Obamacare

Give Peace a Chance

Why does the media keep downplaying the violence at left-wing protests?

|

Boy, those sure have been some mighty peaceful protests against government budget cuts in Greece, haven't they? You bet they have—at least if you ignore the rock-throwing, fire-setting, window-smashing, and blood-spilling.

Which, it seems clear, a lot of major news organs would like to do. According to one story in The Wall Street Journal, the demonstrations "began peacefully." According to another, last week Constitution Square in Athens "seethed with indignant, but peaceful, demonstrators."

"The day began noisily but peacefully," intoned The New York Times on Wednesday. The Washington Post likewise observed that "a peaceful protest . . . quickly degenerated into violence." Reuters reported that, regardless of "clashes between stone-throwing masked youths and riot police . . . thousands of peaceful protesters demonstrated against the austerity plan."

Sure, blood was spilled. But don't blame the protesters. As the Journal reported, it was Greece's parliament that approved a "widely hated austerity package" despite "the best efforts of peaceful grass-roots activists., megaphone-touting [sic] labor unionists, and stone-throwing anarchists."

This is a sharp contrast from how, say, Tea Party protests against the passage of ObamaCare were treated.

The D.C. protests in March of last year were nonviolent affairs, without a single arrest despite one disputed episode in which someone allegedly hurled a racial slur at Rep. John Lewis and spat on Rep. Emanuel Cleaver. (No independent report could verify the allegations.) But that didn't stop ABC's David Muir from reporting that "shouted words turned very ugly," and reporting on "late word from Washington tonight about just how ugly the crowds gathered outside the Longworth office building have become."

Last April, a New York Times news story tsk-tsked "the pitched attacks by some Republicans and conservatives during the health care fight," which "have drawn criticism as incendiary." ("Tea Party Supporters Doing Fine, But Angry Nonetheless," the paper noted in yet another fair and balanced look at the movement.) "Protesters at some town hall meetings have drowned out congresspeople and caused unrest and even violence," reported CBS. Were the town halls "mostly peaceful"? Didn't they "begin peacefully"? Sure—but CBS didn't say so. Wonder how come.

Allegations of violent tendencies continue to dog the tea party despite the fact that it is, like its liberal analogs, "mostly peaceful." "Tea Party Getting Violent?" asked CBS News last March. To the Christian Science Monitor, a Boston tea party event (no arrests there either) was made up of "an angry white mob." At a Tea Party event in Nevada, Time magazine lamented the presence of (brace yourself) "ugly signs."

Hey, what happened to "indignant but peaceful"?

It's obvious what happened: big-government bias. To much of the establishment media, a preference for limited government is a dangerous idea. Ergo, its supporters must be dangerous, too. But liberals don't find a preference for big government threatening, so they view its supporters as non-threatening as well.

Nanoseconds after Jared Loughner went on his shooting rampage in Arizona in January, huge numbers of opinionators in the media knew just whom to blame: Sarah Palin, leaders of the Tea Party movement, and, by implication, anyone who thinks the government spends too much. As it turned out, Loughner—a schizophrenic declared incompetent to stand trial—was motivated by none of the above. Oops!

Fast-forward to the protests earlier this year against Republican Gov. Scott Walker's austerity measures in Wisconsin. Those protests involved the occupation of the statehouse, nine arrests in the first three days, and more than a few "ugly signs." Nevertheless, they were termed "largely peaceful" (The Washington Post); "largely peaceful, with only nine people cited for minor acts of civil disobedience" (ABC News); "loud but peaceful" (The New York Times); "peaceful" (San Francisco Chronicle); "respectful and peaceful" (USA Today); etc.

So it was with the protests against the World Trade Organization in 1999:

"Some demonstrators fired bolts from slingshots, and others slashed the tires of squad cars," noted one news account. Nevertheless, Time magazine termed them—you guessed it—"largely peaceful." Likewise the 2003 protests leading up to the Iraq War: "The vast majority of demonstrators were peaceful," as a typical news story noted; a 2006 demonstration for immigrant rights ("largely peaceful"—CBS News, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, et al.) as well as another pro-immigration rally two years later ("largely peaceful"—The New York Times); protests by environmentalists in Denmark in 2009—where, according to UPI, "climate activists clashed with police at several demonstrations over the weekend." UPI nevertheless termed the affair "largely peaceful." Protests against Arizona's tough anti-immigration law? "Largely peaceful"—USA Today.

What about protests in favor of taking a hard line on immigration? Well, on rare occasions they do lead to violence. "L.A. Anti-Immigration Rally Turns Violent," CNN noted a number of years ago. Ironically, the immigration opponents were peaceful but "a group holding a counter-rally across the street marched over and began throwing punches, bottles, and full soda cans."

None of us should be so foolish as to think violence and incendiary rhetoric are the exclusive province of one side only. They're part of human nature, which everyone shares. So you have to wonder why press reports so insistently call one side "largely peaceful," even when it's not, while insinuating, with zero evidence, that the other side is about two seconds away from a killing spree.

It's enough to make a guy feel downright indignant . . . but peaceful, of course. Indignant but peaceful.

A. Barton Hinkle is a columnist at the Richmond Times-Dispatch. This article originally appeared at the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

NEXT: Reason.tv: The Killing of Allen Kephart - How the police lost the trust of a law-and-order town

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Leftist violence can be ignored because it is out of character. We can conclude it is out of character because we don’t see it. We don’t see it because we ignore it.

    Conservative violence is in character, and so should be covered. We know it is in character because we see it. We see it because we don’t ignore it – as a matter of fact, we interpret everything in the most violent manner possible because that’s what they’re like.

    1. Neither should be ignored.

    2. Re: Aqua Buddha,

      Leftist violence can be ignored because it is out of character. We can conclude it is out of character because we don’t see it. We don’t see it because we ignore it.

      Around we go
      in the Merry-Go-Round
      Around, around we go!

      1. I think that was his point.

    3. Didn’t the worlds most notorious leftists (Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot) kill about $100 million? Na, they aren’t really violent.

      1. Our government kills more money than that every day.

    4. I’m sorry, but you can’t seriously say leftist violence is out of character. Leftists are no difference, perhaps they are more smug about using violence. To them violence is acceptable because they don’t consider anyone who thinks differently to be human. Look at Glenn Beck getting attacked recently. If the was Jon Stewart’s family the left would be up in arms. But it’s Beck who doesn’t qualify as human to leftists so its’ ok.

      Leftists are delusional. They think they’re ‘good’ not because they do good things but because they think they’re good. Therefor anything they do is good because they’re good. If they bite a protestors finger off like last year it’s ok, because the leftie attack was a ‘good’ person, hence the bitee wasn’t a human.

      Lefties are basically Nazis.

      1. Glenn Beck says some pretty nasty things that aren’t true. So, I can understand why people would be a tad upset with him. It got so bad Fox took away his show.

        No, lefties are not Nazis. Nazis and leftists are clear on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum. This is the kind of talk that makes it easy for them to discredit you.

        Recently, some Tea Party guys started a fist fight with some left-wing protesters in Wisconsin. I think we can say for sure that there’s plenty of violence for both sides to deal with (though Wisconsin has been almost entirely peaceful, unlike Greece).

        1. Oh, yea, the National SOCIALISTS are completely on the opposite side of the political spectrum from the left. This stupid talking point was old and discredited decades ago, learn some new material.

  2. Social Justice does not equal Violence – or something stupid like that.

  3. It’s just like the way that so many pro-environment rallies trash the local environment while (supposedly anti-environment) conservative rallies usually clean up after themselves and don’t leave a mess. You’d think that those in favor of the environment would want to personally do their part, but since the government is really supposed to do it, they don’t need to do it themselves.

    I know that Chony, or somebody like that, will dispute my assertion, but everything I’ve seen tells me that left-wing protests trash everything and right-wing protests don’t. Here the local environment is symptomatic of broader attitudes. Conservatives, whatever their failings, do tend to like order and keeping things tidy. Liberal crowds say they want a better world, but are never responsible for themselves and tend to think that trashing the surroundings as a way to stick it to the Man.

    1. That’s bullshit.

    2. They may keep things tidy, but they are protesting in support of fascism.

      1. Re: Tony,

        They may keep things tidy, but they are protesting in support of fascism.

        Actually, from a very strict sense, you’re right: Tea partiers DO protest against a certain fascistic system (the one YOU want) for another sort of fascistic system (the one THEY want.)

        1. Odd. That’s not what I see here in Virginia. There’s a hard libertarian core to the Tea Party here that keep most of the conservatives walking the fiscal-issues-only line.

          But that’s the puritanical legacy we bear: [non-existent super-being] forbid somebody gets something accomplished in the right direction for a change by joining forces with those not yet washed in the blood of the Rand.

          1. You don’t think it bears pondering why you share economic policy beliefs with people who believe that humans and dinosaurs coexisted?

            1. You don’t think it bears pondering why you share your economic policy beliefs with people who were responsible for the starvation of millions?

              1. Um, no, you literally share exactly the same economic policy beliefs with people who are a) your contemporaries and b) believe humans and dinosaurs coexisted. I don’t share any belief whatsoever with whatever long-dead autocrat you’re trying to lump me in with, except maybe that the sky is blue.

                1. Except that you probably share some “exact same” policy prescriptions with some of those people. That was the point.

                2. Hate to burst your bubble, but there are still pro-Stalin and pro-Mao people alive today, both in North America and abroad.

                  Although, the whole guilt-by-association thing is pretty stupid and logically unsound. After all, Charles Manson believes in global warming.

                3. What percentage of members of the Tea party believe dinosaurs and humans co-existed? Do you have some actual data on that? And surely you share at least one or two beliefs with every dead autocrat?

                  1. Of course he doesn’t have actual data. It’s much easier to take a cheap shot like that because every “just knows” that Christians believe dinosaurs and humans coexist. Just like everyone “just knows” that Sarah Palin said “I can see Russia from my house”.

                    Leftism is easy because you just parrot the party line.

                4. Tony, how old are you? Really… you think the Tea Party was founded to show support that humans and dinosaurs coexist? That’s your arguement?

                  Guess what, Obama and the Democrats are socialists, just like the Nazis. And lefties support child rape. Look at Hollywood and Roman Polanski.

                  You’re in league with people who would anally rape childen and commit genocide. You’re a sick sick man, Tony.

                5. That is a lie, and you are a liar.

                  1. wait, let me get my violin…

            2. I share my economic beliefs with William Hanna and Joseph Barbera?

              Huh, never knew they were libertarian, but now that I look at it, Scooby Doo was some subversive, Randian shit right there.

              1. Nah, they were socialists. Notice how the bad guy dressed as a pirate or ghost was either a crooked land developer or a shady attorney.

                Then again, John Edwards is a shady attorney… may hafta rethink this.

            3. “You don’t think it bears pondering why you share economic policy beliefs with people who believe that humans and dinosaurs coexisted?”

              Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why you’re such a bigot?

              1. Tony lies to himself first and foremost…

        2. Fascism is the outcropping of socialism. Its the natural end game of all socialist thinking. A government that must control every aspect of the economy must control every ounce of human behavior.

          1. It’s also the outcropping of Nationalism. That’s why both sides of the aisle get to claim the other is acting Fascist. Technically, they’re both right.

      2. Do you know who else protested in favor of fascism?

        1. Pete Seeger?

      3. Pot… kettle, Tony.

      4. ummmm…GM

      5. They may keep things tidy, but they are protesting in support of fascism.

        This from the party of high speed trains and making them run on time.

        1. Mussolini was just misunderstood, especially by neanderthals like you, Paul.

        2. Is there something wrong with that?

          1. Double-plus good!

            1. I know you like Orwell but he was a socialist. We don’t like that.

    3. Funny, I never thought of this before, but you’re right. Environmentalists are actually against neatness.

      1. They’re pro-entropy.

  4. Violence? That isn’t violnce, it’s a jobs program!

  5. Violence in the Defense of Statism Is No Vice!

    1. Being “largely peaceful” in the name of statism is no virtue.

  6. there are libertarians who claim to be anarchists.

    1. ‘Libertarians’ who riot over spending cuts or free trade must have a weird definition of libertarianism.

      1. Do. Not. Respond. To. The. Incredibly. Moronic. Troll.

        1. oops. read. old. mex. below.

          1. Re: OO,

            I.Was.Too.Late.To.Stop.You.Moron

    2. Re: OO,

      there are libertarians who claim to be anarchists.

      Yes, we do – anarchocapitalists, to be more accurate.

      The people that destroy property can claim to be anarchists all they want, but they’re nothing more than street thugs.

      1. Don’t forget that these “anarchists” are destroying property > in response to cuts to the government

        Hardcore anarchy, eh?

      2. Ha ha. The only real anarchist is a peaceful anarchist! Capitalism and anarchy are totally compatible! Nice sleight of hand. Let’s go to the dictionary.

        an?ar?chist
        noun \?a-n?r-kist, -?n?r-\
        Definition of ANARCHIST
        1
        : a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
        2
        : a person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order

        Now we can argue about who has the best definitions.
        Coming soon–Lutherans: Are they real Christians?

        1. Green – made of green vegetables, as lettuce, spinach, endive, or chicory: a green salad.

          Party – a person participating in a telephone conversation

          Herp derp.

        2. Re: ?,

          Anarchist means “without structure,” etymologically speaking.

          A person that uses violence to overthrow the established order is NOT necessarily an anarchist, as that would make ANY participant in a civil war an “anarchist,” e.g. socialists, fascists, vegans, etc. So, the definition is wrong.

          Here’s one from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

          anarchism
          1: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups.

        3. Wow, that completely lets those black bloc morons out then–they use violent means to impose statist order.

          1. “black bloc morons”

            RAAAACIST!!!

            1. Kill tha crackaz!

            2. black block anarchists are retarded.

        4. Lutherans: Are they real Christians?

          Yes, and they practice mortification of the flesh by eating Lutefisk and peculiar Jello desserts…….

  7. BIBI DECLARATION OF 2011 – Third World War of Empire

    [Third World War of Empire]

    There has been a Declaration issued, it was issued by Benyamin/
    Binyamin “BiBi Gift from God” Netanyahu Prime Minister of Israel, to the
    multiple standing ovations of the [AIPAC /AZC] American – Israeli Military
    Industrial Complex – the [EMPIRE] , bought and paid for puppets of its
    political system, the Plutocracy of Hypocrisy. The [EMPIRE] needs
    resource there is oil in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, but that is not the
    only place where resources beyond just oil are located that the West is
    now in desperate need of. The present Third World War in which we are
    engaged is a theater of operations which can be easily followed running
    from the Black Sea along the Eastern Mediterranean Sea along the under
    belly of Middle East and Far East and the Eastern Pacific Polar Ice Cap of
    Eastern Russia.

    [Hillary Puppet of the EMPIRE]

    Israel [THE PURE JEWISH ZIONIST APARTHEID STATE] is the crown jewel,
    the largest Pearl in the Nuclear Choke Chain Necklace that the [EMPIRE] is
    building as a tool to control those who are now wearing that choke chain
    necklace. The BiBi Declaration of 2011 , was clear as a bell, an when it was
    given is the very moment that the Islamic World should have heard these
    words, Ask Not For Whome The Bell Tolls, It Tolls For Thee! Hillary Diane
    Rodham Clinton and the Emperor of the Empire are puppets in the big
    game, the creation of the one world government with [THER PURE
    JEWISH ZIONIST APARTHEID STATE] the master race state head . Hillary
    Diane Rodham Clinton is nothing more than a puppet to the greater glory
    of the [EMPIRE], to believe anything other is a mistake . Hillary plays the
    part well, but is still just a puppet, of her master BiBi and [AIPAC/ AZC].

    [The Bibi Declaration of 2011]

    There is a Declaration the BiBi Declaration, the establishment of [THE
    PURE JEWISH ZIONIST APARTHEID STATE] and the establishment of
    the one world government, thru economic globalization, controlled by
    Wall St. , the [IMF ] International Monetary Fund , the World Bank, and The
    Military Industrial Complex of the Plutocracy of Hypocrisy, Nuclear Choke
    Chain Necklace, with the [PURE JEWISH ZIONIST APARTHEID STATE] the
    center Pearl the Tip of the Spear able to reach targets from the Straits
    of Gibraltar , to the Russian Steps, to Pakistan, and points south, control to
    the [EMPIRE] of Europe, the Middle East, and Eastern Russia, just thru its
    Eastern Mediterranean Center Piece Pearl, and Master Race State, and
    that is the BiBi Declaration of [2011 ].

    HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVINIEN

    1. Longtorso killed the wrong hostage.

      1. No – HERCULE is a far more interesting poster than John/Suki. Admittedly, the “tl;dr” factor often comes into play, but so often, it’s pure bramblecrazy goodness.

        If only Underzog and HERCULE would do battle. That could be epic.

        1. I don’t think Underschmuck has the collones to go up against HERCULE.

          1. cojones?

      2. Are you kidding? He’s on my short list for new Reason editor. Five spots down from Jennifer.

    2. Don’t ever change, Herc.

    3. ‘Plutocracy of Hypocrisy’ would be a great name for a band or an art collective or something.

      1. Agreed.
        Also, “Nuclear Choke Chain Necklace”.

  8. The Greek left has no counterpart in US politics, really. The vast majority of American leftists would be considered moderates in Europe.

    1. That, is fucking scary.

  9. “indignant . . . but peaceful, of course. Indignant but peaceful.”

    Bulbous also tapered.

    1. that’s right

  10. Right-wing violence tends to have a higher body count, which is probably why it gets more attention.

    1. Citation? If you’re including war counts and systematic political violence, I think you’re wrong.

      1. Al Qaeda, Taliban, Muslim Brotherhood, Eric Rudolph, Hezbollah, etc.

        1. I can play this game too. Left wing protestors = Khmer Rouge.

          1. Don’t forget the leftist rock-throwers/set-shit-on-firers at the anti-globalization protests.

            1. That was different, FIFY.

              1. HOW was it different?

          2. Don’t forget the holocaust.

            1. Don’t forget Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin.

            2. Because the Nazis were left-wing statists, or because they were right-wing racists? Or were they right-wing statists and left wing racists? Can somebody please tell me what nasty things we’re supposed to be saying about liberals TODAY? I’m so confused!

        2. Unfortunately, none of those examples even remotely qualifies as “right-wing” in a Western political spectrum. Unless you live within the confines of a university.

          1. Al Qaeda is absolutely right wing on the Western political spectrum. Extreme right wing, no doubt, but they’re right at home on that end of the (flawed) spectrum.

            Sort of like Greek rioteers are extreme left wing, but Hinkle lumps them into the same category as mainstream US liberals.

            1. ehhh… that’s from a social conservative standpoint

              but the economic beliefs of a movement matter as well in the modern world. Social liberalism/conservatism alone is not everything and is not enough for the full label of “right wing” or “left wing”

              1. When one part of the right wing literally wants to bomb another part of the right wing back to the stone age then I think a few more labels are appropriate just to distinguish them.

                1. “When one part of the right wing literally wants to bomb another part of the right wing back to the stone age then I think a few more labels are appropriate just to distinguish them.”

                  Very good way to put it

                2. When one part of the right wing literally wants to bomb another part of the right wing back to the stone age

                  Groups with similar ideologies have been at each other’s throats many times. Think China and India back in the 60s, China and the USSR in the 70s, etc. Not that I’m saying AQ and US conservatives have similar ideologies, but their marked distaste for eachother doesn’t mean they aren’t motivated by some of the same concerns.

                  I do agree that the “spectrum” is inadequate to really analyze things. The Nolan chart is a slight improvement, but still problematic since it’s sometimes unclear which issues belong on which axis. Gun rights and school choice seem to fit in on the “social” axis but that would screw up the classification of conservatives and liberals.

                  We need at least 10 dimensions imho.

              2. And we keep on and on being bombarded with assertions that one oppressive totalitarian system is “extreme left” and another oppressive totalitarian system is “extreme right”, and if anyone notices, smokescreens of rhetoric about “extremes meeting”.

                Does extreme heat “meet” absolute zero? Does high gravity “meet” weightlessness? Clear as Boston harbor.

              3. Well they don’t really have a clear economic philosophy as far as I know. Of course, the Greek rioters don’t have a visible social philosophy but that doesn’t stop Hinkle from labeling them left wing.

            2. The invisible unicorn called the left-right political spectrum continues to infect the petty-minded, unquestioned, unexamined, just reflexively referred to as though it were an objective means of political analysis.

        3. They’re right wing because they’re religious? Or maybe because they like guns? I’m confused.

          1. Because it suits Tulpa’s rhetorical purposes.

          2. Their defining characteristic is belief in government control of personal noneconomic choices, which means they can’t be on the left wing. Seeing as how they have no coherent economic positions, it’s most fitting to put them on the right wing.

            1. Islamofascists of all stripes denounce capitalism as part of what makes western society so wretched. So no they are not rightwing.

            2. William Jennings Bryan supported Prohibition – a social issue which, if I understand correctly, fits your definition of “noneconomic.” Bryan was also a Protestant evangelical who didn’t want public schools to teach that man evolved from lower animals.

              Bryan was also against the gold standard, ran as a left-wing presidential candidate against more conservative candidates, served in a Progressive administration until his lefty peacenik inclinations prompted him to resign, etc.

              Bryan seems to me to qualify as a member of the religious left wing.

              1. The definitions have changed a bit over the past 100 years.

            3. The left wing doesn’t believe in governmental control of personal non-economic choices? I am pretty sure that’s total bullshit.

              1. I say bullshit. Left-wing Nancy Pelosi forced left-wing Obama’s wicked Obamacare upon every inch of my body-inside and out and including my womb.

                When the only choice is government choice there is no choice.

                Left-wing Control Freaks-take your filthy hands off my body!

          3. They’re right wing because many come from privileged backgrounds and used to be socialist.

        4. Al Qaeda, Taliban, Muslim Brotherhood, Eric Rudolph, Hezbollah, etc.

          Hey, there’s this thing out now, called a bare assertion fallacy. You should try it. It’s a little smoky, hint of citrus, but very smooth.

          Oh wait, looks like you already have.

        5. All believe in a central absolute authority with said authority having minute control over everything. Quasi-socialistic economic ideas provide the financial structure of the desired state.

          Social conservatives are not right wing. They are left wing. Both secular and religious types lead to a singular totalitarian authority that meets out what is best for ‘the people’.

          There are no extreme right wing groups because at the extremes of the right wing ‘group’ is unneeded and unwanted.

          1. That’s not what right and left wing are generally understood to mean. You’re thinking of the top and bottom corners of the Nolan chart.

          2. I always thought that socialism meant that the means of production is owned by the people and that communism meant that the means of production is owned by the state. In other words, one could devise a socialist system in which private capital is owned not by management but by labor. In theory, you could have a kind of free-market socialism in which labor steers the rudder of industry and workers are in charge of their own economic destiny. They’d own the same capital they use to produce goods and services, so why not? Obviously, communism would be much worse because it means capital is concentrated in a central authority, by necessity a despotic one.

            Capitalism then is a realistic middle ground. Instead of central control of capital or diffuse control among ‘the people’ (the other extreme), capital is owned by a small group of private industrialists and financiers who control the economic futures of a great many of the lower and middle class. Whereas socialism of the kind I’ve described, where the people are in control of their own economic destiny, is a pipe dream that only exists in the left-wing’s wildest fantasies.

            I much prefer capitalism anyway. I’m doing all right and don’t care much for people who have to work so hard to make a living. Let them eat cake — if they can afford it; otherwise, they’re out of luck I guess.

        6. Why do you define these groups as “right wing”?

    2. Ummm…what?

      1. You weren’t violent, you were just agrarian reformers who got carried away in your passionate defense of the workers

      2. Nominal economic policy is incidental; what really matters is political structure. Absolute dictatorship is the antithesis of left-wing politics. Not that these labels are particularly useful today. The American left, confronted with radical antigovernment ideology from the “right” (in reality a left-wing smokescreen for a right-wing oligarchic order), has found it necessary to appeal to government power to secure its traditional goals. Not because left wing politics and strong government power have anything to do with each other, but because it’s the only way to champion individual rights and dignity in the face of a movement bent on destroying those aspects of government that work toward those ends (but not the ones that support raw centralized force).

        1. Absolute dictatorship is the antithesis of left-wing politics.

          In theory, maybe, but in practice, it’s where it always ends up, because you need expert guidance to properly run an economy. That guidance must be directed by someone.

          Kim Il-Sung’s North Korea is the epitome of a far left country.

          1. There isn’t an alternative to a government-guided economy, libertarian fantasies notwithstanding. There’s always going to be economic policy. The question is, to what end? Militarism, nationalism, and centralized authority (like North Korea), or egalitarianism and individual liberty?

            1. Re: Tony,

              There isn’t an alternative to a government-guided economy, libertarian fantasies notwithstanding. There’s always going to be economic policy.

              Equivocation
              equivocation
              goes together
              with economics illiteracy!
              This, I tell you, brother,
              Leftist boobs can’t be without it!

              Economic policy is NOT the same as “government-guided.” You can have an economic policy that states “I will not intervene” whereas government-guided means government guided, i.e. full central planning.

              1. Yeah but you want to claim that laissez-faire policy is not just better policy (i.e., produces better outcomes), but is God’s heavenly order, even if it results in worse outcomes than alternatives.

                1. Beats the fuck out of socialism.

                  1. plus its easier!

                2. Re: Tony,

                  Yeah but you want to claim that laissez-faire policy is not just better policy ([i.e.] produces better outcomes), but is God’s heavenly order, even if it results in worse outcomes than alternatives.

                  Worse outcomes? Can you provide an example? And please, do not try to pass an example of intervention as “Laissez-faire,” I have little time for shysters.

                  By the way, I have no idea how god would order his things in heaven, I already have enough worry about ordering my kids’ toys as it is.

                  1. there is no such thing as no economic policy

                    the lassez-faire policy you guys espouse is just as much a policy as anything else, government or not. You guys complain about government being a monopoly on force, well property rights are force too. Not to mention there are a million details involved in property rights alone: extent of the right to defend/excessive force, are courts mandatory?, can people own land?, the formal definitions of property and title and real property (if it’s even ordered like that), and a million other issues. There just is no natural, “free” market – it’s all human constructs and behavioral/societal conventions.

                    1. Re: Edwin,

                      You guys complain about government being a monopoly on force, well property rights are force too.

                      You sure live in a very tough neighborhood, Edwin…

                      Not to mention there are a million details involved in property rights alone[…]

                      How many times have you gone to court to settle that your body is yours?

                      World, meet the idiot who equates property rights to “land ownership.”

                    2. You sure live in a very tough neighborhood, Edwin…

                      You don’t think that’s just a bit glib considering the implications?

                      You could bitch about government force behind drug raids or public libraries or anything else and I could just say “you sure live in a rough neighborhood!”

                    3. Property rights are force too? How do you figure?

                    4. Property rights are force too? How do you figure?

                      Because they call for shooting someone for stepping over an imaginary line 100 feet away from you?

                    5. That just means force can accompany property rights. The statement “A sometimes accompanies B” is much different than “A = B”

                    6. The statement “A sometimes accompanies B” is much different than “A = B”

                      So the hypothetical force behind taxation is OK because it’s rarely actualized?

                    7. Don’t put normative statements in my mouth. I never said anything was OK. I was asking him to explain an equivocation.

                      Though, I would say that one is okay and the other is not, but the reason has little to do with actual vs. threatened force. The force involved in protecting one’s own property(including oneself) is okay and the force behind taking his property because a bunch of people want you to is not okay. The latter has initiated the use of force the former has retaliated the initiator of its use.

                      Now it’s time for you to throw some more poetry and equivocations my way.

                    8. The force involved in protecting one’s own property(including oneself) is okay and the force behind taking his property because a bunch of people want you to is not okay. The latter has initiated the use of force the former has retaliated the initiator of its use.

                      If someone steps over an imaginary line 100 feet away from you, that is not initiation of force. So when you respond to this action with force, it is you who are initiating force.

                    9. What? Are you talking about property rights or only the specific case of when someone doesn’t mark their property clearly? Or a distance of a hundred feet? If you break into my house, you have initiated force against me and threatened my family. Are you saying that yards need to be sealed with higher walls or what??

                    10. I’m asking how you can credibly consider crossing a faraway imaginary line as an initiation of force. I’m specifying a long distance to avoid confusing the issue with the possibility that the trespasser is a threat to your person or your family.

                      Of course, a trespasser is only considered a threat because we expect that people will respect private property lines, and anyone who doesn’t may be presumed to have ill intent.

                      If you and your family were out hiking and decided to take shelter from a rainstorm 100 feet inside a cave, you would probably not feel threatened by someone entering the cave posed a threat to you and yours. How is that different from someone crossing a property line 100 feet from your house? It isn’t, except that you consider the house and its surroundings to be your property while you don’t consider the cave to be your property. So you see, the threat perception is created by the regime of private property.

                      Thus, you can’t justify private property (at least in the area of real estate) by claiming trespassers automatically pose a threat. That would be a circular argument.

                    11. “I’m specifying a long distance to avoid confusing the issue with the possibility that the trespasser is a threat to your person or your family.”

                      Okay I thought I was just misunderstanding you but I no longer think I am. The only aspect of property rights you’re willing to discuss is a hypothetical case where someone unknowingly wanders on to some far corner of someone’s large unfenced back yard the owner purposely leaves unmarked because he likes shooting people. Yes there should be some objective laws put in place so that a psycho can’t leave his land unmarked and lure people on to his land and shoot them for shits and giggles. This does not mean that private property is aggression or something.

                      Do you suppose that the abolition of private property would result in less force and conflict? Everybody fighting for their portion of everbody’s everything?? If any equivocation is appropriate, Private property is peace.

                    12. “So you see, the threat perception is created by the regime of private property.”

                      So you think we should abolish private property?

                      Yours first.

                    13. “Because they call for shooting someone for stepping over an imaginary line 100 feet away from you?”

                      No, property rights call for no such thing. You don’t have to shoot people who walk onto your property. You have the right to ask them to leave, and they refuse, then you can use force. That right of force is backed up by the fact that you acquired that property through homesteading or voluntary exchange. An invader did no such thing. They are interfering with property being utilized by somebody else, which is an affront to a person’s self determination.

                      Even if you do shoot a person for simply walking onto your property, that doesn’t mean that the justice system will automatically give you a pass. If there were alternatives and that person really wasn’t causing you harm, it is unlikely that even a hard core pro property private judiciary is going to give you a complete pass.

                      Libertarianism is not just “property.” “Property” itself is merely an extension of other virtues that libertarians believe in.

                    14. That right of force is backed up by the fact that you acquired that property through homesteading or voluntary exchange.

                      No, it’s backed up by men with guns with a government ID card. A trespasser is not going to acknowledge the legitimacy of your claim based on the moral force of your argument. It’s yours because the government says it’s yours, and is there to enforce any contracts that spell out your claim. Even “voluntary exchange” has a government suit implicitly looking over your shoulders.

                    15. I think you just misread that statement Tony. He wasn’t saying that the burglars will be scared off by his moral rectitude. It wasn’t a statement of efficacy at all. He was saying that the moral sanction on his use of force to defend his property comes from the fact of reality that he did not use force to acquire it but his mind, his work and voluntary trade.

                    16. Property rights are meaningless if they are not enforced…and certainly in the case of enforcing exclusivity (ie, coercing trespassers to leave), you are initiating force.

                      Some dogmatic libertarians simply redefine force to include trespassing, ostensibly resolving this issue. To my mind redefining commonly used words to fit your philosophy is a pusilanimous technique they learnt from leftists, but YMMV.

                    17. “Property rights are meaningless if they are not enforced”

                      I guess, if you mean it like how you might say.”Engineering is meaningless if nobody’s gonna build any bridges”. That doesn’t mean that engineering is not needed to build a bridge. If you mean that philosophy has no say in determining what is yours “by right” or what you may do “by right” then all that’s left is that which is yours by others’ failure to come collect it from you and when they do they will have done so by just as much right as you ever had to your life or garden or video games or whatever a tulpa is into. “Might is Right” is wrong.

                    18. But there are plenty of cases where libertarians would say that one’s personal concepts of right and wrong should have no impact on the law. Why should the wrongness of unauthorized entry into a particular area of real estate one claims as one’s own be legally punishable while other wrongs are not?

                      I mean, I believe in private property, but for utilitarian reasons. The natural law approach to justifying it seems like arbitrary nonsense to me; a feeble attempt to “grandfather in” British customs into a supposedly culture-neutral system of natural law.

                    19. You don’t have to shoot people who walk onto your property. You have the right to ask them to leave, and they refuse, then you can use force.

                      It’s still force even if it’s preceded by a warning. Just because a mugger tells you to give him your wallet before he shoots you, doesn’t mean he’s not using force if you refuse and he shoots you.

                    20. Sure but who initiated the use of force?

                    21. But you’re right. It’s still force. The distinction is that it is the retaliatory use of force against its initiator.

                    22. Tell us where you live, Edwin, so we can raid your fridge and cut donuts in your lawn with four-wheelers.

                      NOW, how do you view property rights?

                3. What little ‘economics’ exists in the various Abrahamic strains tends towards the ‘each according to need’ idea. The pursuit of wealth is frowned upon.

                  Laissez faire isn’t God’s Heavenly Order, it’s Nature’s. Without restraint, commerce happens in a simple, very easy to describe manner–you give value to get value. Everything operates on this basis. It even shows up in the animal kingdom.

                  1. Laissez faire isn’t God’s Heavenly Order, it’s Nature’s. Without restraint, commerce happens in a simple, very easy to describe manner–you give value to get value. Everything operates on this basis. It even shows up in the animal kingdom.

                    Even if I grant that for humans (I don’t–there is no such thing as a national economic policy found in nature), surely you don’t mean for this to be a defense of laissez-faire. Why should we base our economics on norms found in nature–where life is nasty, brutish, and short?

                    1. Okay Thomas Hobbes.

            2. How do you propose to gaurantee egalitarianism without sacrificing individual liberty? Not that you intended to convey any real ideas or define any terms. In fact the only thing that statement was designed to do was to un-define terms at random so that nothing seems to mean anything and then repackage it in a way that is meant to give people a certain feeling deep down that you’re here to help. Are you training to be the Minister of Propaganda?

              1. How do you propose to gaurantee egalitarianism without sacrificing individual liberty?

                I don’t think one negates the other. You can reduce the wealth of the top tier by quite a lot without sacrificing an ounce of their meaningful individual liberty, whereas for people of less means, a small increase can meaningfully increase their liberty.

                Equality in terms of civil rights is totally non-zero-sum with respect to liberty.

                But I don’t believe that egalitarian policies are anymore “enforced” than policies that result in stratification.

                1. Re: Tony,

                  I don’t think one negates the other. You can reduce the wealth of the top tier by quite a lot without sacrificing an ounce of their meaningful individual liberty[…]

                  Meaningful meaning: Meaningful to Tony.

                2. When you talk about a government endowed with the power to decide which of your liberties are meaningful to you and whether they would be more meaningful if taken from you and given to someone else, you are talking about a dictatorship. You’re just using nice words that make you feel nice.

                3. No True Scotsman. Cf. petitio principii.

                  Your argument works only if you accept the outcome (“without sacrificing an ounce of their meaningful individual liberty”) as your premise. If I don’t buy your definition of “meaningful” your statement is a non sequitur.

                  1. If I don’t buy your definition of “meaningful” your statement is a non sequitur.

                    I know–you want to pretend that $20 taken from a billionaire is a worse offense against humanity than letting a poor child starve to death in poverty.

                    1. Humanity is a vengeful god and He damands the ritual sacrificing of individuals at His altar. Millionaires and Billionaires satisfy him most. We have to feed more individuals to Humanity. He is getting angry and depressing the economy. Bring him millionaires and billionaires, let thier blood satisfy Him that he may awaken the animal spirits and spare the poor! Also, your belief in an individuals right to his own life is religious.

                    2. Prove that taking twenty bucks “from a billionaire” will *prevent* the starvation death of a poor child.

                      C’mon, fucking do it.

                    3. They tell me on TV that just ten cents a day is enough. I don’t believe them either. Another guy on TV told me: it’s my money and I need it now!

                    4. That’s fallacious logic. One could argue that poor child starving to death is because of government intervention preventing his/her parents from getting a job, acquiring money, and then using that money to buy food. Also, no one here wants children to starve to death that’s why we have organizations that collect donations and then they give those donations to needy people. What do they call those things?…..hmmm…oh wait charities! that’s right. And considering most rich people donate large amounts of their money to charities consider yourself effectively pwnd

              2. It’s pretty simple how leftism becomes soft or hard despotism: leftists want to create an egalitarian society where everyone has security. To do so requires invalidating peoples property rights. Why? Because leftists hate being wrong. If socialism fails, then it’s not because it’s an illogical system that doesn’t suit human nature, it’s because it didn’t go far enough, therefore the state must have more leeway to plan things.

                1. So I take it you’re willing to take responsibility for the consequences of incremental laissez-faire/lower taxes policies? Or did the Bush tax cuts not create any jobs or prosperity because the system isn’t yet libertarian enough?

                  Property rights are not absolute anywhere in the universe. Some of us believe there are rights that are more important than one’s government-created claim to whatever one gets one’s hands on.

                  1. “So I take it you’re willing to take responsibility for the consequences of incremental laissez-faire/lower taxes policies? Or did the Bush tax cuts not create any jobs or prosperity because the system isn’t yet libertarian enough?”

                    Well let’s see, I can think of at least a dozen unlibertarian things that Bush the Lesser did. But if you want to falsely equivacate Republican ideaology with libertarian minarchism than go ahead, I’ve long since realized that you’re the most intellectually dishonest person here.

                    “Property rights are not absolute anywhere in the universe. Some of us believe there are rights that are more important than one’s government-created claim to whatever one gets one’s hands on.”

                    The right to property is at least tangible. It is a fact of nature that each and every one of us has control over our actions, which means we can create stuff and that which we labor to create is our property. Your social justice nonsense is just socialist politcians making shit up so that the people give them power.

                    1. But if you want to falsely equivacate Republican ideaology with libertarian minarchism than go ahead

                      If your policies can’t show progress even when applied incrementally, but only can truly flourish in an ideal world, then they are pointless and lacking in evidence, as you explained yourself above when talking about socialism.

                      On economic policy, Republicans are just libertarians who have to deal with the practical reality of actually having policy authority. If tax cuts for the rich don’t create jobs and prosperity in our system, then why bother with them when all they do is explode the deficit?

                      The right to property is at least tangible. It is a fact of nature that each and every one of us has control over our actions, which means we can create stuff and that which we labor to create is our property.

                      It’s not a fact of nature, it’s not even a human custom that goes back very far. I realize it’s the central axiom of your beliefs, but it’s still hogwash. You don’t have control over your actions if you’re ruled by a despot, and your property doesn’t belong to you either. Property rights are delivered by governments.

                      Your social justice nonsense is just socialist politcians making shit up so that the people give them power.

                      Funny, I thought it was about democratizing power, not concentrating it. Pretty it up anyway you like, there is no getting around the fact that if you reject social justice but want to apply divine status to property rights, you are defending oligarchy. That’s what you get when taxing a person’s wealth is considered more of an affront to liberty than a person’s inability to get healthcare.

                    2. “If your policies can’t show progress even when applied incrementally, but only can truly flourish in an ideal world, then they are pointless and lacking in evidence, as you explained yourself above when talking about socialism.”

                      Dude, there is NOTHING libertarian about spending trillions of dollars on two wars. You defend Barack Obama’s stimulus by saying it didn’t go far enough, thus you are defending the basic principle of the matter. As far as I know, no libertarian believes we should have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus your comparison is bullshit because Bush was never a libertarian wheras you support Barack Obama because he’s a liberal.

                    3. On economic policy, Republicans are just libertarians who have to deal with the practical reality of actually having policy authority.

                      Statistically, this is pure bullshit. Statistical analysis of the spending vs. saving tendencies of congress members shows that there is no difference between the parties. There may be a difference between where they want to spend things, but going on spending sprees is a bipartisan orgy.

                      You can’t seriously argue that Republicans who want to cut taxes are really libertarians when they consistently and completely ignore the other half of the equation. It’s the same as arguing that Democrats are the same as Greens who have to “have to deal with the practical reality of actually having policy authority” because they happen to share some characteristics. By your logic, I could argue that Democrats = libertarians because of some vague similarities in general attitudes towards drug policy that don’t actually result in the Dems doing anything real.

                    4. Untermensch,

                      My accusation is not a casual one. Libertarians and Republicans, nowadays, use exactly the same language on economic policy. I don’t know who stole from whom, but that’s a fact. And it’s easy to discern since it’s so fucking simplistic.

                      So Republicans lie about being fiscally responsible and spend like crazy people when they have power? Why should I expect anything whatsoever different from you guys… you can’t even accept new revenues to help balance budgets. Sounds like you’re playing the same transparent game the GOP is… claim to be fiscally responsible but have the ulterior motive of getting vast policy changes enacted via extreme fiscal imprudence.

                  2. Fuck you, Tony. Try to take some of my personal property, and I’ll pound the living fuck out of you. Fucking totalitarian. The body count from your belief system is staggering. Try to fuck with me directly, and the only way they’ll identify what’s left of you is through DNA.

                    1. CC,

                      That would explain the corpses of tax collectors littering your lawn. We have a real internet tough guy right here.

                    2. Tax collectors are the left’s well armed henchmen. Try to do the job yourselves. Fucking collectivist trash.

                    3. I am not interested in the tchotchkes that populate your mobile home.

                  3. Re: Tony,

                    So I take it you’re willing to take responsibility for the consequences of incremental laissez-faire/lower taxes policies?

                    Goes back to you: Are YOU willing to take responsibility for the very real and known consequences of an interventionist policy, e.g. Great Depressions, Inflation, Depopulation [see: Detroit], Capital Destruction, Famines, Environmental Disasters [see: Aral Sea]?

                  4. GWB has nothing to do with libertarianism.

                  5. You’re not a true liberal, either of the left-wing or right-wing variety, if you believe rights are government-created. Liberalism is founded in natural rights. Natural rights and liberalism are practically synonyms.

                2. I come from a pretty well off family in North Jersey ande being here I’ve pretty much only hung around other rich people, and I can tell you rich people can indeed pay Tony’s propose taxes without any serious hit to their lifestyle

                  my beef is that liberals like Tony ultimately propse the crappeist policies that will obviously not achieve their goal of creating more opportunity for the poor.
                  Their goal isn’t the problem it’s that they suck at it.

                  1. Edwin, I can’t speak for other liberals, but my belief is that any solvable problem requires simply having enough money thrown at it. That can be for basic research into the nature of and potential solutions for a problem for all I care. I also think many, or most, of this country’s social problems and lack of upward mobility are a result of wealth disparity–now greater than at any time since the great depression. This will take a complex set of tweaks to fix, but what I don’t really buy into is attempts to fix people’s emotional states or anything that smells of treating people in different economic strata as somehow different types of people, which is where some liberal policy ideas go wrong (but where right-wing economic policy ideas find their justification–how many times have we heard that progressive taxation is tantamount to violating equal protection?).

                    1. More money, please. Shenequa is pregnant again.

                    2. More money, please. Shenequa is pregnant again.

                      How do we get ignorant white people to keep voting for us?

                    3. my belief is that any solvable problem requires simply having enough money thrown at it.

                      That is the essence of your problem.

                      Education spending per pupil has doubled in the past forty years, while education results have remained more or less unchanged.

                      Spending on the War on Drugs continues to increase, with no positive results and a decrease in civil liberties.

                      Military spending is ballooning out of control, and we’re still mucking about in three wars, with no good end in sight.

                      The stimulus spending, and budget deficits in the trillions, have not had any positive effect on the economy, which continues to languish.

                      Tony, perhaps you should seriously analyze your assumption here, and see if you might be open to other ideas besides spending more money. It’s the ideas that count.

                    4. Joe M,

                      I don’t disagree with your points. I didn’t mean just throwing money at sectors and hoping for the best. I mean really getting invested in them–basic research, testing outcomes included. The WoD is surely a policy that is simply based on poisoned assumptions. If you wanted to solve the “drug problem” in that way, there is surely an amount of money that could enforce the necessary police state to make prohibition work, but it would never be acceptable. Obviously the right policy assumptions are necessary.

                    5. “Edwin, I can’t speak for other liberals, but my belief is that any solvable problem requires simply having enough money thrown at it.”

                      That’s the single dumbest thing I’ve ever read on the Internet.

                      “I also think many, or most, of this country’s social problems and lack of upward mobility are a result of wealth disparity…”

                      Wait, no, that is.

                      Wealth disparity doesn’t cause people to refuse to accept the free education they’re offered. It doesn’t cause people to make the choice to commit crimes. It doesn’t cause pregnancies or addictions.

                      All it really is, is an excuse for theft and vote-buying.

                    6. “Edwin, I can’t speak for other liberals, but my belief is that any solvable problem requires simply having enough money thrown at it”

                      Wait, I thought you were PARODYING liberals with this statement. You mean, you actually know you believe something this inane and would actually put it in those words? I’m confused.

                      Most problems are not caused by lack of money. Even poverty is not caused by lack of money.

                  2. Could, but won’t. All you “tax the rich” folks ignore the proximity and custody issues with money. The money passes through the rich folks hands first – no matter how much you take, they will still retain what they feel is fair, and the loss occurs further down the chain.

                    As an example, assume business owner earns 10 million in profit, pays 2m in taxes, pays himself, 6m, and puts 2m back in the business as bonuses, new hires, expansion.

                    Now tax him another million. Do you think that million comes from his own cut? NO It is now 6m for him, 3m taxes, and 1m to employees and business.

                    The middle class pays the vast majority of any increase on the “rich”

                    1. INFORG,

                      Two problems with that theory. One, it’s false (there is no significant relationship between tax rates, at realistic levels anyway, and employment levels, productivity, or economic growth). Two, it amounts to policy by extortion. So we should just keep cutting taxes forever, or what? Why don’t we at least tax capital gains at the same rate we tax middle class people’s paychecks?

                    2. Dear God do I love causation fallacies.

                    3. “So we should just keep cutting taxes forever, or what?”

                      How about we just leave the rates where they are now, which is NOT a tax cut?

                    4. And what is the fiscal justification for leaving them as they are?

                    5. “Why don’t we at least tax capital gains at the same rate we tax middle class people’s paychecks?”

                      Sure, by all means, let’s cut the current income tax rate down to the current capital gains tax rate!

                      But here’s why we don’t raise the capital gains tax – Because then people invest less, the economy grows less, and middle-class people’s paychecks get an awful lot smaller. Also, tax revenues may decrease. Yep. I know this is very diffcult for liberals to understand, but rasing the tax rate does not always raise the total tax revenue collected. Sometimes it lowers it by discouraging the generation of the income that is being taxed. When the capital gains tax was CUT in 1978, the total revenue from capital gains tax increased. When the capital gainst tax was CUT in 1981, the total revenue from capital gains tax increased. When the capital gains tax was RAISED in 1981, the total revenue collected from capital gains tax decreased. And so forth and so on. Liberals have a very, very hard time grasping this concept. Just because you “charge” people more for something doesn’t mean you’ll make more. You can set up a lemonade stand and sell your lemonade for $10 a glass, but the kid next to you selling for 50 cents a glass may well make more than you.

                  3. What is a “rich” person anyway? How about a retired school teacher who, over a lifetime, has lived consistently below her means, invested regularly and conservatively, and now has a $1 million in net worth she plans to live off of for the next 20 years until she dies? Is she “rich”? Those are the kind of rich people I know. I don’t know the kind who drive Mercedes and wear fancy watches and have a “lifestyle”. I know the kind who work hard, spend much less than they can afford, and amass a million over a lifetime so they can be financially secure from age 50 on even if they don’t work. You know – 70% of the nation’s millionaires.
                    I don’t think raising taxes on people who make more than $250K a year is going to hurt the economy much or raise unemployment much. I don’t think it’s going to raise tax revenue much either though. The net benefit will likely be a wash, so why bother, except to look tough on high income. Because high income is a crime. Apparently.

                    1. Wow! There are teachers making enough money to have a million dollars saved by the time they retire? As a tax-payer, that’s too much! We need to find some way to cut their pay drastically. We’re running a deficit! The savings have to come from somewhere!

                3. now you just need somebody who can GET THINGS DONE

                  1. Because Obama said, on TV, that the reason for raising taxes is NOT to gain revenue, but just to make things fair.

                    Which is bullshit.

                    1. Because why consider fairness when we could have an obscenely unfair system justified by freshman-level bullshit about property rights?

                    2. What’s “unfair”?

                      Some people work hard, do well.

                      Some people don’t work at all, do poorly.

                      Some people work hard and have bad luck and do poorly anyway.

                      Some people don’t work, have good luck, and do well anyway.

                      The third and fourth groups are the rarest. I have no problem voluntarily helping the third. I have no problem with the luck of the fourth — it’s not my loss.

                      I see no reason why I should be forced to support the second.

                    3. So luck is a “rare” factor just because you say so?

                      You don’t think which family you happen to be born into plays a huge role in your later success or lack thereof?

        2. You can’t have one without the other.

          /sinatra

          1. “Not because left wing politics and strong government power have anything to do with each other”

            HAH! Thanks for the laugh.

            1. It’s only because you live in a world where there is such a thing as “less” or “more” government that you are confused. Liberalism, traditionally the end of the spectrum that favored individual liberty over centralized authority, found cause to support strong government action to further the goals of liberalism in the mid-20th century. The debate inside your head is happening in a premodern paradigm–both sides utilize the exiting government order for their ends, while libertarians are off in their own world in which they suppose you can reduce the basic authority of government–simple legislative power.

              1. Moar government kontrol = moar freedom!

                herp derp

                1. So… the more government we have, the more bureaucrats, the more three-capital-lettered agencies, the more laws… the better?

                  God, thanks for setting me straight, Tony! I had it wrong all this time!

                  1. It’s not about more or less bureaucracy in a vacuum in which one direction is good and the other evil. Maybe for one issue a hands-off policy is the best. Maybe for another, strong intervention is needed.

                    The problem is thinking freedom equals strictly tying government’s hands so that it is forced to deliver certain policy that is a result of these restrictions rather than a calculation of needs and results. If someone is mugging you, is a hobbled, inactive government what you really want with respect to your liberty?

                    1. Re: Tony,

                      The problem is thinking freedom equals strictly tying government’s hands so that it is forced to deliver certain policy that is a result of these restrictions[…]

                      Stupid Constitution!

                      […]rather than a calculation of needs and results.

                      Because bureaucracies really can calculate! You heard it here for the 1 trillionth time, folks!!!

                    2. Stupid Constitution!

                      Why do you give a fuck about the constitution? It hardly endorses your political worldview. It in fact allows for broad discretion with respect to economic policy, whether you like it or not.

                      Because bureaucracies really can calculate! You heard it here for the 1 trillionth time, folks!!!

                      They can, in theory, much better than the random outcomes of the market, which doesn’t, even in theory, have a conscious appreciation of human well-being. But carry on living in a world of cartoon characters. I suspect you exempt the government bureaucrats known as soldiers from this cartoon.

                    3. “They can, in theory, much better than the random outcomes of the market, which doesn’t, even in theory, have a conscious appreciation of human well-being.”

                      I’m pretty sure I argued that they don’t. I am dissapoint.

                    4. “Why do you give a fuck about the constitution?”

                      Why don’t you?

                    5. I give a fuck about it, but I don’t worship it as a sacred text. Lots of good ideas, but a bit dusty and could use some work.

                    6. “They can, in theory, much better than the random outcomes of the market…”

                      You have no idea what you’re talking about. Your ignorance is so deep it’s hard to know where to begin…

                    7. “If someone is mugging you, is a hobbled, inactive government what you really want with respect to your liberty?”

                      How could an unlimited, activist government prevent a violent crime before it happened or immediately upon its start?

                    8. No, if someone is mugging me I want the freedom to own a gun.

              2. The debate inside your head is happening in a premodern paradigm[…]

                You neardenthal! You should have postmodern debates in your head!

                [Also known as “schizophrenia”]

                1. DEVO exhorted me to be a post-post-modern man, and I failed to heed their sage advice.

        3. “Absolute dictatorship is the antithesis of left-wing politics.”

          Tony Judt:
          “Centralized planning leads to centralized killing.”
          Absolute dictators are structural to left-wing political structures, since the “New Soviet Man” doesn’t exist.
          You’re full of shit.

          1. The left could really benefit from more Tony Judt’s. His critique of the post-war French left (“Past Imperfect”) is being republished soon.

        4. dictatorship is the antithesis of left-wing politics.

          That makes you an enemy of the proletariat and their rightful dictatorship over the means of production.

        5. This statement is completely ignorant of political history/philosophy and overly reliant on definitions of “left” vs. “right” only applicable to post-war America. Marx very much considered himself a child of the enlightenment, and that his thought and philosophy was a continuation of the values advanced during the previous century. In fact, your idea that we need to use government power (aka the legitimate use of force) to prevent “oligarchy” is much in the same line of thinking as Marx, who viewed that a dictatorship could have positive, enlightenment-based outcomes. In fact, there are still Marxist groups today who view democracy (in any form, regardless of the campaign finance/lobby structure) is just a bourgeoisie illusion.

          Political structure is important, but ideas have “structure” too. Your idea that leftists are just using government to balance out inequalities/prevent an oligarchy was also the justification used by Soviets, Maoists, Khmer Rouge etc… But such a political structure can lead to massive violence as much as any aristocratic-military nationalism.

        6. Absolute dictatorship is born from those who believe the Laws of Man are superior to the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.

          This is why the Declaration of Independence is the exception in the world-the rights of the people are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” rather than rights imposed by the Laws of Man.

          “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the seperate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle”

    3. Re: Sinic,

      Right-wing violence tends to have a higher body count, which is probably why it gets more attention.

      There are three types of accountants: Those that know how to count and those that don’t…

      And there’s one type of leftist boob: One that cannot count.

    4. I’m being spoofed quite a bit here, but I’ll add one comment – violence in protests is really of minimal concern to me.

      The violence inherent in the capitalist system does infinitely more damage than any group of protesters could.

      1. You should have let the spoofers speak for you.

        1. Xenocles|7.5.11 @ 11:48AM|#
          You should have let the spoofers speak for you.

          …. sorry, havent stopped laughing yet…

      2. unless it’s your head caved in by a rock…oh that’s what must have happened…sorry to bother you, you douchebag

      3. Almost. Violence is a means, not necessarily a productive one in the modern world–it’s likely to be used as an argument against the policies being sought. That there’s not violence among Tea Partiers is an indication that they are either sophisticated or complacent. They certainly employ an undercurrent of violent rhetoric, but my feeling is they are actually comparatively comfortable in their lives and feel that they have too much to lose to do anything rash. Despite Tea Partier rhetoric, their main beef seems to be that a Democrat was elected president, which, while nightmarish to them, is still too abstract a grievance to justify truly committed protest.

        1. What kind of violence will there be if Obama loses in ’12?

          1. Before or after the inevitable economic collapse?

            1. Still playing Nostradamus, Tony?

              I’ll concede, the economy MIGHT collapse, especially if this administration keeps monkey-fucking with it.

              1. And I meant violence just because of a potential Obama loss in ’12. No other factors, just him losing re-election.

                I’ll bet you $3.50 riots would happen.

                1. Maybe, but there’s no way they’ll be nearly enough. I’m betting on a bunch of horrified liberals threatening to move to Canada again. People with a certain level of comfort in their lives, left or right, aren’t willing to risk that comfort for political change. In this country we have innovated a great way of keeping the poor from rioting in response to the horrific plutocracy that keeps them down–we throw them in jail.

                  1. If Obama & Company keep fucking the economy, there may well be riots.

                    1. By fucking the economy do you mean maintaining record low tax rates and overseeing record corporate profitability?

                  2. This is such a ridiculously non-falsifiable, vague, and appeal-to-emotion statement that it’s hard to know where to begin. During the 50s and 60s – the era of unions and “just” tax rates and income distribution – there was far more government interference/monitoring/harassment of activist groups (cointelpro etc…), and police brutality didn’t have nearly the exposure it has today.

                    Generally “rioters”/demonstrators are arrested for destruction of property and causing hazards via blocking/obstruction of public land/property; and almost always these people are actually pretty well-off. The 13 in NYC who were just arrested for blocking city hall are firmly in the upper-middle class (I know two personally). The protests in Greece are mostly by rent-seekers who want to maintain an absolutely insane standard of public finance completely absent of any fiscal discretion and private sector productivity.

                    1. At least in Greece and other countries doing austerity, they’re actually doing austerity, meaning even millionaires pay a few pennies for the cause.

        2. Re: Tony,

          Violence is a means[…]

          So much for being inherent in the “capitalist system.”

          Back-peddaling Tony.

          1. That was the spoofer.

            1. Who can tell the difference?

            2. I’m thinking of spoofing myself a few times, just to lay the groundwork for disowning any gobsmackingly stupid posts I may someday make.

              1. Tony|7.5.11 @ 12:07PM|#
                That was the spoofer.

                Mr. FIFY|7.5.11 @ 12:15PM|#
                Who can tell the difference?

                It’s easy Mr. FIFY. Just ask him to define terms. If it attempts to define terms, it’s a spoofer. If it disappears, you had a real Tony on the line but it’s gone forever man.

                1. But sometimes the spoofers say stoopid shit just like Tony would, were he actually at the keyboard.

        3. Despite Tea Partier rhetoric, their main beef seems to be that a Democrat was elected president, which, while nightmarish to them, is still too abstract a grievance to justify truly committed protest.

          Just like all the Anti-Capitalists in D.C against the WTO….

          Stage 1 – Fight the System! Smash Capitalism!!
          Stage 2 – *whispers* Can I use your bathroom, starbucks?
          Stage 3 – Let’s get some Taco Bell and some beers. Where’s the party tonight?

      4. Re: Tony,

        The violence inherent in the capitalist system does infinitely more damage than any group of protesters could.

        Yes, just like the speed inherent in those zippy land sloths makes my neck crink.

      5. Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help! I’m being repressed

      6. “The violence inherent in the capitalist system does infinitely more damage than any group of protesters could.”

        This is one of Zizek’s lines. I guess it is really a classic Marxist line when you get down to it. I agree that the violence that capitalism causes, for example, when it provides too many choices for toothpaste, and therefore wastes resources, which in turn destroys the planet and makes those in 3rd world countries poor is much worse than setting someone on fire. You are really smart. Really.

        1. … the violence that capitalism causes…

          Don’t forget about the trampled bodies caused by those 2 for 1 holiday sales at Macy’s.

          1. If Company X makes one dollar in profit, Tony thinks that is somehow violent.

      7. “The violence inherent in the capitalist system does infinitely more damage than any group of protesters could.”

        Whoops. There you go, topping yourself on the “dumbest thing on the Internet” scale again.

      8. Given that Communist states have killed many times more people than Capitalist states — I have to ask: Are you a MOBY?

    5. I think it’s pretty much even.
      On the extreme left you have Stalin and Mao. On the extreme right you have Hitler, Al Qaeda, etc.

      Moreover, I don’t thing it has anything to do with a particular ideology. The extremes are made up of dedicated radicals, and the violence has more to do with the willingness of dedicated radicals to do ANYTHING to get what they want than what it is specifically that they want.

      I will say though that the more authoritarian the system they operate through is, the higher the body count is likely to be.
      Stalin killed a shit ton more people than Hitler, and it wasn’t because he was crazier, it was because the Soviet system gave him a greater ability to do so.

      1. “On the extreme right you have Hitler…”

        The self-avowed socialist who was deeply admired by socialists around the world.

        1. Socialists are right wing, dontcha know. Communists are left wing. Classical liberals and libertarians don’t exist. There’s only the right wing and the left wing.

      2. Hitler was ‘right-wing’ because he was to the right of Stalin; both dictators imposed their own Laws of Man and both believed themselves superior to The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.

        Al Qaeda-a subset of Islamic Supremism- cannot be compared to Western philosophy however as history as shown can cooperate with those dictators who believe Laws of Man are superior to Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. For example, Hitler cooperated with the Grand Mufti of Egypt in building the Muslim Army in the Balkins.

        There has always been-and continues to this day- an unholy alliance between Left-wing dictatorship and Islamic Supremacy.

  11. Tea Party rallies are now largely ignored, at least in Penna. There was a big one yesterday at Independence Hall, concurrent with various July 4th activities. TV coverage ignored the Tea Party in favor of kids eating water ice, pols mouthing words they don’t remotely believe, and tourists saying how good the cheesesteaks were.

    1. If the kids were eating dry ice, that would be news!

  12. What a meh article.

    The only examples of actual “leftist violence” Hinkle cites in the US are the Seattle riots which had little to do with the US mainstream left. Indeed the conference they were ostensibly protesting was hosted by a Democrat president.

    Yes, the MSM is biased against the Tea Party and limited govt in general, but we already knew that.

    1. Right. They covered the 1992 LA riots, where a bunch of Democrats went on a murdering and looting rampage, as violent.

      Certainly.

      1. It was okay when WE did it!

      2. Don’t have to go back to 1992. In the last election cycle, a man and his date were attacked and her leg broken. They had attended a Republican fund-raiser and some leftist thugs attacked them. This did not get nearly as much attention as it deserved. Probably because “The violence inherent in the capitalist system does infinitely more damage than any group of protesters could.”

        1. And they also attacked the guy in St. Louis.

        2. Hinkle is talking about large scale violence, not isolated attacks on individuals.

          I mean, if you’re going to bring up this stuff, a leftist could bring up Eric Rudolph or the Rand Paul guy stomping the woman’s face at that rally.

          1. The “Rand Paul guy stomping the woman’s face” never happened. It was a lie spread by the left.

            The woman rushed towards Paul and was restrained. She tried to rush at him again, and when stopped fell to the ground faking being hurt. One guy (stupidly) put his foot on her shoulder to hold her down, as she appeared to be attempting violence. Others in the crowd chastised him, and he moved his foot.

            She had no injuries that would have resulted from being stomped on. IT NEVER HAPPENED.

            I’m sure you don’t believe me, so I welcome you to look at the evidence, including the original video, for yourself. Look at it with an open mind, please.

      3. The connection between the LA riots and any political issue was tenuous at best. And of course, the ostensible reason for the riots was something libertarians would probably agree with the rioters on — the fact that judges and prosecutors do their best to quash any consequences to police for bad behavior. The moving of that trial from South Central LA to a wealthy white suburb was a sick joke…. just like moving the trial of Diallo’s murderers from Brooklyn to Albany a few years later.

    2. How about when the iron workers union bombed the L.A. Times building?

      Damn right-wingers and their union allies.

      1. It was justified!

    3. It’s still highlighting a difference in the coverage between the greek riots and the Tea Party.

      We’re talking baout domestic, mainstraim, US media covering the greek riots like they were a bunch of flower tossing hippies, and then covering the (Larely peaceful) Tea Party protests like the people involved with pitchfork wielding bomb-throwing anarchists.

      Nobody, absolutely nobody, is complaining about the “incendiary rhetoric” (let alone the incendiary devices) thrown by European leftists. Their angst is reserved for a bunch of older slughtly pudgy white Americans with handmade posterboard signs.

    4. I don’t recall ever seeing the mass coverage of the Moveon.org guy crossing the street to bite the finger off of a Tea Party Patriot.

  13. I have another theory. Tea Party activists are primarily white americans, known for their peaceful behavior. When a few of them step out of line, its news. Young Greek unionists are known for inciting violence, so when their rally starts out peaceful, its news.

    The media only reports on normal people when they do things no one expects them to do.

    Good theory?

    1. Someone who’s never been mugged in Salamis has no idea how fleet-footed those young Greek unionists can be.

    2. Re: some guy,

      Good theory?

      Nah, too complicated. The media just lies. That’s all.

    3. I should say Tea Party activist are primarily old white americans, known for their peaceful behavior.

      1. yep – those whitehairs talk about 2d amendment remedies then take their malox & go to sleep

        1. I know the meds make you feel tired and throw up sometimes, but you really should skip days and try to self medicate with bullshit.

    4. I think that is a factor, yes. Americans might have little idea how violent or non-violent foreign countries are, so they have to point out non-violence as well as violence.

    5. I don’t think so. Let’s admit it. We all know the reason.

      The media is largely sympathetic to the Greek rioters, so it takes pains to point out that the protest “started off peacefully”, in order to show them in a better light.

      On the other hand it is largely unsympathetic to the Tea Party protestors, so it doesn’t. I don’t think the media is explicitly gpoing out of their way to highly tea Party violence, however, bloggers and commentators do, and the regular media just doesn’t bother trying to correct them, feels no responsibility to do so, and so it doesn’t.

      So it’s more a matter of people in the actual quasi-objective media feeling like they have to “correct” the negative impression left by the riots by emphasizing the peaceful aspects, because they are in fact somewhat sympathetic to the rioters, and feeling no such obligation to with respect to the Tea Party.

      They feel the riots need be treated “objectively” but they don’t feel the Tea Parties need to be treated objectively, or they don’t feel the coverage is unobjective.

    6. Good theory except that leftist protestors in America are primarily white Americans too, so it doesn’t really explain the disparity in reporting on, say, a Tea Party rally verses a environmentalist rally.

  14. Because nobody in the US cares what happens in Greece.

    1. Re: affenkopf,

      Because nobody in the US cares what happens in Greece.

      Hey, I do care. I am here hoping that they run out of money and starve to death, as a reminder for all those fools who believe they can get something for nothing: The economics illiterate and intellectually disadvantaged (or “leftist boobs,” to put it more succinctly.)

      1. it is called austerity measures but it is like reality measures…
        who ever heard of retirees receiving monthly paychecks for more months of the year than twelve…

        1. Sounds like a plan to us.

  15. Speaking of left-wing violence, “The Baader-Meinhof Complex” came up recommended for me in Netflix- anyone seen this? Worth the time to watch?

    1. Have not seen it but see review here:

      http://www.city-journal.org/2009/bc0918fs.html

    2. Yeah, actually very good movie. Recommended.

    3. It’s good, but a bit preachy. By the people who brought you “Downfall.”

  16. The left is also just boring… recycled slogans from the sixties, drumming and dancing, etc… played-out, unoriginal and boring… and hairy.

    1. Why you gots to hate on the hairy? What did we ever do to you?

      1. The preferred nomenclature is “hirsutically-endowed”.

        1. and hygienetically challenged…

          1. Hey, I voted republican.

    2. Agree. It’s not just the slogans that are boring, though, it’s the basic ideology. They can change the slogans and substitution giant puppets for drum circles, but the gist of it is still the same. They’re still going on about “the system”, debating unions vs worker-owned cooperatives, bitching about commercialism, and discussing alternative medicine. Same old crap.

  17. thank you for sharing.

  18. Eggs –> omlette; some disassembly required.

  19. Absolute dictatorship is the antithesis of left-wing politics.

    I think you’re confusing “antithesis” with “apotheosis”. Don’t feel bad; its a common mistake.

    Could someone, anyone, point me to a left-wing government that didn’t tend toward more centralized authority?

    1. Does having your central authority systematically dismantled by bombs and artillery count?

      1. Not if said dismantling is for the purpose of replacing it with a bigger, meaner, central authority.

  20. I have to ask, why are anarchists protesting the shrinking of the state?

    1. The street detritus on display in Greece aren’t anarchists, they’re communists. There’s a big difference.

    2. Because they’re non-propertarian anarchists, for whom redistribution of wealth by gov’t comes closer to their idea of anarchy than security of property does.

  21. Considering that there are examples in the article from outlets like the Wall Street Journal and the Christian Science Monitor which are frequently held up as examples of right-wing propaganda, this shoots the foot of the theory that this is just the usual MSM bent favoring the lefties.

    Someone else gave the theory that it simply has to do with the media reporting the news of when one side or the other breaks from their own norm. Right-wingers are usually all about law and order, so if they step out of line and get violent, it’s interesting; left-wingers tend to be unbridled and violent, so if they actually compose themselves and behave civilly, it’s interesting.

    It’s along the same lines of how Joe Biden is such a gaffe machine, even Fox News is bored of reporting it (or perhaps he’s actually gotten his foot-in-mouth disease under control, but I seriously doubt it). Meanwhile every misspeak by Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann is front-page news. Could be the right-left thing, but like I said, even Fox News is bored of reporting on Joe Biden, and they do carry reports on Michelle Bachmann’s faux pas. Might just be because Joe’s boring, he does it all the time, but Sarah and Michelle are new and interesting.

    1. Doesn’t quite work, however, because if that’s all it is, the reports shouldn’t be calling violent left-wing protests “mostly peaceful” but instead just leaving nothing stated about the violence at all (i.e., taking it for granted).

  22. Unfortunately I can only post two links at a time.

    From CNN.com: Greek Austerity Protests Turn Ugly

    From the New York Times: Three Killed in Protests

      1. From the New York Daily News: Greek Protests Heat Up and Turn Violent

        There are many more, so did you seriously think no one would look, Mr. Hinkle? Perhaps you don’t understand that being a libertarian means we don’t take anyone’s word for it.

        1. What feels true is what matters.

          1. I know, I do it all the time!

            1. The magazine says “Free Minds”. Having a free and open mind means rejecting things that are untrue, even if they’re things we want to hear. Mr. Hinkle must not know that.

              1. WAS there, or was there NOT, violence in Greece?

                1. Yes. Europeans know how to protest. I think the world needs a little violence against the plutocrats every now and then. Just to show them they’re vastly outnumbered.

                  1. That’s pretty barbaric, coming from an elitist.

                    1. I have to decide whether a little revolt against the thievers who’ve stolen all our wealth so they could buy coke and hookers and destroy the economy in the process is worse than an extremely stratified society that locks up its poor people in numbers greater than any other country that would persist if we let them live.

              2. Ben Wolf|7.5.11 @ 3:30PM|#
                The magazine says “Free Minds”. Having a free and open mind means rejecting things that are untrue

                New here, Ben?

    1. I’m looking into your future and seeing a bunch of accusations of being leftist authoritarian scum.

      H&R has devolved into an automated ad hominem dispenser lately.

      1. See also: vagina, sand in your

    2. Swarms of violent groups overtook a general protest

      Did you think no one would look, Mr Wolf?

  23. It’s our paper we can spin the news the way we want. If you don’t like it, go read the internet or something … wait don’t do that!

  24. How about few people in the US give fuck all about what happens in Greece?

    What about all those violent Arab Spring demos? leftwing or rightwing?

  25. The obvious reason the left is paranoid about the Tea Party is because they lawfully own guns. In their diminished mental capacity, guns = violence, even though a crowd of middle-aged white people with some handguns tossed in is a thousand times less threatening than a mob of angry young Greek communists.

  26. Great article, Hinkle.

  27. Tony’s positivist defense of slavery and sodomy laws … with a few contradictions thrown in. (A search on “Barry” will take you right to it.)

    1. My “positivist defense” amounts merely to saying that you have to obey laws if they are backed up with sufficient force. Do you propose something else? Wishing slavery away upon a star?

      I said slavery is not legitimate policy when you define legitimacy in the Lockean sense.

      1. Glad to know you’re a kowtowing, sniveling slave, Tony.

      2. Tony I: “I’m saying popular vote satisfies a single moral imperative: that people get to decide themselves how they are governed.”

        Tony II: “Define legitimate. There’s the legitimacy of having a sufficient army to back up laws, and there’s the moral legitimacy of obeying the consent of the governed. Since the slaves were not asked for their consent, laws allowing it were not morally legitimate, but they were still laws that people had to obey until they were repealed, making them practically legitimate.”

        So slavery would have been legitimate in every sense if the minority had been given a vote in the question of their enslavement?

        1. So slavery would have been legitimate in every sense if the minority had been given a vote in the question of their enslavement?

          And the cries of “please don’t enslave me!” count as that vote.

        2. The question is rather hollow and semantics-based. Define legitimate. Also, I think you’re trying to get me to defend simple majoritarian democracy for all matters, which I’ve never actually done.

          1. Tony: What do you want as an alternative? Imposing your moral choices on everyone else, and not even bothering with popular vote?

            Barry: So the criminalization of homosexualilty (with capital penalization) would not be an “imposition” if it represents the “the will of the majority,” but sexual freedom for all individuals would be if it represents a policy “that nobody wants”?

            Tony: Technically I suppose all laws are an imposition. Societies that very much did penalize homosexuality were in the wrong, in my opinion, but that doesn’t mean I think those laws were illegitimate.

            My idea of “legitimate”? Not subjecting people’s liberty and property to majoritarian fiat.

            1. Okay, so we’ll put aside the definition of legitimate as in “it’s a law that is legal.” Obviously I think that a supermajoritarian barrier to changes in constitutional civil rights is a good innovation.

              1. Tony|7.5.11 @ 12:59PM|#

                Why do you give a fuck about the constitution?

                Make up your mind, prick.

                1. That was a question directed at OM, who seems to be confused about whether he’s an anarcho-capitalist or a constitutionalist.

                  1. Given your disdain for said document, it’s a valid question for YOU.

                    1. I’m neither if you hadn’t noticed.

                    2. We noticed…we also noticed that you’re a pussy, like all liberals, who would rather have a government agent defend your rights rather that you defend your rights. It’s okay, you probably were that one kid in gym class who got picked last in everything and struggled to do one pull up, if you did any at all, pussbag

      3. Well, that’s kind of question-begging. The force backing up a law is never “sufficient” if you can successfully disobey it.

      4. Well, WE still have slavery. And we’d like to extend a marketing offer to Tony.

      5. Once the government legalizes something it’s no longer immoral.

        1. Well, once the government legalizes something it is no longer REGARDED as immoral (by any but a tiny minority) within about two generations.

  28. I think the recent riots in Vancouver after they lost the Stanley Cup point to culprits that are often overlooked in favor of the usual left-wing, right-wing arguments. They were also extremely upset with the defense, goalkeeping and coaching.

  29. I don’t know if this has been said before, but I think the dying media outlets want to get out this idea of peaceful big-government because eventually the media will die; and of course, it would die slower or not die at all if the government took extreme market tampering measures to preserve it.

  30. Meh. I’m pretty sure American media would ignore/brush over violence of any kind in foreign rioting. I’m also pretty sure Greece’s problems/politics can’t be examined with an simplistic (and ethnocentric) American lens. The thesis may be true…but I’d have to hear some good apples-to-apples evidence.

  31. i can speak personally to the assmunchery and violence amongst leftwingers at protests. being on the line at N30, WTO, and several other riots and near riots, i have seen some amazing shit on their part.

    imo, the vast majority of leftwinger protesters are nonviolent, but the minority certainly are violent as fuck.

    also, fwiw ime, the anarchists are THE WORST by far, and they can’t really be pigeonholed easily into the left-right spectrum

    mardi gras otoh wasn’t left or rightwingers. that riot was mostly gangbangers and to a lesser extent drunk idiots

    1. Most anarchists aren’t black bloc douchebags who abuse the “Propaganda of the Deed” concept as an excuse to loot and raid people who haven’t done anything to them. Talking to most anarchists is akin to getting into a Freemason meeting (i.e. Expecting something mysterious and exciting but it’s actually boring.)

      1. Most “Anarchists” are not anarcho-capitalists like Rothbard. Most anarchists are anti-state/anti-capitalists like Chomski.

        What is Anarchism?

  32. People like me…because I force them to…WITH VIOLENCE!

  33. I did not understand why the left was so violent and intolerant of other points of view until I read Ayan Rand. She explained that people who expect everyone to live in a selfless state expect everyone to cator to them and their needs. Wouldn’t you view other people as your servants if you believed that each person was suppose to be completely selfless of their own needs and only be concerned with everyone else’s needs. Everyone else’s needs would be you so you would naturally expect them to give you things and appease their feelings.

  34. What a selfish thing to say Tim. You should try to be more selfless like Che.

  35. Anarcho capitalism is just another way of saying corporate power. The “individual” might be better off without a supreme government protecting him, but corporate leaders have no real regard for him either.

  36. But where is the “but of course, there are instances of violence from the right wing too” line? What kind of fake libertarian is Mr. Hinkle?

    I don’t ever want to read articles at reason magazine where the author shows any kind of affection towards conservatives. If you condemn the left, you have to cite something George Bush did to maintain balance. It’s an unwritten rule.

    Sure, conseravtive sites link to Reason magazine all the time, and the three libertartians who matter write columns there. And like, 50% pf the commentators are borderline conservatives who jump at Tony for trash talking republicans. But reason magazine should just continue their “We hate both sides, we really do” charade.

  37. But reason magazine should just continue their “We hate both sides, we really do” charade.

    1. It’s cool to be an outsider, with a leather jacket for a uniform.

  38. Speaking of violence and with a hat tip to the witty “Bush lied, people died.”, regarding the huge upswing in Drone attacks in Pakistan under Obama, the drone attacks in Libya, Afghanistan and most recently begun under this president in Yemen, I proffer the following new mantra:

    At Obama’s command, the drones don’t land. They simply kill women and children and men.

  39. The peaceful incidents in Greece had peaceful protesters doing their peaceful activities in peace.

    Thirteen people were Resting In Peace after the peaceful festivities.

  40. Why does the media keep downplaying the violence at left-wing protests?

    I assume this is a rhetorical question?

  41. ,,::: I paid $32.67 for a XBOX 360 and my mom got a 17 inch Toshibalaptop for $94.83 being delivered to our house tomorrow by fedex. I will never again pay expensive retail prices at stores.I even sold a 46 inch HDTV to my boss for $650 and it only cost me $52.78 to get. Here is the website we using to get all this stuff, BuzzSave.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.