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
"It's like Ayn Rand got loaded and woke up next to Keynes"
That's what former West Wing actor Bradley Whitford said regarding supposed bank deregulation over the past several years. Appearing with his former co-star Martin Sheen, Whitford continued:
"I mean, it's ironical (sic) to me that we're living in a time where we have deregulated—compromised worker's rights to the point of deregulating whether banking oversight—to the point where we actually now can't do anything until we talk to our loan officer in Beijing. We have a communist banker. That's where deregulation got us....It's like Ayn Rand got loaded and woke up next to Keynes."
The two were in Washington recently to lobby for the Employee Free Choice Act, otherwise known as "Card Check," a pro-union bill whose future seems to be in limbo at least for the time being.
Video of the press conference below, from CNS News and Eyeblast.tv:
High Every Body|4.6.09 @ 10:03AM|#
Such an ironical comment.
Is Bradley Whitford one of the chorus complaining about every
Bushism too?
High Every Body|4.6.09 @ 10:11AM|#
The two were in Washington recently to lobby for the
Employee Free Choice Act, otherwise known as "Card Check," a
pro-union bill whose future seems to be in limbo at least for the
time being.
Nick! "Pro-Union"? Such negative wording for the end of worker
choice in unionization.
Is the crew that always defends this still in bed, or are they
writing poetry right now? The comment flood should be expected
after noon.
|4.6.09 @ 10:19AM|#
Bush was, in fact, a Cato/Reason -libertarian.
Cato was kissing Bush's ass through most of the administration, and
both Cato and Reason supported wars on Iraq and Afghanistan. That's
what turned many of us onto Lewrockwell.com in the first place.
Rockwell's was the only consistently libertarian website that
opposed the war and government growth. Cato and Reason did little
to oppose it.
|4.6.09 @ 10:21AM|#
Bush was, in fact, a Cato/Reason -libertarian.
Goddammit. Now I have to clean coffee off my monitor.
|4.6.09 @ 10:25AM|#
So all of the hundreds of critical comments of the Bush administration from Cato and reason were just red herrings?
|4.6.09 @ 10:25AM|#
Bush made CATO look like a bunch of Bolsheviks!
Don't you people read the papers?
|4.6.09 @ 10:31AM|#
Also, since when is Martin Sheen still alive?
He's holding on for the Spawn sequel.
|4.6.09 @ 10:32AM|#
Bush was a liberal.
He ran a liberal economic policy. He expanded the Great Society.
His reaction to crises was no different from Barak Obama's...
Oh, and don't let the anti-war ex-hippies fool you--he ran a
liberal foreign policy too.
Yeah, Bush was like Lyndon Johnson. ...whose Texas roots and
personal convictions take away nothing from the fact that he was a
liberal.
|4.6.09 @ 10:33AM|#
Pro Libertate - When were they critical of Bush leading up to invading Afghanistan or Iraq? They didn't. They were very luke warm on his economic policies. Compare how Rockwell handled both compared with Cato or Reason.
Kyle Jordan|4.6.09 @ 10:35AM|#
"Card Check - so we can more easily find out who the holdouts
are."
And "educate" them...
|4.6.09 @ 10:35AM|#
I don't agree at all. I don't think anyone gave Bush a pass around here, and certainly not at Cato.
|4.6.09 @ 10:35AM|#
Oh, and rather than Ayn Rand waking up next to Keynes, I prefer "Zombie Keynes", which I've seen being kicked around in these parts. ...it's like the government is walking around in a zombie like state doing what Keynes would do, not because it wants to but out of some undead autonomic habit.
T|4.6.09 @ 10:39AM|#
I prefer "Zombie Keynes", which I've seen being kicked
around in these parts
I like it. Somebody do the artwork and get it over to CafePress. Or
else find Zombie Keynes and go for the headshot.
|4.6.09 @ 10:41AM|#
I don't agree at all. I don't think anyone gave Bush a pass
around here, and certainly not at Cato.
There wasn't a consensus around here on Bush's foreign policy as it
was unfolding, but I remember Gillespie giving the Bush
Administration a consistent thumbs down.
Over at Cato, I remember them grilling President Bush on everything
from his foreign policy to the non-defense defense spending in his
budget.
So I agree with Pro Liberate. I think the charge of Cato or Reason
brown-nosing Bush is a crock.
Gilbert Martin|4.6.09 @ 10:45AM|#
"... former West Wing actor Bradley Whitford said regarding
supposed bank deregulation over the past several years. Appearing
with his former co-star Martin Sheen..."
Life imitates art.
Both of them have played idiots on screen and they're both idiots
in real life.
|4.6.09 @ 10:51AM|#
Yo, fuck Spawn.
I'd like to see you try! He's so eXtreme and dark and edgy! His
edginess would overwhelm you with its dark eXtremity, then his
darkness would finish you off with its edgy eXtremeness. Plus he
carries a chain.
High Every Body|4.6.09 @ 10:51AM|#
So all of the hundreds of critical comments of the Bush
administration from Cato and reason were just red
herrings?
Red Herring still around? Next you will be telling me
there is a print edition of phrack!
robc|4.6.09 @ 10:53AM|#
Bush was, in fact, a lizard person.
Does that mean he won the Minnesota senate election?
Joel|4.6.09 @ 10:58AM|#
Why, Why, WHY, does
anyone pay attention to actors when they start spouting about
"issues?"
Geez, somebody please stop encouraging these people to embarrass
themselves! Even a remote possibility that some alien race is
listening to this and shaking whatever they use for heads
embarrasses the hell out of me.
Xeones|4.6.09 @ 10:58AM|#
I'd like to see you try!
Don't even joke. That movie was so bad a little piece of my soul
died.
alittlesense|4.6.09 @ 11:04AM|#
What the hell does Banking deregulation have to do with "Card Check"? Why would Beijing (I assume he meant them as our "Communist Bankers") care anyway? What is Bradley Whitford smoking?
|4.6.09 @ 11:06AM|#
That movie was so bad a little piece of my soul
died.
Image Comics in general took so much from all of us. Ah, early
1990s... how you have the power to still hurt me...
High Every Body|4.6.09 @ 11:06AM|#
What is Bradley Whitford smoking?
Something his choice for president will not push legalization
for.
|4.6.09 @ 11:12AM|#
Re: Image Comics, Gen13 had tons of potential, and Jim Lee is still the best ever. But yes, 1990s pop culture was painful. Dennis Rodman and Jean-Claude Van Damme?!? Sign me up!
Rimfax|4.6.09 @ 11:18AM|#
What is Lew Rockwell up to these days? Still ghostwriting articles that appeal to "rural WASPs" (wink, wink,...)?
Taktix®|4.6.09 @ 11:20AM|#
Compare how Rockwell handled both compared with Cato or
Reason.
Was that before or after he was writing racist newsletters for Ron
Paul?
High Every Body|4.6.09 @ 11:20AM|#
Tony,
Exactly what I was getting at, but I took a different tack.
|4.6.09 @ 11:21AM|#
Bunny,
A lot of the ideas were great, but they spent 5 years wiping their
asses with the characters and they wonder why they never went
anywhere. Brandon Choi practically created the entire backstory for
the Wildstorm universe, and the other writers and artists did
nothing with it. And he barely works in the industry. Check out
his wiki
page.
|4.6.09 @ 11:22AM|#
Then welcome to the memory hole Pro Libertate because I clearly recall writing to both CATO and Reason and asking them how they thought invading Iraq or Afghanistan was consistent with libertarian theory. Their resistance to other Bush lead initiatives, like the Patriot Act, were likewise half-hearted. But you can always count on Reason to give you a strong debate on getting high.
Taktix®|4.6.09 @ 11:25AM|#
"Ironical" is actually an acceptable derivative of
"ironic."
Perhaps, but "ironical" is not an acceptable synonym for
"contradictory."
High Every Body|4.6.09 @ 11:27AM|#
Perhaps, but "ironical" is not an acceptable synonym for
"contradictory."
Just what I was meaning, but with more words. Thank you.
|4.6.09 @ 11:27AM|#
"ironical" is not an acceptable synonym for
"contradictory"
Duh. It's a synonym for "unfortunate".
|4.6.09 @ 11:32AM|#
"Then welcome to the memory hole Pro Libertate because I
clearly recall writing to both CATO and Reason and asking them how
they thought invading Iraq or Afghanistan was consistent with
libertarian theory. Their resistance to other Bush lead
initiatives, like the Patriot Act, were likewise half-hearted. But
you can always count on Reason to give you a strong debate on
getting high."
There were differing voices on foreign policy, no doubt. And I'm
not sure there is a Libertarian Foreign Policy.
It's like the abortion issue used to be/still is. Unless you're a
true believer in one camp or the other, there is perfectly valid
libertarian reasoning on both sides of the issue.
On some of the issues surrounding the war, like torture, Patriot,
rendition, Guantanamo, wiretapping, the right to a trial, etc.,
etc., I think both Reason and Cato were all but unanimous in their
condemnation of the Bush Administration.
Especially on Patriot--I don't remember seeing much in the way of
half-halfheartedness at all. I remember seeing some lone voices in
the wilderness there. Who else besides Reason, Cato and the ACLU
were speaking out against that stuff at the time?
T|4.6.09 @ 11:32AM|#
Like a black fly in your chardonnay or something.
You're not up on your nouvelle cuisine. That's not unfortunate or
ironic. That's the appetizer course.
|4.6.09 @ 11:33AM|#
I have to agree with Ken Shultz. Bush was a pro-war liberal like
LBJ.
FWIW, for as long as I've been coming to this website (which was
about a year before the 2004 election), Reason has been pretty
vehemently anti-Bush.
As for another celebrity spouting his political opinions, Let's
give it the attention it deserves:
High Every Body|4.6.09 @ 11:34AM|#
And I'm not sure there is a Libertarian Foreign
Policy.
It is something like: Leave us alone, pretty please? See? We are
non threatening but everybody in the country has 10 repeting
rifles, so you will be really sorry bubba!
Oh, and stop taxing our stuff, we got rid of tarriffs, now make
nice.
|4.6.09 @ 11:35AM|#
Yeah celebrities shouldn't spend their ample leisure time pontificating on politics. That's our job!
JT|4.6.09 @ 11:41AM|#
"Bunny with the looney skinny Canadian singer ref!"
If you had a brain, you'd take it out and play with it.
MNG|4.6.09 @ 11:50AM|#
You guys do know that the law currently allows employers to
choose to have unionization drives be conducted through card check,
right?
The NLRB has been certifying unions through Gissell cards for
decades. But currently the employer can decide between that and a
ballot.
So it's OK for employers to initiate the "inevitable" violence and
intimidation that will surely, surely follow from a card check
campaign but not for workers.
OhhhhhKay.
MNG|4.6.09 @ 11:52AM|#
"Card Check - so we can more easily find out who the holdouts
are."
And...ask them to sign the card! The horrors!
That's all this would legalize. Force and fraud would be illegal
the day before this passes and the day after.
Bronwyn|4.6.09 @ 11:52AM|#
High made the callout at 10:11, MNG showed up at 11:50.
Wow. That took longer than I thought it would :)
MNG|4.6.09 @ 11:56AM|#
Yeah, I regularly defend unions on anti-union threads.
And nobody regularly appears to bash them...
|4.6.09 @ 11:56AM|#
Ken Shultz says: "On some of the issues surrounding the war,
like torture, Patriot, rendition, Guantanamo, wiretapping, the
right to a trial, etc., etc., I think both Reason and Cato were all
but unanimous in their condemnation of the Bush
Administration."
It must have come as quite shocker to those at Cato and Reason that
when countries go to war they actually do stuff like mistreating
prisoners, spying on their own citizens, and otherwise compromise
civil liberties. Who would have thunk???
|4.6.09 @ 11:58AM|#
Then welcome to the memory hole Pro Libertate because I
clearly recall writing to both CATO and Reason and asking them how
they thought invading Iraq or Afghanistan was consistent with
libertarian theory. Their resistance to other Bush lead
initiatives, like the Patriot Act, were likewise half-hearted. But
you can always count on Reason to give you a strong debate on
getting high.
Linky link?
|4.6.09 @ 12:01PM|#
It must have come as quite shocker to those at Cato and
Reason that when countries go to war they actually do stuff like
mistreating prisoners, spying on their own citizens, and otherwise
compromise civil liberties. Who would have thunk???
Golly; that indicates, to me, that going to war, especially
just for the fuck of it, is a really really bad idea.
High Every Body|4.6.09 @ 12:02PM|#
Bronwyn,
High made the callout at 10:11, MNG showed up at
11:50.
But I was off by 10 min. Looks like poetry and sandal maintenance
class wrapped up sooner than normal.
|4.6.09 @ 12:03PM|#
"It must have come as quite shocker to those at Cato and
Reason that when countries go to war they actually do stuff like
mistreating prisoners, spying on their own citizens, and otherwise
compromise civil liberties. Who would have thunk??"
You're right of course.
...the slippery slope fallacy can be almost irresistible. But some
of them resisted it anyway. Why, even some of the opponents of the
Iraq War resisted that fallacy, like me.
|4.6.09 @ 12:04PM|#
From the good people of
C-SPAN
August 29, 2001.
...
We understand that the secret ballot is allowed for, but not required, by Mexican labor law. However, we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose.
We respect Mexico as an important neighbor and trading partner, and we feel that the increased use of the secret ballot in union recognition elections will help bring real democracy to the Mexican workplace.
Sincerely,
George Miller, Marcy Kaptur, Bernard Sanders, William J. Coyne, Lane Evans, Bob Filner, Martin Olav Sabo, Barney Frank, Joe Baca, Zoe Lofgren, Dennis J. Kucinich, Calvin M. Dooley, Fortney Pete Stark, Barbara Lee, James P. McGovern, Lloyd Doggett.
For the record, that is Rep. George Miller (D - CA), Rep. Marcy
Kaptur (D - OH), Sen. Bernard Sanders (I - VT), Rep. William J.
Coyne (D - PA retired), Rep. Lane Evans (D - IL retired), Rep. Bob
Filner (D - CA), Rep. Martin Olav Sabo (DFL - MN retired), Rep.
Barney Frank (D - MA), Rep. Joe Baca (D - CA), Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D
- CA), Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D - OH), Rep Calvin M. Dooley (D -
CA retired), Rep. Fortney Pete Stark (D - CA), Rep. Barbara Lee (D
- CA), Rep. James P. McGovern (D - MA), Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D -
TX).
This line bears repeating
we feel that the increased use of the secret ballot in union recognition elections will help bring real democracy to the Mexican workplace.
The internets make it sooo easy to point out the hypocrisy of
politicians on both the right and the left.
|4.6.09 @ 12:05PM|#
Ken, thanks for backing up what I said.
CATO and Reason saw invading Iraq and Afghanistan as legitimate
policy, not as contrary to libertarian philosophy. Not everyone in
these organizations took that position, but most did.
I've been involved in the libertarian movement for over thirty
years (and run for MP in Canada at one time), and have always
understood it as non-interventionist. There is also the
non-aggression axiom which is libertarianism's its core principle.
How can any libertarian argue in favor of invading another country
that hasn't committed an aggressive act against them? Reason and
CATO did so.
Moreover, I remember reading cover stories in Reason back in the
80s where they were applauding various forms of foreign
intervention (including actively supporting the Mujahiddin against
the Soviets).
Who other than Reason and CATO spoke out against the Patriot Act?
Where do I begin? Anti-war.com, Lewrockwell.com, lots of groups on
the left, in fact, just about anyone who wasn't totally in the grip
of the Bush Administration or part of the MSM. I don't even recall
CATO mounting any sort of attack on the Patriot Act, my memory is
that they supported large parts of it.
Taktix®|4.6.09 @ 12:06PM|#
So it's OK for employers to initiate the "inevitable"
violence and intimidation that will surely, surely follow from a
card check campaign but not for workers.
Yes allowing individual companies to make their own decision re:
their procedure for unionizing is far better than a
one-size-fits-all centralized approach.
As much as you criticize libertarians, you sure don't seem to know
shit about us. Kind of like how Whitford doesn't know shit about
deregulation.
Wait a minute, I've got it! Leftists criticize shit they know
nothing about! It all makes so much sense now...
|4.6.09 @ 12:06PM|#
He's just bitter after he got 'burned' by a libertarian
duo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NymRecFWgAs
And I liked him in Studio 60... but this? What was going through
his head? I need to drop names... drop names... umm... I
KNOW!
*sigh*
T|4.6.09 @ 12:07PM|#
The internets make it sooo easy to point out the hypocrisy
of politicians on both the right and the left.
I just point and yell "hypocrite". Hasn't failed me yet, and I
don't have to waste precious commenting time searching C-SPAN.
d|4.6.09 @ 12:11PM|#
Why the FUCK didn't this douchebag call these WV-style commie democrat Hollywood assholes out on their outright LIES? WTF?!!!
Gilbert Martin|4.6.09 @ 12:13PM|#
"You guys do know that the law currently allows employers to
choose to have unionization drives be conducted through card check,
right?"
What I know is that the federal government does not - and never did
- have any legitimate Constitutional authority to require any
company to negotiate with or recogize any union at all in the first
place.
|4.6.09 @ 12:17PM|#
Martin has always been a shallow, self righteous, sanctimonious twit as is his son, Charlie, whom I once worked with. Wealthy intolerant privileged brats.
Art-P.O.G.|4.6.09 @ 12:17PM|#
hagbard, I gotta ask...how exactly was invading Afghanistan contrary to libertarian philosophy? Iraq I can definitely see, but Afghanistan?
|4.6.09 @ 12:19PM|#
What I wanna know is... why are we listening to Aerosmith's
lesser known guitarist? I mean, it's not like he's Joe Perry or
anything...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Whitford
|4.6.09 @ 12:22PM|#
hagbard,
I'm from the non-interventionist camp myself, and while it's true
that not everyone on staff at Reason at the time was against the
Iraq War, I'm convinced that they all had libertarian reasons for
their support.
There's actually a survey they did of all the Reason staff at the
time, somewhere in the archives, where each and every one of them,
as I recall, stated whether they supported the war when it started,
whether they still supported the Iraq, and, most of them, again, as
I recall, gave the reasons for their support or opposition.
I'm not interested in rehashing those arguments for and against the
war--I was against it, so what? It's over now! But debating the
people here who did support it at that time, they may have been
wrong, but I think they were wrong for very good reasons.
I haven't always known everything I know now. I still have a lot to
learn. ...and it is still possible that Iraq could bloom into a
freedom loving, liberal Democracy that serves as a beacon to guide
the rest of the Muslim world into a paradise of moderation and
liberty, is it not? Something that wouldn't have been possible had
we not invaded, no?
And if that does happen still, who will I be to tell the Iraqi
people that their new found paradise wasn't worth all of their
suffering?
I just call 'em like I see 'em, and the staff does too. And there's
room enough in libertarianism for people who aren't as right about
these things as I've been. I hope there's room for people like me
when I'm wrong too.
T|4.6.09 @ 12:23PM|#
Taktix® - Is Justin Canadian?
No, he's a native asshole. We don't need to import those yet, we
have enough.
|4.6.09 @ 12:26PM|#
Whitford. Billy Madison will never be the same for me now.
(wipes away tears)
But, seriously, besides not knowing anything about deregulation, is
he criticizing Obama's plan? Afterall, it was he who instituted
Keynesian economics on us all. I think the reality is he probably
just didn't know what the hell he was talking about.
Not to mention, he's a fan of coercion, apparently.
Warty|4.6.09 @ 12:27PM|#
30 yr SAG Man | April 6, 2009, 12:17pm | #
Martin has always been a shallow, self righteous, sanctimonious
twit as is his son, Charlie, whom I once worked with. Wealthy
intolerant privileged brats.
I knew Penn posted here!
Taktix®|4.6.09 @ 12:29PM|#
No, he's a native asshole. We don't need to import those
yet, we have enough.
[citation needed]
Cabeza De Vaca|4.6.09 @ 12:32PM|#
"you tell me how its NOT an aggressive intervention?"
When a country fails to stop & supports a terrorist attack on
another country from it's own soil. It is the same thing as
declaring war on the country that got attacked. The USA had to
respond to 9/11 by attacking Afghanistan after the Taliban
governemnt refused to hand over Al-Queda. Having said that the
America shouldn't still be in Afghanistan, nor should we have
dictated the form of government Afghanistan should now have.
|4.6.09 @ 12:33PM|#
Ken said "I haven't always known everything I know now. I still
have a lot to learn. ...and it is still possible that Iraq could
bloom into a freedom loving, liberal Democracy that serves as a
beacon to guide the rest of the Muslim world into a paradise of
moderation and liberty, is it not? Something that wouldn't have
been possible had we not invaded, no?"
No. I wouldn't believe that at all. You mean it takes a US invasion
to promote liberty. Its laughable on its face. Why not invade
Israel on the same grounds? People under their occupation can
hardly be considered "free". I read the rationalizations coming out
of Reason at the time, and didn't see one that was consistent with
libertarian principles. No one at the time cared to reply to my
emails to explain themselves or engage in debate. I now consider
both Reason and CATO is being quasi-libertarian groups (at the time
I called them neo-libertarians which might still be closer to the
truth).
|4.6.09 @ 12:37PM|#
I do think Cato in particular tends to deliver its message in a
moderate and reasonable tone, which, of course, can make it sound
less condemning than the much more shrill voices at Lew Rockwell.
That doesn't make Cato Bush fans--they weren't even close to
that.
For the record, I'm a libertarian, and I had no problem with the
invasion of Afghanistan. Should we be meddling in the Middle East
in the first place? No. Should we ignore a terrorist attack or a
country that gave comfort to the people behind that attack? No.
|4.6.09 @ 12:45PM|#
"When a country fails to stop & supports a terrorist attack
on another country from it's own soil. It is the same thing as
declaring war on the country that got attacked. The USA had to
respond to 9/11 by attacking Afghanistan after the Taliban
governemnt refused to hand over Al-Queda. Having said that the
America shouldn't still be in Afghanistan, nor should we have
dictated the form of government Afghanistan should now have."
Also once believed Iraq was behind 9/11 and was hiding WMD?
Afghanistan was right not to hand anyone in their country over to
the Americans without evidence. Like it if Afghanistan demanded you
be handed over to them for whatever crime without providing any
evidence? Typical American exceptionalism.
"The Taliban" wasn't involved in 9/11. Even bin Laden's involvement
still hasn't been proven. The war on Afghanistan was planned before
September 11, 2001, and merely provided a rational for it that
could now be feed with little resistance to the sheeple. IOW, the
invasion was going to happen with or without 9/11, that was decided
long before.
The Angry Optimist|4.6.09 @ 12:45PM|#
zounds. I'm shocked that hagbard hasn't called them "tReason and
Stato" yet.
Look out, hagbard! The CFR has spies under your bed and Jamie
Kirchik is sleeping with everyone at the Kochtopus.
|4.6.09 @ 12:45PM|#
"No. I wouldn't believe that at all. You mean it takes a US
invasion to promote liberty. Its laughable on its face. Why not
invade Israel on the same grounds? People under their occupation
can hardly be considered "free"."
If you looked at what I said, I agree. Some people don't. Some of
them are libertarians. It happens.
"I read the rationalizations coming out of Reason at the time,
and didn't see one that was consistent with libertarian principles.
No one at the time cared to reply to my emails to explain
themselves or engage in debate. I now consider both Reason and CATO
is being quasi-libertarian groups (at the time I called them
neo-libertarians which might still be closer to the
truth)."
Well they don't owe you anything. Unless you're a subscriber, and
then all they promise, I think, is a magazine. It shows up once a
month. If you subscribe, they owe you that.
Other than that, they have a forum for people who want to say stuff
to them. And if you say something interesting, they'll come right
down here in the comments section and answer you if they feel like
it. I've seen 'em do it a lot.
I've sent them emails and gotten responses. I've even corresponded
on occasion, but if they didn't reply to your emails, I have to
admit that I don't reply to every email I get either. Especially if
they're condemning my views on their face in the name of
libertarianism.
There are a lot of kooks out there.
Taktix®|4.6.09 @ 12:46PM|#
I suppose I'm a native asshole because I don't think the
libertarian movement would be helped by racist douchebags.
My bad, and please extend Stormfront my sincerest apoligies...
|4.6.09 @ 12:47PM|#
When a country fails to stop & supports a terrorist
attack on another country from it's own soil. It is the same thing
as declaring war on the country that got attacked. The USA had to
respond to 9/11 by attacking Afghanistan after the Taliban
governemnt refused to hand over Al-Queda. Having said that the
America shouldn't still be in Afghanistan, nor should we have
dictated the form of government Afghanistan should now
have.
My thinking exactly. Pursuing democracy in Afghanistan is a fool's
errand. We should have destroyed their infrastucture, toppled the
government and left with the warning "We can do this again. Any
fucking time we want to".
The Angry Optimist|4.6.09 @ 12:48PM|#
The war on Afghanistan was planned before September 11, 2001, and merely provided a rational for it that could now be feed with little resistance to the sheeple. IOW, the invasion was going to happen with or without 9/11, that was decided long before.
Provide proof for that. Here and now.
"The Taliban" wasn't involved in 9/11. Even bin Laden's involvement still hasn't been proven.
Like, woah, man, how do you know that the color green you see is
the color green that I see?
Far out.
|4.6.09 @ 12:50PM|#
Afghanistan was right not to hand anyone in their country
over to the Americans without evidence.
Didn't Al-Queda claim responsibility? I think that qualifies as
evidence.
|4.6.09 @ 12:50PM|#
Pro Libertate - so what you're saying is, its okay to attack a country and kill its citizens if in the opinion of the US government said country is guilty of a crime, even an unproven one? Where was the attack on SA? That is where the US gov't claims most of the attackers came from. IMO, most of the attackers came from Florida, when are you going to attack them? Don't bother with Jeb Bush, just kills all the citizens who might support him.
Taktix®|4.6.09 @ 12:51PM|#
The war on Afghanistan was planned before September 11,
2001, and merely provided a rational for it that could now be feed
with little resistance to the sheeple.
And 9/11 was an inside job, because fire can't melt steel! Rosie
O'Donnell told me so!
|4.6.09 @ 12:52PM|#
Actually, I'd be concerned, I think, if we didn't have a plan to
invade Afghanistan, considering the proximity to the Soviet Union
and the civil war there.
I think we should have a contingency plan for Pakistan and North
Korea too. In fact, if I were the President, and I found out that
the military didn't bother making plans to invade countries that me
might have to invade until they actually attacked us, I'd tell the
guys in charge that they were fired.
Taktix®|4.6.09 @ 12:52PM|#
so what you're saying is, its okay to attack a country and
kill its citizens if in the opinion of the US government said
country is guilty of a crime, even an unproven one?
You're going to need to explain how, even under our standards of
reasonable doubt, that Al-Queda was not resposible for
9-11...
God I hate getting sucked into these moronic discussions...
T|4.6.09 @ 12:53PM|#
I suppose I'm a native asshole because I don't think the
libertarian movement would be helped by racist
douchebags.
Huh? No, you're not a native asshole, Tak. Justin Raimondo is,
tho'.
Okay, I lied, you're a little bit of an asshole. Just not nearly as
much of as Raimondo.
|4.6.09 @ 12:53PM|#
Ken,
I disagree that arguing that wars will likely involve mistreating
prisoners, suppressing civil liberties, and spying on one's own
citizens represents a slippery slope fallacy. The latter involves
harmful contingencies which could conceivably develop down the
road. Any student of history knows that the developments that I
listed are part and parcel of warfare. Calling it a slippery slope
fallacy is like labeling the expectation that roads will be wet
after a wet a slippery slope fallacy argument.
And yes there were many good people who supported the Iraq war for
various reasons. But it really tells me that libertarians who did
had not really developed a sufficient degree of skepticism about
government. If they subsequently did, then I say welcome aboard to
them.
|4.6.09 @ 12:55PM|#
Its debateable if "Al-Queda" ever admitted responsibility. Regardless, even if they did, "Al-Queda" didn't run Afghanistan. You can't even prove there were in Afghanistan at the time of the 9/11 attacks. More likely they were in Pakistan. The US didn't invade them either (well, sort of did). Lets say I commit a terrorist act in the US, and the Canadian govt refuses to hand me over without first providing evidence. I guess its okay with you that the US commence bombing Canadian citizens?
|4.6.09 @ 12:55PM|#
Doh! Correction, my second use of the term "wet" should have
been "rain", i.e.
Calling it a slippery slope fallacy is like labeling the
expectation that roads will be wet after a rain a slippery slope
fallacy argument.
|4.6.09 @ 12:56PM|#
"And yes there were many good people who supported the Iraq
war for various reasons. But it really tells me that libertarians
who did had not really developed a sufficient degree of skepticism
about government."
Well, here on the staff at Reason, and over at Cato too,
presumably, they seemed to have a pretty good degree of skepticism
about government in all other areas, so let's not ask for their
decoder rings back yet.
The Angry Optimist|4.6.09 @ 12:58PM|#
"Afghanistan was right not to hand anyone in their country over
to the Americans without evidence."
- hagbard -
Then he says:
"You can't even prove there were in Afghanistan at the time of the
9/11 attacks."
Get your story straight. Were they there or weren't they?
And you had time to argue, but didn't find time to "prove" that the
invasion of Afghanistan was going to happen regardless.
GET. PROOF.
The Angry Optimist|4.6.09 @ 12:59PM|#
"Its debateable if "Al-Queda" ever admitted responsibility.
Regardless, even if they did, "Al-Queda" didn't run Afghanistan."
-hagbard-
Let's stipulate that Al-Qaeda did take responsibility. Even the
preferred hyperlibertarian method of "marque and reprisal" would
have dictated some form of invasion of Afghanistan, Pakistan,
Waziristan or some mix of the three.
T|4.6.09 @ 1:00PM|#
I guess its okay with you that the US commence bombing
Canadian citizens?
I'm fine with that no matter the circumstances. Canadia Delenda
Est.
The Angry Optimist|4.6.09 @ 1:01PM|#
One has to wonder why, if the Taliban just had NOTHING to do
with Al-Qaeda, why they would offer, on the 14th of OCT 2001, to
hand Bin Laden over for trial in a neutral third country.
What, were they going to give us someone else dressed up like
him?
High Every Body|4.6.09 @ 1:02PM|#
"You can't even prove there were in Afghanistan at the time
of the 9/11 attacks."
But there is plenty of proof that they were in airplanes crashiing
into WTC, Pentagon and an empty field ON 9/11.
|4.6.09 @ 1:02PM|#
To all the ol' timers around here, I'm a little confused about
the rules for the drinking game, when someone says other people
aren't real libertarians, that's a *drink*, right? Or is it just
when they say they're gonna cancel their subscription? Or, "For a
magazine called Reason..."
The thing is hagbert, it's kinda like a standing joke around here,
people condemning Reason staff for not being real libertarians. And
it comes from both sides, it seems...
They're not real libertarians because they didn't support the Iraq
War; they're not real libertarians because they didn't oppose the
Iraq War...
For the first year or so it was interesting. Then it got to be
funny. And now, after so many years...it isn't funny like it used
to be.
Taktix®|4.6.09 @ 1:03PM|#
Okay, I lied, you're a little bit of an asshole.
Fair enough, I'll give you that ;)
alan|4.6.09 @ 1:06PM|#
Many years back, I had a conversation with an aquintance in the
local film industry, and this person had the 'delightful' job of
handling Natalie Wood for everyone else on the set of Brainstorm.
She asked him to do a menial task what I forget, but let's just say
walk her dog, and he reponded no one had the time to do that, she
would have to do it herself.
She threatened to bring the matter up with his union, to which he
says he laughed in her face, and said back, 'lady, this isn't
Hollywood, I'm not in a damn union.'
|4.6.09 @ 1:07PM|#
"Well, here on the staff at Reason, and over at Cato too,
presumably, they seemed to have a pretty good degree of skepticism
about government in all other areas, so let's not ask for their
decoder rings back yet."
There's a name for people who are skeptical of domestic program,
but think that governments have magical powers abroad. It is called
conservatism. If people want to get conservative opinion, there are
plenty of places to get them. If people want to get libertarian
views, at least on matters related to foreign policy, they will
have to look elsewhere.
|4.6.09 @ 1:07PM|#
Does libertarian philosophy embrace the proposition that a
nation state can tax its own people, at gunpoint and with the
threat of incarceration, for the purposes of establishing military
installations all over the world and invading other nation states
that have not declared war or made war upon the invading nation
state?
The obvious answer is no. However, that has not stopped many here
from arguing otherwise.
Cabeza De Vaca|4.6.09 @ 1:08PM|#
"'delightful' job of handling Natalie Wood"
When she was young that would've been a delightful job.
The Angry Optimist|4.6.09 @ 1:10PM|#
I just want hangbard's official goalpost moving on the
record.
HAGBARD: Cato was kissing Bush's ass through most of the
administration, and both Cato and Reason supported wars on Iraq and
Afghanistan.
then, later on...
HAGBARD: When were they critical of Bush leading up to invading
Afghanistan or Iraq? They didn't. They were very luke warm on his
economic policies
So, is it kissing ass, lukewarm reception, insufficient criticism
or what, hagbard?
And I'm still waiting on that proof.
alan|4.6.09 @ 1:11PM|#
When she was young that would've been a delightful
job.
But now that she is a corpse, that would just be sick, really
sick.
|4.6.09 @ 1:11PM|#
I think we should have a contingency plan for Pakistan and
North Korea too. In fact, if I were the President, and I found out
that the military didn't bother making plans to invade countries
that me might have to invade until they actually attacked us, I'd
tell the guys in charge that they were fired.
Reviewed and updated every two to three years.
We should have one for our neighbors to the immediate
south.
The Angry Optimist|4.6.09 @ 1:12PM|#
LM - I like you, but you're like a man with a hammer...or a one-trick pony. If you're just going to beg THE QUESTION in the initial premise, is there a point in arguing?
|4.6.09 @ 1:14PM|#
"There's a name for people who are skeptical of domestic
program, but think that governments have magical powers abroad. It
is called conservatism. If people want to get conservative opinion,
there are plenty of places to get them. If people want to get
libertarian views, at least on matters related to foreign policy,
they will have to look elsewhere."
Did you catch the series in the magazine and here at Hit & Run
about how the libertarians and conservatives should get divorced
and stay divorced?
That was a great series, if you missed it, you should look it
up.
JB|4.6.09 @ 1:15PM|#
MNG,
When are you going to sign my card saying that libertarianism is
awesome and Obama is scum?
Wait, you aren't going to sign it? You dickless fucking piece of
shit. Every comment you post here should be followed up with
comments about you being a dickless fucking piece of shit.
How would you like that?
It's not even a work environment.
alan|4.6.09 @ 1:17PM|#
Now that there is a Super Nova class tax and spender in the White House, can we at least call a truce among the different factions of Libertarian. I'm a paleo, but I see no reason why I can't make common cause with Randians, Cosmotarians, Moneterist, and even some Republicans and disillusioned Democrats (it will happen), to reduce the power of the current crop of flunkies in 2010.
roystgnr|4.6.09 @ 1:17PM|#
Force and fraud would be illegal the day before this passes
and the day after.
So, are you cool with us getting rid of the secret ballot in
government elections, too? After all, bribing or blackmailing
someone into changing their vote will still be illegal. What harm
could come?
|4.6.09 @ 1:19PM|#
TAO-
A hammer, yes; a sickle, NFW!
Anyways, you know that I am not a one trick pony. Are you
forgetting the many times that I have basically supported your
positions in those MNG deserted island hypotheticals?
|4.6.09 @ 1:19PM|#
"I'm a paleo, but I see no reason why I can't make common
cause with Randians, Cosmotarians, Moneterist, and even some
Republicans and disillusioned Democrats (it will happen), to reduce
the power of the current crop of flunkies in 2010."
But not the Irish!
The Angry Optimist|4.6.09 @ 1:20PM|#
alan, we would all be glad to do so, but you'll note that 9 out
of 10 times it's the Paultards and the paleos who come out of the
woodwork to talk about tReason and Stato.
I wonder if D. Saul Weiner will regale us all with his magical,
mass diagnosis of Stockholm Syndrome, just because we disagree with
him.
The Angry Optimist|4.6.09 @ 1:21PM|#
Anyways, you know that I am not a one trick pony. Are you
forgetting the many times that I have basically supported your
positions in those MNG deserted island hypotheticals?
I was just saying that starting an argument "is it
libertarian...coercion...gunpoint...taxes" is kind of a turnoff,
man. I cannot tell you how much hell I catch in anarchist circles
for daring to believe that government is good and necessary.
|4.6.09 @ 1:22PM|#
I wonder whatever happened to the neolibertarians. Remember those guys that came over and said we weren't real libertarians 'cause we weren't neocons? Started their own neolibertaran movement?
Taktix®|4.6.09 @ 1:22PM|#
When she was young that would've been a delightful
job.
But now that she is a corpse, that would just be sick, really
sick.
Speak for yourself....
Taktix®|4.6.09 @ 1:25PM|#
I'm a paleo, but I see no reason why I can't make common
cause with Randians, Cosmotarians, Moneterist, and even some
Republicans and disillusioned Democrats (it will happen), to reduce
the power of the current crop of flunkies in 2010.
As I sadi before, if the GOP runs Pat Robertson and Sarah Palin's
mongoloid kid in 2012, I'll vote for them and maybe even
campaign.
Obama is worse than I or possibly anyone could have imagined, and I
vote for Barr last year...
alan|4.6.09 @ 1:28PM|#
You know why I stopped celebrating St. Patrick's Day? Lord of the Dance. I haven't been able to look the Irish part of my genetic make up since the mid 90s. I still have Cinco de Mayo and Oktoberfest, so I'm good.
|4.6.09 @ 1:31PM|#
TAO-
As for the topic of this thread? Are you against card check?
Although I have not read the whole thread, I assume you are against
this thing.
T|4.6.09 @ 1:33PM|#
Obama is worse than I or possibly anyone could have
imagined, and I vote for Barr last year...
But the Presidency of the Moustache would have been pretty sweet,
you have to admit.
The Angry Optimist|4.6.09 @ 1:34PM|#
Card check? It's a way more complicated subject than is being reported anywhere. Regardless, I'm against the bill.
alan|4.6.09 @ 1:35PM|#
alan, we would all be glad to do so, but you'll note that 9
out of 10 times it's the Paultards and the paleos who come out of
the woodwork to talk about tReason and Stato.
That is true. Both organizations may have some questionable people
in their midst (cough, Cathy Young, cough, where is the
libertarianism there, cough) but come on Lew, Alexander Cockburn
has written for you!*
*Many years back, I had a pleasant correspondence with Cockburn. He
wrote a long, entertaining, apolitcal e-mail to me about a trip he
took to Texas. It must have taken at least a half hour out of his
day to compose it. For a Stalinst, he came across as a really nice
guy.
alan|4.6.09 @ 1:37PM|#
As I sadi before, if the GOP runs Pat Robertson and Sarah
Palin's mongoloid kid in 2012, I'll vote for them and maybe even
campaign.
Obama is worse than I or possibly anyone could have imagined, and I
vote for Barr last year...
I hope the Republicans are not stupid enough to do that, but, yeah,
she has got my vote.
Rimfax|4.6.09 @ 1:40PM|#
Ken Shultz,
See http://reason.wikia.com/wiki/Drinking_game.
Feel free to revise.
Rimfax|4.6.09 @ 1:44PM|#
Wait a sec. Bush and Paulson were in thrall of every ridiculous economic intervention thrown on their desks by Bernanke and Geithner, plus we got Iraq and Mary Beth Buchanan. And you still insist that somehow Obama is worse? I don't follow the math.
alan|4.6.09 @ 1:59PM|#
Wait a sec. Bush and Paulson were in thrall of every
ridiculous economic intervention thrown on their desks by Bernanke
and Geithner, plus we got Iraq and Mary Beth Buchanan. And you
still insist that somehow Obama is worse? I don't follow the
math.
TARP2+Porkulus+465billionContinuence+2010SpendingBill+TaxCutExpiring
= Holy Double Dip, Batman!
T|4.6.09 @ 2:01PM|#
Wait a sec. Bush and Paulson were in thrall of every
ridiculous economic intervention thrown on their desks by Bernanke
and Geithner, plus we got Iraq and Mary Beth Buchanan. And you
still insist that somehow Obama is worse? I don't follow the
math.
All of that plus even more ridiculous economic interventions, so
yeah, Barry's worse.
|4.6.09 @ 2:21PM|#
Some people, too, they seem to treat Reason staff as if they
were running for office or something. I guess they're the closest
thing some of us have to representatives, maybe that's it.
We don't have any representatives of our own, so we pretend our
journalists are our representatives. After all, they have opinions,
they often have access...they have interns.
But Reason staff aren't politicians. They're just not.
|4.6.09 @ 3:00PM|#
"Afghanistan was right not to hand anyone in their country over
to the Americans without evidence."
- hagbard -
Then he says:
"You can't even prove there were in Afghanistan at the time of the
9/11 attacks."
Get your story straight. Were they there or weren't they?
And you had time to argue, but didn't find time to "prove" that the
invasion of Afghanistan was going to happen regardless.
GET. PROOF.
-----------------
The Taliban's response to the US demand they hand over OBL was they
wanted evidence first, AND that they didn't know where he was.
There is no problem with my "story". I didn't mention it as I
thought most people here knew that.
As for me, I'm outta here. Just keep believing what you're told by
those you trust, which is obviously, the US government.
|4.6.09 @ 5:18PM|#
because fire can't melt steel!
That one always cracks me up. I guess hardly anyone in this country
has welded steel with a forge and an anvil these days.
-jcr
|4.7.09 @ 2:17AM|#
I may be off about this, but I'm fairly sure that serious, honest debate rarely contains the word "sheeple"
Art-P.O.G.|4.7.09 @ 4:33AM|#
I'm inclined to agree with you, radar. It seems a bit too convenient to marginalize and belittle massive swaths of population with strictly dismissive and condescending terminology.
Libertarian War Monger|4.7.09 @ 2:06PM|#
It's not that I think the government has magical powers abroad.
I just think that our government has a competitive advantage at
producing battlefield casualties and critical infrastructure
incapacitation compared to our enemies.
Is that so unlibertarian?
Murray Rothbard|4.7.09 @ 2:58PM|#
Hmmm, I never thought about it from that vantage point. I may have to reconsider.
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