Some self-described ‘libertarians’ have been trumpeting the cause of ‘free speech’ and ‘tolerance of differing opinions’. Yet, they don’t seem to know what any of those words mean. They complain about the silencing of bigoted speakers on college campuses, like Milo or Anne Coulter, and they fear that European laws against ‘hate speech’ will soon reach this country. While I don’t necessarily support ‘hate speech laws’, I don’t feel the need to defend the right of others to speak. What value does Milo or Anne Coulter bring to a debate? What is gained by using misogynistic or homophobic words? The most perplexing thing that these self-described ‘libertarians’ complain about is ‘political correctness’ and a phenomenon known as ‘call out culture’.
Certain alt-right denizens who claim to be ‘libertarian’, like Tom Woods or Jeff Deist, seem awfully concerned with ‘political correctness’ (or, more aptly called ‘being polite’). Woods, himself, always begins his podcast of hate by declaring that the listener should ‘prepare to set fire to the index card of allowable opinion’. How ridiculous. What is ‘libertarian’ about questioning popular opinion? Of course, Woods, always targets the most mundane and inconsequential issues of the day, otherwise, what would he have to talk about? For instance, a recent post by Woods on Twitter bemoaned the firing of a Google employee who created an inflammatory report suggesting that women are not underrepresented at the tech company because of discrimination, but instead because, based off of college majors, women are predisposed to want to study other fields besides engineering and computer sciences. Woods and his fellow travelers think that the employee’s firing proves the point that Google does not value diversity of opinion. Ok, so? When did diversity of opinion become more important than diversity of race, sex, or gender? Opinions (especially those that are wrong) can and should be changed, but a woman cannot change being a woman and a transgender man cannot help being a man. The notion that libertarianism should only view people as individuals, which, therefore, should negate the lived experiences of minority communities is childish and fueled by bigotry.
These faux libertarians are also the same people that got worked up about other alt-right cause de celebre, such as Brendan Eich being forced out as CEO of Mozilla in 2014 after an uproar began because of his past opposition to same-sex marriage. I’m not sure if Woods and his Mises colleagues genuinely hate gays (considering how many of them are congregants of the reactionary Roman Catholic Church, it wouldn’t surprise me) or if they are just insincere asses. For those who don’t recall, Eich was a bigot who donated $1,000 to a campaign to ban same-sex marriage in California through Proposition 8 (rightly dubbed ‘Proposition Hate’). Though the proposition was eventually approved by voters, the courts later overturned the results and our country rightly began denouncing the religious fanatics and heteronormative reactionaries (redundancy between the latter and the former) who forced their religious views onto marriage. To be sure, Woods and the alt-right blowhards at the Mises Institute do support gay marriage, though they disagree on whether or not there is a constitutional right to such a union, if states should decide the qualifications for marriage, or if the government should be involved in marriages at all. All of these arguments are insincere efforts to maintain a marital status quo that was indiscernible from the Jim Crow South. And they do in fact support the notion of ‘separate but equal’, otherwise they wouldn’t defend Christian zealots who don’t want to serve gay weddings. It is not libertarian to oppose the natural right to have a government contract recognizing your marital union. And yes, anyone who opposes that right, or has in the past, will and should face consequences by their employer. Eich got what he deserved and the market, fueled by professional agitators, worked.
I sincerely believe that the opposition to the firing of Eich and the Google employee is a symptom of the Mises Institute’s disdain for democracy and the market, along with their latent bigotry. Both Eich and the Google employee were fired due to outrage by consumers. How is that not the free market functioning as it should? Sure, mobs can be a dangerous phenomenon, but not when they support just ideas. A mob of ignorant drug-addled hicks propelled a racist buffoon into the White House with a message of isolationism and scapegoating immigrants. That was bad. But, a mob that insists on tolerance by stamping out vulgar ideas that question the progress of society is good.
I’m glad that there are more tolerant voices within the Libertarian Movement today. Voices like Nick Sarwark of the Libertarian Party who rightly pointed out via Twitter that Murray Rothbard was a bigot. Sarwark has also been good about respectfully engaging with members of Antifa about their radical ideology supporting violence against racists who spew hate speech. These are thought-provoking conversations, unlike Mises Institute events which discuss inane topics such as an imagined ‘right of conscience’ and a ‘right to free association’. Brink Lindsey, with the CATO Institute, has also been excellent in his criticisms of the ‘Paulista Cult’. He’s noted, recently via Twitter, that “Ron Paul’s xenophobia was a hideous corruption of libertarian ideas and puts his movement in the Trumpism family tree.” Yes! And he went on “But the most prominent libertarian voice of recent times, Ron Paul, opposed all trade agreements and promoted anti-trade conspiracy theories.” I’m glad that someone said it. Naturally, the ‘Paulistas’ promptly attacked and noted that Brink Lindsey has supported nearly every American conflict since the 1990’s, including both Iraq Wars. As if supporting the expansion of state authority to engage in armed conflict is somehow a greater ‘sin’ than Paul opposing NAFTA. How ill-informed must one be to honestly believe that supporting our military is bad?
I’m hopeful that the reactionary brand of libertarianism, as embodied by Tom Woods and the Mises Institute will soon be relegated to the trash bin of history. No more will we true libertarians be inundated with ridiculous remarks about the ‘non-aggression principle’ and how dividing people into identity groups somehow betrays the message of ‘individualism’ (whatever you say, George Wallace). And things are moving in a positive direction, especially after the tolerant campaign message furthered by great libertarians like Bill Weld and Gary Johnson. So long as we libertarians focus on the important issues at hand, such as promoting Uber and food trucks, we won’t need to be bogged down in culture war issues like free speech and diversity of opinion.
Comments
388 responses to “As Long as the Re-education Camps are Private, I See Nothing Wrong with Them”
Paragraph 5.
It took me until paragraph 5.
Poe’s Law is a bitch sometimes.
I ran into a wall of text and stopped reading. My brain is just frazzled today, so I didn’t want to wade into it.
But you are commenting on it anyways?
I’d do the same thing.
People read the articles? Or click the Links?
Same.
Paragraph 1 for me but i’m smarter than the average glib (i would write bear with strikethrough but im on my phone and to lazy to do it)
bear with strikethroughNice.
*Enacts Pie’s Labor*
Go ahead and clap for yourself on that one.
That’s not the kind of bear I had in mind
This?
This?
This?
You’re missing the pig part of ManBearPig.
Jesse has some bears you might like.
If I hadn’t noticed the by line I might not have caught on quickly. None of the regulars around here could write this as anything but parody.
I got it at this point:
I was a bit puzzled until then.
Problem is it doesn’t work as parody because this is what they actually believe
I didn’t get it until “the tolerant campaign message furthered by great libertarians like Bill Weld and Gary Johnson.” In my defense, I haven’t been awake very long. /my excuse and I’m sticking to it
I was hedging on parody but after the ‘to be sure’ I went all in.
Excellent stuff.
I started to smell some smoke around the “reactionary Roman Catholic Church” line, but I’m running on little sleep.
It was when he called woods podcast a “podcast of hate” that I realized.
Had me going for a bit too. I bailed at the 2nd paragraph and was just going to type “Fuck off, slaver” in the comments when I thought, “Wait, doesn’t this guy usually make sense?” So I read some of the top comments and came back in off the ledge.
…um, same for me. Although, I kinda figured he was doing some devil’s advocate schtick starting at 2.
My meter is totally fucked at this point. I had to wait until the final paragraph to get the meter to give a valid reading.
Woo hoo! I am 1 paragraph better than kinnath!!!!
My excuse is creeping senility. What’s yours?
creeping senility AND a 21 month old.
Wait until you start stepping on legos.
Oh man, or electrical socket safety plugs. That’s how my kid’s learning how to swear.
We skipped that with the second one. He’s still here. Just turned 2 in August. At this point, I figure his little ticker is strong enough to take a jolt.
This seems like as good a place as any to answer your question from the other day. Almost all of my attorney experience is with closed adoptions because of the circumstances surrounding the adoption (even the stepparent adoptions I have done). I can see some situations where an open adoption may work but as an adoptee it just seems weird, but I have never had the desire to have any sort of relationship with my birth parents. I am sure some would like to have some relationship with them prior to turning 18 and figuring it out themselves though.
Thanks.
My best friend got the info on his 18th birthday. He threw it right into the trash. Didn’t even want the genetic/medical history (and this was long before the days of 23andME.)
The adoption agencies are pushing open adoption. I guess it’s easier to get people to give up their kid, if they can keep some contact.
All three of my kids are adopted, two through closed adoptions (via the state/foster care), and one an open adoption (private). If it’s through the state, there’s no way I’d have an open adoption. There was a reason those kids were in foster care, and I wouldn’t want to invite that reason into my home. The open adoption was more feasible because the mom and dad were teenagers and were both heading into the military. The dad hardly contacts us, which is an issue, but the mom is more like an aunt the way we interact with her. Both families are very respectful and always understood they have no rights, and we can legally tell them to cease contact at any time. I think we are just lucky that it’s worked out so well for the past 12 years.
To be sure, Robby couldn’t say it better himself.
Robby hold naught but the most cocktail worthy opinions, i’ll have you know
I was delighted to catch that “To be sure”.
Do you want Hihn here? ‘Cause this is how you get Hihn.
Jesus christ even here you are stalking and bullying the guy. Leave Hihn alone
Stalking and bullying Hihn is what sucked me into this world on TOS…..I owe it all to him 😉
I was on “The List”!
*preens*
Never made it….kicks pebble
I was top 5, get on my level.
(The funniest part about that is I hadn’t talked to Hihn in like a year or two, he just really, really holds a grudge)
Damn…I was #9.
*looks down, shuffles feet*
I don’t even know what the fuck you did to piss him off, I mean, Crusty, John, that guy who doesn’t actually exist and I are obvious, but some people were on that list for no reason I can think of (although I admittedly stopped reading Hihn a long time ago and just scrolled past any of his comments).
Mostly mocked him. “BULLY!!!!!” and such. Actually wasted time refuting a couple of his points.
Then I got to scrolling past him.
alas I was but a humble lurker back then. Did not make a single post on Ye Olde Site. I was planning to but then the split happened and the rest is, as they say, well not history cause no one gives a fuck but you know what i mean
All I did was get him to admit he hates Jews and called him senile a lot.
The comments would be so dead when I’d try to leave my west coast comments that he was usually the only one left. It was very sad.
I was on one of the lists, which he keeps in permanent marker.
I hope I was #6.
I think #6 was Citizen X, but the whole list has probably shifted since The Exodus.
I doubt I made it to the list, I only remember interacting with him once, and I don’t think anything came back in caps.
First time I ever had a sad about not being on a deathlist.
Has anyone tried to get Citizen X over here? From what I recall he was a pretty good commenter over there?
Yes, we tried him and Crusty…they were not…receptive.
That’s odd. This place is markedly better than TOS and TOS markedly worse since the exodus….I don’t understand why they wouldn’t want to come over, unless they see it as giving up ground or something. Strange.
Ol’ Hihnney Poo….
One of my greatest points of pride at TOS was having SIV call me a lefty cosmo cuck and Hihn label me a Trump cultist within a few days of each other. 🙂
Seriously though, this was pretty awesome! Good job Just Say’n!
Thanks
I still haven’t groked that it’s parody; fuck off, slaver!
Wow! Did you guys know the level of anti-squirrel tech Glibs is deploying? I accidently doubled tapped “submit”, and I was directed to a page that said something like “Double post detected. It looks like you already posted this comment, do you want to do it again?”
Pretty cool
The problem with Milo is that sometimes he talks like a fag.
But is his shit all fucked up?
Kick ass!
Has anyone ever seen Elizabeth Nolan Brown and Just Say’n in the same room?
And did ENBs fiance know what they were up to? Was he watching? All these questions
CUCK!!!!
Yes. Knocking boots. And then she made me a sandwich. It was delicious.
Huh. Now I know that you have a ribcage fetish.
I wasn’t going to say ‘no’ to her. I’m a gentleman first and foremost
Jesus Christ I pity your confessional priest.
“And then I imagined Betty and Veronica making out…”
I’m not sure what you have against Betty and Veronica. That’s some top notch cartoon tail
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/nude-betty-veronica-in-shower-dan-decarlo
Thank you for this
Seconded. I love highbrow art.
Did you get any bone splinters or anything?
these are the jokes my girlfriends usually get from my friends. fuck, my birthday cake just said “EAT SOMETHING” on it.
I’m trying to lose weight. For the last couple of weeks I’ve basically been eating meat, veggies, greens, fruit, nuts, oil, taking supplements though. Pretty much a paleo diet. I like it though, doesn’t bother me at all. My weight really got out of control, pre-diabetic, high blood pressure, never feeling good, all that shit. Fuck that, I have to stick to this, there’s no going back. 35 lbs minimum to lose. 40 would get me to my perfect weight.
The damn problem is that 1 week into my change of diet, I got the fucking flu. Thankfully, my wife has been preparing meals and so I’ve stuck to it. This flu is nasty though, worst I’ve had in at least 10 years.
That part sucks. At least she’s keeping the diet going. I wouldn’t harangue anyone for breaking down a little during a flu.
I hate to say it, but booze is the biggest enemy. Every time I stop the Sacrament, I lean out really fast. My diet is normally as you describe. Lower carb works best for me.
Good luck, brother!
How much have you lost?
I just started couple of weeks ago. I was ‘sort of’ trying for a couple of months, but mostly failing. Then the wife joined me and we’ve stuck to it. I was 105 kilos at the max. Yesterday morning I was 97.9 kilos. I need to be around 80 kilos (175 lbs). That’s pretty fucking bad to get that overweight. And my health has really suffered. I blame beer and sedentary life, and junk food. I had to stop walking though because I got sick, so that’s slowing me down I’m sure, I’m too sick right now for physical activity, fucking cough and sore throat, ugh. I’m hoping to get to my target weight by year end.
*EDIT FAERIE DUN HEP’ED YA OUT*
Lol, “need to be around 180 kilos (175 lbs). “. 80 kilos, damnit.
You can do it. I’ve kept at my “work out” (warty laughs) so far. no gain, but I at least feel better. Helped my sleep pattern too. Although caffeine can still fuck me on that.
Thanks, edit fairy!
15 pounds in a couple of weeks is great if you can maintain that kind of velocity.
I found I plateaued after 20 lb loss and I’m going to have to push harder and start on portion control. A change in commute also meant that instead of a casein-chocolate shake for breakfast that would normally deal with my needs until noon, I’ve been eating a small scone – more calories, more carbs, more convenient which has stalled my progress.
But seriously, 2lb a week, week-on-week when you’re healthy is a good and (even for me) attainable target.
Shut up, you skinny little bastard! 😉
Whoops, that was for my buddy Doom!
Haha. I do need to get on some sort of crazy protein and carb loading diet. Doctor told me I need another 10 pounds.
One of the guys at flag football told me a site that had some good tips, but I cant remember it. beanto something??
Doom, when I was in my 20s, I couldn’t gain a fucking ounce no matter how hard I tried. Then I started drinking protein shakes and crunched down to powder around 10/12 of those big horse pill amino acids into the shakes, every day. That worked, I put on about 20-25 lbs of muscle over the course of 6-12, months. I was never skinny again after that. Then I got fact, damnit.
Yeah, it runs in the family. Dad might be 180 now, but it took a while for him.
I still have my learners permit where it has me at 5’11”- 099 lbs.
I’ve since grown a few inches and 35 pounds.
Don’t overthink it. Up your protein, good carbs and fat. You need to eat more, dude.
If all else fails, drink a shit-ton of milk!
bring me the meats! and nuts.
I also just got a free pair of rock climbing shoes. so now I’ll be going to one of the 19000 places to climb around here. That should help
Euphamism?
For clarification:
Euphemism?
if you think it’ll help me gain weight.
Take your mortar and pestle and grind up 10 or 12 of these a day and put in your protein shakes. It may be hard to eat enough protein to gain weight. In my 20s, I could eat 3 of those triple cheeseburgers from Wendy’s with the large fries for lunch and I couldn’t gain weight. 6-8 eggs for breakfast, gallon of milk a day, huge dinner. Didn’t work, but when I added the protein and aminos, I started gaining. May not work for you though, everyone is different. Now I have just the opposite problem. Life is hard and wants to kill you.
Shit, link.
Aminos
Damn DOOMco, I thought I was a skinny fuck when I was younger (5’10″/120 lb). You’ve got me beat. I have since aged, discovered good beer, and had my metabolism slow way the fuck down.
Fuck, I thought I was skinny at 5’9″ and 155 lbs. I had such a complex about it that I worked out with weights and gorged down enough protein for an adult elephant, for years, so that I could gain weight. The good old days…
Yeah I’m about 6’2″ and 140 now. need those 10 at least. Will try that amino and protein, Hyp.
When did Just Say’n take a position with the Niskanen Center?
When I became refined.
*sips cocktail*
Anyway, since the last thread is shuffling off its mortal coil, I’ll leave this here: fuckin’ federalism, how does it work?
Why do they keep losing?
This is why.
You’d be amazed by how long Bret can keep that Milk Bone on his nose!
That was just week 1. He’s moved on to eating peanut butter from some interesting places.
I’m convinced that Clinton lost the general election in most of the swing states during her primary run when she went hard-core anti-gun.
Refreshingly honest, at least.
“I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment.”
Well, don’t think too hard on that now, we don’t want you to strain your delicate and underworked brain.
Beware the derp in the comments.
EJ Dionne wants mob rule is the TL;DR version.
mob rule sounds like a fantastic way to reduce violence.
Don’t forget Norm Ornstein, AEI’s token socialist.
Perhaps because the only way to keep guns out of the “wrong hands” is to get some precogs to predict future crime a la Minority Report.
If someone jumps through all the required legal hoops, commits no crimes, and shows no outward signs of mental illness, how does one “keep guns out of the wrong hands”?
How? The banners believe that the wrong hands are all hands! Except of course for their own body guards and the police. Ignore that the police are going to be controlled by Secret Nazi President who will let the white supremacists and neo-Confederates run wild through your churches, synagogues and campuses.
RESIST THE FASCIST STATE BY ENSURING THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES ARMED!
If you believe in SNP, you likely believe that churches and synagogues are natural hotbeds of neo-Confederates.
…and synagogues are natural hotbeds of neo-Confederates.
+1 Judah Benjamin
In the past, I have suggested a one year waiting period after an event before even considering a law to correct actions from said event. Now, this is silly at times, we wouldn’t have wanted to wait a year after Pearl Harbor, for example. But in general, it is a good idea. Haste makes bad law.
Why does our political system make it impossible even to consider solutions to gun violence?
Beats me. Of course, I have yet to see a “common-sense” gun control proposal that was actually a solution to gun violence.
Even if you go full-retard gun confiscation, I think you have some lifting to do to show that would be a solution to gun violence.
Maybe because we don’t have a problem with gun violence? Maybe because the media coverage of mass shootings is similar to that of plane crashes and shark attacks, two other extremely rare events that get a lot of play because they’re scary and evoke a lot of emotion? Maybe because it is possible, we have considered it, and after making a lot of bad law we decided that maybe we had the wrong end of the stick?
Uh, who says it wasn’t considered? Sometimes the answer is no, you entitled shit. Too bad there isn’t the political equivalent of a restraining order for these obsessive stalker fucks.
Got to Dionne in by-line. Stopped reading.
It’s better that way. Less risk of permanent brain damage.
Majority?
That word does not mean what they think it means
Just Say’n, I think you’ve just secured yourself a writing slot at TOS. If not, at least some invitations to some amazing cocktail parties.
By the way, Just Say’n, terrific post. Funny as hell.
Thanks. I’m sure TOS would probably accept it as a submission if I just called a few more people racist in the article.
How awesome would it be if that got re-tweeted by a Dankertarian type Valerie Plame style?
Great post. You had my blood pressure going up until the bit about “thoughtful discussions with Antifa” and then the light went on.
Enjoy yourself a cocktail party.
I raised my own blood pressure just writing it
A kind of auto trigger.
You have verified your ability to infiltrate the left. Now go forth and cleanse!
I hope Brian Doherty updates Radicals for Capitalism to include the Ron Paul, Obama, Post Obama/TDS eras.
That’s an excellent book. I just started reading it.
Prepare for a shock – the ACLU is riddled with leftists who don’t actually believe in its core mission!
i dunno what everyone is seeing but 100% of the twitter comments are slamming those 200+ staffers. so it really is a heartening tweet thread.
Lol.
Fair enough – I rarely bother scrolling down on twitter posts.
OT but seriously: POS gonna POS
Ryan: ‘We need to look into’ bump stocks, as calls for fix grows – CNN
https://apple.news/AIKloL9u1TumtiexnYGeBig
People never find a way around prohibitions, it is known.
Anyone who is reasonably handy could make their own bump stock. It’s not nuclear engineering.
Reasonable handy or just wearing pants.
I’m in the clear, since I so rarely wear pants.
Kilts have belt loops, too.
Not a proper kilt
OH YEAH???
What if you have a NukE degree but aren’t reasonably handy?
Trade some DU with someone who knows how.
I’m looking for DU. Whatcha need?
If I were in congress I’d put in a bill that made a big show about decrying bump stocks and adding them to the NFA list
and buried in the changes a line that repealed the entirety of the NFA.
That’s actually what they’re probably going to do. The first thing, not the second.
Don’t forget to toss in national reciprocity as an afterthought.
I’d love to experience the imposition of NR here in Connecticut, who has no reciprocity with any other state. At all.
It’d be like a ‘greatest highlights’ reel from Scanners
My squishy-ass senator, Ron Johnson, is considering supporting that bill.
He’ll get me to volunteer for his primary opponent if he supports it. This is absurd. I could make a bump stock out of a 2×4 and some brackets. Rocket surgery it is not.
One unusual and horrific event is not enough reason to ban something acres of people use in a completely harmless fashion across the country.
Yup, as I predicted, the Repubs plan to go home with the following report card:
(1) Immigration reform – no
(2) Tax reform – no
(3) Healthcare reform – no
(4) Gun control – yes
If they are tired of being in Congress, why don’t they just retire?
If their base doesn’t primary their asses out of office en masse, then our ruling class will have finally cut the last remaining ties to most of their subjects.
Repubs are just as “principals over principles” as the Dems.
If they just regulated commercial sales of bump fires but not ownership, and traded it for removing the restrictions on suppressors, they’d probably be forgiven. It’s not exactly trading a cow for magic beans.
This is a masterclass in satire. I doff my hat to you, sir.
Thank you
10/10
Call Derpetologist, stat – we may have finally reached peak derp.
TW: Twitchy
The appropriate response.
“Thank you for sticking to the issues”
Like the issue of covering up your husbands affairs.
at sentence 4 i thought “somebody’s taking the piss”
I was seriously confused…”Is this satire?” was my initial thought.
The notion that libertarianism should only view people as individuals, which, therefore, should negate the lived experiences of minority communities is childish and fueled by bigotry.
A+
Great piece, JS!
I am actually annoyed when I go to France and people treat me like an individual instead of the average Romanian there to beg and steal
Thanks
Apparently Cam Newton is in the shit now.
Imagine if a male reporter had asked Cam a question involving the balls used on the field, and he said “It’s funny to hear a guy talk so much about balls”. Would there have been an uproar and calls for apology? I seriously doubt it. It seems that women are determined to prove they really aren’t the equal of men, and need to be treated like special delicate flowers. Or not, depending on their agenda at the time.
I didn’t watch the video. I thought it was just standard “Girls don’t know about football”. Did he pronounce it “rowts” or “roots”? Was it a hair dye joke? I’m so lost.
Read that Dannon already gave him the boot.
Fun part is that the reporter tried to escalate it later and claimed she confronted him about it and he made it worse by not apologizing. Since then she has had to delete some old tweets from her own account and apologize for them.
The internet cuts both ways, beeyotch!
Bravo JS!
My initial reaction as I read was one of skepticism, but your piece so perfectly imitated the writings of people who actually hold those views that I was never comfortable declaring it as clear satire…until the GJ and Weld piece at the very end.
Thanks. Let it be known, that I am not now nor have I ever been a ‘cosmo’
“Are you now, or have you ever been, invited to a DC cocktail party?”
Very nice, the sad thing is it’s articles like this that were serious, not satire, that chased me away from TOS.
I did have to recheck the sarcmeter about halfway through the first paragraph, but it’s still working.
The jig was up at “To be sure”.
The news was out?
You forgot to mention that any condemnation of political violence must also condemn the filthy right-wing rhetoric that said political violence is responding to.
One more link – credit where it’s due, this is an excellent piece by ENB
I think on average END had a decent run of articles. Better then mango sushi at least. Or is it plum sushi? I forget sometimes.
ENB can at least write decently and will actually do some degree of research if it’s a subject she’s decent at, Robby is just a terrible writer who is utterly incapable of actually looking things up.
He had this talent for writing an article I agreed with to some extent, but throwing in so many fucking social signals and apologies that I was enraged and hating him by the end. I wanted to give him a wedgie and take his lunch money, and I was never a bully.
Exactly!
The fact that he screams ‘snowflake’ at right-wingers all the time while falling onto the fainting couch whenever Milo is brought up is kind of a perfect summary of what an egotistical little wimp he is.
But, damn he’s got some hair that would make Farrah Faucet jealous
Did she learn to make a sammich yet? She better make 2 for herself. One for each of them chicken legs.
Did we forget the requisite /sarcsam tag?
So, I just saw Obumbles on Grupo Globo blabbering about the New Soviet Man.
“Voices like Nick Sarwark of the Libertarian Party who rightly pointed out via Twitter that Murray Rothbard was a bigot. Sarwark has also been good about respectfully engaging with members of Antifa about their radical ideology supporting violence against racists who spew hate speech.”
“Brink Lindsey, with the CATO Institute, has also been excellent in his criticisms of the ‘Paulista Cult’. He’s noted, recently via Twitter, that “Ron Paul’s xenophobia was a hideous corruption of libertarian ideas and puts his movement in the Trumpism family tree.” Yes! And he went on “But the most prominent libertarian voice of recent times, Ron Paul, opposed all trade agreements and promoted anti-trade conspiracy theories.””
FYI- these are real incidences that actually occurred. I did not make this part up.
I know, which is why my meter was bouncing full-on, full-off all the way to the last paragraph.
I think its better to mock these idiotic positions than to even lend them any significance by arguing against them
Good point. There really isn’t much use in trying to reason with progs-lites masquerading as libertarians. Their most deeply held principle is the freedom to be libertine rather than true freedom IMO.
Does Brink Lindsey even bother with claiming to be a libertarian anymore?
He’s still with CATO, last I checked. I don’t know if that means he’s still a libertarian, though. But, he should be fired, if CATO still wants to be associated with libertarianism. His foreign policy positions are disgraceful
OT but quite good.
why the gun is civilization.
I need to start reading Marko’s books.
There’s actually a third category, and its the biggest:
Emotional manipulation.
I thought shaming was the most important. But then again you’re probably a heteronormative white patriarch.
an idea recently pumped by someone i (still, but with less emphasis) respect
Balko’s TDS made me respect him a lot less. It’s great that he’s still fighting the good fight against the criminal justice system and police brutality, but his TDS and willingness to water down his beliefs in order to placate the Left is just baffling.
But then again I can understand it. He’s in a field where if you’re not condemning Trump 24/7 and try to be objective, your opinions no matter how right and moral they are will be thrown down the rabbit hole.
Balko’s “evolution” was easy to predict once he took a job with HuffPo. All downhill from there, although he remains very good at his main beat.
Wait… so is he actually saying that burning their tickets and jerseys is the same as burning black athletes in effigy?
It’s nuts how he uses this inaccurate and false comparison considering people have called him a cop killer or cop hater because he writes about abuses done by cops. He’s using the same tactics as his opponents are to smear the people he disagree with.
If that’s actually what he’s saying, that’s pretty fucking awful. What about just canceling my cable and not watching anymore? Is that the same as slavery? I mean because I have to assume a big decline in ratings won’t affect the white players, because privilege. Not sure about all those poor Samoan guys.
Working for big media surely has to inflict people with some type of brain disease.
The free market is great, unless it comes up with the wrong conclusion. Which is basically what cosmotarians think. Because they really don’t care about principles
Well, why are you canceling your cable and not watching? Because you don’t like the kneeling? Then you’re a racist, and a horrible person, and should probably off yourself.
That’s exactly what he’s saying, yes.
What a fucking dick.
Yes. all those people are racist because if you disagree with a black person about something, its because they’re black. Duh?!? where have you been
Most NFL fans that are protesting are offended because they view the players as being disrespectful towards the flag. We can debate about the symbolism of the action, but I think it was a combination of people being tired of getting shit on by the Left and this perception that these rich ass athletes don’t respect their country that drove them to quitting the NFL.
And the tragic part is that the Left did not learn anything from this.
I don’t think it’s so much the flag, I mean I know it’s that for some people, but it’s the attitude that I think is causing real damage. I know that’s my take on it. People just want them to play the game. I mean they get tax payer dollars, the fans pay their salaries through ticket sales and watching the games and buying jerseys, etc. And they want to turn it into just another far left nagathon? Fuck that shit.
That’s why I’m out. I don’t watch late night for the same shit. They should make me laugh. they don’t do their job. I want the guy playing football to play football. The protest is varied, everyone has their own so it’s not some united stand. it’s not a protest about their job (CTE wouldn’t make me leave) And the facts don’t really back up the claims they are protesting over.
I still think class has a bigger role in police violence than race.
Yes. Which always seems to be avoided. There are more divisions based around class than race in this country. I think the last election proved that
“I wouldn’t vote for him for MVP.”
Yep. Jusk ask some poor white guy living in South Baltimore who’s been busted for weed a few times and now has a felony record. Over a fucking plant. They don’t go to upper middle class and upper class neighborhoods looking for someone smoking a joint in their car.
*Edit Fairy heals ye*
‘GO’
Also, the poor guy from a poor neighborhood does not have the resources to protect their self. So it’s much easier for the justice system to just crank those guys through the system, wash, rinse, repeat, profit! Needs moar budget! This crime is out of hand! Mareejuaner on our playgrounds!
And if they had been talking about class instead of race, the reactionary angry whites or whatever wouldn’t be offended. Because now it’s actually about police violence in general instead of one very narrow aspect of it.
But I still would understand people for being upset over that protest. That protest still has nothing to do with their job. They should join protests that matter to them, and start ones at work if they are related to that work. CTE or celebration fines or $12 beers.
100%. It’s not entirely class based – I’m not saying there aren’t upper-class blacks who don’t receive more cop scrutiny because of their race, but it seems obvious to me that class is the bigger factor by a good bit.
Making police brutality all about race, to me, actually makes things worse because it elides a more fundamental issue – the fact that cops feel entitled to harass and even kill anyone, of any color, who does not bow in deference to them. That’s a scary proposition, and it’s true.
Democrats intentionally made it about race, because the justice systems in the inner cities where all the problems are occurring are their buds. They don’t want anything done about it, it’s part of their act.
Also it’s convenient for passive-aggressive pundits. Bring up race and they’ll switch to classism, bring up classism and they’ll switch to racism.
I’ve been doubly blessed by edit fairy today, not sure what to think. I’m getting spoiled.
That’s what makes me beat my head against walls – I’ve been talking about police brutality and how pervasive and insidious it is for a long time in many forums, long before Ferguson or BLM was a thing. The way you get people on board is by illustrating how universal a problem it is and how it impacts almost EVERYONE. But the same people who wail about how Trump is such a divider proceed to do nothing but try to divide people along racial lines on this issue, despite the fact that such tactics make it much more difficult to actually do anything about the problem.
Wow, what do you say after that one?
There’s only one old man here who can meme correctly Pan, and it’s not you.
Fortunately your people have…other skills.
“Slavs don’t need to be paid to shitpost. It’s in their DNA.”
Finally, someone understands!
God bless shitposters.
bessed are the shiposters, for they shall inherit the intertubes.
I agree with a lot of what has been written here, but there are a couple of extremely important points that seem to have been missed–as exemplified by this quote:
1) People’s rights shouldn’t be protected or not based on whether what they’re doing is good for society–or you.
I don’t know that Anne Coulter, Scientology is good for society or you, but I know that the freedom to say and believe what you want is the essence of a free society. We cannot have a free society without the right to believe what you want and speak your own mind.
A society in which the only people whose rights are protected are the people who are doing things that are good for society is an oppressive society.
Other people are not here for your benefit or the benefit of society.
Other people’s rights are not here for your benefit.
I do not exist for your benefit.
2) Rights and the people who use them are two different things.
I stand up for the right of terrorists not to be tortured, the right of arsonists to remain silent, the right of rapists to a trial by jury, the right of Anne Coulter to say stupid things.
I do not stand up for terrorists, arsonists, rapists, or Anne Coulter.
I stand up for those rights–because they’re my rights, too.
I’m standing up for my own rights. Do you not understand that?
Seriously?
Forget it kinnath, it’s Ken town.
He obviously didn’t read the comments either.
DId I miss something big?
Just the satire.
Satire.
Shhhh
Satire, WaPo editorial…
reasonable Salon piece.
Nate or Glen article. That was those 2 dorks names over at TSTSNBN, right? The one has a jacket and the other is the dorky looking one.
I could see myself getting upset after reading the first few sentences and just posting, too. It is inflammatory.
Then I invoke Poe’s Law!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
Especially considering that I just came from an ostensibly libertarian site with commenters that went off on me–in all seriousness–for sticking up for the First Amendment.
Well, to be precise, they were highly critical of the suggestion that gay marriage might have created a legal challenge to First Amendment religious rights.
It was very much along the lines of the argument that identity groups don’t necessarily present a challenge to . . .
The fuckers were arguing with all seriousness what you were arguing in jest.
Those are the people who only deserve mockery. No need to argue with fools
I think the main difference between here and there is that this place is more like a community pub, where people who all more or less know each other and like each other get together to talk about stuff, socialize, and have a few laughs.
The place over there is about outreach. It’s not preaching to the choir, and this religion of ours isn’t going to get any new converts by accident. Gonna have to preach the gospel.
Anybody else watch “The Man in the High Castle”, the first season? Amazingly pro-libertarian message if you ask me.
SPOILER ALERT?!!!!!? MAYBE?!
The future we get is about what we believe in and whether we succeed in convincing other people of what we should want. Yeah, we gotta talk to the idiots, too.
The place over there is about outreach. It’s not preaching to the choir, and this religion of ours isn’t going to get any new converts by accident. Gonna have to preach the gospel.
But, does it really win converts? I’m skeptical of that. I’d say my own thinking was more heavily influenced by arguments in the comments section on TSTSNBN than any of Robbie’s to-be-sures or Nick’s libertarian moments. Full throated arguments for libertarianism from different libertarian perspectives seems to me a much more effective way to preach the gospel than apologizing for libertarianism not being a wholly owned subsidiary of progressivism (or conservatism, for that matter).
I’ve observed and this here too.
Consider the pro- and anti-abortion discussions here. See how they were conducted, with a recognition that there are valid libertarian arguments for both sides, even keeping religion out of the mix.
Let’s think carefully about places where you wouldn’t see that kind of discussion – especially nowadays.
Small-l libertarianism isn’t a political movement – and I’d suggest it couldn’t be – that’s why it will never attain any direct political power in a party-political sense.
What was the Pratchett quote of Vetinari?
That’s us. There’s more to the message of libertarianism than ‘there is another way’ – it’s ‘there are other ways, and none of them are perfect’. As America becomes more fractured, more and more Americans will fail to fully polarize to support increased authoritarianism and will want to seek another way. It’s our job to be ready to give them an ideological home.
I will say that the comments here about various subjects have influenced changes in my opinions on those topics. The problem is that thinking requires effort, and most people are not interested in the deep and hard thinking required to significantly change their positions on matters. They prefer to just let their biases rule them.
As such, I’m not sure that you can move people very far from their default positions through outreach. They’ve got to figure it out on their own.
Whoa. I don’t fucking like any of you. And I especially despise Sugarfree. And STEVE SMITH can lick my Ass.
Hence why you should have skimmed the comments, its was all a Poe’s Law discussion, including me mentioning Poe’s Law.
This is the most Ken Schultz thing yet.
Bullshit. There’s nothing in there about Rand Paul.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
To be sure.
Literally the first comment.
You can practically smell the excitement!
I’m sure the output will be very deep and thought provoking, particularly with Tommy Vietor on board.
So are you saying that Brian Beutler finally had his head surgically removed from Hillary’s ass?
It was more like immunological rejection.
his or hers?
“Unlike most other liberal media outlets, the idea here isn’t to embody a specific political ideal or partisan goal, but to represent the whole swath of liberalism, defined broadly in contrast to the tide of illiberalism sweeping free societies everywhere,” reads the Crooked.com press release.”
So, basically, the same old commie shit?
excitementexcrement FIFYJesus Christ, the actually named it Crooked.com?
Did you actually go there? I’ve never in my life seen anything more Che/Mao/Stalinesque commie looking. They just need to put the hammer and sickle flag up there, crikey.
Now that I’ve gone there, I see Ana Marie Cox is on board too. Maybe she can give us some of her golden oldies, like more stories about her experiences with anal sex.
No fucking way…
*checks*
No fucking way….
Unreal. No mask, no nothing.
Somehow appropriately, this song just started playing.
That was my little surprise for y’all – I left it unspoken so you’d get a hearty laugh when you went to the story.
Like doing a few laps in a pool before you see the huge #2 deposited in the deep end.
I think they used the same design company as The People’s Cube.
wow what a great idea, the world sure could use one of those.
(i’m imagining a DMV type employee sitting in a govt office, and when Pfeffer and Rhodes and Beutler walk in, she goes “Take a number”, and points them toward the snake-line)
#378? 378. Next!
I didn’t think excitement smelled like that. I thought it would smell, well, better.
Dat’s the joke, eh?
My reptilian metabolism cannot process such a word salad…and that’s how I knew you were screwing with us.
Reptiles are good at recognizing when someone’s pulling their leg and ruling the world (so says David Icke)
I’m no fan of the NAP, and I think a lot of people’s confusion comes from that kind of axiomatic hero worship . . .
However, It’s important to understand 1) what rights are and 2) where they come from.
1a) Rights are choices.
Property rights are the right to choose who uses something, how it’s used, when it’s used, etc.
We also have the right to choose our own beliefs, to choose what we say, to choose who we sleep with, etc.
2a) Rights arise naturally as an aspect of our agency.
Agency is the ability to make choices.
It’s absurd to ask whether it’s moral for a comet to strike the earth and kill the dinosaurs because comets can’t make choices. Likewise, it’s absurd to ask whether a comet’s right to strike the earth should be protected. Comet’s can’t make choices, so how can their right to make choices be protected?
People aren’t like comets. They have the capacity to make choices. With choices comes a moral dimension of what they should choose. With the capacity to make choices also comes the question of whether your ability to make choices for yourself should be respected and protected. That latter part is what we’re talking about when we talk about “rights”.
1b) A legal right is when the government protects your right to make a choice for yourself.
Legal rights protect the real thing like a glove protects a hand.
The Second Amendment doesn’t protect your right to indiscriminately shoot people. It protects your right to choose to own and carry a gun. The proper limit on that right is choosing to use your gun to violate someone’s rights. Armed robbery and armed rape is wrong because it violates the right of the victims to make choices for themselves.
2b) Our legal rights arose and evolved to match the real world.
There are negative consequences for governments that violates people’s rights. Just like our language evolved to describe the world around us, so our legal rights evolved to conform to certain aspects of the real world.
Centrally planned China and the USSR failed to protect people’s property rights, and so they ended up on the ash heap of history. There are negative consequences to government violating people’s religious rights (see the Thirty Years War or ISIS’ problems holding on in Syria and Iraq), speech rights, etc., etc. The freedom of people to exercise their rights and have them protected by government is the health of a society. It makes society thrive. Violating people’s rights is a drag on society–and it has the same kinds of consequences across all cultures and throughout all history.
Conclusion?
Talking about whether it’s in the best interests of society to let Anne Coulter’s rights or anyone else’s rights be violated by government or anyone else is to not understand 1) where rights come from and 2) what they are.
There are negative consequences to societies that do not protect the right of people to exercise their rights, and, moreover, don’t you realize that what we’re really talking about is the right of people to make choices for themselves?
“Why should people like Anne Coulter be free to make choices for themselves?”–isn’t that question too embarrassing to even ask in those terms? And yet, isn’t that what’s being said here?
Still going…
LOL Ken’s gotta do Ken.
Do you disagree with any of it?
P.S. I’m serious about the NAP and axiomatic hero worship.
https://www.libertarianism.org/blog/non-agression-principle-cant-be-salvaged-isnt-even-principle
The NAP actually worked pretty good in the paleolithic. If someone tried to fuck with you or steal your stuff, you killed them. Once government got involved, it changed. Sure the government ‘protects’ your property for that protection money. Otherwise they send out Guido and Bruno to break your fucking knees. If you still fail to pay, they break your knees and steal your stuff. Or should I say take it back? Because they already stole it, you’re just paying rent.
I view the NAP more as a subset of the Justice in Adam Smith’s Prudence, Justice, Beneficence view of morality. The problem is to get justice sometimes you need to hurt someone else. Just don’t do it first.
To simplify a 700 page book, Don’t hurt yourself, don’t hurt others, help others.
I would say that is about 80% of ethics never-minding that the theologians and philosophers have and will argue over things like hurt and how much helping others can hurt you to the end of time. Most people have some sort of basic feeling for what these mean.
To me, it’s more like an atheistic recreation of “Do unto others as you would have done unto you”.
If anything screwed that kind of calculation up, it was things like global terrorism and ICBMs.
The American war against Nazi Germany is problematic, too.
Mostly, however, I have problems with appealing to other people with the observation that if you’re going to be one of us, you have to believe in this axiom–or you will never be one of us.
It comes across like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGGGh03jN4w
Anybody who wants more freedom should feel free to come hang out. Have you ever tried to tell a woman what she has to believe?
They don’t like that.
I don’t think of the NAP as an axiom.
However, Self-ownership is an axiom and I have no problem with being accused of axiomatic hero worship, whatever the hell that means, for that one.
I suppose I’m also reluctant to say that there’s any axiom that rules them all.
I read “Theory of Moral Sentiments” and “Wealth of Nations” or even “Origin of Species”, all of which are the basis of my libertarianism, and I find it unlikely that there’s one rule to rule them all.
Have you seen the list of species that have passed the mirror test?
Dolphins, elephants, chimpanzees, and the magpie, . . .
The magpie? What’s a bird without a neocortex doing on that list?!
Evolution found a way. It was conforming to the environment, but there may be other ways to get there. So, maybe you don’t need a neocortex to accomplish consciousness. There are other ways.
What I get from Smith and Darwin is that the ways people develop systems to adapt to the environment, whether it’s a physical environment, or the laws of economics, morality, etc, and the laws governing that environment, you can get there in all sorts of ways. People just need the freedom to adapt to those environments.
It doesn’t necessarily need to be any particular axiom. I can’t say that defeating the Nazis was wrong because it didn’t conform to any particular axiom, and I don’t feel it’s necessary to try to force it to conform to any axiom.
I don’t want people to think that the world would be a better place if the government inflicted a better axiom on us. Yeah, some of these axioms are pretty good, I don’t believe libertopia comes from finding the one true truth. That whole thought process makes me uncomfortable.
careful, all that nap talk is why petersen was hated.
Who runs Congress in this country? Is it CNN or the Republicans? Honestly. I’m watching the White House press briefing and all the questions are about gun control and now the Republicans are talking about gun control measures. What the hell happened to tax cuts?
The midterms should be interesting-er now.
The way this would play out in my world…
Reporter: “What about gun control?”
Congressman: “I fully support hitting what you aim at. Next question!”
I am sure that would play well in regards to the recent mass shooting.
“This Congressperson version of gun control would mean more bodies in Vegas shooting”
What if Trump’s version of the Obamaphone was a free muzzle brake for every owner of a registered firearm?
If the Obamaphone was symbolic of the right to allow peoples’ voice to be heard, the more appropriate Trumpian alternative would be a Glock 19 or an M&P 9.
And the NRA’s folded, to boot. What is it about republicans that makes them so goddamn stupid?
Stupid, AND unprincipled.
If it wasn’t for the fact that the training and education arm are actually quite good, they’d be dead to me.
I’m just going to toss this out there. Based on what I watched earlier, I am beginning to think Joe Scarborough is dumber than Rachel Maddow. And that’s D-U-M-B dumb.
“dumb” may also be taken to mean “simultaneously hysterical and mendacious”.
I’m probably just late to the party.
I was going to say that Mika’s vagina exsorbea did it to him, but he’s always been tarded. Like rich prep school kid tarded.
Very late. He can wear those glasses with the thick dark frames all he wants, he’s not fooling anyone.
What the hell happened to tax cuts?
KEEP YUR HANDS OFFA MY TAX DEDUCTIONS, YA DAMN DIRTY APE!
Nice article JS, had me going for a minute.
“Unlike most other liberal media outlets, the idea here isn’t to embody a specific political ideal or partisan goal, but to represent the whole swath of liberalism, defined broadly in contrast to the tide of illiberalism sweeping free societies everywhere,” reads the Crooked.com press release.”
And now I have a vision of a group of shrieking two year olds throwing their toys out of the playpen.
I was going to say that Mika’s vagina exsorbea did it to him
I have come to the conclusion that she is nothing but a not-especially-lifelike ventriloquist’s dummy, so a vagina is purely theoretical.
This is fun – Harvey Weinstein is being accused of sexual harassment over a long period of time by a bunch of women. He released this statement in response:
“I apologize sincerely for my acti-LOOK OVER THERE! TRUMP! NRA!!”
Also, I got a chuckle out of how he uses “coming of age in the ’60s and ’70s” to excuse away behavior from as recently as 2015.
What an asshole. How deluded do you have to be to believe that pile of shit.
Not deluded, just principals.
I’m confused. What anger is he channeling? Is he angry because he can no longer harass and abuse women? Or is his anger more of a baseline condition, that he used to direct at women and now that he can’t, he’s looking for new targets?
He’s an old white guy. So he has to be angry. It’s part of the narrative. And he has to apologize for it and explain how he’s going to do better. He’s just towing the proggie lion.
The second is the only way his statement, pathetic though it is, makes even the slightest bit of sense.
Yes.
What a piece of garbage
Sounds like the exact same bullshit you hear from a preacher that gets caught on morals charges.
Sorry shithead. You can’t be trusted. You aren’t trustworthy. And you’ll never be. You can try harder all you want, but your influence is meaningless except to others who share your lack of trustworthiness.
http://freebeacon.com/blog/shorter-harvey-weinstein-im-liberal-maybe-gimme-pass/
Shorter Weinstein: I’m a Liberal, Maybe Gimme a Pass?
Harvey Weinstein: Moral Voice of the Modern Progressive
The sad thing is, you can say that unironically.
So “some time ago” means “now”, apparently.
From Ashley Judd:
First off, I can’t knock Harvey’s taste in women.
Second, how did she get out of the room without alienating Harvey? He gave her roles after this meeting, so can we assume the casting couch served its traditional purpose?
She gave him the massage, obviously.
Harvey’s so woke! READY FOR HILLARY!
I’m assuming she’s completely full of shit.
I don’t, actually. I believe Harvey is the kind of asshole to use his leverage over women’s careers to have sex with them. I believe Ashley Judd, especially in the ’90s, would be irresistible to him. I think it probably started about like she describes. What I want to know is, how did it finish?
She willingly gave him what he wanted. Later on she pretends she wasn’t willing.
That. As RC wrote upthread, she got roles from him afterwards. How else are we supposed to infer what happened?
Not like Judd was an especially talented actress—who could get roles despite Weinstein’s blackballing her when she said no—or there was a shortage of insanely hot women to cast in Hollywood.
What a fucking snake pit. And as bad as it is for the over 18 ingenue crowd, imagine how bad it is for the Disney/Nickelodeon stars.
That’s why I believe Corey Feldman when he said that he and Corey Haim were molested by Hollywood types during their teenaged acting heyday.
I do too. Hell, didn’t Bryan Singer basically admit to it? Not the Coreys but others? Or were they all magically over 18, or otherwise unavailable to be interviewed.
One of the, ‘life is stranger than fiction’ things for me as a teen in the 80s, is seeing the fat kid from “Head of The Class” turn into one of the kingmakers for that iCarly/Hannah Montana crowd.
The fun thing is that releasing something like this will be counterproductive.
Not because of the sympathy he might create, but that women susceptible to hypergamous urges will automatically find him less interesting, so if he is poorly calibrated in his interactions with women, they’ll be even less prepared to tolerate it, because he’s damaged some of his perceived social value.
Also, I got a chuckle out of how he uses “coming of age in the ’60s and ’70s” to excuse away behavior from as recently as 2015.
Should it be all that surprising? He “gave his morality” at the polling station. That’s how people like this think.
The song, “Save the Hammer for the Man” by Tom Morello, shares this sentiment. Morello unwittingly articulates the progressives’ projection.
https://www.barstoolsports.com/boston/lol-at-miley-cyrus-crying-while-reading-thank-you-note-to-hillary-clinton
Barstool Sports > ESPN
So I am confused, are we happy or sad when our sports outlets talk politics?
Sad.
Oh, touche. Frankly, I don’t care. I never really got worked up about the anthem protests. I just thought this was funny.
It could be worse, we could have political outlets talking about sports.
*checks CNN feed*
Its worse, then.
Though I’m trying to do better, I know I have a long way to go. That is my commitment.
My journey now will be to learn about myself and conquer my demons. Over the last
year I’ve asked Lisa Bloom to tutor me and she’s put together a team of people.
Did he dictate this to his secretary as she was sucking his dick?
Holy shit!
Trump plans to declare that Iran nuclear deal is not in the national interest
Not good. What happens next?
its neither ‘not good’ nor ‘bad’ nor ‘great’, nor anything, really.
the purpose of the ‘deal’ was to open the door for voluntary rapprochement. baby steps towards quasi-normalization.
in order for it to actually work, it has to be mutual. but one side (iran) has seen it as a game for extracting concessions while delivering nothing on their end; in fact, they’ve used it as a diplomatic weapon, suggesting any change of the terms would constitute an(other) act of war…. because, you see, this is the new normal – any change to the new-normal by the US is unilateral aggression.
Its idiotic. and was idiotic on day 1. It was bad diplomacy because it had little real incentive for Iran to do fucking anything once they got their first few cash-lump-sums, and their first few financial sanctions reduced. Sanctions ultimately just create regimes which become expert at gaming sanctions.
If the worst-case-scenario for them is “more of the same” (back to the old sanctions regime), then there’s no real downside to signing the deal then breaking every single provision while milking benefits. Basically = force the US to call bullshit on their own deal, which is exactly what they tried to do, and lo and behold, the US decided to play it down and act like this was all just a misunderstanding, because Ben Rhodes et al wanted their “deal” to look like 3d-Chess, and not a retarded boondoggle.
“What happens next”? Trump does what he’s been doing with other problem-regimes. wipes the slate clean, says, “give me a reason to treat you nice”. Every administration, in truth, pretends that “its a new ball game”. Unless there is some very deep embedded process (a la the way the US dealt with Israel and Palestine for decades), its pretty much up to each president to define the terms of engagement.
You know we’re going to disagree here Gilmore, right?
We need to resign ourselves to that fact that there is going to be a shit-ton of nuclear proliferation in the next few decades. Nation-states want nukes for the same reason that individual people want guns – so that other nations have to treat with them via persuasion rather than force.
Then we need to resign ourselves to the damned things being used.
I doubt Iran, or anyone else following, is going to bother with things like PRP, ‘always/never’ as a design constraint, or rigorous custody. Proliferation will mean they will get out in the wild, a non-state actor is going to get their hands on one, and someone’s hapless city won’t be there anymore.
No doubt. It is as rational for states to have nukes as it is for people to have guns, but just as with guns, the more of them there are, the more likely that someone will get hold of them that will use them for ill. I think the odds of a nation-state being suicidal are much lower than an individual, however.
Successful diplomacy is about give and take. This was almost all give on the part of the US and take on the part of Iran.
They return the money?
kicking the issue to a reluctant Congress
Thank God. The Republican’s had just about worked through their list of ways to disappoint their voters. Biffing a layup on Iran should really round out their year, especially on top of their bonus opportunity to shelve gun control rollback and pass new gun control laws.
Any opportunities that open them up to primary challengers, I say take ’em. Throw the cowards out.
Decertification is not quite the same thing as abandoning it. I believe he’s opening the door to exert pressure on the Iranians for more and better inspections.
I fail to see how giving a 3rd world caliphate dictatorship boatloads of US dollars can be a bad deal.
Particularly one that for the prior ten years made a sport out of killing American soldiers in Iraq.
Ari Emanuel shameless self-promoter, film at eleven.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chicagoinc/ct-ari-emanuel-1005-chicago-inc-20171005-story.html
Defaming a dead relative to score some political points? I don’t see the problem.
Trib commenters are class acts.
Late to the party, but holy cow you had me going there right up to the end. I figured, who the hell let this get published here? and kept reading because fuck it, I’m a sucker for punishment.
Well done, JS. Now start a blog with a bunch of posts like this and infiltrate the proggie hivemind. Then reveal yourself a couple years later and call out a bunch of people as closet libertarians even if they’re not. That would be beautiful chaos to behold.
“Well done, JS. Now start a blog with a bunch of posts like this and infiltrate the proggie hivemind. Then reveal yourself a couple years later and call out a bunch of people as closet libertarians even if they’re not.”
Good idea. I could change my name to Social Justice Say’n and start a blog called “Radical Liberaltarian”.
“What you talkin’ ’bout, Social Justice?”
That could be the tag line. It’s all coming together
Ethical question:
If I saw the headline, and looked at the photo, am I a terrible person for assumng this was a Ken Schultz rant?
See his comments above, it basically became one.
I come here for many reasons. But I stay for the rants.
The Corona?
Really well done, JS. It was clear to me pretty early on that this was satire, but it was juuuust satirical enough. That’s a tough sweet spot, and I think you hit it.
Thanks. I thought I got in a good amount of subtle jabs
In an amusing coincidence, Jeffrey Tucker says the same thing about the alt right – that their philosophers feel that if the state acts like a private concern it’s OK. (e.g. Hoppe’s argument that the citizenry can restrict immigration because they are shareholders in public property making the state kind of like a corporation and the corporate owners of property can exclude trespassers just like any other property owner).
I’m about halfway through “Right-wing Collectivism: The Other Threat to Liberty”, and I strongly encourage people to read it.
if the state acts like a private concern it’s OK
Having the state be subject to the same laws as the rest of us, and losing its power to initiate violence, would be an improvement in my book.
I’d be happy to start with the state following GAAP.
All states and most local governments follow GAAP (through GASB). The federal government has their own accounting standards. I think it’s called “We make it up as we go along”
FEE has been pimping the hell out of it. Thanks for the recommendation.
Tucker included Hoppe in the alt-right? I’m not a huge Hoppe fan (although, the excerpts I’ve read from “Democracy the God that Failed” are pretty good), but Tucker attended Hoppe’s Property and Liberty conferences.
I like how he’s re-writing his entire past to appease a certain couple of rich brothers. I like Tucker, but joining in on this idiocy makes me lose some respect for him
No. He didn’t say Hoppe was alt right. But he says that libertarians who drift into the alt right tend to make mistakes – such as Hoppe’s concept of the state as public corporation.
And bluntly, Hoppe’s passage that communities should have the power to evict unwanted members – citing homosexuals as an example – was a pretty jaw dropping assertion.
That doesn’t make Hoppe all bad; however – and there is much to like in his writings. But, Hoppe does have some very unsettling ideas as to how communities are constructed – and he thinks violating the NAP to prevent people from buying or retaining property should the majority of the community disapprove of those people is not only morally OK, but sometimes necessary. And if one were to pursue that to its logical conclusion – you get to some pretty nasty places.
I don’t disagree that Hoppe holds some statist or just offensive opinions. I just think it’s overboard to label him alt-right. If Tucker didn’t do that than never mind. But, if he did, I think it’s fair to point out that he was once buddies with Hoppe, so what does that say about him?
If you listen to the interview I linked to, he calls Hans Herman-Hoppe a friend. He just thinks he is making a very serious (and dangerous) philosophical error.
I’ll listen. I appreciate the fact that Tucker has tried to avoid the sniping between the Kochs and the Mises people and I think he has enough credibility with both sides (since he use to be with the Mises Institute) where everyone will listen to his critiques.
Eh….I guess I might be able to accept that, but if Hoppe were my friend I’d be VERY proactive at specifying how my philosophy diverges from his.
Somehow deleted my final paragraph.
Tucker is of the opinion that the libertarians who end up in the alt right are too focused on fighting the left to recognize that they are enabling collectivism and oppression of a different sort. And, that often the people who think of themselves as alt right are actually ignorant of the philosophy they are instantiating.
Good point by Tucker. Anti-Left does not make one a libertarian or even a conservative
Hoppe sounds like he’s for more radical democracy in the Greek form, rather than against democracy.
Oh, God no! That’s like anti-Hoppe, and like antimatter and matter, the two would mutually annihilate one another.
Absolutely not, Hoppe’s a bloody monarchist for Christ’s sake. In fact, it’s one of the things I like about him.
*Shreds single tear as ‘the Maple Leaf Forever’ plays and salutes a picture of Elizabeth II*
Related. I’m assuming this has been posted. Children.
https://hotair.com/archives/2017/10/04/black-lives-matter-protesters-shut-speech-william-mary-aclu/
*slow clap*
The hipsters at this bar want to know why the guy in a suit is laughing at…
I showed them the family friendly logo.
I can forgive Ken Schultzing a thread when reality has become a gigantic issue of The Onion.
So Shultzed is the newest verb? As in” He was joking, don’t Shultz the threadm”
Maybe if you mean it as a compliment, right?
Satire needs to be close to the real thing in order to be effective, and if Shultz fell for it, then it passed the Shultz test.