of expatriation from the USSA…he told me that America and Americans were a lost cause, too heavily indoctrinated and communistic to bother trying to save.
ReplyDeleteNaive as I was, I argued that when things got bad enough, Conservatives and Liberals would put aside their petty differences and pull their heads out of their arses--they just needed to be exposed to the Light of libertarianism. Boy was I wrong…and I really wish I would've started the expatriation process back when this gentleman advised me to.
What’s not logical is this notion you seem to have that people should or would sit around quietly, waiting to be victims of the arseholes who do whatever they please with no regard to the potential consequences for anyone else. There’s a special name for that: tyranny of the arseholes.
Delete>>” and I really wish I would've started the expatriation process back when this gentleman advised me to.”
That makes two of us!
…by voting for arseholes like Reagan, Bush, McCain,and Romney…ok, got it!
DeleteNow HERE'S one hell of a woman!
Deletehttp://josietheoutlaw.com/#learn-more
I think you two would make a good pair. Obviously you both read from the same sources (Josie: “More people need to learn about …the NAP, the concept of self ownership… a stateless society...” That’s right out of the book!)..
DeleteIn her video she says, “If any idea is silly and utopian it’s the idea that if you give a bunch of politicians dominion over the rest of us they will use that power to protect and serve us. When has that ever happened? And why does anyone think it ever will?”
Good question! I would ask the same of her and with respect to being an advocate for the absence of gov’t: When has that ever happened? And why does anyone think it ever will? You didn’t have an answer when I asked you. The anarchist before you didn’t have an answer. Maybe Josie does. But I don’t think so. Maybe one day, when her thinking advances beyond just reading and regurgitating, she will consider what the solution is to the inevitability of gov’t. Right now her “I just want freedom” mantra only reminds me of when the liberals say “I just think people are more important” when they’re bad-mouthing capitalism. And what’s ironic is that she invokes a well-known quote by Thomas Jefferson – A FRAMER OF THE CONSTITUTION – while at the same time she presumes to know better than Jefferson (and Ben Franklin and all of the others who drafted the Constitution). How arrogant is that? Does she really believe that Jefferson, Madison and Washington et al never considered “freedom” as an alternative to gov’t???
Josie says, “Whenever rights are being violated in the name of law and authority…,”
I can’t help but wonder if she’s given any thought at all to the concept of “rights.” What exactly are her rights? Where do they come from? How do we preserve them? I don’t think she’s thought about it but hey, she speaks with confidence and apparently that’s needed to impress libertarians and leftists.
And Josie (at such a young age) has a far better grasp of "rights" than you ever will…and the spine to speak the truth.
DeleteThat's because she actually has a guiding principle (NAP)--unlike you.
My gosh…can you write a paragraph (or sentence) w/o resorting to Logical Fallacies?
And your little dig about wishing I'd ex-patriated 20 years ago was, once again, IDENTICAL to what Left-wing Progs say when I complain about THEIR socialism!
Your immaturity doesn't bother me, though…because--in a few years--you'll probably be the one wishing he'd picked-up and left the USSA!
Or, maybe not…maybe you'll be cheering on whatever American Hitler (granted he's a Republican) assumes power by then...
>>”And Josie (at such a young age) has a far better grasp of "rights" than you ever will…and the spine to speak the truth.”
DeleteUnfortunately she doesn’t have the brain to know the truth.
>>”That's because she actually has a guiding principle (NAP)--unlike you.”
Has she considered who, under the NAP, is the final arbiter of what constitutes “aggression?” No? I thought not.
>>My gosh…can you write a paragraph (or sentence) w/o resorting to Logical Fallacies?”
And yet you never say what these “logical fallacies” are that I’m supposed to have committed.
>>”And your little dig about wishing I'd ex-patriated 20 years ago was, once again, IDENTICAL to what Left-wing Progs say when I complain about THEIR socialism!”
So you’re not popular with anyone. Big deal.
>>”Your immaturity doesn't bother me, though…because--in a few years--you'll probably be the one wishing he'd picked-up and left the USSA!”
YOUR immaturity bothers me tremendously.
>>”Or, maybe not…maybe you'll be cheering on whatever American Hitler (granted he's a Republican) assumes power by then...”
Hitler, eh? Gee, that’s original.
Yes, Josie isn't as smart as you…she doesn't realize that the way to promote liberty is to vote for McCain and Romney!
DeleteAnd have you considered what happens when the "final arbiter" (as if this is even necessary or desirable!) doesn't do its job or abuses its status as "final arbiter"?
I'm sorry…do you neocons have a monopoly on Hitler references?
>>”Yes, Josie isn't as smart as you…she doesn't realize that the way to promote liberty is to vote for McCain and Romney!”
DeleteStraw man: an intentional misrepresentation of another person’s argument in order to make it easier for you to prevail in debate.
You could give Barack Obama some stiff competition for the prize of most prolific straw-man user. Apparently neither one of you has the confidence in his arguments to be honest. I NEVER said voting for McCain or Romney was a way to “promote liberty. “ Sure didn’t take long for you to go back on your word, btw (I guess that’s another thing you have in common with Obama.
>>”And have you considered what happens when the "final arbiter" (as if this is even necessary or desirable!) doesn't do its job or abuses its status as "final arbiter"?”
Certainly, which is why, given the fact that there will be gov’t whether I like it or not, I wanted to keep Al Gore, John Kerry and Barack Obama out of the White House.
My question to you is this: under the NAP, WHO decides what constitutes “aggression” and who decides what will be done about it? Don’t come back until you an answer (and no, it’s not cheating if you ask Josie).
No, it wasn't a Stawman.
DeleteIf you can use logical fallacies--and then deny that you do--then so can I!
And, you didn't answer my Q about the "final arbiter"…nor do I think you even understand what the very concept of a "final arbiter" entails.
I'll try this AGAIN and see if you attempt to answer it this time:
How can you PROVE Gore/Kerry would've been worse than Bush and that McCain/Romney would've been less bad than Obama?
Under an NAP system (where no privileged/unaccountable ruling Political Caste exists), there would be no "final arbiter" w/political power over a vast territory encompassing 100's of MILLIONS of people--since this very idea is insane and would be rejected by people capable of rational thought. There would be local/private mechanisms for dealing w/various levels of aggression/fraud/disputes. I wouldn't imagine they'd please 100% of the people 100% of the time or be infallible--but this infallibility would be restricted to a very local level, instead of harming 100's of MILLIONS--like when John "Strict Constructionist" Roberts deciding ACA was A-OK! However, they'd blow away the current socialist 'justice' system (which is rife w/conflicts of interest and corruption), set up by the 'founders', w/o a doubt--just like free-markets blow away socialism in every other sphere.
I hesitate to get much more specific, because you'll probably use your illogic to find fault w/it--just like Left-wing Progs use illogic to poke holes in the assertion that private charity would function better than socialist wealth-redis programs.
I don't need to ask Josie, because I'm not a follower (like Loyal Republican Voters are!) and I can logically think for myself (unlike some people who I know).
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete>>”I hesitate to get much more specific [about the NAP], because you'll probably use your illogic to find fault w/it—“
DeleteSo we just have to pass it before we can learn what’s in it, right? You sound EXACTLY like the last anarchist. “I have the perfect alternative to gov’t. Just don’t ask me to explain how it works.” LOL.
Is it illogical to ask how it will be decided what behaviors rise to the level of “aggression?” Is it illogical to ask WHO will get to decide this and what happens if people disagree? Is it illogical to ask what will happen to people who don’t abide by your interpretation of the NAP? What if an accused person disputes the accusations against them? Who decides whether or not he’s really guilty? Who decides what his punishment will be? Are those illogical questions? If he is to be confined, how does that work? I suppose that’s an illogical question too. The test of whether or not something like the NAP is a viable alternative to something like the Constitution is whether it can stand up to simple, basic questions about how it will work. Based upon your disclaimer I assume it won’t.
>>” There would be local/private mechanisms for dealing w/various levels of aggression/fraud/disputes.”
Where do these private “mechanisms” derive their authority from for dealing with disputes involving you or me? Why would I submit to the authority of a private mechanism employed by you and why would you submit to a private mechanism employed by me? What would be my incentive to engage any private mechanism if I already had the upper hand?
That’s just a tiny sampling of the questions you dismiss as nitpicking and “illogical,” which is why you can’t be taken seriously. You think you’ve achieved some higher level of thinking than the rest of the world when in reality others have long past considered the type of non-government government you think you’ve discovered. What you’re really saying, and Josie too, is that you want to substitute your own idea of gov’t for what we currently have.
Ironically someone just posted a video of Josie on one of the sites I visit. She was making the case against gun control and she did a very good job. I agree with pretty much all she said and in fact I just applied for my own concealed gun license here in Texas. But within her video I find contradictions to the gov’t-free society she seems to envision. Talking about guns she says, “Don’t fire if you’re not sure where the bullet might go, or who or what it might hit.” She refers to this as a “rule,” but my question to her would be: who made the “rule?” Who enforces the “rule?” What should happen to people who don’t follow the “rule,” as in the case of my cousin who was shot and killed doing the very thing she suggested is against the “rules?” Does the “rule” apply to people who don’t necessarily think it should be a rule?
Delete“…keep in mind why the second amendment was written. Even with the Constitution in place the Founders still thought it was ultimately the job of the people, not any legislator or court, to decide when the government had gone too far and to forcibly resist if necessary. So is it any wonder that the American ruling class now views anyone who talks too much about the Constitution or the D.O.I. as a possible terrorist?”
That’s confusing to me, as she denounces the Constitution as “words on paper” (there’s another phrase I’ve seen many times now) while at the same time reminding us why the second amendment “was written” ……….on paper. She acknowledges that the Constitution is the enemy of the “ruling class,” but IMO that contradicts the idea of the Constitution as the enemy of freedom. The ruling class doesn’t like the Constitution – as originally written and conceived – for the very reason that they see it as the protector of the freedom they want to steal.
I’m not really interested in a having a snarky fight with you and I’m having trouble understanding what your purpose is here. If you simply want to vent your anger, you’ve done that already. Your anger, however unjustified I think it might be, is duly noted. If your purpose here is to try and persuade me to see things as you do, you have a very odd way of going about it, beginning with all the straw-man arguments. I don’t bring those up just because I want to play some silly game with you. If you have to misrepresent my argument or put words in my mouth in order to have this debate that should be a signal to you that something is amiss. No one who truly has a superior argument should ever need to resort to straw-men.
DeleteYou like to talk about logic and fallacies but then you ask a question like this: >>”How can you PROVE Gore/Kerry would've been worse than Bush and that McCain/Romney would've been less bad than Obama?”
Your question is silly. It’s like asking two people to prove which of two cars is “best” without giving them a uniform set of measurements to go by. One person might like a fast car while another prefers a car for hauling big stuff. I don’t have to PROVE anything to you, nor do I have the kind of time it would take (nor will you ever accept my answer because our standards will be different). I’m entitled to my opinion just as you are entitled to yours. Subjective questions don’t necessarily lend themselves to another person’s idea of what’s logical. If I like to drive fast I might say it’s illogical for someone to drive an old pick-up, but that would be an inappropriate use of the term, “logical.”
Jefferson was in France during the 1787 ConCon…and Franklin (who was old, frail, and mostly blind at the time) was primarily an honorary member who made very little (if any) substantial contribution.
ReplyDeleteYou don't even know what the hell you're talking about…but, of course, ignorant people tend to be the most confident in their knowledge.
For someone who claims to be a rational thinker, its odd that you've made your voting decision for 2016 (and 2020, and 2024, and 2028, and…) already, w/o hearing a single debate, ascertaining a single position of the GOP candidate, perusing said candidate's historical record, or even knowing WHO the candidate will be!
Oh, but you're a "conservative not a Republican"!
You crack me up CW...
>>”Jefferson was in France during the 1787 ConCon…and Franklin (who was old, frail, and mostly blind at the time) was primarily an honorary member who made very little (if any) substantial contribution.”
DeleteThat’s pretty pathetic straw-grasping. You gonna tell me Jefferson and Franklin weren’t really fully behind the Constitution?
>>” …ignorant people tend to be the most confident in their knowledge.”
That would explain all the laughter during Josie’s phony interview video.
>>”… its odd that you've made your voting decision for 2016 (and 2020, and 2024, and 2028, and…) already, w/o hearing a single debate, …”
Huh? Besides the fact that I won’t be voting for a democrat you don’t a damned thing about my future votes. And unless you decide to give up on anarchy and resume voting then your voting decisions (non-voting) have also been made without hearing a single debate.
With your vast knowledge of the 'founders', I wonder…what do you think THEY would think of federal agents (the TSA) virtually strip-searching and/or groping women and children?
DeleteWhat would they think of the people who put the govt. which created the TSA into power--and who will only vote for politicians who think the TSA should be maintained and even EXPANDED to encompass more forms of travel?
What would they think of the people who rationalize that it "keeps us safe"?
What would they think of the people who rationalize it by saying "if you don't like it don't fly"?
What do you think they'd think about federal agents (the NSA) seizing the private communications of nearly everyone (and the people who endorse/rationalize it,etc.)?
What do you think they'd think about a 40-50-60% tax/regulatory burden and the IRS (and the people who endorse/rationalize it, etc.)?
I take it by your question that you believe the Founders wouldn’t have approved because you believe they had too much respect for personal liberty?
DeleteYou ask the question as if you think I’m in favor of groping women and children and imposing high and unnecessary taxes on people. I don’t think the Founders would like what they see. I’m not sure what point you think you’re making to me, since the distortion of the Founders original vision for this nation is a central topic of this blog.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLooks like you've surrendered to my superior position…
ReplyDeleteI'll leave you w/a quote from Patrick Henry which described his opinion of the 'framers':
"I smell a rat."
Looks like you'll never get past your arrogance problem.
Delete"The example of changing a constitution by assembling the wise men of the state, instead of assembling armies, will be worth as much to the world as the former examples we had give them. The constitution too, which was the result of our deliberation, is unquestionably the wisest ever yet presented to men." -Thomas Jefferson
Communist Income Tax: Declared 'constitutional' per the 'framers' system.
ReplyDeleteTSA: ditto
Warrantless surveillance: ditto
ACA: ditto
I could go on and on and on...
I’ll never understand why anarchists think that the same people who won’t be bound by the Constitution will instead submit to a “system” like the NAP, or forego their lawlessness in favor of leaving people to self-government. Talk about naïve.
DeleteThere’s going to be gov’t – period; THE END. One reason I know this is because the first thing you rabid anarchists do when proposing your “alternative” to gov’t is to start telling me what the new “rules” will be, according to YOU (although the last anarchist was careful to avoid the word “rules,” telling me instead that “encroachments would be prohibited.”) Once you acknowledge the FACT of gov’t (I remember you said you like to deal in facts) it changes the whole nature of this debate, which is precisely why you duck my SIMPLE questions about the NAP like a wary boxer trying to avoid a killer blow. You know that answering will lead to an admission that the NAP or anything else you propose is just another form of gov’t. Better to bury your head in the sand and pretend that reality does not exist.
If gov’t is inevitable, which it is, then the question isn’t “IF gov’t?” it’s “WHAT gov’t?” The original framers of the Constitution – people who didn’t shy away from thinking on their own (i.e. not dependent on Lew Rockwell) and who didn’t avoid reality – sought to limit the power of gov’t by agreement (yes, those infamous “words on paper”). They fully understood it might not work, as it depends on a mature, informed populace that’s basically decent in character (i.e. not liberals). But once you have a majority that are determined to steal or tyrannize (or a minority coupled with a lazy, apathetic populace), nothing short of physical confrontation will stop them, whether it’s the Constitution or the NAP.
The prior anarchist used to tell me that everyone wants freedom and the absence of gov’t equals freedom and is possible. My answer to him was that, in my experience, when people want something that’s possible to have, they get it; yet looking around the world and even back through history, there’s no such thing as people living in government-less bliss, so one or both of those statements must not be true. Yes, SOME people want freedom. But others want a nanny state. Others want to be in control. Those realities will ALWAYS lead to gov’t created by tyranny or gov’t created in the hopes of keeping tyranny at bay.
DeleteI’ve tried to have a reasonable debate with you but you just become more shrill and hysterical with each post, a reaction, I’m sure, to having your most precious prejudices challenged, that being your fantasy that the world would be just great if you could eliminate gov’t. Instead of engaging in a rational debate, which anyone with confidence in their position would want to do, you resort to false arguments, name calling and the old standby: “But you voted for blah, blah, blah!” as if changing the subject and demanding that I explain what I’ve explained 20 times now is going to make this fundamental problem go away for you. Too bad, because I like a good debate and I can be persuaded by good arguments.
I anticipate that you will ignore the substance of what I’ve said here and you’ll come back with the usual smack-talking and name calling. Been there, done that, so this is good-bye.