Considering I post here to mostly amuse myself, I am not super concerned if my ramblings carry enough intellectual value for your standards. You, Hunter and Ned, et. al are not stopping the government from expanding its reach by posting here, and I'm not convincing y'all that your approach to governing is moronic. So it's all in good fun!
I'm not sure from where your image of the Left comes. Most of the progressives I know understood that once W. opened Pandora's box, no president would be willing or able to close it again. I think we both want that box to be closed, for what it's worth.
"if you want me to address the argument..."
What I want is for your posts to have some intellectual value, whether I agree with them or not. Quite often they're full of straw man arguments or sweeping generalizations and stereotypes (the same way Ned argues about liberals). Take factoryconnection as an example. I probably disagree with him slightly more often than not, but what he writes is always well reasoned and adds value to the conversation without being insulting.
"if you're going to fight against monsters you have to take care not to become one yourself."
Absolutely right...and this applies to governments as well, which is what I took the point of this column to be. Also, I think unwillingness to to view things from another perspective is addressed. After 9/11, the neocons were unwilling to see the Left's concerns on a government trampling rights for safety. Now they're experiencing the shoe being put on the other foot. Meanwhile, the Left seems to have forgotten how they felt about Bush's actions after 9/11.
"using fear for political gain"
That's not a liberal or neo-conservative thing. That's a human thing. Some are just more prone to fear than others.
Paulius, if you want me to address the argument, extremism in any form is probably not a good idea. To paraphrase Nietzsche, if you're going to fight against monsters you have to take care not to become one yourself.
Since you and Hunter want to deal in absolutes, then an extremist is an extremist. Does it really matter what ideals are being defended if the person defending them is rabidly unwilling or unable to see things from any other perspective?
You're right on one thing...there's not much to argue with because it's spot on. And it seems like you missed the point. "Liberals are like this but Conservatives are like this." No, he's saying liberals and neocons are the same when it comes to using fear for political gain and eroding the Constitution. And.....scene.
Here it is explained visually: http://i.imgur.com/xVce9.jpg
What is there to argue with? Hunter is becoming extremely formulaic. "Liberals are like this but Conservatives are like this. Constitution. Reagan. Scene."
Jack is almost right on this one.
And he's also clearly moving away from the "libertarian" wing.
Godwin 2.0--By all means, don't argue with the column head on. Just replace "Nazis" with "Islamic militants" and imply they might say something similar. Intellectual laziness at its finest.
Right now in the Kabul City Paper, some Islamic militant is writing an op-ed justifying his extremism too. I guess it makes sense, Islamic militants have a lot in common with the American Right - their views on women and other minorities and their ambitions for total theocracy, for example. You guys should get together and exchange notes.
It's interesting how so many of the comments against this column don't attack Mark Sanford's brand of conservatism (what this column is actually about), but instead question Jack's motives for writing it...as if Jack hasn't always agreed with Sandford. Same for the Pauls; he was praising them long before he was working for them. If Jack ever touts the virtues of Lindsey Graham and follows it up with a paycheck, then you'll actually have a point.
Also, it looks like Larry's using his other logins to give his posts artificial likes. That is all.
Jack, the criticism of you from the anarcho-libertarian individuals was inappropriate. Your rebuttal ought to have been merely defensive of your own beliefs rather than returning the offense and calling people "cowards". All of the efforts to advance the cause of liberty have a positive effect. Some people will act insecurely and that is regrettable. Please try to avoid following the same course.
Political disconnectedness is not necessarily the result of apathy or cowardice. Agorism is just a different (apolitical) tactic to achieve the same goal.
What you should be doing is applauding apolitical efforts while making the case for whatever political efforts you support.
Either you do not understand these apolitical efforts or you are experiencing cognitive dissonance because that is not the path you have chosen.
I take little issue with people not caring, only take issue with people who don't care voting.
Your snarky all cap outburts are startin to give me headaches more than Clarkie.
It was better when you at least tried to support your points with your coherent writings.
MONEY IS LIBERTY! TYRANNY IS TAXATION! BARTER SYSTEM IS FREE MARKET! WAR IS PEACE! HAPPINESS IN SLAVERY!
"This criticism is usually followed by a certain posturing from the critic that he is somehow morally superior because he has maintained a purity that I have not."
I get this sometimes, too. The plain truth is this: you and I (and many others) ARE moving the ball down the field, away from tyranny and towards liberty. I know this. I saw congressional candidates start talking about sound money this cycle a mere 6 months after I started talking to them about auditing the Fed.
Those same federal office candidates are questioning the efficacy of the war on drugs, the Wilsonian foreign policy, and whether the HUD, Commerce, and Education Departments are doing more harm than good.
I have no illusions that a constitutional republic is one cycle away nor might we return to it in my life time but I know we're gonna get closer to it...soon.
Zionist? Well, there goes taking anything u write serious.
We applaud your passion and involvement and commitment to work for those who talked the talk. However, not all of the messengers of the message liberty or otherwise, will make it to the envisioned destination. In fact, probably few do. Their delivery and results might be ineffectual and even hurtful to the cause. Their flaws, if they continue unabated, detrimental personally and professionally. The distraction becomes a turn-off from the message instead of an enlightenment. We thank them for their attempts but for those folks I say, time to hand off the baton.
By framing it as an argument between doing absolutely nothing and flailing about with anything, you've framed it deceptively.
What you've chosen to do is invest your time and energy in a candidate and a system which are integrally defective. This is time and energy which could have been invested in more fruitful efforts outside the mainstream political system.
You should be commended for your effort, but it back-fired. You didn't merely walk home empty-handed, you got cuckolded and exploited. You supported a candidate who threw his political capital behind his Zionist warmonger son, flipped on mass immigration and amnesty, and backed down on the pivotal issues when cornered.
You didn't merely take a risk which came up short...you made a tactical mistake. Making mistakes is all well and good, unless you refuse to learn from it...as appears to be the case.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2016,
Charleston City Paper