Comments on: Beware of Old School Libertarians http://dublinopinion.com/2008/01/23/beware-of-old-school-libertarians/ It's a group blog. What more do you need to know? Sat, 20 Mar 2010 03:18:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: Mr. O http://dublinopinion.com/2008/01/23/beware-of-old-school-libertarians/#comment-65089 Mr. O Sat, 12 Apr 2008 01:15:24 +0000 http://dublinopinion.com/2008/01/23/beware-of-old-school-libertarians/#comment-65089 Thanks for the link between Edna and Ayn Rand - I _thought_ she seemed oddly familiar. Much like Anton Ego, I won't be able to get the Edna voice out of my head anytime I hear one of her real-life counterparts from now on. Incidentally, those libertarians with a sense of humour (they do exist, you know - just like left-wing protestors with jobs) refer to them as "Randroids". (Edna may also be based at least partially on a famous japanese clothes designer in the US, who only creates according to her own whim and you have to be invited to purchase her clothes, or some such thing.) And there is at least a strong element of parody in Edna's character - and, in fairness, institutionalised mediocrity does deserve a good pummeling nowadays, especially in the US (the awful truth is that the Incredibles is so funny and terrible precisely because it is so close to reality of corporate drones - just look at the mediocrity in the Oval Office... Syndrome, is that you?) I'm going to have to take grave exception to pretty much everything negative you all said about Ron Paul - and I almost genetically a Democrat. A perennial problem with Europeans (and many Democrats in the US) is their snobbish distain for much of the culture, history and population in the US, despite many of the targets being pretty much blue collar / working class. Not many left-wingers would publicly heap abuse on the values of the Yanomamo tribe in the Amazon, or the Beber nomads in the Sahel, simply because they are different; but it's open season on rednecks and small-town America all year round. I could bang on about this, but let me illustrate with this example: the "Scopes Monkey Trial" is held up constantly as a club with which to beat all the ignoramuses (ignorami?) who live in "the flyover states" (that vale of benightedness between LA and NYC). In the TV version, a brave young lawyer defends an enlightened schoolteacher for teaching evolution in a Tenessee classroom; the rednecks are trying to keep the children trapped in the dark ages. The reality is a bit more complex: the prosecuting lawyer was a sincere Christian who believed that if human beings were reduced to mere animals, they would be treated as the same; as he saw it, he was defending the poor against the likes of the defense lawyer, himself a "progressive" defender of, amongst other things... eugenics. It may be true that there aren't many Congressmen with children in Iraq; most of the volunteer white fellows there are poor church-going types (you know, rednecks) from the flyover states, and what is possibly more aggravating than those rich hypocrites in the Republican Party talking about God and Country - and their blood-sucking harpies in the media, is the ultra-liberals who will whore for the Democrats' utter mediocrity (there's that word again) because at least, like, they're not, gawd, rednecks or anything. Ron Paul probably won't be President. He is a conservative. No. Shit. He is also one of the most sincere and possibly personally decent men in the entire Congress, and one of the most genuine, if not the only _actual_ conservative, in that he actually wants to conserve the actual American Constitution as written, not shred it and the Bill of Rights. He has consistently voted against every unconstitutional Civil Liberties infringement, and against the unconstitutional prosecution of an immoral war without fixed objectives, and so without end. Another old right-winger once said "War is the Health of the State". Which is why maybe the Democrats aren't so vociferous in their opposition; why spoil their chance to wield the reigns? In Ireland, nowadays, there isn't much respect for our Constitution, which apparently was just put there by killjoys to ruin our fun, so that we have to have a referendum every two years (annually, if we give the wrong answer) to change it, rather than actually enforce the damn laws already there effectively (thanks to the Lisbon Treaty, hopefully we will be saved from ever having to bother our heads about this difficult governing stuff ever again). In the US, however, people are oddly sentimental about their own. Everyone from the International Workers of the World, to Civil Rights activists, right through to to Republican Congressmen who become spokesmen for the ACLU, and Hollywood liberals who become NRA spokesmen... they all seem to really really like it, and even risk their careers (sometimes their lives) defending it. But it isn't a big magic ATM that just dispenses what ever you ask from it. When I say Ron Paul defends it, he defends hallowed political, philosophical, and cultural aspects of the US that are some of the most sacred of core American values which transcend ideology and the political spectrum. No, I don't agree with all of his policies, maybe not even most of them - but that's not the same as respecting him for his able defence of the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights. And even if he isn't going to win, then what the hell's the harm in voting for him, most especially if he can draw from both the Right and the Left? The Neo-Cons (who were mostly disappointed uber-leftists to begin with, FYI) and war-mongers in the Republican Party hate him, by the way. Votes are messages; if either party sees a chunk of the electorate abandoning both ships, they will get the message and motivation to change course; remember, not even a majority of the electorate necessarily votes - so a winning majority is maybe 25%. With those kinds of percentages, yes, even a minority candiate could swing an election in favour of particular policy. And by the way, even Doctor Ruth Westheimer - the sexologist - is appalled when people opt for abortion because they couldn't be bothered preventing it some other way. So don't piss all over people (especially when many of them would be blue-collar working class) because they have serious moral issues with it, or with euthanasia, or even with eugenics (a low blow, I know; but you are all getting pretty high-horsey in your sweetness-and-light progressiveness, aren't you?) Thanks for the link between Edna and Ayn Rand - I _thought_ she seemed oddly familiar. Much like Anton Ego, I won’t be able to get the Edna voice out of my head anytime I hear one of her real-life counterparts from now on. Incidentally, those libertarians with a sense of humour (they do exist, you know - just like left-wing protestors with jobs) refer to them as “Randroids”. (Edna may also be based at least partially on a famous japanese clothes designer in the US, who only creates according to her own whim and you have to be invited to purchase her clothes, or some such thing.)
And there is at least a strong element of parody in Edna’s character - and, in fairness, institutionalised mediocrity does deserve a good pummeling nowadays, especially in the US (the awful truth is that the Incredibles is so funny and terrible precisely because it is so close to reality of corporate drones - just look at the mediocrity in the Oval Office… Syndrome, is that you?)
I’m going to have to take grave exception to pretty much everything negative you all said about Ron Paul - and I almost genetically a Democrat.
A perennial problem with Europeans (and many Democrats in the US) is their snobbish distain for much of the culture, history and population in the US, despite many of the targets being pretty much blue collar / working class.
Not many left-wingers would publicly heap abuse on the values of the Yanomamo tribe in the Amazon, or the Beber nomads in the Sahel, simply because they are different; but it’s open season on rednecks and small-town America all year round.
I could bang on about this, but let me illustrate with this example: the “Scopes Monkey Trial” is held up constantly as a club with which to beat all the ignoramuses (ignorami?) who live in “the flyover states” (that vale of benightedness between LA and NYC). In the TV version, a brave young lawyer defends an enlightened schoolteacher for teaching evolution in a Tenessee classroom; the rednecks are trying to keep the children trapped in the dark ages. The reality is a bit more complex: the prosecuting lawyer was a sincere Christian who believed that if human beings were reduced to mere animals, they would be treated as the same; as he saw it, he was defending the poor against the likes of the defense lawyer, himself a “progressive” defender of, amongst other things… eugenics.
It may be true that there aren’t many Congressmen with children in Iraq; most of the volunteer white fellows there are poor church-going types (you know, rednecks) from the flyover states, and what is possibly more aggravating than those rich hypocrites in the Republican Party talking about God and Country - and their blood-sucking harpies in the media, is the ultra-liberals who will whore for the Democrats’ utter mediocrity (there’s that word again) because at least, like, they’re not, gawd, rednecks or anything.
Ron Paul probably won’t be President. He is a conservative. No. Shit. He is also one of the most sincere and possibly personally decent men in the entire Congress, and one of the most genuine, if not the only _actual_ conservative, in that he actually wants to conserve the actual American Constitution as written, not shred it and the Bill of Rights. He has consistently voted against every unconstitutional Civil Liberties infringement, and against the unconstitutional prosecution of an immoral war without fixed objectives, and so without end. Another old right-winger once said “War is the Health of the State”. Which is why maybe the Democrats aren’t so vociferous in their opposition; why spoil their chance to wield the reigns?
In Ireland, nowadays, there isn’t much respect for our Constitution, which apparently was just put there by killjoys to ruin our fun, so that we have to have a referendum every two years (annually, if we give the wrong answer) to change it, rather than actually enforce the damn laws already there effectively (thanks to the Lisbon Treaty, hopefully we will be saved from ever having to bother our heads about this difficult governing stuff ever again).
In the US, however, people are oddly sentimental about their own. Everyone from the International Workers of the World, to Civil Rights activists, right through to to Republican Congressmen who become spokesmen for the ACLU, and Hollywood liberals who become NRA spokesmen… they all seem to really really like it, and even risk their careers (sometimes their lives) defending it. But it isn’t a big magic ATM that just dispenses what ever you ask from it. When I say Ron Paul defends it, he defends hallowed political, philosophical, and cultural aspects of the US that are some of the most sacred of core American values which transcend ideology and the political spectrum. No, I don’t agree with all of his policies, maybe not even most of them - but that’s not the same as respecting him for his able defence of the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
And even if he isn’t going to win, then what the hell’s the harm in voting for him, most especially if he can draw from both the Right and the Left? The Neo-Cons (who were mostly disappointed uber-leftists to begin with, FYI) and war-mongers in the Republican Party hate him, by the way.
Votes are messages; if either party sees a chunk of the electorate abandoning both ships, they will get the message and motivation to change course; remember, not even a majority of the electorate necessarily votes - so a winning majority is maybe 25%. With those kinds of percentages, yes, even a minority candiate could swing an election in favour of particular policy.
And by the way, even Doctor Ruth Westheimer - the sexologist - is appalled when people opt for abortion because they couldn’t be bothered preventing it some other way. So don’t piss all over people (especially when many of them would be blue-collar working class) because they have serious moral issues with it, or with euthanasia, or even with eugenics (a low blow, I know; but you are all getting pretty high-horsey in your sweetness-and-light progressiveness, aren’t you?)

]]> By: Graham http://dublinopinion.com/2008/01/23/beware-of-old-school-libertarians/#comment-60743 Graham Tue, 05 Feb 2008 19:13:43 +0000 http://dublinopinion.com/2008/01/23/beware-of-old-school-libertarians/#comment-60743 Hey, I wrote an article explaining my views on Paul's relationship with Ayn Rand. I hope you find it sufficiently humble and polite! Best wishes - Graham. Hey, I wrote an article explaining my views on Paul’s relationship with Ayn Rand. I hope you find it sufficiently humble and polite! Best wishes - Graham.

]]> By: Donagh http://dublinopinion.com/2008/01/23/beware-of-old-school-libertarians/#comment-58740 Donagh Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:36:15 +0000 http://dublinopinion.com/2008/01/23/beware-of-old-school-libertarians/#comment-58740 Thanks for the link Seanachie, although it seems that this particular quasi-fascist hasn’t a hope of getting the nomination. Paddy, I was suggesting that he is anti-abortion for political reasons and not because of his experience as a medical practitioner. All of his policies come from a very narrow minded Libertarian conservatism that plays to a significant section of the American right – even his position on evolution is contrary, as Wednesday pointed out, to one of the fundamentals upon which is own education is based. I think you stopped reading at the word Obstetrician and didn’t follow the link to Wolf’s article. Thanks Wednesday, whenever you have a chance. Thanks for the link Seanachie, although it seems that this particular quasi-fascist hasn’t a hope of getting the nomination.

Paddy, I was suggesting that he is anti-abortion for political reasons and not because of his experience as a medical practitioner. All of his policies come from a very narrow minded Libertarian conservatism that plays to a significant section of the American right – even his position on evolution is contrary, as Wednesday pointed out, to one of the fundamentals upon which is own education is based.

I think you stopped reading at the word Obstetrician and didn’t follow the link to Wolf’s article.

Thanks Wednesday, whenever you have a chance.

]]> By: Wednesday http://dublinopinion.com/2008/01/23/beware-of-old-school-libertarians/#comment-58708 Wednesday Thu, 24 Jan 2008 06:41:50 +0000 http://dublinopinion.com/2008/01/23/beware-of-old-school-libertarians/#comment-58708 Actually, Paddy, Ron Paul is in a professional minority on this issue. Both the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists support legalised abortion. And that's not really surprising - obstetricians know better than anyone the consequences of women being forced to obtain illegal backstreet abortions. Ron Paul also doesn't believe in evolution, which is fairly remarkable for someone who presumably had to learn biology in the course of his education. I can't for the life of me fathom his appeal to the left, whatever his views on the war. BTW Donagh I know I owe you an email - will try to get to it later today or tomorrow. Actually, Paddy, Ron Paul is in a professional minority on this issue. Both the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists support legalised abortion. And that’s not really surprising - obstetricians know better than anyone the consequences of women being forced to obtain illegal backstreet abortions.

Ron Paul also doesn’t believe in evolution, which is fairly remarkable for someone who presumably had to learn biology in the course of his education. I can’t for the life of me fathom his appeal to the left, whatever his views on the war.

BTW Donagh I know I owe you an email - will try to get to it later today or tomorrow.

]]> By: Paddy http://dublinopinion.com/2008/01/23/beware-of-old-school-libertarians/#comment-58673 Paddy Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:26:41 +0000 http://dublinopinion.com/2008/01/23/beware-of-old-school-libertarians/#comment-58673 The dude is an obstetrician - it's not surprising that he is not pro-abortion. But that's your yardstick, is it? Shallow, very shallow. The dude is an obstetrician - it’s not surprising that he is not pro-abortion. But that’s your yardstick, is it? Shallow, very shallow.

]]> By: seanachie http://dublinopinion.com/2008/01/23/beware-of-old-school-libertarians/#comment-58637 seanachie Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:28:50 +0000 http://dublinopinion.com/2008/01/23/beware-of-old-school-libertarians/#comment-58637 I've long been of the opinion that if you scratch a professional libertarian, you'll find a fascist not far beneath, and I'm not convinced by anything Paul says, his principled stand on Iraq notwithstanding. The New Republic has been running a series of articles recently on Paul's <a href="http://www.tnr.com/toc/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca" rel="nofollow">past newsletters</a>, which embrace such unsavoury stances as anti-semitism, xenophobia, racism and homophobia. More of the same from the Republicans, I would think. I’ve long been of the opinion that if you scratch a professional libertarian, you’ll find a fascist not far beneath, and I’m not convinced by anything Paul says, his principled stand on Iraq notwithstanding. The New Republic has been running a series of articles recently on Paul’s past newsletters, which embrace such unsavoury stances as anti-semitism, xenophobia, racism and homophobia. More of the same from the Republicans, I would think.

]]>