Must-read #1: empowered bullies
Sorry for the light posting -- this whole month, especially the last couple of weeks, has kept me exhaustingly busy. Since I haven't written much, here's a must-read item from Noahpinion which captures very well what I've long thought is the essential problem of libertarianism -- its cultists rhapsodize endlessly about "liberty" (a word they prefer to the more plain and concrete-sounding "freedom"), but the practical result of implementing libertarian schemes in the real world wouldn't be an increase in freedom or liberty as we generally understand those words; it would be a society of empowered bullies.
posted by Infidel753 at 5:23 AM
2 Comments:
I must disagree - at least as far as I am concerned*. I think on many, many issues I would find little common ground with the Pauls (Ron or Rand**. The problem is an awful lot of "libertarians" don't buy the full deal which includes like gay marriage and not having to say your prayers at school or whatever. This is a shame.
At a practical (US - I' a Brit) level this means unless Obama does something really stupid he'll win in November. That is depressing not because I oppose Obama as such but it seems the antithesis of democracy to be saying this on February 1st! The bun-fight in Florida right now will determine if Barbie's Ken or a raving-mad amphibian gets the nod to lose in the GE.
I despair of the misfits parade the Reps put up because (with the shining example of Gary Johnson - who got nowhere) they're all nucking futz in one way or another. I mean Michelle Backman or Rick Perry or that creature Sanatorium? Are there no sane Republicans?
Well, there's Gary Johnson but he didn't claim to be God's emissary on Earth and by overturning Roe vs. Wade to magic away a $15 Trillion debt.
As I said before I despair not so much for the result as the lack of credible opposition to Obama on democratic (note the small "d" principles).
Gimme something to stay-up for on a dull night in November America! Is that too much to ask ;-)
I know that is flippant but it does appear to me that the Reps are disappearing into a fantasy-land of an America that is no more (and probably never existed). And I've been to the USA (mainly "Red States" to attest to that). I suspect even church going Republicans are getting sickened by the outright religiousity and faux-piety of it all.
*Admittedly I think of myself as a Classical Liberal or just Liberal.
**Is he named for Ayn?
Well, the linked article is addressing libertarianism in a broad sense, not just the rather eccentric Paulist variant thereof -- these points have long seemed obvious to me, anyway.
Are there no sane Republicans?
Well, has I've said before, Romney is not crazy. That doesn't mean he's not evil. Most of the "nut" problem stems from the dominant role of fundamentalist religion within the US right wing, a problem you essentially don't have in Britain, except for the Muslims (who are very unlikely to get such a dominant position in a major political party).
Gingrich is more a conventional megalomaniac than a sincere religious fanatic, but he's one-of-a-kind.
**Is he named for Ayn?
I'm afraid he is. Nucking futz indeed.
Post a Comment
<< Home