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
Stay in School, Kids. Don't Do Drugs.
I agree with Jesse Walker and Nick Gillespie that the worst thing about President's Obama's speech to the students today (aside from the fact that he had no business giving it to begin with, since it's well beyond his constitutional job description) is the creepy collectivism implied by sentences like these:
If you quit on school, you're not just quitting on yourself, you're quitting on your country....
Don't ever give up on yourself, because when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country.
The story of America [is] about people...who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best....
What will a President who comes here in 20 or 50 or 100 years say about what all of you did for this country?...
I expect great things from each of you. So don't let us down. Don't let your family down or your country down.
As the positive quotes in this Los Angeles Times story show, Republicans and self-identified conservatives do not necessarily have a problem with this sort of rhetoric, or with the notion of the president as national dad. But individualists should.
One hopeful thing about Obama's speech is something that was not there: There was not a single explicit reference to drugs. The closest Obama came was when he said:
I wasn't always as focused as I should have been [in high school]. I did some things I'm not proud of, and got in more trouble than I should have. And my life could have easily taken a turn for the worse.
But I was fortunate. I got a lot of second chances and had the opportunity to go to college, and law school, and follow my dreams.
In his memoir Dreams From My Father, Obama famously acknowledges that he smoked pot and snorted coke as a teenager, choices he implausibly magnifies into a brush with ruin, the better to reinforce the message that users are losers (except when they become presidents or Olympic champions). But perhaps because his own biography (like those of most people who use drugs, including his two immediate predecessors in the White House) is such a clear refutation of that notion, Obama only alluded to it in today's speech. As Tim Cavanaugh notes, Obama also mentioned "friends who are pressuring you to do things you know aren't right," which could be interpreted as a reference to drug use (but might also be about cheating, cutting class, stealing, vandalism, or some other adolescent misdemeanor).
By comparison with the anti-drug obsessions of Reagan and Bush the Elder or the obligatory anti-drug messages from the two subsequent administrations, Obama's silence on the subject in this speech represents progress. As nice as it would be if the president could discuss drugs honestly, refraining from lying about them is a good first step.
|9.8.09 @ 5:24PM|#
I'm disappointed he didn't mention that we should stop ritually
mutilating our male infants.
Stop Circumcision Now!
|9.8.09 @ 5:28PM|#
I believe strongly in individual liberties and limited
government.
The government gave up on me a long time ago.
|9.8.09 @ 5:30PM|#
I wasn't always as focused as I should have been [in high
school]. I did some things I'm not proud of, and got in more
trouble than I should have. And my life could have easily taken a
turn for the worse.
But I was fortunate. I got a lot of second chances and had the
opportunity to go to college, and law school, and follow my
dreams.
So, what he's saying is that we have our first mulligan
president?
Ska|9.8.09 @ 5:30PM|#
Obama telling kids to say no to drugs after acknowledging that
he said yes to them, and yet still managed to get elected as
president, would prove that maybe drugs aren't a guaranteed way to
ruin your life.
No one is going to let the prez tell kids that.
|9.8.09 @ 5:36PM|#
Ask not blah blah blah might play with the crayola crowd, but I'd like to see him try that shtick at a high school. Teenagers of every generation are notorious "What have you done for me today?" narcissists.
|9.8.09 @ 5:36PM|#
Eh. I have no problem with "don't do drugs".
It's not bad advice.
Sure, "If you do drugs, you'll fry eggs and then end up like in
Trainspotting" is a lie... but "don't do drugs" is just good
advice. I'd put it up there with "stick to 2nd base".
Scarcity|9.8.09 @ 5:37PM|#
Well, it doesn't exactly inspire one to do a happy dance, but I s'pose it is an improvement.
|9.8.09 @ 5:39PM|#
All I ask of my country is that it stop messing with me. And
with my stuff. Just stop.
As a result of my simple needs, I expect my country to ask
exceedingly little from me.
Anonymous|9.8.09 @ 5:43PM|#
Jaybird, if only the government would repeal the law mandating
it, then people could choose not to do so on their own.
What? It isn't? Hooray!
|9.8.09 @ 6:00PM|#
Unless it keeps messing with my stuff.
Pro L, you've got kids, so you probably experienced the
"not-touching-can't-get-mad" game/torture. Kids have it right- when
there is touching, we will get mad. That goes for the
gov't, and it goes for the creepy dude who tried to grab me this
morning.
|9.8.09 @ 6:04PM|#
That goes for the gov't, and it goes for the creepy dude who
tried to grab me this morning.
That was just Epi. His signature dickey and assless chaps should
have been a dead giveaway.
24AheadDotCom|9.8.09 @ 6:07PM|#
Thanks for reminding us that libertarianism always comes down to
two things: lack of patriotism and SubstanceAbuse.
Meanwhile, remember HowTheSimpsons had a show called the
"MattelAndMarsBarQuickEnergyChocobot Hour"? Well, if you actually
look at
the lesson plans and consider that most teachers are probably
BHO supporters, what's probably going to happen in many cases is
put that FictionalShow to shame.
Perhaps Reason should concentrate on that angle rather than the one
that would only be welcomed about about 0.1% of Americans.
Ska|9.8.09 @ 6:19PM|#
That goes for the gov't, and it goes for the creepy dude who
tried to grab me this morning.
Wasn't there a thread last week asking about frotteurism?
Unrewriting history|9.8.09 @ 6:19PM|#
The story of America [is] about people...who loved their
country too much to do anything less than their best....
WTF?
The story of America is one of people who hated (and were hated by)
their country so much that risking their lives by crossing the
ocean in a boat and then living in a log cabin was considered a
better life than living in Europe. For Africans it was being sold
from a black slave owner to a white slave owner.
|9.8.09 @ 6:19PM|#
The safe word is "Francis." You're unusually slow on the uptake today, Episiarch.
|9.8.09 @ 6:24PM|#
Better. You must've snorted a powdered Vicodin/LSD mixture off
of a whore's ass since your last posting to have achieved such
instant lucidity. Er, make that a Lab
Whore's ass in keeping with the season.
Dagny T.,
Frankly, the kids make me more a fan of tyranny, if anything,
provided that I am the tyrant.
|9.8.09 @ 6:28PM|#
I thought a basic tenet of libertarianism, and individualism in
general, was that the country or the community or whatever is
improved when the individuals who make it up act in their own
rational self-interest. So when a person fails to fulfill their
abilities or make wise choices, it does hurt the larger
society as well as themselves. Now, society doesn't have any
rights, so I'm not saying we should coerce people to be the best
they can be, but I don't see a problem with exhorting them to do
so.
In that light, it's hard to find fault with the literal meaning of
what Obama's saying here. We're letting our (justified) mistrust of
this guy distort the plain meaning of his words in our minds.
Fluffy|9.8.09 @ 6:30PM|#
I got a lot of second chances and had the opportunity to go
to college, and law school, and follow my dreams.
"Despite this fact, I have no problem presiding over a system of
law enforcement that destroys the lives of others for the same
offenses that I got away with. Fuck your dreams,
assholes."
|9.8.09 @ 6:32PM|#
His words were not that big of a deal; forcing my kids to listen to them bugs me more.
ed|9.8.09 @ 6:37PM|#
the creepy collectivism
Yep. Priming the youngsters for National Service. Isn't it
wonderfully ironic that Our First Black President™ is an advocate
of semi-involuntary servitude?
|9.8.09 @ 6:39PM|#
Our Second Black President™, dude. How can people forget Bill Clinton so quickly?
|9.8.09 @ 6:40PM|#
I can't think of a better way to demotivate schoolchildren than to exhort them to think of how the President will view their accomplishments in 20 or 50 or 100 years.
|9.8.09 @ 6:47PM|#
Mein Gott, it's not like he told them to do as the authority or the collective tell them. He told them to not give up on themselves and do what's best for themselves. How an individualist could find fault with that statement (aside from it being cliche) is beyond me.
|9.8.09 @ 6:51PM|#
"I'm disappointed he didn't mention that we should stop ritually
mutilating our male infants. Stop Circumcision Now!"
Well, now he's lost Andrew Sullivan too.
Mister DNA|9.8.09 @ 6:52PM|#
If you quit on school, you're not just quitting on yourself, you're quitting on your country....
Don't ever give up on yourself, because when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country.
Mike Brady quit his job as an architect and is now a White House
speechwriter.
|9.8.09 @ 6:54PM|#
Never would I have believed that the 60's boomers would be
declaring a paternalistic state of biopower to be hip.
Guess we know who "the man" is now.
ed|9.8.09 @ 6:57PM|#
Tulpa | September 8, 2009, 6:47pm | #
He told them to not give up on themselves...
...because if they did, they'd let down their country (the
collective).
You did notice how he qualified those statements,
Tulpa?
Suki|9.8.09 @ 6:58PM|#
I hope you guys are not advocating taking the say away from the
employer on drug effects during work hours. Just government
mandates against use?
This Chemist would rather not switch careers from detection to
production, tyvm!
anarch|9.8.09 @ 6:59PM|#
the country or the community or whatever is improved when the individuals who make it up act in their own rational self-interest
Isn't a signal difference -- ie, between community vs. whatever --
the extent to which individuals may select the intended beneficiary
of his sacrifice? Don't one's family, friends, club, church differ
in kind from the State? Can't any of the former subsist without
initiating force against non-conformists to their purposes? Isn't
that what grates - that one's rational self-interest in sacrificing
one's rights and goods to support the political class is prudent
compliance in order to avoid being forcibly impoverished,
incarcerated, or killed rather than because one subscribes to its
goals of redistributing others' earned wealth?
anarch\'s asking what his own |9.8.09 @ 7:03PM|#
should have been either:
the extent to which an individual may select the intended
beneficiary of his sacrifice[s]?
or
the extent to which individuals may select the intended beneficiary
of their sacrifices?
|9.8.09 @ 7:13PM|#
I'm all for some sort of decriminalization of weed, ending the
grossly unconstitutional asset forfeiture laws created in the name
of the War on Drugs, related no-knock warrants getting innocents
shot by mistake, and quitting clogging up prisons with ordinary
druggies under the 3 strikes laws while violent thugs get out early
to make room, and buy that some legalization could in theory result
in reduced crime by introducing recognized enforceable property
rights into the recreational drug economy...
...but you damned whiny Stonertarians make libertarianism look like
a fucking joke.
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy|9.8.09 @ 7:19PM|#
So, what he's saying is that we have our first mulligan president?
First?!?
24AheadDotCom|9.8.09 @ 7:22PM|#
Wow: only two Google hits for "Stonertarians". That will change. That must change.
|9.8.09 @ 7:30PM|#
The worst thing about the President's speech was the Obama T-shirt wearing high school students confronting the students who didn't attend the speech. My neighbor's daughter had told him that the "alternative activity" students were released after the speech watching students. They then had to run a gauntlet of jeers, calls of "racists", etc. Nice! He wanted to keep her home, she wanted to go. Now she doesn't want to go to school tomorrow. Nice job, Obama!
|9.8.09 @ 7:31PM|#
Ther wasn't anything here that was too different from the
claptrap presidents usually say to kids, really.
I am disappointed that he didn't discuss drug abuse though - there
is real entertainment value in bad information, even more so when
the bad information is leavened with monomania.
I grew up in the '70s and '80s; I know whereof I speak.
|9.8.09 @ 7:37PM|#
Wow: only two Google hits for "Stonertarians". That will
change. That must change.
If you're trying to couple substance abuse with political
philosophy, try "drunk tank conservatives". You'll have more
luck.
Happy hunting -
T
|9.8.09 @ 7:44PM|#
ed, if that's the worst "creeping collectivism" we have to worry about, we're practically in Libertopia. You'll hear the same type of pablum out of those in charge of voluntary organizations without accusations of collectivism. Please, go to your local high school and protest the anti-individualism inherent in the football coach urging the players not to let the team down.
Fluffy|9.8.09 @ 7:48PM|#
...but you damned whiny Stonertarians make libertarianism
look like a fucking joke.
Ordinarily I can manage "This one goes to eleven" level rage
against the way the state infringes on our property rights.
I can also manage "This one goes to eleven" level rage against the
way the state interferes with our right to engage in economic
exchanges without interference.
I can also manage "This one goes to eleven" level rage against the
way the state routinely abuses our civil liberties and denies basic
due process whenever it feels it needs to in order to serve some
"compelling" state interest.
I can also manage "This one goes to eleven" level rage against the
way the state usurps powers that it is not granted in the
Constitution.
But the in Drug War, the state does all four of these at
once. So sorry, I guess you're just going to have to hear
about it, whether you think it's a "joke" or not.
|9.8.09 @ 7:52PM|#
What a brain-dead sense of priorities when the near obligatory
"don't do drugs, kids" (admittedly frequently some grandstanding
BS) would have been seen as oppressive.
Or that a prez *not* saying "hey you 6th graders, making getting
high the highlight of your week (or day) is very likely not the way
to get ahead" is some great principled blow for liberty....
WTF??
Tim|9.8.09 @ 7:54PM|#
As a libertarian, I thought this to be actually a pretty good speech, not that he had any reason to give it. I felt that its whole thesis was that only you and no one else decides your destiny. Nothing comes for free and only with hard work can you achieve what you want to achieve. I took it as a pretty individualistic speech.
|9.8.09 @ 8:02PM|#
"Obama's silence on the subject in this speech represents
progress."
No question. The choice to use drugs or not is no different than
the choice to play baseball or soccer.
Thank God he doesn't impose such useless judgements on our
children.
|9.8.09 @ 8:02PM|#
re Drug War being the state "doing all four at once"...
Sure, but the underlying motivation for many Stonertarians -- which
is manifests itself quite obviously and counter-productively when
appealing to otherwise libertarian-leaning independents -- is
nothing more than the petulance of former college students whining
about how its unfair that they had to finish growing up and can't
get fucked up whenever they wish like the good old days back in
school.
Me? I'm more concerned about the survival of the Republic in some
recognizable form after the next 7, years however much it may have
decayed.
May they pry your cold, dead fingers from your still warm bong.
The Angry Optimist|9.8.09 @ 8:07PM|#
Sure, but the underlying motivation for many Stonertarians...
Stop. When it becomes apparent you are just going to set up some
outrageous stereotypical strawman to knock over, you rapidly
present yourself as the "unserious" one.
No, really.
Tricky Prickears|9.8.09 @ 8:09PM|#
Waving the flag, and blowing smoke up people's asses. What else
is new for any American Politician.
Personally, I prefer Michael Vick's
speech to kids.
MNG|9.8.09 @ 8:10PM|#
There a quite a few people on this thread who were gnashing
teeth and rending garments in lamentations and anger when Obama
bowed to the Saudi king because "he made us all bow!", who are now
going to find those comments to be nuttily collectivist...
Ohhhhhkay!
Jeff Carlson|9.8.09 @ 8:11PM|#
I'm sure Bill Ayers thinks Obama blew a real chance to push the
Ayers way of education the same way Obama and Ayers did back in
Chicago.
Reasonable speech, nothing parents don't say to their kids everyday
of the week. Maybe Obama should have given it to his 2 children
instead of taking them to Rev. (G*d Da*n America) Wrights Trinity
church for years.
He has no business talking to children without their parents
permission, even if he was trustworthy, which he most certainly
not.
The guy is a con man who doesn't understand the limits of his
silver tongue.
Right-Leaning Libertarian (Ant|9.8.09 @ 8:12PM|#
Yummy, I can have my patriotic/traditionalist cake and eat it too!
MNG|9.8.09 @ 8:13PM|#
"He has no business talking to children without their parents
permission, even if he was trustworthy, which he most certainly
not."
What a stupid statement. No speakers in any schools without full
parental permission!
|9.8.09 @ 8:15PM|#
50-50 odds I was reading Rothbard, Hayek, and Rand, plus L. Neil Smith and Lysander Spooner, susbcribed to Reason and Liberty, and was a dues-paying Libertarian Party member for most of the posters here were born.
MNG|9.8.09 @ 8:16PM|#
"I hope you guys are not advocating taking the say away from the
employer on drug effects during work hours."
I'd put restrictions on what's ok for employers to "ask" employees
to do in that area. But I like people having a great deal of
freedom to live their lives, I've never pretended to be a
libertarian ;)
|9.8.09 @ 8:20PM|#
and was a dues-paying Libertarian Party member for most of
the posters here were born
Should we get off your lawn now?
Cabeza de Vaca|9.8.09 @ 8:20PM|#
"50-50 odds I was reading Rothbard, Hayek, and Rand, plus L.
Neil Smith and Lysander Spooner, susbcribed to Reason and Liberty,
and was a dues-paying Libertarian Party member for most of the
posters here were born."
Not impressed.
|9.8.09 @ 8:21PM|#
I thought it was a good speech from someone who has proven to be
a master of oratory.
Regarding the idea that his speech is a subversive message for
collectivism, I cannot help but wonder what sort of thinking leads
one to mistake love of country for totalitarianism. Is it the sort
of thinking that looks at the country and sees free men, or rather
sees sheep? I love my country because of its core values, enshrined
in the founding documents and the spirit they were written in. When
I hear appeals to not let down the country, I hear an appeal to
defend those values and breathe life into that spirit.
My read of the speech was more that Obama was unintentionally
persuading our youth to never, ever vote for or follow someone like
him.
MNG|9.8.09 @ 8:22PM|#
"I was reading...Rand...for most of the posters here were
born."
Any long-time continuous reader of Rand has already punished
himself enough, I shall not add to such...
Fluffy|9.8.09 @ 8:26PM|#
50-50 odds I was reading Rothbard, Hayek, and Rand, plus L.
Neil Smith and Lysander Spooner, susbcribed to Reason and Liberty,
and was a dues-paying Libertarian Party member for most of the
posters here were born.
Spare me.
You know why it would never even enter my mind to coin a
term like "stonertarian"? Because despite the fact that I
personally do not use drugs, the fact that the state
presumes to declare that it has the right to imprison me
if I grow a plant, or if I purchase chemicals and combine them in
certain ways, is so limitlessly galling to me and offensive to
liberty that I would gladly make common cause with people who
oppose the Drug War "just 'cause they want to get stoned".
It would no more occur to me to make up abusive names for those
people than it would occur to me to call murdered civil rights
workers "uppity niggers" or something.
|9.8.09 @ 8:26PM|#
If pot was made legal tomorrow, I'd give it fewer than 10years
before the fellow travellers within the left turn marijuana into a
worse clusterfuck than what they've done with tobacco:
taxes, lawsuits out the ass for lung cancer, ED, loss of IQ points
etc form chronic use, and addictions (that were previously
dismissed as merely 'psychological') with businesses getting
screwed by having to pay for the joke that is drug rehab, and being
unable to fire habitual potheads because they have a medical
condition.
Just you wait.
Fluffy|9.8.09 @ 8:27PM|#
I'd put restrictions on what's ok for employers to "ask"
employees to do in that area. But I like people having a great deal
of freedom to live their lives
Other than employers, that is.
MNG|9.8.09 @ 8:27PM|#
I think one that is funny is that opposition to the Drug War is, strategically speaking, the main issue which libertarians can seize upon to grow their movement. Since the GOP already has all the "small government, taxation=socialism" talking points one could want, you're not going to win any new recruits there. But about a third of this nation thinks the WOD is f*cked up, and there is no party representing this view. Appeal to these folks. It's the new Vietnam War Draft issue...
MNG|9.8.09 @ 8:29PM|#
fluffy
Fuck employers for two reasons: 1. not that many of them in
comparison to the people it frees up and 2. the "freedom" they want
is the freedom to impose on others.
All The President\'s Czars|9.8.09 @ 8:29PM|#
"but "don't do drugs" is just good advice. I'd put it up there
with "stick to 2nd base"."
But I wanna play shortstop.
|9.8.09 @ 8:30PM|#
'It would no more occur to me to make up abusive names for those
people than it would occur to me to call murdered civil rights
workers "uppity niggers" or something.'
:)
Thanks for helping make my point about skewed priorities with that
delightful stab at moral equivalence.
Fluffy|9.8.09 @ 8:31PM|#
If pot was made legal tomorrow, I'd give it fewer than
10years before the fellow travellers within the left turn marijuana
into a worse clusterfuck than what they've done with tobacco:
taxes, lawsuits out the ass for lung cancer, ED, loss of IQ points
etc form chronic use, and addictions (that were previously
dismissed as merely 'psychological') with businesses getting
screwed by having to pay for the joke that is drug rehab, and being
unable to fire habitual potheads because they have a medical
condition.
Just you wait.
So what?
Are you saying that it's your position that the fact that some
asshole can use a shitty law to sue his employer to force him to
accomodate his alcoholism "disability" means that Prohibition
should never have ended?
That's funny, I missed that part of Spooner.
And I think you must have skimmed over some important parts of Rand
if you're asking us to respect your disdain for the victims of
state oppression because you believe that if those victims were
freed their activity would lead the statists to engage in further
abuses.
Fluffy|9.8.09 @ 8:33PM|#
Fuck employers for two reasons: 1. not that many of them in
comparison to the people it frees up and 2. the "freedom" they want
is the freedom to impose on others.
You are without a doubt the most worthless cunt I have ever
known.
|9.8.09 @ 8:36PM|#
MNG said
"Since the GOP already has all the "small government,
taxation=socialism" talking points one could want, you're not going
to win any new recruits there."
Gotta disagree, MNG. There are a lot people waking up to the fact
the GOP totally forgot what that meant. And a lot of them would
probably be receptive to scrapping the WoD in anything like its
current form due its heavy-handedness and manifest failures.
But they would *not* take seriously people who have in their first
5 talking points "But I oughta be able to grow my own supply
without risking a distribution rap, WAAH!"
MNG|9.8.09 @ 8:39PM|#
"You are without a doubt the most worthless cunt I have ever
known."
You know, first TAO, then fluffy, you gotta love how "intellectual"
libertarians go "WAAAHHH, My pussy hurts" when you refuse to
restrict yourself to their stupid axioms at the outset.
Let me give you guys a newsflash: your axioms are a vast minority
position. In a democracy, that means, you better get to work
defending and justifying them and convicing others, or else the
rest of us will keep taking a shit on them with a smile :)
Get used to it or get real.
Fluffy|9.8.09 @ 8:39PM|#
Thanks for helping make my point about skewed priorities
with that delightful stab at moral equivalence.
What the fuck are you talking about?
I just listed above how the War on Drugs violates absolutely
fundamental property rights and the right to freely enter
contracts. And you AGREED.
That means that anyone who has died at the hands of the state
during the prosecution of the Drug War is every bit a victim of
oppression as a civil rights worker murdered as they were trying to
help people exercise the right to vote.
If you think that property rights and the right to freely enter
into contracts are somehow unimportant, or minor, or not equivalent
to the right to vote, I have to wonder again about the reading list
you named above. And if the rights are equivalent, then my "stab at
moral equivalence" was appropriate and correct.
It's fairly obvious here that either you don't really hold basic
economic rights in very high esteem, or you don't care if
those rights are violated if you don't like the people or activity
involved.
Fluffy|9.8.09 @ 8:42PM|#
You know, first TAO, then fluffy, you gotta love how
"intellectual" libertarians go "WAAAHHH, My pussy hurts" when you
refuse to restrict yourself to their stupid axioms at the
outset.
Well, at first I debated with myself whether to question your
definition of "freedom" as "Fluffy has to make his economic
purchases on terms that are convenient to me, or I'm not
free".
Then I debated with myself whether to point out that your "Fuck
'em, there aren't that many employers" statement could be used to
justify any outrage against any minority anywhere in history.
But then I remembered that it was you, and that we'd been over a
lot of this ground before, and that you've already admitted that
you think you should be able to collect slaves, and I said to
myself: Fuck it, just call him a cunt. It's less tedious.
MNG|9.8.09 @ 8:43PM|#
newscaper
Those people are already pseudo-libertarians in that they will
dress up their conservative bullshit in liberty language. When the
chips are down, they will vote conservative, not libertarian.
But there are many anti-WOD folks who dream of having someone they
could support who would speak truth to power on that.
Think about it, libertarians have been giving reluctant hand jobs
to conservatives for decades: what has it gotten them? You're not
going to get much from liberals unless you split us with a wedge
issue, a la the WOD, which would allow you to keep your integrity
because, this is an area where you guys are actually correct.
All The President\'s Czars|9.8.09 @ 8:45PM|#
"
Sure, but the underlying motivation for many Stonertarians -- which
is manifests itself quite obviously and counter-productively when
appealing to otherwise libertarian-leaning independents -- is
nothing more than the petulance of former college students whining
about how its unfair that they had to finish growing up and can't
get fucked up whenever they wish like the good old days back in
school."
I am a self-made man. I am wealthy. I am a pillar of the community.
I smoke weed. Good weed. Responsibly. It is great! You are full of
bile-heavy excrement. I weep for your progeny. Brush your
teeth.
MNG|9.8.09 @ 8:45PM|#
"that you've already admitted that you think you should be able
to collect slaves"
Haha, "TEH SLAVERY!"
Why not just Godwin it and be done with it fluffy?
MNG|9.8.09 @ 8:48PM|#
"at first I debated with myself whether to question your
definition of "freedom" as "Fluffy has to make his economic
purchases on terms that are convenient to me, or I'm not
free"."
Nope, I just, like Mill, recognize that social and economic
pressure can restrict freedom too.
"I debated with myself whether to point out that your "Fuck 'em,
there aren't that many employers" statement could be used to
justify any outrage against any minority anywhere in
history."
Nope, as a good utilitarian (it amazes me how much it enrages
people around here for someone to actually be consistent in their
utilitarianism; like its not the dominant ethical position in the
field of philosophy but some Satanic cult) I just recognize that
the "rights" of the many outweight the "rights" of the few. If you
prefer to have the rights of the few screw the rights of the many,
be my guest oligarch.
|9.8.09 @ 8:50PM|#
But they would *not* take seriously people who have in their
first 5 talking points "But I oughta be able to grow my own supply
without risking a distribution rap, WAAH!"
O Rly? Why ever not? Isn't the whole point not getting jailed for
growing/smoking a fucking plant?
Or else you just really, really hate stoners and don't give a shit
about their rights.
MNG|9.8.09 @ 8:54PM|#
Have to agree with Epi.
WTF could be the objection about someone who wants to grow this
plant on is own land?
MNG|9.8.09 @ 8:55PM|#
Also, with their conservative-courtship strategy libertarians have won about 1% of the vote for years. Time to try something different! You don't have to embrace liberalism, hell I can't do that (liberalism has a tendency to constantly push into the absurd). Just push the WOD.
Fluffy|9.8.09 @ 8:56PM|#
Nope, as a good utilitarian (it amazes me how much it
enrages people around here for someone to actually be consistent in
their utilitarianism; like its not the dominant ethical position in
the field of philosophy but some Satanic cult) I just recognize
that the "rights" of the many outweight the "rights" of the few. If
you prefer to have the rights of the few screw the rights of the
many, be my guest oligarch.
No, the reason you provoke rage is because most people who proclaim
their utilitarianism don't embrace the more absurd outcomes
utilitarian reasoning forces you to. But you are a reasonably
intelligent guy and have probably been down that road before, and
rather than lose arguments you've simply embraced all of
utilitarianism's moral absurdities and made them your own.
MNG|9.8.09 @ 9:00PM|#
fluffy
I've said it before, and recently, utilitarianism is the worst form
of ethics except for all others. I have no idea why a proper ethics
would be pleasing to people, given our "fallen" nature.
You're stuck in the same position, having to insist that dying
people and children be deprived of life-saving care or meds because
of the "rights" of the witnessing doctor or med owner. Come on on
man, you can see that.
If I acknowledged the weak points of utilitarianism you'd say
"A-Ha!", but if I strive to stick with my principles you say "teh
Evil!"
MNG|9.8.09 @ 9:00PM|#
Also, I think that the more you think of these examples, the less absurd they become...
Fluffy|9.8.09 @ 9:01PM|#
Haha, "TEH SLAVERY!"
Why not just Godwin it and be done with it fluffy?
Nope, I just, like Mill, recognize that social and economic
pressure can restrict freedom too.
I just recognize that the "rights" of the many outweight the
"rights" of the few.
If you actually believe the latter two statements, you should
consider my statement a "Godwin".
Basically the implication of your statements is that slavery wasn't
wrong because of the rightless position into which the slave was
put, but because the proceeds arising from the institution
of slavery were used for the masters' enjoyment and not for some
wider social good.
I just don't really see why the slave should give a shit about
where the proceeds of his bondage go.
MNG|9.8.09 @ 9:05PM|#
Well, I do consider it a type of Godwin, I thought that was
implied.
Forcing someone to do something for your own selfish interests is
different thatn forcing someone to do something to, well, do what
is right (don't snicker, you can't say much more about why people
should be forced to do something they don't want to do [return an
apple they have stolen from a store]).
Just like you think it is ok to force a person to behave in a
certain way via threat of force(hey, apple stealer, return that
apple or else!) I do too (hey, doctor, help that dying man or
else!)
MNG|9.8.09 @ 9:08PM|#
You might say "well, my criteria about when it is justified to use force to coerce someone to act in a way is more just than yours." OK, cool. We can have that discussion (not tonight, I have to be somewhere soon). But this "you want to compel people to act in a certain way and I don't therefore "TEH SLAVERY!" is stupid.
Fluffy|9.8.09 @ 9:09PM|#
You're stuck in the same position, having to insist that
dying people and children be deprived of life-saving care or meds
because of the "rights" of the witnessing doctor or med owner. Come
on on man, you can see that.
But I don't insist that.
I insist that you don't have the moral authority to use force to
compel the doctor's servitude.
It's not hard for me to insist that at all.
The closest I come to being in a quandary I can't escape from is
when dealing with issues of trespass. Issues of involuntary
servitude don't come anywhere close.
You can back me into a corner with some crazy hypothetical example
where a volcano is exploding and the lava is coming and the only
way you can survive is to walk past some "No Trespassing" sign. But
this involuntary servitude stuff doesn't ruffle my feathers in the
slightest.
Hell, if you'll recall, I was the one who brought the doctor
hypothetical up in the first place - because I was so sure that no
one would assert a private right to compel the doctor using
violence, and I intended to argue that the state can't possess any
right that an individual didn't possess first to delegate to the
state. I was so sure that it was self-evident that I was shocked
when you took the opposite view.
Ultimately, that's a little disturbing, really. I don't see how we
reason over that fundamental divergence in moral view. It's an
article of faith of "enlightenment society" that in the end we can
reason these issues out, but I don't see how we argue with each
other over that sort of divide.
|9.8.09 @ 9:20PM|#
MNG & Epi,
"Why on earth not?"
Again I understand the underlying common principle (liberty starts
at self-ownership), but to the great unwashed who are ready to
sympathize, are *not* going to put their existential concerns about
a) being able to provide for themselves and their families, b) be
able to defend themselves and their families, and c) not have the
wealth they've already accumulated destroyed by govt malice or
incompetence, on the same priority as "I want get high." And they
will(do) look askance at anyone who does.
If you really don't see that -- y'all need to get out more.
Fluffy,
On equivalence -- I was referring to your addition to the
name-calling game.
"Are you saying that it's your position that the fact that some
asshole can use a shitty law to sue his employer to force him to
accomodate his alcoholism "disability" means that Prohibition
should never have ended?"
Not at all. But its time to think very carefully about practical
surrounding practical, tactical issues as well as principle,
something libertarianism has typically been remarkably lousy at --
the 'how do you get from point A to point B in the real world'
problem.
Incremental isolated or local increases in liberty are subject to
unintended consequences too, in the larger context, some of which
could very well lead to a net *loss* of liberty later. Think 80's
S&L crisis -- or wide open immigration in the context of a
welfare state republic slipping further toward mob-
(dem)ocracy.
Before a president signs some law legalizing weed, the first thing
I want is a reliable 'breathalyzer' test for THC (and some
reasonable intoxication limit set) before anyone gets in a car
:)
Libertarians often have the same problem as the communists with
economics -- all the implementation problems would go away if they
could just have their way everywhere all at once. But the real
world doesn't work that way.
CATO Institute and some of the Objectivist thinktanks do a pretty
good job of trying to produce realistic policies, but not your
average soundbite 'net libertarian.
BTW, re your Prohibition comment -- just because repealing it was
the right thing to do for both principled and practical reasons, it
didn't mean that laws about drunk driving weren't warranted, and it
didn't mean there shouldn't be serious social pressure against
becoming a worthless drunk failing to meet your obligations as you
slide toward alcoholism.
I've often said that one of the problems with the "social issues'
is that many so-cons on the right tend to think that things which
are 'bad' should be illegal. On the other side of the fence the
lefists (and a few libertarians) think that once they get something
legal, it becomes 'good' -- and any criticism is inapprpriate, if
not outright thought/hate crime.
Both sides need to see that some 'bad' things need to be legal --
yet should still be discouraged at least at the margin. Sort of
like the alcohol model.
Fluffy|9.8.09 @ 9:21PM|#
But this "you want to compel people to act in a certain way
and I don't therefore "TEH SLAVERY!" is stupid.
No, it's not.
Basically you're defining slavery out of existence.
To you, a slave is just a person living under a species of bad law.
To your line of argument, everyone suffers compulsion, and the
slave merely suffers from worse compulsion than others. But that
would mean that anyone suffering under extraordinary compulsion
would in effect be a slave and the word only really means "someone
living under bad law".
To me, the salient thing about slavery - the thing that makes it
different from merely living under bad law - is that the slave can
not choose whether or not to labor, and can not choose for whom he
wishes to labor, as a matter of law and not mere necessity or
circumstance. If the slave wants to quit his job, he can be
tortured or killed. That's slavery.
That means that if you say, "Doctor, you can not choose whether or
not to labor right now. Either you labor, or I will beat you, or
kill you," the doctor is at that moment and to that extent a slave,
regardless of the rest of the conditions he lives under and whether
or not they look like a re-enactment of plantation slavery or the
slavery of antiquity.
Saying that the "compulsion" suffered by someone who is told "Don't
kill strangers at random" and the "compulsion" suffered by someone
who is told "Labor for me today, or I will kill you," are of the
same order and the same character would make the word "slave"
meaningless. It wouldn't only be a Godwin, it would be a non
sequitur.
|9.8.09 @ 9:43PM|#
All the Prez's Czars,
"I am a self-made man. I am wealthy. I am a pillar of the
community. I smoke weed. Good weed. Responsibly. It is great! You
are full of bile-heavy excrement. I weep for your progeny. Brush
your teeth."
Late in college I rented a house with a friend of a friend who was
just out of law school. He had a job a law clerk for a Federal
judge. Hi sadly after work ritual was a couple Rolling Rocks and a
bowl in the bong.
In his case I never saw any particular harmful effect -- and, yes,
I partook of it some too.
He just liked doing it (duh) but no particular capital-p
'Principle' was at work. In that light, the great career risks he
was taking in pursuing a little relaxing entertainment make
precisely my point about [lack of] judgment and [misplaced] sense
of priority. Actually, the powerful high from heroin would make
more sense in terms of the risk he was taking.
I know perfectly well there is a whole subculture of upper middle
class people who still smoke, again apparently without significant
harm for the most part. But again, the skewed risk-reward
calculations going on call into question priorities.
I know a guy who worked for the state Dept of Reveneue, no less,
and his wife was an elementary school teacher -- both careers were
ruined when they sold some of the supply they were growing for
themselves and their friends to one stranger too many, a narc. BTW
they also had 2 young kids.
Yes, that was an injustice -- but normal people would again
question their judgment and priorities as a practical matter.
Its certainly not as compelling a case of principled civil
disobedience as an otherwise law abiding inner city dweller buying
an illegal gun for personal protection in a dangerous part of a gun
control city.
One may as well campaign against Obama & Congress on the
dangers of socialism, and put the injustice of the victimless crime
of jaywalking on equal footing and wonder why people look at you
funny.
Fluffy|9.8.09 @ 9:47PM|#
I've often said that one of the problems with the "social
issues' is that many so-cons on the right tend to think that things
which are 'bad' should be illegal. On the other side of the fence
the lefists (and a few libertarians) think that once they get
something legal, it becomes 'good' -- and any criticism is
inapprpriate, if not outright thought/hate crime.
I've often said that the real usefulness of the drug debate is that
it exposes people who don't really believe in liberty.
You're concerned that we won't be able to build a "winning
coalition" because people who would be on our side think that drug
legalization is just going too far.
OTOH, I'm convinced you're dramatically misreading the situation,
and that people who look like they might be sorta libertarians but
can't give up the drug war aren't really potential converts or
allies at all, but merely authoritarian statists who just happen to
want a tax cut. The first time anyone farts every last one of those
assholes will clamoring for statism the same way they did under
Bush.
The people who listen to the anti-drug war arguments and respond
positively at least have potential. The only interest your average
anti-drug-war Republican has in liberty is in cribbing the rhetoric
of liberty to use [as a lie and in bad faith] as a club against
Democrats.
Elemenope|9.8.09 @ 9:49PM|#
Ethical solution to all problems: If the outcome of your system
in one case is stupid, absurd, or monstrous, ignore that result.
Substitute another.
Virtue ethics for the win.
All other ethical systems are for pikers.
Fluffy|9.8.09 @ 9:54PM|#
Yes, that was an injustice -- but normal people would again
question their judgment and priorities as a practical matter.
Its certainly not as compelling a case of principled civil
disobedience as an otherwise law abiding inner city dweller buying
an illegal gun for personal protection in a dangerous part of a gun
control city.
Why not? The difference here really seems to boil down to, "Well,
people who smoke pot enjoy it, therefore their actions in defying
the state are less worthy of respect than the actions of the person
who buys an illegal gun." And I have to tell you, once again the
way you instinctively find the element of enjoyment to be
somehow stigmatizing and delegitimizing really doesn't say much for
your comprehension of Rand.
|9.8.09 @ 9:58PM|#
Fluffy,
I'm just concerned that purists will overlook the gains for liberty
that could be made by working with those who may otherwise agree
70% against those who disagree 90%.
The remaining differences could be sorted out later, with shifting
ad hoc alliances.
Good night.
I'm tired of fighting the little keyboard on my new netbook :)
Elemenope|9.8.09 @ 9:58PM|#
Fluffy, as a matter of practical respect, a person defying the state to protect the lives of themselves or others is superior in act to the one defying the state in order to have fun. You'd be hard-pressed to find people (outside this rarefied forum) who'd find the other way, or even endorse an equivalence. Which is MNG's point.
Elemenope|9.8.09 @ 9:59PM|#
If you'd like a more metaphysical defense, you must first be alive in order to enjoy a drug. Hence, the preservation of life has a priority over any subordinate or dependent state.
|9.8.09 @ 10:02PM|#
Last one, honest :)
re "And I have to tell you, once again the way you instinctively
find the element of enjoyment to be somehow stigmatizing and
delegitimizing really doesn't say much for your comprehension of
Rand."
IIRC, even Rand's ethics had a hierarchy, a product of how she
derived it.
She was *not* a'whatever floats your boat' subjectivist.
Your Nebulous Sky God|9.8.09 @ 10:36PM|#
The rights of the many out weigh the few, but who decides what the rights of the many are? Why I do, and I speak through Barack Obama who is a conduit of my divine will.
|9.8.09 @ 10:40PM|#
As a Libertarian I am bugged by the Presidential overreach of
the speach - this one was a reach-around.
I can see myself saying some of these things to my 3 kids but it
irks me that the POTUS seems to believe that it is his duty to do
something that really belongs at the family level.
|9.8.09 @ 10:53PM|#
Schempf,
That's exactly my problem with this. Bush, Obama, et al. have no
business whatsoever addressing my children directly. That's me and
my wife's job. Want to deal with my kids, you gotta come to
me.
By the way, what are the odds this is the original speech? Given
the study guide that got out last week, I think some stuff got
edited out.
anarch, flip, notwithstanding |9.8.09 @ 11:13PM|#
You can back me into a corner
Would that me trespass of involuntary servitude?
Your Nebulous Sky God|9.8.09 @ 11:18PM|#
For the first time ever, I am going to lay it out to those who
are not at least a 3rd level apprentice (Hi MNG!). I created
Utilitarianism as a means to deal with Natural Rights
Libertarianism as a means to keep the human race in check. I took a
little breather after the Reformation, and allowed you to expand
your horizons, so to speak during the Enlightenment, but by the
time J. S. Mills was a middle aged man, I decided it was time to
reign things in.*
All Utilitarians worship me, but they are under a strict
commandment Not to Speak My Divine Name, and to Deny My Existence,
and to Advance A Progressive Agenda. That was necessary to cloak
the True Intent of the creed that serves me, and I assure you it is
an entirely Reactionary one.
It should be obvious that without me at the helm there is no
determination of the rights of the many, after all. What could
possibly be more anthropomorphically unsound without me guiding it?
However, you are who you are homo saps, and you tend to buy into
anything.
* Pun intentional. Who says the non existent can't be funny.
'Nothing more real than nothing' Bah, Sam, really, bah.
Your Nebulous Sky God|9.8.09 @ 11:22PM|#
Oh, in case you are wondering why I have Apprentices and not Acolytes for my clerical order, you have to consider the time line. Acolytes would not have a clue how to run a steam powered Difference Engine.
Publius|9.8.09 @ 11:27PM|#
newscaper, are you really trying to assert that the
anti-drug-war element of libertarianism is what makes it
unpopular?
If so, try the following test:
Wherever you go, ask people that you have never met whether
they:
A: are for or against the drug war.
B: have any idea what Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard wrote, and if so,
are they for or against it.
This should disabuse you of your delusions rather quickly.
The anti-drug-war element of libertarianism is the only thing that
keeps it from being even more hopelessly marginal than it already
is. The fact that you are telling this element to go away leaves
little doubt that your contempt for drug users outstrips your love
of your cause.
Enjoy life in your pure and politically irrelevant little
corner.
Elemenope|9.8.09 @ 11:36PM|#
By the way, what are the odds this is the original
speech?
Pretty high.
That's exactly my problem with this. Bush, Obama, et al. have
no business whatsoever addressing my children directly. That's me
and my wife's job. Want to deal with my kids, you gotta come to
me.
Subsidiarity FTW. OTOH, there are many American children who do not
have such sterling examples of parenting as you and your Mr.
Libertate. In fact, they might even have one or fewer parents.
Please, will you allow the harmless non-indoctrinating speech FOR
THE CHILDREN???
anarch, always drawn to double|9.8.09 @ 11:57PM|#
Wiki on "subsidiarity," borne out by the other top google hits
for it:
The word subsidiarity is derived from the Latin word subsidiarius and has its origins in Catholic social teaching.
|9.9.09 @ 12:37AM|#
Publius said,
"The fact that you are telling this element to go away leaves
little doubt that your contempt for drug users outstrips your love
of your cause.
Enjoy life in your pure and politically irrelevant little
corner."
LOL! Actually I have a bigger problem with such awesome displays of
reading incomprehension. Fluff and other disagreed but they at
least understood what I said :)
Libertarianism's biggest reason for unpopularity is a reflexive yet
unreflective statist mindset of a large part of the public.
Duh.
The problem I was addressing specifically was about the *practical*
matter of the 'tarian faction who think NORMLization is one of our
biggest problems a)have their priorities wrong and b)needlessly put
off much of the *rest* of the populace who haven't totally drunk
the statist KoolAid and are actually somewhat receptive to
libertarian ideas (admittedly short of Rothbardian
anarchocapitalism).
And that makes me an "irrelevant purist"??
WTF? and LOL!
The Angry Optimist|9.9.09 @ 12:39AM|#
there are many American children who do not have such sterling examples of parenting as you and your Mr. Libertate.
I don't think that Florida allows "Mr. and Mr." types to raise
kids.
|9.9.09 @ 12:55AM|#
To your line of argument, everyone suffers compulsion, and the slave merely suffers from worse compulsion than others.
slave
/sleɪv/
-noun
1. a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.
2. a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person: a slave to a drug.
So that's what a slave is. A person compelled to do certain things
(obey laws, pay taxes) isn't a slave, he is a member of a
civilization.
Wilhelm Reich|9.9.09 @ 1:26AM|#
Subject enjoys using a common non sequitur found on the
internet
WAAAHHH, My pussy hurts as a rhetorical tact in his attempts
to best opponents. This is indicative of a few things. On the most
superficial level, he was subject to this attack at some point in
his past, and for some reason related to his damaged psyche which
we will explore shortly he found it to be highly effective.
This does not explain the high frequency of its occurrence nor the
incongruous relevancy to the matters under discussion when the
subject evokes this remark.
That leads me to conclude there is a reason embedded much deeper in
his emotional state of being. To understand this we must examine
the remark itself:
WAAAHHH, My pussy hurts
1) an infant cry
2) genitalia identity ambiguity
3) pain
A traumatic event in the subject's past lead him to his currently
distorted gender identity. There are common patterns related to
these cases. However, given the sensitivity of the matter those
will not be discussed in the General Report.
More study will be necessary to heal this deeply wounded
person.
Elemenope|9.9.09 @ 1:28AM|#
I don't think that Florida allows "Mr. and Mr." types to
raise kids.
Yeah, I noticed the error after I posted but then I thought, what
the hey, RC'z Law, right? :)
Publius|9.9.09 @ 1:40AM|#
"The problem I was addressing specifically was about the
*practical* matter of the 'tarian faction who think NORMLization is
one of our biggest problems a)have their priorities wrong and
b)needlessly put off much of the *rest* of the populace who haven't
totally drunk the statist KoolAid and are actually somewhat
receptive to libertarian ideas (admittedly short of Rothbardian
anarchocapitalism)."
'Practical'...yes.
Well, let's be reasonable, shall we?
There is this thing called the Libertarian party, right? Now,
hardly anyone ever votes for this party's candidates, am I not
correct? So the goal is to get more people to vote for these
candidates, no?
Or am I missing something?
Now I believe (and feel free to prove me wrong if you have any
relevant statistics) that there is a fairly sizable minority of
people who favor marijuana legalization at least to some extent.
Hell, even as mainstream a publication as Time magazine has
commented on it's 'slowly evolving populist
rehabilitation'.
Now here's the deal, if the Libertarian party could get HALF of
those people to vote for it, they would win more seats in
congress than they have ever won. As it is, the party is
so pathetic that it has to brag about winning the occasional city council
seat.
And I note this as a guy who has voted solidly Libertarian for over
20 years.
So yes, you are, quite definitely, an 'irrelevant
purist'.
|9.9.09 @ 2:19AM|#
Actually, Publius, I think you're the irrelevant one.
I want (small-l) libertarians to better work with small(er) govt
leaning conservatives and independents disillusioned with both
parties.
A fair number of them also might be willing to look at some
decriminalization ot least reining in the excesses of the
WoD.
You on OTOH apparently labor under the fantasy that the actively
pro-pot (notice my distinction) segment is larger, and assume that
a large segment of that aren't economic
redistributionists.
On irrelevant... I could give a rat's ass about the ineffectual
big-L Libertarian Party, only voting for LP for pres once (Harry
Browne?) , only once I was positive the Dem wouldn't win.
You OTOH, have a losing streak spanning two decades.
Who's the irrelevant purist now?
|9.9.09 @ 2:56AM|#
I'm just glad this asshole President isn't the Pope, imagine what self-righteous bastard he'd be then.
|9.9.09 @ 4:19AM|#
Was it creepy when George Bush spoke to the schoolkids, or when Ronald Reagan did, talking to them about taxes? There are some legitimate issues to debate...this one seems ludicrous and i am starting to think the wingnuts are taking over the far right.
Anonymous|9.9.09 @ 6:00AM|#
Was it creepy when George Bush spoke to the schoolkids, or
when Ronald Reagan did, talking to them about taxes?
Creepy? No. In appropriate? Yes.
Of course, I don't recall them being unaccomplished do-nothings
worshipped like gods, with cardboard cutouts and agitation to name
schools after them weeks after the inauguration and a candidate's
seal, nor saying in the speech the opposite of JFK in order to drum
up excitement over massive social programs (that's not
socialism!).
Publius|9.9.09 @ 7:10AM|#
"Actually, Publius, I think you're the irrelevant one.
I want (small-l) libertarians to better work with small(er) govt
leaning conservatives and independents disillusioned with both
parties.
A fair number of them also might be willing to look at some
decriminalization ot least reining in the excesses of the
WoD.
'Work with'. Yes, I see. Well, let me know how that goes for
you.
"You on OTOH apparently labor under the fantasy that the
actively pro-pot (notice my distinction) segment is larger, and
assume that a large segment of that aren't economic
redistributionists."
It doesn't matter if they are 'economic redistributionists'. Do you
honestly think that all of the people who voted for Obama or Bush
or Clinton did so because they believed in every last bit of their
platform? No, it's about giving out a big message that large
amounts of people can get behind. It's about tapping into already
existing sources of popular enthusiasm to achieve elective office.
And at the present moment, the legalization contingent of the
American populace is rather more visible and energized than the
free market contingent, which most people regard, wrongly in my
opinion, as a lunatic fringe. Unless, of course, you do
have some statistics that prove otherwise and you just aren't
sharing.
"On irrelevant... I could give a rat's ass about the
ineffectual big-L Libertarian Party, only voting for LP for pres
once (Harry Browne?) , only once I was positive the Dem wouldn't
win."
So in other words, you are a Republican.
"You OTOH, have a losing streak spanning two
decades."
No, libertarianism, big l and small l, has a losing streak spanning
even more decades than the party. This obviously bothers you less
than it bothers me because you are a really just a Republican who
wants to pay less in taxes.
|9.9.09 @ 8:39AM|#
Uh, since when has fighting redistributionism and the creeping
[sometimes galloping] welfare state been one of the more minor
planks??
I get it -- it's fine if they govt takes away more of your
livelihood, and your ability to earn it in the first place, just as
long as you can spend some of the leftover scraps on a dime bag
unmolested.
One of the big reasons the libertarian take on freedom hasn't been
a stronger sell is precisely *because* the "vote for us and you can
get high" is so often tone deaf in their 'enthusiasm'.
Legalization/decriminalization would be a better sell (as part of
the whole liberty package) to all of those unconvinced people out
their with kids if if at least a passing nod were given to real
world accompanying issues such as what to do about age
restrictions, DUW (...under the Weed) testing, and workplace rights
of employers regarding workers half-baked on the clock *not*
getting special protection. Otherwise people will instantly think
of pot & crack dealers in junior high.
Regarding incrementalism, funny how most legalization advocates
*are* willing to go for the lowest hanging fruit -- just talking
pot for the most part, at least up front and in public -- when
there is no clear cut 'principled' distinction between it and other
drugs, unless you resort to utilitarianism, or an 'impure'
pragmatism.
|9.9.09 @ 8:44AM|#
BTW, the LP is so useless they can't even manage to be seen as a
segment big enough to be courted by either party for votes, much
less a contender.
A Cato Institute, OTOH, sometimes has actually influenced
policy.
Hell, I can't swear to it, but I think Ron Paul did far better even
as a fringe Republican than he ever did in the LP.
|9.9.09 @ 9:28AM|#
WTF? I consider myself an individualist and an introvert but I
don't have any problem with these parts of Obama's speech. I may
like doing things my own way, but I've got enough sense to realize
that I'm still part of a larger community and that there are
certain benefits to society. No man is an island.
If you're that stridently opposed to anything hinting that you may
have responsibilities to someone other than yourself, maybe you
should retreat to the Arctic wilderness and live off the land.
|9.9.09 @ 9:30AM|#
Elemenope,
Doubt it, since they pulled back on some of the materials that were
supposed to go out with the speech. I don't mean to suggest that he
was going to read The Communist Manifesto or urge them to
vote Democrat, but I bet it was a little less neutral,
originally.
Is the president (any president) the person who should be standing
in loco parentis for anyone? If a president makes a radio
or TV address directed at kids, I'd find it annoying enough, but
there's something creepy about these addresses to kids in public
schools. Regardless of the topic.
Anonymous|9.9.09 @ 10:13AM|#
maybe you should retreat to the Arctic wilderness and live
off the land.
You know, that's exactly what these United States of America were
about, once upon a time.
Read Heinlein. It's harder to get away from the perils of tyranny
when you can't find a place without it.
|9.9.09 @ 10:37AM|#
You know, that's exactly what these United States of America
were about, once upon a time.
Yes, once upon a time. Today it would be a bit difficult for 300
million Americans to independently live off the land, even if they
knew how.
If you think responsibility to others and/or society equals
tyranny, then shit or get off the pot: unplug yourself from the
grid, discard all your material possessions, and go forth into the
wilderness - there's still some out there (thanks primarily to
conservation groups).
I actually enjoy heading into the wilderness myself, but only for a
week or two at a time. The benefits of society always pull me back
- hot showers, electricity, ice cream, movies, the internet, pretty
girls, etc.
|9.9.09 @ 11:09AM|#
Good post, but when BO says do it for you country, he really means do it for your govt, lib. fascists really don't draw a distinction. As a conservative, I can love my country (it's people, it's traditions, it's beauty) without worshiping the thieving state that has it pinned to the ground.
Anonymous|9.9.09 @ 12:50PM|#
Today it would be a bit difficult for 300 million Americans
to independently live off the land, even if they knew
how.
That's not the point. The point is that government sees as its duty
to be a leveling force by making such things impractical.
(thanks primarily to conservation groups)
Like hunters and philanthropists who bought it for that purpose,
yes.
hot showers
water + bucket + sun
electricity
Overrated. Heat-fueled devices can do the complicated stuff, and
what's left is so little that PV actually makes economic
sense.
ice cream
sugar cane + cow + absorption freezer
movies
Way overrated.
the internet
A massive expense for what you're getting, but satellite internet
is an option where wires don't go. (Check out
the story of Mike and Lisa in Tennessee.) Cheaper options may
exist, even in sparse, rural areas between large cities. And hey,
if it weren't for news and message boards, one might not need it
for weeks at a time, either.
pretty girls
The ones who want to go with you turn out to be the prettiest.
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