Freethought & Rationalism Archive

CJD · 06-30-2003, 12:52 PM

This is precisely the interpretation of libertarianism that seems totally disconnected.

Local vigilantes can pose as much or more of a threat than the federal government to fundamental liberties, and experience shows that the federal government can change as quickly as any hide bound state legislature.

I agree with you here. If my understanding of libertarianism is correct, then it would behoove an actual libertarian to defend his/her opinion on this matter.

Note that I am speaking of the party-platform libertarianism. I am a social libertarian, as I gather many folks here are, as well. That is why I do not oppose the court's recent decision. Any means�local, state, federal�that ensure fundamental liberties are fine by me. But many libertarians I know of are disgruntled Republicans, or worse, Reconstructionists (grab your passport!), and I think the offical party's platform enables them with all the attention it gives to anti-federalism.

CJD

Anti-Creedance Front · 06-30-2003, 01:42 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I e-mailed that guy and asked him why fundamentalist Christians have such screwed up names. His reply: I don't know, I've always had this name. (looking at my uww.edu e-mail address) So did you go to the University of Western Washington?"

I wasn't aware this gentleman calls himself a libertarian. That's insane. So many Republicans are painting themselves as libertarians and still bashing liberals, but libertarian philosophy is more liberal in definition than liberalism itself.

hezekiah jones · 06-30-2003, 02:14 PM

Shame on me, but I actually went back and read the balance of this fruitcake's rectum-obsessed little screed.

First of all, how can you possibly be both a member of MENSA and the SBC; and secondly, if "Vox" really did read Gibbon, I wonder what he thought of Chapter XV.

I harbor a powerful suspicion this twat is full of crap, never read it at all, and is simply posturing all pseudointellectual-like for his mouthbreathing readership.

Autonemesis · 06-30-2003, 03:09 PM

His reply to my email note (interspersed with my reply to his reply):

Quote:

First of all, do keep in mind that you know nothing about me. I spent a few years in the music industry signed to a label run by a gay man and I don't personally care who fucks who.

"Some of my friends are gay." Hardy-har-har. Scalia used that joke in his dissent, too.

Quote:

But I despise the notion of a) giving the Supreme Court legislative power, b) abandoning federalism, c) establishing horrible precedent.

The SC did not legislate anything. They properly struck down a law the state of Texas had no constitutional authority to enact in the first place. Striking down unconstitutional laws is not legislating anything. And what is so horrible about establishing a precedent that expands personal liberty? Explain that one, libertarian.

You are more properly called an anti-federalist. And like your fellow libertarians (actually disgruntled republicans, as far as I can tell), you seem to forget that local governments can infringe the rights of a citizen every bit as much as the feds can. Through inaction, vigilantes and posses can be allowed to oppress even more than the state can get away with. I suppose you think the SC was also wrong on Brown vs. Board of Education, and should have left the issue of desegregation for the Kansas legislature to decide? If so, you get a hearty laugh from me, libertines everywhere, and almost anyone who sits on a federal bench today.

Quote:

Had the Supreme Court used exactly the same reasoning to establish prostitution as a protected right, I would have written a very similar column even though I support the legalization of prostitution.

So let me get this straight, even though you claim to be a libertarian, if the court ruled in a way that agreed with or complimented your libertarian attitudes and values, you would still oppose the ruling if it failed to comply with a particular ideological interpretation of the Constitution, despite the fact that the ruling increases personal liberty? Is that right?

You don't seem to support liberty so much as you oppose the federal government, especially the Supreme Court. When increasing liberty gets in the way of ideology, you side with ideology. Do you see now why I have a problem with you calling yourself a libertarian?

Quote:

I do not pretend that I like homosexuals, for the most part. Some are all right, but most of my acquaintance are shallow, superficial individuals with the maturity and emotional stability of 13-year old girls. The email I've received today from self-identified homosexuals quite underlines this point - according to them I am simultaneously miserable, angry, queenish,
homophobic, bigoted, hot, self-loathing and a few more things that never made it out of the killfile. Quite the diagnosis from a catty, bitchy little group of men who've never met me. And, of course, none of this has anything to do with what I wrote today, it seems to be the only thing that somehow never enters into their emails.

And of course, that I have said no such thing has never stopped a right-wing wacko from launching into an ad-hominem against me anyway, as if I had. I am not surprised that you are no exception.

Quote:

My primary concern with regards to the public embrace of homosexuality is not moral, it is historical. The post-Stonewall era is a very bad sign for America, as is the destruction of the currency, the growth of paganism and a host of other cultural issues that point to a direction that will be good for no one, straight or gay, moral or immoral.

In what way is this a historical concern? It looks rather obviously like a moral objection, without a hint of historical context. You say it won't be good for anyone, but fail to mention how. This sounds like plain old fear-mongering, nothing more. I've heard it a thousand times before, will hear it a thousand times again, no doubt. Yawn. Wake me when a rational argument drops by.

Quote:

"Liberty is back in vogue". No, it certainly isn't. Look around you.

I admit that was hyperbole, and a more than a bit disingenuous, given such things as the Patriot Act, our gulag in Guantanamo Bay, and the the assaults on liberty being conducted by the Bush administration under the pretense of fighting terrorism, the disregard for historical traditions such as national sovereignty, and on and on. But I was feeling flush. For once, things went my way. Forgive me for taking hope from saving a brick while the rest of the edifice is being torn down.

Quote:

America is less free than it has been since FDR confiscated gold. The destruction of traditional morals, be they Christian or pagan, always goes hand in hand with a devolution into tyranny.

Nice sound bite, but not much to chew on. This is just more hand-waving and fear-eliciting code-words. You forget that you are not talking to a christian here, I am not conditioned to respond negatively to such words like your religious audience at WorldNetDaily has been. You'll have to try harder to scare me, like making a reasoned argument.

Quote:

Regards,
Vox

PS - you might want to stop slinging the term McCarthyite around if you don't want to look silly. The recent decoding of Soviet cables has proved him right.

He was still a nutcase who stepped over the bounds, so the term is still quite appropriate. Destroying our liberty before the godless commies destroy it (or the terrorists, or the liberals, or whatever) is as ridiculous then as it is now. There is also new evidence exonerating the Rosenbergs, but I bet you dismiss that out of hand like I dismiss your apology for McCarthy. Oh, and what Soviet cables? Never heard of what you're talking about, but I'll give it a look-see. I doubt it will diminish the appropriateness of "McCarthyism" to describe what's going on today with the Terrah Wah -- and the Drug war, and the culture war. By the way, ever notice that conservatives are the only ones who discuss social issues using terms of combat? As far as I can tell, to note that someone - a court, for instance - has taken sides in the "culture war" is to take sides in the culture war - the right wing, reactionary side, that is. Don't you agree?

Jet Grind · 06-30-2003, 03:15 PM

CJD,

You're confusing libertarianism with paleo-conservaitsm or anti-Federalism. The former believes in freedom, the latter believes in states rights.

Edited to add: I probably should have left the "true" libertarian part out of my OP, I didn't want to come off as arrogant. However, I did want to distinguish myself from the modern Hitlerian, anti-Federalist, Christian Reconsutctionists and the disgruntled, statist Republicans.

Autonemesis · 06-30-2003, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jet Grind
CJD,

You're confusing libertarianism with paleo-conservatism ...

I really don't like that term. It's an insult to Neanderthals and very old rocks.

Kevbo · 06-30-2003, 04:41 PM

The common argument used by social conservatives (i.e., people who want a Biblical Theocracy) is that "if homosexuality is legal, why not pedophilia, beastiality, rape, blah blah blah..."

Except that, taken to its logical conclusion, this "argument" also applies to heterosexual sex. If a man can have sex with a woman, why not a daughter? Why can't a man rape a woman if heterosexual sex is legal? Once you realize that these are logically the exact same arguments used by homophobes, you can appreciate just how bad these arguments are.

Anti-Creedance Front · 06-30-2003, 11:05 PM

Paleo-conservative? That word hasn't come up as much as neo-conservative for me lately, but I have heard it. I assume it refers to "old conservatives", but it sounds very derogatory, like calling them fossils. I see "old conservatism" as the true conservatism... Global military interventions and entanglement in foreign trade were not exactly a cornerstone of conservative beliefs back in the day. Then again, there are some that abhor all conservatism, and you're welcome to do that, too.

Toto · 07-01-2003, 12:37 AM

I was goint to say that I don't think that there is anything derogatory about paleo-conservative. It's just the opposite of neo-conservative. "Neo-cons" are former liberals or former Trotskyites who turned to libertarian-style conservativism. But then I researched it.

ACU Wants Ideological Reconciliation, Revitalization within Conservative Movement

Quote:

According to a May 13 memo by Devine, neo-conservatives led by the National Review and Weekly Standard journals have swung full tilt into "national greatness" neo-conservatism, which he says threatens to destroy conservatism's ideological basis by denying its founding principles.

Devine attacks the National Review's David Frum for a front-page denunciation of conservatives who opposed the war. According to Devine, Frum labeled all anti-war conservatives as "paleo-conservatives" and relegated them to the "nutty fringe."

"[Frum] was so obsessed with his own righteousness in anathematizing heretics he was heedless of how the split would further weaken the forces of the right," Devine claims.

or even better, from here

Quote:

Thus, neo-conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer drew the line between "paleo-conservatives," who defended Lott; "traditional conservatives," like those at National Review; and neo-cons like himself who demanded that Lott get the boot because, as former liberals, they have "staked their ground for decades on colorblindness and a reverence for the civil rights movement as originally defined." [Lott and the Right, By Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post, December 20, 2002]

A writer at National Review challenged this analysis, declaiming that "paleo-conservatives" are simply racists and anti-Semites and not legitimate conservatives at all. Finally, there was a person called Max Boot writing in the Wall Street Journal who confessed that he didn't understand why people still use the term "neo-conservative" at all. [�What the Heck Is a 'Neocon'?� By Max Boot, December 30, 2002]

If the whole misinformed discussion proved anything, it was that virtually no authentic conservatism remains intact in the United States, or at least not one visible in such establishment forums as the Journal and National Review. Mr. Krauthammer's column denouncing Sen. Lott, for example, was virtually indistinguishable from that of liberal E.J. Dionne, which the Washington Post published on the same page the same day.

Mr. Boot's contribution to political philosophy disclosed the same mentality. First, Mr. Boot made sure there was plenty of distance between himself, on the one hand, and the terrible "paleos" and their leader Pat Buchanan, whose views he generously characterized as "nativist, protectionist, isolationist," on the other. And, predictably, Mr. Boot at last got down to anti-Semitism, a subject never far from the neo-con mind.

"When Buchananites toss around 'neoconservative," he wrote, "�and cite names like Wolfowitz and Cohen�it sometimes sounds as if what they really mean is 'Jewish conservative.'" Therefore, "neo-conservative" is really merely a codeword for "Jew" and those who use the term critically are themselves anti-Jewish. Mr. Boot's command of logic is breath-taking.

I love watching conservatives fight with each other.

beejay · 07-02-2003, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kevbo
The common argument used by social conservatives (i.e., people who want a Biblical Theocracy) is that "if homosexuality is legal, why not pedophilia, beastiality, rape, blah blah blah..."

OK, I'm not a social conservative (although that should make little difference.)

From the court decision, consensual adult sex is legal. Why is incest illegal? (Maybe this should be another thread in another forum...but this is c/s to the extent that religious-based incest taboos are the reason.)

The "ick" factor isn't good enough...many people feel that way about any sexual practice they don't engage in.

The genetic issue isn't enough, since adults who are known to be likely to conceive children with genetic defects are still allowed to mate.

Now clearly the social conservatives hope to use the incest taboo as a way of forcing acceptance of state-control over sexual practices, but I'm looking at this from the other side (since I support the recent court decision)...

What is the state's interest in making adult incest illegal?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-30-2003, 12:52 PM	#21
CJD Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: greater Orlando area Posts: 832	This is precisely the interpretation of libertarianism that seems totally disconnected. Local vigilantes can pose as much or more of a threat than the federal government to fundamental liberties, and experience shows that the federal government can change as quickly as any hide bound state legislature. I agree with you here. If my understanding of libertarianism is correct, then it would behoove an actual libertarian to defend his/her opinion on this matter. Note that I am speaking of the party-platform libertarianism. I am a social libertarian, as I gather many folks here are, as well. That is why I do not oppose the court's recent decision. Any means�local, state, federal�that ensure fundamental liberties are fine by me. But many libertarians I know of are disgruntled Republicans, or worse, Reconstructionists (grab your passport!), and I think the offical party's platform enables them with all the attention it gives to anti-federalism. CJD

06-30-2003, 01:42 PM	#22
Anti-Creedance Front Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Wisconsin, USA Posts: 452	HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I e-mailed that guy and asked him why fundamentalist Christians have such screwed up names. His reply: I don't know, I've always had this name. (looking at my uww.edu e-mail address) So did you go to the University of Western Washington?" I wasn't aware this gentleman calls himself a libertarian. That's insane. So many Republicans are painting themselves as libertarians and still bashing liberals, but libertarian philosophy is more liberal in definition than liberalism itself.

06-30-2003, 02:14 PM	#23
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Shame on me, but I actually went back and read the balance of this fruitcake's rectum-obsessed little screed. First of all, how can you possibly be both a member of MENSA and the SBC; and secondly, if "Vox" really did read Gibbon, I wonder what he thought of Chapter XV. I harbor a powerful suspicion this twat is full of crap, never read it at all, and is simply posturing all pseudointellectual-like for his mouthbreathing readership.

06-30-2003, 03:15 PM	#25
Jet Grind Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Southern Maine, USA Posts: 220	CJD, You're confusing libertarianism with paleo-conservaitsm or anti-Federalism. The former believes in freedom, the latter believes in states rights. Edited to add: I probably should have left the "true" libertarian part out of my OP, I didn't want to come off as arrogant. However, I did want to distinguish myself from the modern Hitlerian, anti-Federalist, Christian Reconsutctionists and the disgruntled, statist Republicans.

06-30-2003, 04:41 PM	#27
Kevbo Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: NY Posts: 212	The common argument used by social conservatives (i.e., people who want a Biblical Theocracy) is that "if homosexuality is legal, why not pedophilia, beastiality, rape, blah blah blah..." Except that, taken to its logical conclusion, this "argument" also applies to heterosexual sex. If a man can have sex with a woman, why not a daughter? Why can't a man rape a woman if heterosexual sex is legal? Once you realize that these are logically the exact same arguments used by homophobes, you can appreciate just how bad these arguments are.

06-30-2003, 11:05 PM	#28
Anti-Creedance Front Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Wisconsin, USA Posts: 452	Paleo-conservative? That word hasn't come up as much as neo-conservative for me lately, but I have heard it. I assume it refers to "old conservatives", but it sounds very derogatory, like calling them fossils. I see "old conservatism" as the true conservatism... Global military interventions and entanglement in foreign trade were not exactly a cornerstone of conservative beliefs back in the day. Then again, there are some that abhor all conservatism, and you're welcome to do that, too.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.