Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Smash the Anti-State!
I'm really sorry I missed this.
On Monday, July 28, SDS, backed by activists from both Potomac Earth First and Roadblock Earth First, staged the "Funk I-69" protest, treating the CATO institute, an office of I-69's surveyor, and the dual target(I-69 and ICC) Washington Post they way SDS normally treats military recruiters.
The first target on the menu was the neoliberal Cato Institue, one of the thinktanks responsable for NAFTA. I-69 is being built as one of several "NAFTA superhighways."
The glass-enclosed lobby of CATO was stormed by protesters before the cops were able to respond, sparking a pushing and shoving match, but no injuries.
You'll remember the "Funk the [bad thing]" people from
this.
|7.31.08 @ 6:11PM|#
Good for them. Maybe they can next target another faux-free market think tank, the Reason Foundation, for its shilling on behalf of "privatized" prisons (http://www.reason.org/corrections/).
|7.31.08 @ 6:13PM|#
I don't care if they're protesting the American Nazi Party, what they did was trespassing and a blatantly unjustified violation of property rights.
Marcvs|7.31.08 @ 6:27PM|#
This video from the "article" explains a lot. I don't think
there is any in the crowd above 15 years old (at least
intellectually).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FppTZRtd_ps
|7.31.08 @ 6:31PM|#
Andy Craig-
So they trespassed. BFD. They can pay for the cost to replace the
glass. Let's not overplay the "violation" of CATO's "property
rights". Let's not be so dramatic.
Elemenope|7.31.08 @ 6:33PM|#
libertymike --
Word.
On all the rest, I'm confused. I think I'll go lie down and read
Snow Crash till my head clears.
|7.31.08 @ 6:39PM|#
BTW-
Didn't many here along with the MSM dismiss RP as a crackpot for
expressing his concenns about the superhighway?
SIV|7.31.08 @ 6:41PM|#
So those cosmotarians at CATO don't pack heaters?
They should be wary of "storming" a land surveyors office, those
guys pack big knives.
Xmas|7.31.08 @ 6:45PM|#
It's not that the kids in the video are all under 15, it's that they are all skinny, short and frail because they vegans.
|7.31.08 @ 6:46PM|#
I'm not overplaying anything. Regardless of how horrific CATO
might or might not be (I have mixed feelings about free trade
agreements myself), storming their building and breaking their
windows isn't justified. If I came to your house and did that, I
suspect it would take somewhat more than simply offering to pay the
damages to mollify you.
And the ability of everyone to freely disagree should be the
primary concern to any libertarian looking at this event. Whatever
complaints the group may have had is secondary (and in light of
their actions, I'm much less inclined to give the matter any
thought). I would, and have, said the same thing when it's
libertarians or Ron Paul supporters doing the protesting.
|7.31.08 @ 6:46PM|#
Elemenope-
Do you think I am being unfair for downplaying the actions of the
protesters? The intent of my prior post was to put their actions in
some perspective.
|7.31.08 @ 6:55PM|#
Andy Craig-
You are right. If they came to my house or office, some of the
trespassing terrorists would be get acquainted with Mr. Smith and
Mr. Wesson. Heller says I could do that, right? Afterwards, I would
not want to hear anybody whining about the poor protesters.
Seriously, of course they were wrong. However, I am generally going
to be much more pissed off when it is some cop or social worker who
invades the private property of another "under the color of law" as
any libertarian should.
|7.31.08 @ 6:57PM|#
As for CATO and NAFTA and NAU, we should keep in mind that free trade and these agreements are not one in the same.
Travis|7.31.08 @ 6:57PM|#
"Is CATO neo-liberal or neo-conservative?"
The Kochotopus has so many names.
|7.31.08 @ 6:58PM|#
mike-
Fair enough, though I think who's doing the violating is an
irrelevant factor in the moral equation.
I agree we shouldn't be locking any one up and throwing away the
key because of this, but it's important to keep in mind that the
ends don't justify the means. You can't violate CATO's property
rights because you dislike what they're doing any more than you can
violate my property rights because you don't like the fact that I
smoke pot.
|7.31.08 @ 7:02PM|#
I hadn't seen that. It's interesting that these pinko-leaning
anarchist types are all in favor of government health care. Plus I
love the guy (Mr. Marx) with the "Palestinian scarf" you can
imagine how he must abhor bloodshed. The end of his interview is
almost a word-for-word rendition of the "Life of Brian" "What did
the Romans ever do for us"? bit.
These guys just basically hate western civilization, and whatever
cuts it down a notch, communism, socialism, anarchism,
faux-libertarianism, anti-zionism, maoism, you name it, they're for
it.
|7.31.08 @ 7:04PM|#
I'm actually more amused that this story is on a purportedly "anarchist" website. True anarchists would have more in common with libertarians than any other political group in the U.S.
|7.31.08 @ 7:09PM|#
As for the "NAFTA Superhighway", it has already been built. Expansion of some portions may be in order.
|7.31.08 @ 7:12PM|#
Andy Craig-
Yes, who owns the common area glass is not relevant to the moral
question. Honestly, I would have posted the same comment if you had
singled out the Washington Post and had not mentioned CATO. Sure, I
am more than a little troubled by some of what CATO has advocated,
but, big picture, CATO has done far more good than the Post.
|7.31.08 @ 7:17PM|#
Didn't many here along with the MSM dismiss RP as a crackpot
for expressing his concenns about the superhighway?
Uh... yes?
Is there any reason to take any of it back?
As for CATO and NAFTA and NAU, we should keep in mind that free
trade and these agreements are not one in the same.
True. But we should also keep in mind that the politically likely
alternative to these agreements is protectionism, not free
trade.
|7.31.08 @ 7:18PM|#
Is this SDS the Students for a Democratic Society, from the
60s?
Seriously?
This is like a historical re-enactment.
|7.31.08 @ 7:23PM|#
SuperMike-
Sure, many of the protesters may be pinko types who want even more
socialized medicine than we have now. Does that mean they hate
western civilization? Please connect the dots. I can't because I
keep coming back to the fact that soicalized medicine is the norm
for western civilization and has been for quite some time. Come to
think of it, western civilization and the white man have given us
socialism, the income tax, atomic weapons and the income tax-not
things in which one should take pride.
Colin|7.31.08 @ 7:24PM|#
I've been getting a lot of junk mail from Cato lately -- so I have no sympathy. :)
Elemenope|7.31.08 @ 7:27PM|#
Is this SDS the Students for a Democratic Society, from the
60s?
Seriously?
This is like a historical re-enactment.
Yep. That's why I got all woozy.
libertymike --
On the subject of downplaying the breaking of glass, it is my
personal belief that pretty much everyone is waaaaay too uptight,
especially about their stuff. Yes, it's wrong, and we have
mechanisms of civil recompense that should be utilized to make the
victims whole or whatever, but beyond that it's just attachment
rearing it's many-faced head.
And what is attachment, kids? Suffering. That's right, boys and
girls.
Either way, I don't think it particularly wise to think less (or
more!) of their arguments or proposals simply because they sought
to break a window. That doesn't make any sense to me at all.
|7.31.08 @ 7:27PM|#
I would like to use this post for some learning time. Cato is not an acronym, so it's not CATO. It's Cato, after the Roman guy.
|7.31.08 @ 7:29PM|#
So there are people in this world that will take the time out of
their day to protest some concrete getting beefed up, eh?
And people say I have no life....
Property Rights are such a dra|7.31.08 @ 7:29PM|#
On the subject of downplaying the breaking of glass, it is my
personal belief that pretty much everyone is waaaaay too uptight,
especially about their stuff.
Everybody oughta just mellow out.....
|7.31.08 @ 7:30PM|#
R. Totale,
I think that the confusion comes from the RAND Institute and NATO.
I've seen that mistake, and made it myself.
Colin|7.31.08 @ 7:30PM|#
The odds are anyone calling him- or herself an anarchist is really a Marxist. "Anarchist" just sounds cooler.
SIV|7.31.08 @ 7:31PM|#
R.Totale,
My communist ex-g/f gave me a CATO coffee mug. There are no
lowercase letters on it.
Anonymous|7.31.08 @ 7:34PM|#
Marcvs | July 31, 2008, 7:04pm | #
I'm actually more amused that this story is on a purportedly "anarchist" website. True anarchists would have more in common with libertarians than any other political group in the U.S.
They use "anarchism" as a tool to gain power, not as an end to
freedom.
|7.31.08 @ 7:34PM|#
So they trespassed. BFD. They can pay for the cost to
replace the glass. Let's not overplay the "violation" of CATO's
"property rights". Let's not be so dramatic.
Wow. I think libertymike needs to go by just plain "mike" from now
on... Property rights, even of those you disagree with, are
essential if anyone is going to have any liberty.
|7.31.08 @ 7:35PM|#
NAFTA is protectionism, that is the point.
So before NAFTA the border flowed with milk and honey?
|7.31.08 @ 7:36PM|#
Libertymike, Elemenope
Funny how "property rights" are so unimportant when they're not
yours.
When a mob smashes in your living room window, you be sure to not
whine about it.
Colin|7.31.08 @ 7:37PM|#
Mike cares about liberty -- but only the liberties of those whom
he likes.
And he's far from the only one with that disease.
Ben|7.31.08 @ 7:38PM|#
wow to think the neo-hippies are trying to revive the Socialist Dumbasses Society. Now I really can't wait for the Denver convention.
|7.31.08 @ 7:39PM|#
Colin-
For some, no doubt. However, over the years, I could not tell you
how many times I have heard people call me an anarchist and only
those a few fries short of a happy meal would think of me as a
marxist. In essence, many people think that they have the ultimate
rebuttal or put down by trotting out the anarchist card.
|7.31.08 @ 7:39PM|#
On the subject of downplaying the breaking of glass, it is
my personal belief that pretty much everyone is waaaaay too
uptight, especially about their stuff.
Come on, did I get phished into a Dem Underground comment section
masquerading as Reason?
|7.31.08 @ 7:41PM|#
libertymike,
many people think that they have the ultimate rebuttal or put
down by trotting out the anarchist card.
Uh . . based on my own experience with self described anarchists,
I'd see it's pretty nasty putdown, if not quite "ultimate".
|7.31.08 @ 7:43PM|#
True anarchists would have more in common with libertarians
than any other political group in the U.S.
That may be true superficially, but the gap between anarchism and
libertarianism is much wider than the gap between mainstream
conservatism and libertarianism, or even mainstream liberalism. The
existence or non-existence of a state is the fundamental question
of politics, and we differ greatly on it from anarchists
(obviously).
|7.31.08 @ 7:46PM|#
Colin-7:37
You have no basis to make such a statement. Did I assert that I do
not care about Cato's property rights? Just because I made the
point that we should not play the role of drama queen relative to
the actions of the protesters, does not mean that I only care about
the liberties of people I like.
Logic. Same for you, Matthew.
|7.31.08 @ 7:47PM|#
Libertarians rarely, if ever, actually call themselves
"anarchist" though, even if they are (Rothbardian
anarcho-capitalists, usually). Whenever you see a bunch of
self-proclaimed "anarchists", chances are they're some of the most
authoritarian "anarchists" you'll ever meet. See: Noam
Chomsky.
Alan Moore is the only prominent anarchist I can think of who
doesn't fit that mold.
Orange Line Special|7.31.08 @ 7:48PM|#
I comment on the protest here. That
post describes how SDS and friends could have an actual impact
rather than doing stupid things like storming a lobby.
See the other posts in that category for more on the
NAFTASuperhighway and related issues.
|7.31.08 @ 7:50PM|#
Did I assert that I do not care about Cato's property
rights?
Yes, at 6:31 --
So they trespassed. BFD. They can pay for the cost to replace the glass. Let's not overplay the "violation" of CATO's "property rights". Let's not be so dramatic.
|7.31.08 @ 7:51PM|#
Occam-
I wouldn't say that. To begin with, there are a lot of
capitalism-loving, pro-free market libertarian anarchists. Also,
the American individualist anarchist tradition in the form of Henry
David Thoreau and Lysander Spooner has had a huge influence on
libertarian thought. In fact, pretty much the only way to draw a
line from the Whig/Jeffersonian/classical liberal tradition that
libertarians (rightfully) love to claim to modern libertarianism is
through such classically liberal anarchists in the 19th
Century.
Boston|7.31.08 @ 7:52PM|#
Also,
The Institute is named for Cato's Letters, a series of
libertarian pamphlets that helped lay the philosophical foundation
for the American Revolution.
The authors dubbed themselves Cato after the Roman dude.
|7.31.08 @ 7:52PM|#
OLS-
I think that's something we can all agree on. Regardless of whether
or not it was morally acceptable, there's no denying that it
accomplished nothing.
|7.31.08 @ 7:53PM|#
Matthew-
Did you understand my post? Don't you agree that there are lots of
people who conflate anarchism with a state of affairs where there
is no income tax, no drug laws, no nanny state, no social security,
no trillion dollar military, etc?
But, let's have some fun-what was responsible for several hundred
million murders in the 20th century?
(a) The state; or
(b) Anarchy
GILMORE|7.31.08 @ 7:54PM|#
I enjoyed this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wK1B53zUY0&feature=related
People sitting in trees to "protest" a road.
it's almost like a Brass Eye episode = you can't even read their
banners. you just giggle at how ineffectual and narcissistic it is
and how seriously they take themselves.
We will sit in these trees as long as necessary
|7.31.08 @ 7:55PM|#
The existence or non-existence of a state is the fundamental
question of politics, and we differ greatly on it from anarchists
(obviously).
There are two stripes of anarchist. They can be described
respectively as individualist or collectivist, capitalist or
socialist, propertarian or nonpropertarian.
As a general rule, a collective of anarchists roaming the streets
can be assumed to be collectivist, socialist, nonpropertarian
anarchists.
But the other kind of anarchists are a not insignificant subset of
libertarians. And while they may be annoyed that some libertarians
don't know that, they won't break your windows over it.
|7.31.08 @ 7:56PM|#
If the state was a computer, libertarians would want to get rid of all the souped up hardware and software that slows the system down while retaining all the power of the bare motherboard and CPU, while anarchists would just want to smash the whole thing to bits. Imagine trying to get two people with those diverse goals to cooperate on disassembling a computer, and you see why libertarians and anarchists don't tend to get along.
|7.31.08 @ 7:59PM|#
Occam-
You're falling into the fallacy of the "one, true, libertarianism".
There is no such thing, and free-market anarchists were calling
themselves "libertarians" long before the term came into use to
describe more broadly people who want to reduce government power
over both the economy and personal affairs.
|7.31.08 @ 7:59PM|#
Occam's toothbrush-
No. Are you against logic? Where in that statement did I say I do
not care about Cato's property rights? I said we should not not
overplay the situation-readers of english will understand that
statement does not mean that I do not care about their property
rights.
Good thing you are not on the bench. I would hate to think of your
interpretive philosophy having the force of law.
Colin|7.31.08 @ 8:00PM|#
Mike, you clearly belittled the rights of Cato, clearly tinged
by your dislike of them.
And NAFTA is not protectionism, what would replace it is
protectionism.
|7.31.08 @ 8:02PM|#
Also, that's a poor analogy since both sides agree 100% on which direction we should be moving in- less government. Anarchist libertarians not getting along with minarchist libertarians is like a 400 lb. man not wanting to go on a diet because he's not sure if he wants to end up weighing 150 or 200 pounds.
GILMORE|7.31.08 @ 8:02PM|#
libertymike | July 31, 2008, 7:46pm | #
Colin-7:37
You have no basis to make such a statement. Did I assert that I do
not care about Cato's property rights? Just because I made the
point that we should not play the role of drama queen relative to
the actions of the protesters
Drama Queen... relative to a gang of idiotic teenagers smashing up
your shit? Whats the "cool" organization supposed to do again? Be
like, "wow, these people have an interesting point ..."
These people make lonewackos black-hole of rationality seem more
convincing. And he's the most useless person I've ever experienced
in my life. Its make a person just bored to tears with how fucking
retarded most 'activists' are.
|7.31.08 @ 8:04PM|#
mike,
Very Clintonesque. You are quite correct that you did not
explicitly say, "I, libertymike, of sound mind and body, hereby
declare that I do not respect Cato's property rights." However, the
fact that you put "property rights" in scare quotes, along with
saying "big fucking deal" in response to the violation of those
rights, shows quite clearly the degree to which you hold property
rights in esteem.
|7.31.08 @ 8:05PM|#
Occam's toothbrush,
Libertarian anarchists as a rule are evolutionary, not
revolutionary. They would not break your hypothetical computer to
bits. Rather, they would take it apart starting with the most
harmful parts, then continuing to the less helpful parts. And then
as people realized that they no longer needed or even used the
computer, they would simply ignore it. Someone sometime later would
say, "Oh, is this still on?" and unplug it.
|7.31.08 @ 8:05PM|#
By Occam's logic, if one asserts that zionism has been a disaster for humanity, then one is a jew hater.
GILMORE|7.31.08 @ 8:09PM|#
libertymike | July 31, 2008, 8:05pm | #
By Occam's logic, if one asserts that zionism has been a disaster
for humanity, then one is a jew hater.
No, you're an actual DRAMA QUEEN though. The hyperbole isnt
actually revealing of any deep insights into global affairs. It's a
fucking reductive cartoonish characterization of facts that makes
you seem like a twit.
You could just have said, "I think X is bad", and then, "and here's
why", and people wouldnt call you those nasty bad names
though.
Or maybe they would, if you didnt actually make any sense. But its
an opportunity.
Elemenope|7.31.08 @ 8:09PM|#
Libertymike, Elemenope
Funny how "property rights" are so unimportant when they're not
yours.
When a mob smashes in your living room window, you be sure to not
whine about it.
And Matthew joins the ranks of the indignant oblivious.
I love property *rights*. Love 'em! My point was a little more
humanistic (no wonder you didn't get it!)...we can choose whether
to press for our rights to be respected (or not) in any given
circumstance in which a violation occurs. We can even choose to
prioritize other things. Insisting upon the fullness of rights to
be respected in all circumstances often turns a person into a
douche, and being a douche ultimately interferes with other
enjoyable aspects of life.
For example: I love my family and friends and cats a great deal. I
think that that love is more important than any right I might
conceivably exercise. That love would probably continue to exist
even if I had no civil rights to speak of. That love might not
continue to exist if I acted like a total douchebag. Sometimes one
must be a douchebag to address certain grievances of rights. Thus,
rights are less important than love.
It's all about personal choice, man...
I choose not to rant and rave like a maniac if a friend of mine
accidentally breaks a pen or CD that I lent them. Someone else in
my place who is more concerned with the value of that property over
the value of that friendship may act differently. My observation is
simply the the world would be more pleasant if some of the more
intense indignants eased up a little, unless and until something
*important* comes along. Otherwise, how are the bystanders supposed
to tell the difference?
Colin|7.31.08 @ 8:10PM|#
It certainly means, Mike, that one is a Zionist hater. Why does
a Zionist have any less (or more) innate rights than a
Palestinian?
Why, because you hate them, that's why.
|7.31.08 @ 8:11PM|#
Andy Craig,
OK, for clarity perhaps I should replace "libertarians" with
"minarchists".
I think the computer example is still good; both people in that
analogy want "less computer". The point is, from a pragmatic
standpoint, the series of events that is conducive to utterly
destroying the state is almost certainly not the same chain of
events that leads to a minimization of the state without weakening
its ability to perform its core duties of protecting rights.
Remember how, in the early 20th century, the communists opposed the
socialists' efforts to implement labor laws because they thought it
would make a full communist revolution less likely? The same, I
think, is true of anarchists and minarchists.
Colin|7.31.08 @ 8:13PM|#
Would it have been okay, Elemonope, if a crazed mob did the same
thing to Obama's headquarters?
All you'd call for is for them pay for the glass? Really?
|7.31.08 @ 8:13PM|#
Colin-
I do not dislike Cato. I have contributed to the organization in
the past. Not lately, for sure. Furthermore, as I said to Andy
Craig, I would have posted the same thing if he had mentioned the
Post. I was reacting to what I thought was Andy's overreaction or
overemphasis.
Hell, some here have jumped ugly on me for being too over the top
when it comes to a state actor breaking down the doors of a family
which is not the subject of the search or arrest warrant.
|7.31.08 @ 8:15PM|#
The same, I think, is true of anarchists and
minarchists.
You think wrong.
Libertarian anarchists and minarchists differ only on the margin.
And it is the far margin!
|7.31.08 @ 8:18PM|#
Gilmore-
I am not the one throwing around the f-bombs. The use of such
usually indicates a lack of intellectual development.
|7.31.08 @ 8:19PM|#
LMNOP,
You should be happy that those douches are more concerned for their
rights than you are. If everyone stood idly by when their rights
were trampled, those rights would never be respected.
|7.31.08 @ 8:21PM|#
Colin-
Because one recognizes that zionism has been a disaster for
humanity does not mean that one hates zionism. Did I claim that
Zionists should have less rights than Palestinians? Show me.
|7.31.08 @ 8:23PM|#
Libertarian anarchists as a rule are evolutionary, not
revolutionary.
That may be so, but there is nothing in their philosophy that
causes that to be true. If their goal became close enough to become
achievable, rather than a conversation starter in a philosophy
club, I wouldn't trust that to remain the case.
|7.31.08 @ 8:23PM|#
"The point is, from a pragmatic standpoint, the series of events
that is conducive to utterly destroying the state is almost
certainly not the same chain of events that leads to a minimization
of the state without weakening its ability to perform its core
duties of protecting rights."
I disagree. Unlike your computer scenario, with the state no one is
even close to capable of getting at the core functions- police,
courts, etc. No matter how you go about dismantling the state,
that's always going to be the last thing you get to, whether you
intend to destroy it also or not. In the meantime, anarchists are
more than happy to assist in dismantling all the other functions of
the state that minarchists agree should go.
When abolishing the state becomes a realistic possibility, then
anarchists and minarchists can start picking fights. Until then,
it's arguing over a moot point.
|7.31.08 @ 8:23PM|#
Wish I hade been there. I go to CATO's lunch speaker series all
the time.
Since I am anarchist myself I would have been happy to introduce
those Nazi storm troopers heads to some of the nice bricks from the
sidewalk.
Colin|7.31.08 @ 8:28PM|#
Show you? Why don't you just re-read what you just wrote.
Saying that Zionists have been a "disaster for humanity" doesn't
mean you hate Zionists? Huh?
|7.31.08 @ 8:28PM|#
Andy Craig,
That's not how the Russian Revolution, or the French Revolution, or
indeed any successful revolution I can think of went. Do you think
the Bolsheviks started by replacing a couple of postmasters in
Siberia with Bolsheviks, and gradually worked their way up to the
Kremlin? No, they went right for the jugular, and once the head was
destroyed the body followed.
That's a far better recipe for a complete destruction of the state
than gradualism.
GILMORE|7.31.08 @ 8:29PM|#
libertymike | July 31, 2008, 8:18pm | #
Gilmore-
I am not the one throwing around the f-bombs. The use of such
usually indicates a lack of intellectual development.
yes, that, and also being vapid and wordy to no effect, your
highness.
|7.31.08 @ 8:30PM|#
libertymike,
Sure, there was a lot of state-sponsored murder in the 20th
century, but anarchy's racked up some pretty respectable totals
too. Especially when you consider how much better organized big
totalitarian regimes are compared with the stuff that goes on
places where government doesn't function.
Big state democides: Nazi Germany, USSR, Communist China, Imperial
Japan, Belgian Congo.
Anarchic mass killings: post-colonial Congo (Maybe goes in the
other category if you think a bunch of guys with AK-47s constitute
a state), Rwanda, much of what went down in southeast Asia.
(Although there was certainly state-sponsored killing there, as
well) Let's not forget the partition of India. (1 million dead
right there) Since the Palestinians don't have a state, any mass
killing they're allowed to do will be non-state as well.
I'm sorry, but those "anarchists" sound much more like supporters
of Pol Pot's "kill everyone that ever worked for the man"
philosophy than libertarians. I'm not saying that the people in the
video are bloodthirsty themselves, just that their impulses have
led to some pretty bloody places.
|7.31.08 @ 8:33PM|#
Colin-
Slave holding in America was a disaster for humanity. Agree? THomas
Jefferson was a slave holder. I do not hate Mr. Jefferson. Do you
follow? Or do you have a particular sensitivity towards those who
are zionists?
|7.31.08 @ 8:34PM|#
LibertyMike,
I'm strongly in the "anarcho-capitalism is a myth" group
personally. It's right up there with "communism is a great idea in
theory".
|7.31.08 @ 8:38PM|#
SuperMike-
The bottomeline though is that the total number of dead at the hand
of the state geometrically dwarfs the number of dead attributable
to anarchy. You did not really contest that reality.
Don't forget the democracies. Killers. Look at the United States,
England, France, etc.
|7.31.08 @ 8:42PM|#
To paraphrase:
So they trespassed. BFD. They can pay for the cost to replace
the glass grass. Let's not overplay the "violation" of
CATO's the Palestinian subjects of what used to be the
Ottoman empire's "property rights". Let's not be so
dramatic.
How's that "a disaster for humanity" exactly? It's certainly not a
big deal when compared to all the state murder you asked about
earlier. It'll really become a disaster if Israel is overcome.
|7.31.08 @ 8:43PM|#
FlyoverCountry-
Yes, but who gives the Pack a better chance at bringing Mr.
Lombardi's trophy back to Titletown? Brett Favre or Aaron
Rogers?
|7.31.08 @ 8:43PM|#
libertymike
Only because anarchy never lasts. A better measure would be
comparing deaths at the hands of non-state actors vs. state actors.
I would think the non-state actors are going to come out ahead.
Colin|7.31.08 @ 8:43PM|#
But you do hate slavery, don't you? And you certainly wouldn't
say that someone has the right to own another, correct?
You've proven my point.
And it's you that has the sensitivity about Zionists. You felt
compelled to bring up the subject numerous times here, even though
it isn't remotely relevant to the thread. I was just showing how
you're for the liberty of some, but not all.
|7.31.08 @ 8:46PM|#
Occam's toothbrush,
The philosophy of libertarian anarchists is
libertarianism. That is, their goal is a libertarian society. They
simply believe that the state is not necessary for a libertarian
society and may in fact inevitably preclude a libertarian society
because it is a perceived legitimate vehicle around which the power
hungry will always gather.
Anarchists and minarchists would follow the same path until we were
at minarchy. Then the actual differences would appear. I assure you
that if the state proves necessary at that time for a functioning
libertarian society, the vast majority libertarian anarchists will
become minarchists. It is, after all, liberty they seek -- not the
end of the state in and of itself.
And by bringing up the French and Russian Revolutions, you clearly
have already forgotten that libertarian anarchists are
evolutionary, not revolutionary.
The model of the American Revolution is much closer. There was
precious little about the American Revolution that was actually
revolutionary: It was simply a change of the highest level of
government. Local governments remained the same. Property rights
remained the same. The calendar, to take a silly example from the
French Revolution, remained the same.
|7.31.08 @ 8:47PM|#
libertymike,
Favre, but not much of a chance either way. Did you see him against
the Giants? He's not a young man anymore.
|7.31.08 @ 8:49PM|#
By the way, libertymike...
I assure you that the people who showed up at Cato the other day
would not replace NAFTA with free trade. To them, NAFTA is too
free, not a purported free trade agreement that is n-1 pages
too long.
|7.31.08 @ 8:53PM|#
I didn't contest your point in that manner because I think you're comparing apples and oranges. Practically everything done under the protection of or at the behest of a reasonably strong state is orders of magnitude bigger than that done under anarchic conditions. Whether it's spaceflight, miles of railroad track laid, median life expectancy, or mass murder, all the real achievements have been in places with functioning government. Anarchy is simply not conductive to getting anything done. Mass murder is actually exceptional in that it's the one category where anarchy isn't as disadvantaged as it is in all the others.
|7.31.08 @ 8:54PM|#
SuperMike-
I care about your property rights-including your right to keep
every euro you earn, inherit or otherwise obtain without fraud or
coercion. This means that I detest the fact that the gvt is
stealing from you in order to give it to Israel.
Did the Cato protesters kill anybody? Did they bulldoze entire
villages and rape women and children while they were at it? Do the
protesters have a lobbying/pressure group demanding that a foreign
countruy's treasury be looted in their behalf? Do the protesters
have other lobbying/pressure/advocacy groups seeking in their
behalf, laws that would criminalize those who criticized them?
|7.31.08 @ 8:54PM|#
MikeP,
I chose the French and Russian revolutions because they represent
successful uprootings of previously existing governments. But to go
with your American Revolution example, what was the relationship
like between Revolutionaries and those who thought taxation without
representation was unjust but didn't think it warranted a break
with the UK? That's the analogue of the minarchist/anarchist
relationship in our day.
GILMORE|7.31.08 @ 8:55PM|#
libertymike | July 31, 2008, 8:38pm | #
SuperMike-
The bottomeline though is that the total number of dead at the hand
of the state geometrically dwarfs the number of dead attributable
to anarchy. You did not really contest that reality.
Don't forget the democracies. Killers. Look at the United States,
England, France, etc.
Because as we all know, there have been plenty of officially
anarchic large scale mass movements that provide a useful contrast
to... well, all of human history.
Also, Bigfoot has killed far fewer children than common housepets.
FACT
|7.31.08 @ 8:56PM|#
No, it's not an analogue, because no one has yet reached the point of wanting to shoot people.
|7.31.08 @ 9:00PM|#
And just because you know a few libertarian anarchists who are evolutionary doesn't mean all possible libertarian anarchists must be so. Indeed, a successful libertarian anarchist would almost certainly be revolutionary, because the most likely path from here to anarchy sure doesn't go through minarchy first.
|7.31.08 @ 9:02PM|#
Andy Craig,
You obviously haven't read the comment threads for Randy Balko's
articles...
Elemenope|7.31.08 @ 9:03PM|#
Would it have been okay, Elemonope, if a crazed mob did the
same thing to Obama's headquarters?
All you'd call for is for them pay for the glass?
Really?
Is this like, really, too abstract for everyone?
Come on, now, follow along.
Dude has rights. Another dude infringes upon first dude's rights.
First dude can then choose to either ignore or enforce a claim on
second dude.
Everyone makes that choice differently, and for different reasons.
An ornery sonbitch would undoubtedly shoot kids on his lawn with
salt-shot. A laid-back dude would invite the kids in for a
lemonade. I imagine (call me crazy) that there is an amazingly
generous spectrum of possible actions between the two.
Would I be OK if crazed mobsters smashed Obama's Campaign
Headquarters windows? I'd say rather that my feelings on the matter
would be quite beside the point. You'd have to ask Obama (and his
campaign) that question. My only point was that the way in which
people habitually respond to such infringements tells you a great
deal about the person, and that also those reactions (in the
aggregate) are a large if not the largest determinant in how nice
or shitty the world is to live in.
A few people lack acquaintance with a principle called
"proportionality". It is these people in particular that I was
criticizing in passing. It's a not uncommon disease, and it's
fucking rampant around here. Everyone wants to be "Property Man"
the superhero, and utterly exclude the notion that there are other
important things in this world.
|7.31.08 @ 9:03PM|#
What Radley Balko writes about is usually enraging enough to bring out the bomb-throwing anarchist in me, too.
|7.31.08 @ 9:04PM|#
MikeP-
Of course, you are right. I hope that you don't mistake my original
post to Andy Craig as some kind of support for the philosophical
raison d'etre of most of the protesters-I mean I am taking for
granted, for argument's sake, that a high percentage of them are
pinko leaning, (as someone earlier stated) wanting free health care
and a big, bad gvt. to impose green living on the big, bad, evil
corporations.
I am an unabashed individualist. I prefer not to commune with
commies.
|7.31.08 @ 9:05PM|#
I chose the French and Russian revolutions because they
represent successful uprootings of previously existing
governments.
But a libertarian anarchist would not consider an uprooting of a
previously existing government that produced a less libertarian
society successful. Their goal is a libertarian society,
not the end of the state.
what was the relationship like between Revolutionaries and
those who thought taxation without representation was unjust but
didn't think it warranted a break with the UK? That's the analogue
of the minarchist/anarchist relationship in our day.
Except for the fact that the revolution versus reform debate was
being decided and acted upon right then. It will take
decades of libertarian evolution before society is in any shape to
get rid of the state.
Also, I would point out that there wasn't the bloodbath after the
American Revolution that you saw after the French or Russian. The
two groups you bring up were more alike than different -- like
libertarian anarchists and minarchists.
|7.31.08 @ 9:09PM|#
Indeed, a successful libertarian anarchist would almost
certainly be revolutionary, because the most likely path from here
to anarchy sure doesn't go through minarchy first.
Oh, but they believe it does. I should also point out that, since
you obviously don't know much about them, you probably don't know
what they almost certainly would be.
I suggest you read up on libertarian anarchism. A good intro is
David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom.
|7.31.08 @ 9:12PM|#
Elemenope-9:03
Your best post, ever. Well, the best I have read. I confess, I have
been that "Property Man" myself.
As for proportionality, I submit that there is a difference between
this rabble breaking Cato's glass and police and DEA breaking into
a home because they have received a "tip" from a "reliable"
informant that there might be some MJ only to find no dope after
they have caused thousands of dollars in damage and have pointed a
gun to the heads of the home's occupants.
|7.31.08 @ 9:12PM|#
The problem with NAFTA is that it didn't go far enough. Yes it's
protectionist, but not nearly as protectionist as its predecessor.
We used to have a turd sandwich for a trade policy, now we have a
PBJ that smells funky. It ain't perfect, but I know what I would
rather eat.
Instead of kvetching about how horrible NAFTA is, all the Ron Paul
supporters should be proclaiming that it was a successful
experiment to prove we can get rid of ALL trade restrictions.
|7.31.08 @ 9:18PM|#
Did the Cato protesters kill anybody? Did they bulldoze
entire villages and rape women and children while they were at
it?
No, but that one hippie did say he wanted us all to be living in
teepees. Just because he hasn't thought through what it would take
to get me to live in a teepee, doesn't mean that I haven't. Even
the Palestinians don't have to live in f'in teepees!
Do the protesters have other lobbying/pressure/advocacy groups
seeking in their behalf, laws that would criminalize those who
criticized them?
Listen, the hippie is either at your throat or at your feet. The
SDS doesn't give a damn about the rights of the rest of us to go
about our business if it's something they disapprove of. (like
capitalism)
Elemenope|7.31.08 @ 9:21PM|#
libertymike --
y, ty. Incidentally, my S.O. thinks I'm Property Man Incarnate.
When we were arguing last I said that taxation was an act of
violence by the state and she looked at me like I had turned
fuchsia. Then again, she actually *is* one of 'em durned
lib'rels.
The notion that if you don't pay your taxes men with guns appear to
take you away didn't find purchase, for some reason.
I am an unabashed individualist. I prefer not to commune with
commies.
I, too, am an unabashed individualist, but I sometimes hang with
the commies because, ironically, they often have the best products
available. (Tie-dyed shirts and really good weed...)
|7.31.08 @ 9:22PM|#
Would I be OK if crazed mobsters smashed Obama's Campaign
Headquarters windows? I'd say rather that my feelings on the matter
would be quite beside the point. You'd have to ask Obama (and his
campaign) that question.
So, if I break into someone's house, beat them up, and steal all
their stuff, but they choose not to press charges, then no one
should opine that what I did was wrong?
I would say that's moral relativism, but it's not even that
sensible. It's more like what you'd find floating in the toilet a
few hours after you ate a moral relativism sandwich.
|7.31.08 @ 9:25PM|#
SuperMIke-
Again, the protesters ain't my cup of tea party. Speaking of
which.....
GILMORE|7.31.08 @ 9:29PM|#
libertymike | July 31, 2008, 9:21pm | #
Gilmore-
"officially anarchic large scale"? You jest, da?
Either you're insinuating the soviets are your example, or trying
to avoid saying you dont actually have one?
|7.31.08 @ 9:30PM|#
MikeP,
I've read MoF, but I have no illusions that Friedman or his ilk are
anything but utter failures when it comes to advancing their
philosophy. That goes for Spooner as well.
Marx had very specific ideas about how a Marxist society would come
about, but it was through a completely different sequence of events
that it actually did happen.
|7.31.08 @ 9:37PM|#
libertymike reminds me of the my time volunteering at a mental
hospital during my religious phase. The schizophrenics would say
the most wacky, off the wall shit and if you tried to reason with
them they would say you were stupid and just didn't understand
anything.
In particular, he reminds me of the guy who always carried a
frisbee everywhere he went in the hospital, and would hold onto it
for dear life if you ever tried to take it away, but then every
once in a while would throw it at you for no reason. Good
times.
|7.31.08 @ 9:42PM|#
As far as the property-man proportionality thing. I think it
might be unwise to dismiss the salt-shot thing as crazy or uncool.
Why should a bunch of (admittedly skinny) toughs be allowed to bust
up what is basically a font of ideas?
Apparently the New York Times had a gatling gun on the
roof at one point to prevent a bunch of toughs from busting it
up.
I think the Obama campaign analogy is a pretty good one: If Obama's
ideological opponents busted up his office, there'd be
fully-justified outrage. If you try to intimidate libertarians or
right-wingers, everybody foolishly dismisses it as a robin-hood
thing.
Elemenope|7.31.08 @ 9:43PM|#
So, if I break into someone's house, beat them up, and steal
all their stuff, but they choose not to press charges, then no one
should opine that what I did was wrong?
Of course people should opine! Minding other people's business is
what keeps the whole of human society humming along, if you will
allow the tautology.
I was drawing a fuzzy line between people who drop a glass, break
it and say "ah well, I'll have to get another glass" and those who
say "JESUS MOTHERFUCKING HELLA CHRIST ON A CRACKER THE WORLD'S
COMING TO A MOTHERFUCKING END!". One of those guys, I would
*opine*, has attachment issues with that glass.
If instead of breaking it their own stupid and/or clumsy selves the
agent of destruction was another person, it changes little about
the actual destruction involved. In a fit of pique one may berate
the friend or stranger who knocked over your cup, but unless the
cup has *special sentimental value* (e.g. caught the blood of
Christ Hisownself and was borne to it's present owner upon the
notes of an Elvis ballad), at the end of the day it's just a
cup.
The question then becomes, is it worth it to you, to the other
person, and to society in general to make a thing out of the "cup
situation". It's a moral question; has very little to do with
politics or rights. How much does the cup mean to you?
Likewise, CATO, or Cato, or whatever capitalization is preferred,
is a non-profit with resources such that a front window to them is
analogous to a juice glass to you; perhaps a little more, perhaps a
little less. Now, the question for C[ATO]ato becomes whether other
things are more important than the property interest. They have to
weigh things like, for example, free publicity generated by the
incident, and the character that the publicity will take depending
upon their reaction.
p.s. I am very *not* a relativist.
p.p.s. Relatively speaking, of course.
Mike Laursen|7.31.08 @ 9:43PM|#
Hell, forget about whether Cato's property rights were violated. The window smashing is physical intimidation -- that's a much more visceral and direct violation of one's rights.
|7.31.08 @ 9:43PM|#
Elemenope-
On the tax issue, you may recall last week that I made the
statement that if the magical Libertarian leprechaun appeared
before me and granted me one liberty wish, I would choose to
abolish the income tax. IMO, ending the income tax is far more
important than ballot access, affirmative action, ending the drug
war, etc. I know that you understand that because I think that
starving the beast should have a higher priority than say, ending
don't ask/don't tell (that was the thread) does not mean that I
must "hate" homosexuals.
Speaking of communing with commies, one of my army buddies used to
love to chant the following:
If I die at the Russian front,
I'm gonna die with a commie....
GILMORE|7.31.08 @ 9:43PM|#
The schizophrenics would say the most wacky, off the wall
shit and if you tried to reason with them they would say you were
stupid and just didn't understand anything.
Yes. My brother's been severely schizophrenic for years, and there
is a resemblance to the M.O. of many true-believers
|7.31.08 @ 9:54PM|#
If instead of breaking it their own stupid and/or clumsy
selves the agent of destruction was another person, it changes
little about the actual destruction involved.
That's sort of missing the point! It's not the broken glass, it's
the intimidation. (as the other Mike pointed out) That's like
saying that it'd be the same if:
1. You hit a deer, smashing up the front and windshield of your new
Corvette.
2. Walter Sobcheck uses a crowbar to smash it up while screaming
about how it's you getting your just desserts.
I guess in sort of a Buddhist way, it is the same, but it's not
morally or legally the same.
|7.31.08 @ 9:56PM|#
In particular, he reminds me of the guy who always carried a
frisbee everywhere he went in the hospital, and would hold onto it
for dear life if you ever tried to take it away, but then every
once in a while would throw it at you for no reason.
It's actually quite rational, he was simply exercising his right to
keep and bear arms.
|7.31.08 @ 9:58PM|#
Gilmore-
The Soviets? Come on. The USSR was the poster boy of state
brutality and mass murder.
Do you think that humanity is better served by more or less
government? Do you attribute all of humanity's great achievements
to the existence of the state? I ask because I do not want to
assume that I know your position. For me, history has proven that
(1) the existence of a warfare/welfare state with a monopoly on the
administration of justice is not a prerequisite to a healthy,
prosperous state of affairs and (2) humanity's greatest progress
has taken place in spite of the state.
Elemenope|7.31.08 @ 10:02PM|#
I guess in sort of a Buddhist way, it is the
same...
Now you are speaking my language!
And Walter Sobchak is Exhibit A of my point. He was in high dudgeon
and about what? Money that didn't even really exist. In the process
of "teaching" Little Larry what happens when you sodomize strangers
impolitely, he fucked himself in the ass, because his (morally
sanctioned) wrath had an all-too-human kink in its execution: he
erred in his target.
If the Dude had decided that the rug really wasn't that important,
and that he could find an equivalent one with room-tying properties
of sufficient potency, Donnie would undoubtedly still be alive. Was
the rug worth Donnie? And that case even had intimidation and
assault!
|7.31.08 @ 10:05PM|#
Well, i'll say this much, libertymike definitely isn't taking
his positions out of any self-interest. The federal govt doesn't
take income tax out of mental disability payments.
SuperMike @ 9:54
exactly. Heck, if I'm sitting at a bus stop drinking a bottle of
soda, and some creep comes over, grabs it out of my hand and dumps
it on the ground in front of me, I'm gonna brawl, and not because
I'm attached to sugar water.
|7.31.08 @ 10:06PM|#
Gilmore-
Take the difference between the protesters who broke Cato's glass
and the police who committ thousands of dollars of damage while
breaking into the home of those who are believed to have pot on the
premises and pointing guns at the occupants. What taxes
civilization more? What retards civilization more? What continues
to pose a much freater threat to our safety?
In reality, when the state has a monopoly on the administration of
justice, you get much closer to "anarchy" than students "taking"
over campus buildings or the rabble that broke Cato's glass.
Colin|7.31.08 @ 10:07PM|#
It's interesting, Elemonope, that -- according to you -- Obama should get to decide if it were his windows when you decided for Cato that it was no big deal when it was theirs.
|7.31.08 @ 10:08PM|#
Occam-
How about if its a cop? Do you have the stones to teach the
parasite a lesson?
|7.31.08 @ 10:19PM|#
Occam-
As for my second amendment advocacy, I am acting out of self
interest as I have always regarded its language as admitting of no
exceptions-even for mental disability patients.
|7.31.08 @ 10:20PM|#
libertymike,
Unfortunately, here in the U.S., the police are well-armed. No
matter how crooked they are, it's very difficult to engage them in
a physical altercation without running the risk of a very serious
escalation. Chances that they'd show up at any sort of public
transit facility are vanishingly slim, though.
|7.31.08 @ 10:22PM|#
Colin-
Its not either or. You read things that aren't there. But, one is
much worse than the other by definition. Its always worse when its
done under the color of law-with all of the guns and intimidation,
etc.
|7.31.08 @ 10:26PM|#
Colin-
The thief that accosts you and demands your wallet is not as bad as
the state demanding half your paycheck at the point of a gun.
The former does not justify his theft on the basis of some
socialist do gooder totalitarian clap trap whereas the latter
does.
Elemenope|7.31.08 @ 10:27PM|#
Colin --
Either you are being willfully distortionary, or you are simply a
very careless reader.
Even. Simpler.
1. It is Cato's opinion that matters as to what Cato should do in
response an attack on its property.
1b. Cato's choice reflects something about Cato.
2. If Obama's campaign headquarters were analogously attacked, it
would likewise be Obama and his Team's opinion that is
dispositive.
2b. If Obama's Campaign were to make a choice following such an
incident, that choice would undoubtedly also reflect upon the
deeper character of Obama's Campaign.
*I* at no time *decided* for Cato that it's woes were no big deal.
What I simply pointed out that objectively the property loss at
issue would by measurable but minute to its owner, and that that
proportion should inform how the reaction is to be understood. You
know, *Marginal Value* and *Marginal Cost*. Important concepts, I
think. My opinion does not matter in the long run to Cato, which
will make whatever decision it wills. It does, however, inform my
opinion about Cato, my opinions about protesters, and dozens of
other things to a lesser extent.
I shared those opinions because this is a *message board* upon
which such things are discussed.
Have you caught on YET?
Knud|7.31.08 @ 10:30PM|#
Why didn't anything like this happen when I was an intern there? Damn! The intern room is one step from the lobby and I'm sure we would have been able to push them out, or at least contain them until the Cato Running Dogs reinforcement made it down from the upper floors ;-)
Mike Laursen|7.31.08 @ 10:39PM|#
Mike, why is it either or? Why can't we rebuke
both?
Colin, I'm trying to figure out if your question was for me. You
may not realize what it's like having an extremely common name like
Mike, but it means, for example, that it's completely useless to
use your real name when ordering food in a restaurant.
Mike Laursen|7.31.08 @ 10:44PM|#
Anyways, in case you were asking me. Equally rebuke property right infringement AND physical intimidation all you like. The former may lead you into a lengthy discussion like the one on this thread, because property rights are an abstract, invented idea. The latter will get you agreement from all but the most uncivilized brutes; the idea that being bullied is a bad thing is something most folks get on a basic emotional level.
|7.31.08 @ 10:55PM|#
Wait, just wait a minute. Is this the same libertymike who, when
first joining this forum, had the "FREEDOM!" rhetoric cranked up so
loud that my ears would bleed? Whose posts almost read as a parody
of libertarians?
Neato.
Colin|7.31.08 @ 10:57PM|#
Elemenope, perhaps you should re-read everything you wrote.
Perhaps you are a careless writer.
Because you were clearly expressing the view earlier on that this
was no big deal, and that everyone was way too upset about their
"stuff," as you eloquently put it.
By the way, proportionality is when someone else's "stuff" is
destroyed.
Caught on YET?
JB|7.31.08 @ 11:00PM|#
Good lord this thread is hard to follow. I'm not even sure what's being debated if anything. I say "screw commies, go cato" to add my 2 cents.
Mike Laursen|7.31.08 @ 11:01PM|#
Matt Welch is officially a daddy!
http://www.tonypierce.com/blog/2008/07/these-two-kids-are-now-parents.htm
He'll surely give up all of those crazy libertarian ideas now.
Colin|7.31.08 @ 11:01PM|#
"The thief that accosts you and demands your wallet is not as
bad as the state demanding half your paycheck at the point of a
gun."
I see them as the same. The reason they steal from me is
irrelevant.
Colin|7.31.08 @ 11:03PM|#
I don't know if he'll give up all libertarian ideas, but something tells me he won't get too upset over free public education. :)
|7.31.08 @ 11:06PM|#
Colin,
Arrest them. Fine them. Laugh at them for the idiot ideas. Move
on.
Not a big deal.
A big deal is when they firebomb the building and three people
die.
Describing a trivial incident as a "blatantly unjustified violation
of property rights" (this quote being the root of the whole debate
on this thread) is an example of unjustifiable excess rhetoric. Why
is that so hard to accept?
Call them "stupid hooligans" and move on to a debate about their
stupid ideas. Dwelling on their trivial act of vandalism is
pointless.
Elemenope|7.31.08 @ 11:19PM|#
Because you were clearly expressing the view earlier on that
this was no big deal, and that everyone was way too upset about
their "stuff," as you eloquently put it.
By the way, proportionality is when someone else's "stuff" is
destroyed.
Caught on YET?
You have a hard time distinguishing between that which is my
opinion and that which you believe that I
believe ought to be be the universal truth.
That seems to be an incurable problem.
If you read, heck, not even that carefully, I came in with an
*opinion*: i.e. generally speaking, people are way too uptight
about their ownership stake in material objects. Then I followed up
with an analogy of relative worth, namely:
dude : juice glass :: CATO : window
Which I indicated that believed was more or less accurate. I could
be wrong about that. It's just *my opinion*.
I also indicated that my opinions and beliefs in such a matter
should *not* be dispositive or influential...that the only opinion
that really mattered was the aggrieved party. I said that a few
times, in fact.
And yet you still insist that I'm trying to make decisions or
implying I ought to make or believe that I should make such
decisions for others.
You act as if to believe in freedom one must shed all of one's own
beliefs and FOR THE LOVE OF GOD never express a personal opinion
about a private matter.
In my opinion, that's fucking stupid.
p.s. It's not like I've never been a victim of property crime. And,
yeah, I was about as chill about that (and my stuff) as I am being
accused of wanting to be with other people's stuff. Believe it, if
you wish, or not.
Colin|7.31.08 @ 11:19PM|#
My point hasn't been that this was such a horrible incident, but
the double standards applied.
My first post here was laughing it off as well.
|7.31.08 @ 11:28PM|#
Colin,
Ranking a violation of liberty as trivial is not an act of finding
the violation wholly unworthy of a reprimand of some sort. It's
simply an act of prioritization.
I don't see either LMNOP or libertymike claiming that society
should turn a blind eye to trivial violations.
Now, if I've read you wrong, and you're claiming that a double
standard is being applied because the actor involved in the trivial
violation was a non-state actor, that's a different debate. And in
that debate, I think the double standard is worthy. State actors
who participate in trivial rights violations are more likely to get
away with it, because they are actors of the State. Thus, their
violations are more worthy of scrutiny.
Colin|7.31.08 @ 11:42PM|#
I was claiming that a double standard was applied because of the victim, someone who's not well liked across the political spectrum, including many libertarians.
TB|7.31.08 @ 11:58PM|#
LM, LMNOP,
I'll godwin myself:
Imagine if instead of just one place, these goons got together and
smashed the windows of all of the folks they didn't like -- all in
one night. Now what would we call that? Hmmm. Maybe the Germans
have a good word for it, they seem to have one for everything, you
sitzpinklers.
|8.1.08 @ 12:05AM|#
Colin-
We just beg to differ on the two thieves. I submit that there is a
profound moral difference. The state actor who steals need not fear
resistance from his victim nor need he fear any third party coming
to the rescue of his victim.
Do you not see the hypocrisy element? Does that not matter to
you?
Adlai Niska-Boaz|8.1.08 @ 12:13AM|#
I think people know of SDS.
They know they crossed Cato.
Now they must know what happens after that. They must know that
business is still running.
Colin|8.1.08 @ 12:21AM|#
I see neither a profound moral difference nor any hypocrisy. All
I see is I've been robbed either way.
You should worry far more that most people don't see state theft as
theft at all.
Colonel_Angus|8.1.08 @ 12:32AM|#
It's a late comment, but allow me to comment on the main topic
instead of whatever the fuck the thread seems to have turned
into.
SDS= filthy retarded hippies, a parody of themselves. Definitely
not how one would expect such a group to behave, right?
Anyway, Cato has done some good things in the past, but how is
Interstate 69, specifically that Texas Corridor Highway part of it,
anywhere near a legitimate function of government that libertarians
would support. As I understand, that is the thing Ron Paul referred
to as the NAFTA super highway, which is a real proposal in the
works. Eminent domain and misuse of tax money are some of these two
organizations' key issues, yet they defend a project of such a
rediculous scope.
NAFTA is no where near free trade. Free trade ought to be an
unwritten rule. We don't even have domestic free trade.
I remember that article a few months back that was a circle jerk
praising of the Texas highway.
Drink. Motherfuckers.
|8.1.08 @ 12:52AM|#
Many of the comments were libertarian. If they were SDS members, Id say SDS has attracted much smarter folks then they did 40 some years ago.
|8.1.08 @ 1:25AM|#
Sort of off-topic, but this was more than a bit creepy, even for
Manitoba:
Witnesses: Canada bus passenger beheads seat mate
Orange Line Special|8.1.08 @ 2:06AM|#
On another thread, the brilliant new sockpuppet "Colonel_Angus"
says to me Once again ThemWetbacks are the most god damn
important thing to be worrying about.
On this thread, "socks" (as I'll call the new addition) says the
NAFTASuperhighway is a real proposal and doesn't like it.
From the second comment, one might think "socks" would be able to
figure out why I discuss both topics and why I realize they're
connected. Obviously, "socks" doesn't have enough gray matter to do
that.
bob|8.1.08 @ 4:53AM|#
...but breaking the windows will help the economy.
They were just looking for some economic 'stimulus'.
jtuf|8.1.08 @ 6:52AM|#
I remember when I lived at GW near the World Bank. Anti-globalization protestors trashed the neighborhood, including the university. They just like overturning garbage cans and spray painting. They aren't too particular about their targets.
|8.1.08 @ 9:27AM|#
I'm talking about the end of all life as we know it. For the
past several days I've been... noticing a steep rise in the number
of hippies coming to town.
At first I thought maybe it was just a coincidence. Then I saw
this... Three new drum circles have sprouted up here, here, and
here. They're all growing in diameter, at a rate of two hippies per
hour. What this means... is that the hippies are conglomerating.
They'er thriving, if you will. I think that they're setting up for
a... . hippie music festival.
Dave W.|8.1.08 @ 9:31AM|#
I am sorry you missed the fact that there has been a break in the story of the anthrax conspiracy.
|8.1.08 @ 9:45AM|#
I'm completely baffled as to why any libertarian would have a problem with beefing up the highway system to facilitate more trade.
Guy Montag|8.1.08 @ 9:47AM|#
The SDS is still around?
Yea, just check with the Obama family of Chicago.
|8.1.08 @ 12:01PM|#
R C Dean | August 1, 2008, 9:45am | #
I'm completely baffled as to why any libertarian would have a
problem with beefing up the highway system to facilitate more
trade.
Ya that used to be my view, but when I saw that even mentioning
that the highway was being beefed up and their were lots of
documents from quasi-governemntal think tanks talking about it in
the context of Regionalization, The SPP and the North American
Union made the MSM and high ranking politicians of both parties
march in lockstep to chants of "conspiracy theory" I began to
question what the hell they were trying to hide.
Knowing that these people actually despise free trade(given their
history of regulating and taxing trade at every possible
opportunity). I began to see that I should be against pretty much
anything certain people are for...if there is more demand for
michigan products in canada then somebody will invest the
appropriate amount of capital to build better transport
facilities...we don't need the feds getting involved...just stay
out of the way.
daveednyc|8.1.08 @ 12:16PM|#
In the article about the protest posted on indymedia, there's
this brilliant gem of a comment:
"....I am so sad that I had to miss this...f***ing summer
school"
|8.1.08 @ 1:05PM|#
if there is more demand for michigan products in canada then
somebody will invest the appropriate amount of capital to build
better transport facilities...we don't need the feds getting
involved
Well, serious transport infrastructure is pretty much impossible to
build without the feds. And why on earth would anyone invest tens
or hundreds of billions of their own money in a new interstate
highway system, when we've got a perfectly good one already sitting
there, just needing some upgrades?
|8.1.08 @ 1:29PM|#
R C Dean ...."serious transport infrastructure is pretty much
impossible to build without the feds"
you fail. I work with private companies everyday planning for and
building serious, multi-billion dollar transportation
infrastructure. Natural gas pipelines, LNG liquifaction plants,
re-gas facilities all over the world, super tankers etc.
This is living proof that serious transport infrastructure does not
have be done by the government. It also proves you are ignorant on
the topic.
Your willful ignorance on the topic makes it pointless to even try
and explain the theoretical reasons that existing government
corporate welfare for serious transport is unneccessary.
|8.1.08 @ 1:30PM|#
now take back your communist remarks RC Dean...admit that corporate welfare is not the only way to get serious transportation done.
|8.1.08 @ 1:34PM|#
I can understand a ignorant SOB like yourself not knowing about billion dollar gas pipeline projects getting built with capital from private bond and equity issuances....however when your on hear proclaiming that corporate welfare on transport is THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY to get things from point A to B efficiently and anyone who says differently is not a libertarian or is a xenophobe or a conspiracy nut....it it it is just maddening.
Guy Montag|8.1.08 @ 2:02PM|#
Gabe,
I suspect the as yet unstated point is that Michigan to Canada
crosses an international border. Which really should not stop a
private concern from building a road, of course, but the feds have
pretty much locked up that segment of infrastructure
construction.
I agree with you that private concerns should take the lead, but we
are temporarily (I hope) stuck with the Feds and States owning most
of the roads.
|8.1.08 @ 2:06PM|#
Gabe, when you respond to your own posts repeatedly and
continually attack a person simply because he disagrees with you,
it pretty much ends the conversation.
And gets you added to my kill file!
|8.1.08 @ 4:10PM|#
I work with private companies everyday planning for and
building serious, multi-billion dollar transportation
infrastructure. Natural gas pipelines, LNG liquifaction plants,
re-gas facilities all over the world, super tankers etc.
Good point, Gabe. Got it the first time. I should have been more
specific, and said "serious surface transportation infrastructure."
I mean, we are talking about roads, here.
My question about how realistic it is for any private entity to
build a parallel interstate highway network stands.
|8.1.08 @ 4:14PM|#
Oh, and Gabe, I'm sure you're aware that cross-country pipelines rely on eminent domain for some of their easement acquisitions. So you can get off your high horse even for the kinds of projects you have worked on - the pipelines, at least, are built using the powers of the state.
|8.1.08 @ 6:44PM|#
Guy and Marcvs can go fuck themselves...if only so I can get on their kill lists.
|8.1.08 @ 6:54PM|#
Anyway, Cato has done some good things in the past, but how
is Interstate 69, specifically that Texas Corridor Highway part of
it, anywhere near a legitimate function of government that
libertarians would support.
I'm still not clear on what Cato is doing for the I-69 project. Are
they performing surveying? Offering their legal teams to help with
eminent domain takings? Suggesting what formulation of macadam to
use?
Or do they simply believe that trade policies that are more free
are better than those that are less free? The horror.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245