Matthew Yglesias: Human Jackal
Jun 27, 04 | 1:42 am by John LopezJonathan Wilde drops a dime on this savage-with-a-keyboard:
I’d be happy, however, to pay a bit more in taxes as part of a campaign to raise several million additional dollars to spend on the program, provided we could fine a well-designed program (I’ve read recently in The Atlantic that the Bush administration’s point man on the issue is doing good, and unfortunately neglected, work in this area) to spend the money on. I’m willing, in other words, to sacrifice my share in order to really change things, but I’m not going to sacrifice to make a purely symbolic gesture.
I suppose to the libertarian mind all this business of “I’ll do x if and only if I can force everyone to do x” sounds rather dodgy and immoral, but fortunately enough we live in the real world, where people understand the vital role coercion has to play in building a better tomorrow.
That’s this Matthew Yglesias creep, just up on my radar now. Look at how he offhandedly endorses the idea that other human lives are bricks for him to build “a better tomorrow” with. Unbefrickinlieveable.
But fortunately, a quick refutation for the arguments of the sorts of folks who understand “the vital role coercion has to play in building a better tomorrow” is at hand:
Above: a solid argument against inititating force.
June 27th, 2004 at Jun 27, 04 | 2:55 am
Mk bsltrly N mstk hr: Mtthw Yglss hs *dclrd wr* n Y. vrythng tht y wn, h hs dclrd t b *hs*, t hs ppntd mb’s cnvnnc, nd y’r gng t tk t nd njy t lk cll-btch.
Jhn?
Hr sm gys t CT FF HS HD n vdtp s thrrghly-dsrvd rp-wht-y-sw ncdnt, nd s tht cps r mld t vry wrthlss sclst md tlt n th plnt.
Thr’s n rsn tht slmc fntcs shld b th *nly* ns mplyng ffctv cmbt tchnqs.
June 27th, 2004 at Jun 27, 04 | 2:56 am
Personally I find the Springfield M1A to be a much better argument. I don’t like ‘em close enough for the 1911 to be effective. ;-)
June 27th, 2004 at Jun 27, 04 | 4:52 am
<dry srcsm md>
Ds *nyn* hr ctlly prps t sht *ny* bd gy t *ny* pnt bfr th shwrhds r spwng t th Xykln-B?
nqrng mnds wnt t knw.
June 27th, 2004 at Jun 27, 04 | 5:17 am
Mike,
There’s no reason that Islamic fanatics should be the *only* ones employing effective combat techniques.
Effective at what?
I think you’ve made it clear that you think we should start shooting statist weasels, but who have you shot?
In any case I don’t think much of the idea.
June 27th, 2004 at Jun 27, 04 | 5:20 am
Does *anyone* here actually propose to shoot *any* bad guy at *any* point before the showerheads are spewing out the Xyklon-B?
Of course. When do you figure that will be?
June 27th, 2004 at Jun 27, 04 | 5:55 am
[Lst qstn frst] “Whn d y fgr tht wll b?”
nswr: Jhn, dn’t thnk thy’r gng t. Snc thy’ll nt cmmt t cvl-dsbdnc, thn n fd-bck mchnsm xsts t thwrt th stt frm bcmng mr nd mr pprssv (s ts ntr dctts). Thrfr, t’s rsnbl t prdct thy’ll, n ns nd tws, b ncrmntlly strppd f thr “rsnls”, ntl thy’r ll dsrmd. Y prbbly wn’t s Xykln-B ftr tht, bt tht’s nly bcs th mdrn stt s hp t rnchng hmns t hrvst thr prdctvty d-nfntm rthr thn btchrng thm.
…ntl, f crs, *smbdy ls* mngs t dlvr sch crpplng blw t th stt tht t vrtlly dsntgrts wtht hlp frm dmstc ppstn — n whch cs thy’ll hpply pll thr gns t nd g cln p th nghbrhd. (Tht “smbdy ls” s nlkly t b lbrty-lvr, whch s why ny lbrty whch rslts wll b “th frt f rny”.)
> ffctv t wht?
Ntrlly, gttng wht thy wnt. sm bn Ldn s gttng xctly wht h wnts: wrld-wd slmc hgmny cpbl f bllyng lmst vryn wth mpnty.
‘v md th fllwng prdctn bfr: Y’ll s lbrty n th S, gn, *ftr* slmc fntcs dstry Wshngtn wth nclr-strk whch dstrys ny lst vstg f crdblty (nd, sbsqntly, ns t cntn fndng v “vlntry” txtn) n th ntn tht n cnc ntn-stt cn sccssflly dft physclly nn-dscrnbl ppnnt. (Th S fghtng l Qd s lk mdvl knght swngng swrd t plg cvrng hm wth bls.)
Ths s *vltn n ctn*, Jhn, nd s vry ht Tn Trnr n Thndrdm wrnd, t’ll tk th frst mn tht scrms.
Lk t.
> Wh hv y sht?
bvsly cnnt nswr tht n ny ffrmtv wy fr rgrttbly prgmtc rsns, s why sk? thrws, t bgs m whn “cnsrvtvs” flsh thr gns lk gng-bngr pnks whn knw dmn wll thy’r *lss* cmmttd t hntng dwn nd xtrmntng thvs cmmttd t stlng thr prprty — n prptty — thn ths crzy wht-pwdr sllng *cptlsts*.
June 27th, 2004 at Jun 27, 04 | 6:29 am
Nice photo. This right here
<img src=”http://www.presenceofmind.net/1911.jpg”>
looks kinda like the assertion of a property right. Supposing someone stole a picture of a 1911 handgun, would the owner of that image have the right to use a 1911 on the thief?
(Kennedy thinks so, or did, but, to his credit, he seems by now to be horrified by his own reflection.)
–GSS
June 27th, 2004 at Jun 27, 04 | 6:41 am
Obviously I cannot answer that in any affirmative way for regrettably pragmatic reasons, so why ask?
Because I assume you could honestly admit that you have not shot anyone.
Otherwise, it bugs me when “conservatives” flash their guns like gang-banger punks…
While I obviously favor trashing Yglesias rhetorically I don’t think Lopez’s “quick refutation” is very sound. How is that gun even slowing people like Yglesias down?
You see, “people like Yglesias” includes roughly everyone, his special offense here is his candor. Almost everyone agrees in principle with what he wrote. Whatever he may deserve, cutting off his head would be the first step in a shortcut to precipitating totalitarianism.
Islamic terrorists might have some hope of getting the US military to pull out of the Iraq, but there’s no way to get statists to pull out of America. We’re the zero percenters, which makes them the hundred percenters.
Your proposal to behead a blogger who says out loud what 99+% Americans believe in their hearts borders on the insane.
June 27th, 2004 at Jun 27, 04 | 6:51 am
Greg,
The idea of shooting thieves doesn’t horrify me, I just think it’s crazy to precipitate a shooting match with essentially the whole human race. My objection isn’t that this weasel deserves to keep his head; I just intend to keep mine.
June 27th, 2004 at Jun 27, 04 | 7:06 am
Swnn: >Nc pht. Ths rght hr <mg src= “http://www.prsncfmnd.nt/1911.jpg”> lks knd lk th ssrtn f prprty rght. Sppsng smn stl pctr f 1911 hndgn, wld th wnr f tht mg hv th rght t s 1911 n th thf?
dnn bt tht, bt hv vry cnfdnc tht h’d b qckly ddd t th spmmng lsts f “dysss” <dysss@BldhndRlty.cm>.
June 27th, 2004 at Jun 27, 04 | 7:34 am
knndy wrt:
>schndr wrt:
>>bvsly cnnt nswr tht n ny ffrmtv wy fr
>>rgrttbly prgmtc rsns, s why sk?
>
>Bcs ssm y cld hnstly dmt tht y hv nt sht nyn.
ssmng, cntrrly, tht tht *wsn’t* th cs (.., tht *hd* ndd wnt t nd sht sm wrthy nd dsrvng bstrd), hw wld y xpct m t “hnstly” cnfss t mrdr n brd-dylght n frm f pblc-rcrd? h, d y, lk, thnk thy’d s t t th trl? :-P
>>thrws, t bgs m whn “cnsrvtvs” flsh thr gns
>>lk gng-bngr pnks…
>
>Whl bvsly fvr trshng Yglss rhtrclly dn’t
>thnk Lpz’s “qck rfttn” s vry snd. Hw s tht
>gn vn slwng ppl lk Yglss dwn?
t *sn’t*, bcs t s th wsl’s xprnc tht blstrng chckn-lvrs, fr ll thr pstd pctrs f gns, wll lwys bck dwn nd py thr txs lk gd lttl srfs. — nd why shldn’t h hv (nd ndd clcfy) thn pnn whn tht’s xctly wht h ss vrywhr rnd hm? (t lst, tht s, p ntl th mmnt f hm sddnly bng pt t f hs msry.)
>Y s, “ppl lk Yglss” nclds rghly vryn, hs
>spcl ffns hr s hs cndr. lmst vryn grs n
>prncpl wth wht h wrt.
Bcs thy s n *ngtv cnsqncs* rsng frm hldng t.
>Whtvr h my dsrv, cttng ff hs hd [s] th frst
>stp n shrtct t prcpttng ttltrnsm.
1. f y’d stplt t “h my dsrv” [t], y’v rndrd mrl pprvl t th frm f jstc dscrbd, nd sbsqnt cncrns wth “mpndng ttltrnsm” r *prgmtc* ns.
2. Sch shrtct wld nt prcptt ttltrnsm ny fstr thn t’s lrdy ccrrng t brknck spd tlzng ny f dzns f thr xcss, nd *nbld* vry stp f th wy by ZR ppstn.
>slmc trrrsts mght hv sm hp f gttng th S
>mltry t pll t f th rq,
Th rnk-nd-fl fntc ntwt wnts th S t f rq, bcs tht’s wht h’s bn tld t thnk. Bt tctclly, th S s xctly rght whr sm wnts t: Bggd dwn n tr-pt blwng trllns f dllrs slssly n lv-tlvsn, vry scnd f t bng ngrvd 3×4 spct-rt prpgnd grst fr th mllh’s mll.
>bt thr’s n wy t gt sttsts t pll t f mrc.
>Yr prpsl t bhd blggr wh sys t ld
Jhn? “Bt dn’t thnk f hm” s lttl, fr ll ws wr, h cld hv bn cngrssmn r jdg r th ld dtr f th Wshngtn Pst, rthr thn th smllst prl mgnbl. cn crtnly cp t n rgmnt tht nbdy-f-sgnfcnc sn’t th bst cnddt pn whch t nnnc th cmmncmnt f ctv-msrs f rsstnc.
>wht 99+% mrcns blv n thr hrts brdrs n th nsn.
Wll, thn, s thr’s n scp frm th rlty f tkng t p th sphnctr 24/7 ntl vntlly y crl p nd d n hsptl bd wth tbs p yr ns whl n HM hvrs th rmnnts f yr ptfl lf-svngs?
Hlp m t hr.
June 27th, 2004 at Jun 27, 04 | 7:43 am
(*Jss*, mn… Cld y, lk, dd n DT bttn t ths plc, s cld fx ll my crppy grmmr mstks?)
June 27th, 2004 at Jun 27, 04 | 3:20 pm
At least Yglesias is honest about his willingness to coerce. I would much rather deal with the straight-shooting Yglesiases of the world who are under no illusions about what they support, rather than mindless zombies who swallowed whole everything their third-grade teachers told them in civics class.
And to build on what JTK already said, Lopez’s little pea shooter is no where near “a solid argument against inititating force”; Yglesias’s team has bigger and better guns.
June 27th, 2004 at Jun 27, 04 | 4:00 pm
> The idea of shooting thieves doesn’t horrify me
Obviously it does, to your credit. You live surrounded by thieves–freelance, organized and governmental. Not quite the throngs the libertarians and conservatives whimper about, but enough. And yet there you are, day after day, not murdering anyone. I think it demonstrates an admirable restraint, a quality that marks you as a potentially safe neighbor. No one would dare turn their back on the ferocious animals most libertarians pretend to be, the ferox you sometimes pretend to be. We all know it’s all pretense, idiot fantasy. But few of us seem to understand that a more important freedom that freedom from taxation or freedom from burdensome paperwork is the freedom to turn your back on your neighbor, having every confidence that he won’t shoot you or behead your or steal your stuff. I trust you not to behave rashly in anger, John. This is something I can say about most people I know, but about damn few libertarians…
June 27th, 2004 at Jun 27, 04 | 4:59 pm
Kennedy:Islamic terrorists might have some hope of getting the US military to pull out of the Iraq, but there’s no way to get statists to pull out of America. We’re the zero percenters and which makes them the hundred percenters.
Your proposal to behead a blogger who says out loud what 99+% Americans believe in their hearts borders on the insane.
Okay, let’s follow this train of thought. If 99+% of Americans believe was Yglesias does, then how’re they going to react when Kennedy Freedom Corp. shows up with a product that will allow the <1% of them who desire to do so the ability to exit the looting cycle?
A: Yglesias’d be in a rage, faced with the fact that someone wasn’t paying “his fair share”.
Do you think that the resulting national fury would precipitate totalitarianism?
June 27th, 2004 at Jun 27, 04 | 5:04 pm
Ghertner:At least Yglesias is honest about his willingness to coerce. I would much rather deal with the straight-shooting Yglesiases of the world who are under no illusions about what they support, rather than mindless zombies who swallowed whole everything their third-grade teachers told them in civics class.
And how do you deal with the straight-shooters, Micha? What makes them preferable to the mindless zombies?
June 27th, 2004 at Jun 27, 04 | 5:09 pm
<>Swnn: Bt fw f s sm t ndrstnd tht mr mprtnt frdm tht frdm frm txtn r frdm frm brdnsm pprwrk s th frdm t trn yr bck n yr nghbr, hvng vry cnfdnc tht h wn’t sht y r bhd y…
1. Y’r frd f ppl wth gns wh prs sttd phlsphy f mndng thr wn bsnss? h, tht’s jst prcs. Pry tll, *why*?
2. Ppl wh stbbrnly rfs t sht r bhd thr “nghbrs” whn sd “nghbrs” prsst n nttng frc gnst thm — wll, *nvtbly*, b vltnrly d-slctd by sd “nghbrs”. Tht d-slctn prcss s vdnt ll thrght th Mddl st, whr pcfst Chrstn “trn th thr chk” phlsphy hs bn spplntd by slmc “kll th nfdl” phlsphy.
Yr “cnfdnc” s msplcd, nd t vry bst fntsy-mbrcmnt f “t f sght, t f mnd”, whch lds t ssctn wth grnnng jckls wth plmd knvs (n prfrnc t grff, hlstr-wrng hmbrs wh cncl nthng nd r mn f thr wrd), nd s ntrrptd by rlty shrtly bfr sddn dth.
Th lmpn-pcfst “sccr-mm mrc” tht y rprsnt hs yt t hv rl tst f vrlnt Whbbsm n whch ny rndm pssrby s cpbl f xpldng mk t yr bs-stp. W shll s f y hv ny blt-n mmnty whn, lk blgcl nflnz bfr t cntry g, ths *mm* dss swps th plnt.
June 27th, 2004 at Jun 27, 04 | 6:55 pm
The lumpen-pacifist “soccer-mom America” that you represent has yet to have a real taste of virulent Wahabbism in which any random passerby is capable of exploding amok at your bus-stop. We shall see if you have any built-in immunity when, like biological influenza before it a century ago, this *meme* disease sweeps the planet.
Do you think random humano-bombs will induce soccer-mom America to tolerate you better, or to recognize you as easy prey and shred you to ribbons?
You want I should install an alarm on your clock, set to go off in 2009? Lay low, man.
June 27th, 2004 at Jun 27, 04 | 6:57 pm
John,
Okay, let’s follow this train of thought. If 99+% of Americans believe was Yglesias does, then how’re they going to react when Kennedy Freedom Corp. shows up with a product that will allow the <1% of them who desire to do so the ability to exit the looting cycle?
My first impression upon reading this was that you were misunderstanding me, thinking I was proposing only products that would enable only a few to exit the looting cycle. I’m talking about products that could offer anyone relief.
But upon rereading I think you mean something else. I think you mean that given the existence of such products less then 1% will choose to use them. That’s completely wrong. Given the ability to shield his income you think Yglesias is going to stand on principle and pay his taxes? Not a chance, you can depend on him to act in is immediate self interest and keep his money. And THEN he’ll work out a new rationalization for his defection from what he said was right.
June 27th, 2004 at Jun 27, 04 | 7:06 pm
Mike,
Because they see no *negative consequences* arising from holding it.
I think they saw Tim McVeigh.
Didn’t McVeigh do much the same as you are proposing? He imposed costs on the FBI and civilians. Do you like the results he precipitated?
June 27th, 2004 at Jun 27, 04 | 7:21 pm
McVgh dd t ll wrng, Jhn. T strt wth, h sgnd p t b th ptsy f rq nd/r l Qd frnt-mn (th “Jhn D #2″ th fds kp lyng bt nw lng wth vry thr trrrst ncdnt drng th Clntn dmnstrtns), thrby dltng ny llgd pr-lbrty sttmnt — bt vn mr mprtnt, h rfrnd frm sltng hs ctn t spcfc glty ndvdl(s) nd nstd ctd wtht rgrd fr nncnts.
H ddn’t, fr nstnc, *frtvly* hnt dwn nd snff wrthy sttst cnddt, thn ml vdtps f hm (wrng hcky-msk nd glvs) hldng p th svrd hd t vry md tlt.
Th stt dsn’t hv th rsrcs r th mnpwr t prvd 24/7 bdygrd srvc t vry pdnk ppllt crt jrk, ldrtrky nd znng bnhd n th whl fttd lnd, nd thr’s n wy tht cps frd f wnrdgs r p t th tsk f t.
June 27th, 2004 at Jun 27, 04 | 8:00 pm
Greg,
Obviously it does, to your credit.
No, the decision is tactical. I calculate the consequences. If there were a dangerous intruder in my home I wouldn’t shoot him if my kids might be on the other side of the wall he was standing in front of. On the other hand if he passed in front of the stone fireplace I’d have no qualms. The kind of horror you’re talking about doesn’t enter into it.
There was a time when what you’re saying would have been true about me, when I would have experienced anguish at taking any human life, but now I’m quite comfortable with living with the consequences of my best judgment made in good faith. Because I understand now that it’s all I have.
I trust you not to behave rashly in anger, John.
I won’t let you down.
June 27th, 2004 at Jun 27, 04 | 8:11 pm
Mike,
He didn’t, for instance, *furtively* hunt down and snuff a worthy statist candidate, then mail videotapes of him (wearing hockey-mask and gloves) holding up the severed head to every media outlet.
Neither did you.
And if you think that’s a good plan you don’t need any help to do it.
June 28th, 2004 at Jun 28, 04 | 12:17 am
Given the ability to shield his income you think Yglesias is going to stand on principle and pay his taxes?
Yes. I believe him when he says he wants to build a better tomorrow (on a foundation of corpses). What I don’t believe is that the overwhelming majority of people share his desires. If they did, then there really isn’t much hope of any plan.
June 28th, 2004 at Jun 28, 04 | 1:32 am
To the J. Lo and Mike S. not-so-massive massive:
Let’s start with a simple basic principle.
It’s wrong to kill people merely for publicly expressing a political opinion.
Even Nazis.
Even Yglesias.
Do you understand that? You have no right to fucking kill somebody for saying something - even something you don’t goddamned like- on their own goddamned blog or newspaper or privately-engraved-and-embossed-toilet-paper.
Because it’s theirs - not yours. Theirs. Do you understand that?
Now, I will say also that you will never have that right, no matter how many guns or pictures of guns or big-character-signs (provided courtesy of the late unlamented Red Guards) you wave around on the web or even in person.
Even if nobody else in the world agreed with me I would still say you had no right. And even if everyone else thought it was a wonderfully heroic and necessary deed,I would still say that you were nothing but a common murderer and thug because you had no right.
And don’t give me that “initiation of force” crap. Because if what Ygleisias did was an “initiation of force” then the term “initiation of force” means everything and therefore means nothing, and we should throw that phrase away like a dangerous booby-trapped toy that’s good for nothing but to kill and maim. A shadowy ever-expanding intepretation of language is exactly what totalitarianism runs on. So let’s not use that phrase anymore, if that what you propose to warp it into.
And if freedom can only be built on a foundation of terror and violent intimidation, on a foundation of ignoring the rights of some to build a kind of simalucrum of freedom for yourself - if your freedom requires that you do nothing but sit around waiting and for all I fucking know, hoping for some long-predicted catastrophe that will bring death and misery to innocent millions but might, maybe bring freedom to you - then I don’t want your freedom, I would be ashamed of such liberty and curse every single day that such a “free land” endured.
And I would not only be right to do so but prudent as well, because the blood of the innocent cries to Heaven for vengeance, (If you feel more comfortable substituting “reality” for “the vengeance of Heaven” go right ahead.)
Now, perhaps, having gotten all that straight, maybe you and Lopez can actually read what you write instead of playing “More-Radical/Cynical/Tough-Minded-Than-Thou” stupid-ass games, dropping childish and absurd dark hints of secret assasination, instead of waving around ballistic fucking clip art like a know-nothing talisman, instead of, to put it very plainly, acting like a couple of melodramatic, pseudo-bloodthirsty politically posturing fools.
June 28th, 2004 at Jun 28, 04 | 1:53 am
John,
Yes. I believe him when he says he wants to build a better tomorrow (on a foundation of corpses).
He won’t pay his taxes if he doesn’t have to. He means what he says in a shallow sense but his philosophy, such as it is, is nothing more than window dressing. It’s nothing but a rationalization for what he judges to be in his immediate self interest. When circumstances change and his perceived immediate self interest changes with it his philosophical rationalizations will follow.
What I don’t believe is that the overwhelming majority of people share his desires. If they did, then there really isn’t much hope of any plan.
Like nearly everyone else he’s functioning almost exclusively on the level of instrumental rationality. The philosophy of such people isn’t grounded in anything, it’s simply a rationalization for whatever they want to do next. You can’t reliably persuade such people of anything by rational argument because they see no point in establishing a connection between argument and reality. For the instrumentally rational the purpose of an argument is to advance one’s agenda.
This of course is why I’ve been saying for a long time that Rational Evangelism Won’t Work.
The instrumentally rational can be persuaded by other means though, because they act in what they perceive to be their immediate self interest. The crude way to attempt to persuade them is what Mike is advocating - put the fear of death into them. The better way is to arrange things so that defection from collectivism becomes more profitable.
June 28th, 2004 at Jun 28, 04 | 2:20 am
Everything requires careful consideration if one is to understand it. In ancient times, as I recollect, people often ate human beings, but I am rather hazy about it. I tried to look this up, but my history has no chronology, and scrawled all over each page are the words: “Virtue and Morality.” Since I could not sleep anyway, I read intently half the night, until I began to see words between the lines, the whole book being filled with the two words–”Eat people.”
- Lu Hsun, A Madman’s Diary
June 28th, 2004 at Jun 28, 04 | 4:30 am
Sabotta,
It’s wrong to kill people merely for publicly expressing a political opinion.
Okay then, John, here is what we have: A “political opinion” that gets picked up as a “political platform” which becomes a “law” which results in a “warrant” which means that men with guns come to me and poke the muzzles of those selfsame guns into my face and threaten to kill me if I don’t acquiesce to this “political opinion”. Just so’s I know, then, can you tell me exactly when in this process I’m allowed to do something about the unfolding chain of events? When the snipers show up? When the tanks start to roll? When?
It was a “political opinion” that those rootless cosmopolitans are a threat that needs taken care of, right quick. Was that “merely” an opinion? Answer: no it was fucking not.
It was a plan.
You think Yglesias is kidding? You think those bills in Congress are opinions?
Let’s put it this way: are you agreeing with the idea that other people have the right to refine their plan to kill you?
June 28th, 2004 at Jun 28, 04 | 5:09 am
Lopez,
Let’s put it this way: are you agreeing with the idea that other people have the right to refine their plan to kill you?
It depends. Suppose he plans to kill you by voodoo. Is that actionable? Is it actionable if he attempts to kill you by sticking pins in a doll?
I think this particular point is fuzzier than either of you would like. On one hand when Y has thought this through to the extent he has and voluntarily identifies himself with those who are undeniably combatants it’s tempting to take him at his word. If we consider the situation as somewhat analogous to a lynch mob then are we going to say that only those who actually lay hands on the victim are responsible? No, I think the responsibility goes further than that.
On the other hand we could look at Y as someone who thinks he’s in the mafia but really isn’t in any meaningful sense, even though he cheers them on.
I think that issue is moot though unless you’re actually prepared to shoot him. I don’t think that’s a good idea and I don’t think you do.
And I point out again that your gun isn’t dissuading him form doing as he pleases politically. In practice it has not refuted him.
June 28th, 2004 at Jun 28, 04 | 5:22 am
Jhn Sbtt gv Tky Rs nd Pl Jspf Gbbls cln pss thsly:
<>Lt’s strt wth smpl bsc prncpl.
t’s wrng t kll ppl mrly fr pblcly xprssng pltcl pnn.
“xprssng pltcl pnn” s rbtrry nd phmstc schmltz. Hnt: Blly Bck (rp) “‘m nt ntrstd n pltcs r thr frms f vlnc.” Tht’s wht yr prcs “pltcs” s: *dlgtd vlnc*.
Whr n Sm Hll ds nybdy gt th rght t b n ccssry-bfr-th-fct ccmplc t *nttn f frc*, Jhn?
<>nd dn’t gv m tht “nttn f frc” crp….
(T lt.)
<>Bcs f wht Yglss dd ws n “nttn f frc” thn th trm “nttn f frc” mns vrythng nd thrfr mns nthng, nd w shld thrw tht phrs wy lk dngrs bby-trppd ty tht’s gd fr nthng bt t kll nd mm. shdwy vr-xpndng ntprttn f lngg s xctly wht ttltrnsm rns n.
t’s *ls* wht scdl-pcfsm rns n: N vwd dvrsry s jdgd crdbl thrt wrthy f ny rspns ntl hs knf hs lrdy bn drwn crss n’s dm’s ppl. (S blw.)
<>S lt’s nt s tht phrs nymr, f tht wht y prps t wrp t nt.
Y’r frmly trppd n fllcy-f-th-xcldd-mddl. n prst (n tplt, sy) f yr rgmnt slppng m wth th “vr-xpndng ntrprttn” jg, y’v *shrnk* th dfntn f nttd-frc t n nfntsml, ntl y’r stck n pstn f hvng n “rght” t rspnd prmptvly t th prmsd nd mpndng ntntns f pblcly vwd nms, n mttr hw lthsm f jckls (.g., *Nzs*) thy my b.
t’s n wndr y’r hstg t lv-fr-th-mmnt-nd-hp-t-crk-bfr-ll-hll-brks-ls mntlty.
<>nd f frdm cn nly b blt n fndtn f trrr nd vlnt ntmdtn,..
Yh; tht’s whr th fllcs wll ld y: nt ths knds f stpd snt-ldng rgmnts cntnng bltntly smggld fls-prmss sch s tht cntr-thrt t n nttry thrt s “vlnt ntmdtn”. — *Hrssht*. Y’r jst nt pyng ttntn.
June 28th, 2004 at Jun 28, 04 | 5:34 am
Sabotta: <A symphony>
Now I’m impressed. Bless you, sir.
Greg Swann
June 28th, 2004 at Jun 28, 04 | 6:16 am
dnc, wtch ths:
Knndy:
<>Jhn [Sbtt],
Ys. blv hm [Schndr] whn h sys h wnts t bld bttr tmrrw (n fndtn f crpss).
Hld tht thght…
snp
<>Ths f crs s why ‘v bn syng fr lng tm tht Rtnl vnglsm Wn’t Wrk.
Ntc hw clnly JTK hs cmmttd hmslf t ls-ls xstnc n whch sng rsn n hs nms “wn’t wrk”, bt sng (pr-mptv dfnsv) frc pn thm s, t bst, t gch fr plt t & crmpt snsblts, nd t wrst bltntly mmrl. Th ls-ls rgmnt cntns:
<>thy prcv t b thr mmdt slf ntrst. Th crd wy t ttmpt t prsd thm s wht Mk s dvctng - pt th fr f dth nt thm. Th bttr wy s t rrng thngs s tht dfctn frm cllctvsm bcms mr prftbl.
(Dspt th fct, s y’v rptdly wrttn, tht t wn’t mttr bcs th stt wll hpply grnd n wtht th npt f fw bltrs.)
“r dl ws tht wldn’t kll y. fgr y gt brgn.” — Th “Rd Wrrr”, t th gyr-plt (wh’d trd t mbsh hm rlr, nd fld.)
– nd th gyr-plt ws, s Mx jdgd, frly rtnl gy, whch s *prcsly why* h srvvd t b brgnd wth n th frst plc, whn Mx thrws hd n mrl rqrmnt t d s. (Th gyr-plt ws fckng nstn cmprd t Krt Lcknr.)
Nw thn: D y thnk sm bn Ldn s ntrstd n prft? *H’s nt vn stt!* H hs n lt t prms hs fllwrs. H’s nt vn frd f *dth*, Jhn (s thr’s n pnt vn tryng pt th “fr” f t nt hm). ssntlly, nthr th crrt nr th stck wll wrk, bcs nthr “rgmnt” wth y nr bsnss-rltnshp, s wht h s ntrstd n.
Th “fndtn f sklls” *lrdy xsts*, nd t strtchs frm sb-Shrn frc strght vr t th Hnd Ksh. t’s smply bltnt scp frm rlty t pst ths t’ll sddnly plnk dwn nt xstnc pn th xclsvly pvtl hstrcl vnt f n twtchy Mchl J. Schndr fnlly brchng th pprtnty-cst lv.
(Sbtt shld ls tk stb t ths n) Cn y, bynd shdw f dbt, prv tht BL hs dn nythng mr thn “pblcly xprss pltcl pnns”? RC, h’s nvr pprd n tp dng nythng thr thn ymmr nt mcrphn. Fr tht mttr, dd n lss thn Htlr vr prsnlly slp Nz stg nt mplmntng, s dct, wht wr jst msng n “Mn Kmpf”? Th dffrnc btwn thm nd (t pck mch smllr wrm) Yglss s th prpnsty f th dnc t mmdtly ct t vlnc — bt s n “xcsd” nd th thr nt, d t th bhvr f fllwrs? f Rgr Mr blrts “G kll Bsh!” drng Mvn rlly — nd smn ds — hw s h dffrnt frm sm? f mn xhrts msss t yr rbbry nd r mrdr, sn’t t ctlly jst wst f tm — f nt ctlly scdl — n yr prt t trt hm s nythng thr thn dngrs prdtr?
<>vrythng rqrs crfl cnsdrtn f n s t ndrstnd t. n ncnt tms, s rcllct, ppl ftn t hmn bngs, bt m rthr hzy bt t. trd t lk ths p, bt my hstry hs n chrnlgy, nd scrwld ll vr ch pg r th wrds: “Vrt nd Mrlty.” Snc cld nt slp nywy, rd ntntly hlf th nght, ntl bgn t s wrds btwn th lns, th whl bk bng flld wth th tw wrds–”t ppl.”
Y shld rmmbr prfctly wll ths “skm-tng” thrds (rgrdng “prdnt prdtrs” nd ssrtd thr crp) tht splld t ll vr HP svrl yrs g. Cnsqntly, thr’s n rsn fr y t b ctrng t Sbtt’s (r nyn ls’s) msmprssn f m s n mrl sttnl thcst whn y knw tht’s nt th cs. *Tht* lbls stcks frmly t th scm thy’r *dfndng*.
June 28th, 2004 at Jun 28, 04 | 6:26 am
JTK>Spps h plns t kll y by vd. s tht ctnbl?
JTK>s t ctnbl f h ttmpts t kll y by stckng pns n dll?
trgs strw-mn rgmnt.
JTK> pnt t gn tht yr gn sn’t dssdng hm frm dng
JTK>s h plss pltclly. n prctc t hs nt rftd hm.
Ths s smply nnsns, s Lpz’ gn hs NT bn pt nt “prctc”. Wr t, th “rfttn” wld b nqvcbl.
June 28th, 2004 at Jun 28, 04 | 6:55 am
(Is this an example of someone reaching their “threshold of outrage”?)
Notice how cleanly JTK has committed himself to a lose-lose existence in which using reason on his enemies “won’t work”,…
It’s a false dichotomy; I intend to win.
but using (pre-emptive defensive) force upon them is, at best, too gauche for polite tea & crumpet sensibilities, and at worst blatantly immoral.
No, my objection to your approach is that it won’t work either.
(Despite the fact, as you’ve repeatedly written, that it won’t matter because the state will happily grind on without the input of a few bolters.)
You’re not following what I’m saying if you think I’m talking about a few bolters. Virtually everyone will defect from collectivism if the right incentives exist.
By the way Mike, you’re all over the place. Your recent comments have been riddled with contradictions. I hardly know how (or why) to begin.
What do you hope to accomplish by, for instance, calling for the beheading of public officials? You criticize Lopez for tough gun talk you say he won’t back up, and that may be perfectly fair, but you’re obviously not beheading anyone and sending the tape to the media either, so why doesn’t the same criticism apply to you in spades?
June 28th, 2004 at Jun 28, 04 | 7:43 am
JTK
<> my bjctn t yr pprch s tht t wn’t wrk thr.
Lt’s pck vry smpl nd vry blnt wrd t dscrb my “pprch”: Rsstnc. (nd ys, f y wsh, vlnt rsstnc.) cn pnt t mny sccssfl hstrcl xmpls f sccssfl rsstnc. Y’r smply wrng: Hstrclly, rsstnc t tyrnny s dmnstrbly th *nly* mns f scpng t wthn n’s wn lftm.
<> Vrtlly vryn wll dfct frm cllctvsm f th rght ncntvs xst.
Lmm djst yr nrns fr scnd. Hld stll…
*THWCK* (Knndy wks p, ll wzy, nd dscvrs h s n th mddl-st.)
Thr. Nw pn yr ys nd lk rnd y t lnd cvrd n ppl wh r (t lst th mn nywy) dmnstrbly frr n mny rspcts thn ppl n th S: Thy’r bl t wlk rnd ttng tmtc wpns f thy chs, frgt thr D t hm, drv s fst s thy llhdmn pls, shp t dty-fr blck-mrkts n vry strt crnr, hr nd fr s thy lk, nd slt 100% f th prfts wy ntrcbly v hwl bnks.
Nvrthlss, sv fr Dbb sprkng lk dmnd n n cn f mnr, vrtlly vryn thr s hrt-nd-sl cmmttd t cllctvsm f ttr brbrc dprvty knwn s Sh’rh. rngtngs tht mrdr thr yng rn’t ths nsn. Rlly. Trn n th tlly sm tm nd jst *wtch*.
Wht “ncntvs”, n yr wldst drms whch dn’t nvlv gntc rcmbntn *r* vlnt dpsmnt f sm xstng thrttv strctr, cld y pssbly mplmnt n tht mch mr cptl-frndly mrkt tht wld hv ny hp f sccss csng th msss t dfct frm cllctvsm?
[] Wht d y hp t ccmplsh by, fr nstnc, cllng fr th bhdng f pblc ffcls?
Slf-vdntly, th csstn f lf n prdtr.
[]Y crtcz Lpz fr tgh gn tlk y sy h wn’t bck p, nd tht my b prfctly fr, bt y’r bvsly nt bhdng nyn nd sndng th tp t th md thr, s why dsn’t th sm crtcsm pply t y n spds?
Y’ll ntc, fr strtrs, tht hvn’t flshd pc, thn NT sd t.
t shld b mnfstly bvs tht f n nggs n ncrgmnt f, mnmlly, th mr *d* f rsstnc, tht th bstng f n’s r cllctn wld b dtrmntl t cntnd pblc pprncs. N, th smrtr tctcs r t NT flsh n’s pc, bt nstd s t scrtvly s n dms prdnt, nd, f n lcts t mk smll vctry pblc knwldg, t d s whl rmnng nnyms.
June 28th, 2004 at Jun 28, 04 | 5:16 pm
[I] What do you hope to accomplish by, for instance, calling for the beheading of public officials?
Self-evidently, the cessation of life in a predator.
And why do you want to accomplish that? Do you think it will improve your life?
You’ll notice, for starters, that I haven’t flashed a piece, then NOT used it.
It should be manifestly obvious that if one engages in encouragement of, minimally, the mere *idea* of resistance, that the boasting of one’s ear collection would be detrimental to continued public appearances. No, the smarter tactics are to NOT flash one’s piece, but instead use it secretively as one deems prudent, and, if one elects to make a small victory public knowledge, to do so while remaining anonymous.
But with these coy answers you are effectively boasting, without anonymity, of dealing out vigilante justice. So where’s the sense in that?
June 28th, 2004 at Jun 28, 04 | 5:20 pm
…and salt 100% of the profits away untraceably via hawala banks.
Bingo - defection from collectivism.
June 28th, 2004 at Jun 28, 04 | 6:16 pm
> > …nd slt 100% f th prfts wy ntrcbly v hwl bnks.
>
> Bng - dfctn frm cllctvsm.
<sgh> Hwl (K hnd) *prdts* slm. Smtms wndr f y vn knw wht thy hll y’r tlkng bt. Rmmbr “Th dvntrs f Rbn Hd”, whr Rbn’s mn r scrbblng tgthr Kng Rchrd’s rnsm, nd th n mrchnt drps td rll f ppr n th tbl, pldgng n mptty hnkng hg mnt — nd thy str t hm lk h’s bnkrs? Wht h’d plnkd dwn ws rmttnc-cntrct.
Lk th thr gy drllng vr hs sb-rbtl rckt ds x-mchn plt dvc th thr dy, y thnk tchnlgy s gng t cm lng nd jst bsclly mk vrythng s mch sr fr y t wggld y wy t frm ndr th thmb f th stt — smngly blvs t th fct tht wtht cmptrs, th RS cldn’t rch t nd hvr bnk ccnts t thr lsr n th frst plc. r ccmlt ntnwd fcl-rcgntn dtbs whl mntng cmrs n psts vrywhr. bvsly th stt cn spnd bllns nd trllns f stln lt n bttr tys thn y cn wth yr mgr thsnds.
Tchnlgcl cnvnncs d nt cs “dfctn” frm cllctvsm bcs cllctvsm ds nt dpnd pn mrkts t sstn tslf — t tlzs FRC. n sldr/cp mnnng rd-blck n sttng f fn[ll smnts r blt wth gvrnmnt lt vr stln lnd] mks tn-thsnd mtrsts d xctly wht h wnts thm t d. “Yh, bt wt ntl w’r ll n flyng crs!”, th frky-gks xctdly xclm. h hh, nd th HRM-qppd Prdtrs wll blw yr ss t f th sky f yr lcnsd nd rgstrd nd qdrpld-txd nd spybt-mntrd vhcl dsn’t fly prcsly whr t’s sppsd t n xctly th mndtd mnnr ch nd vry nnscnd.
nlss nd ntl, f crs, sgmnt rvlts nd brngs th tyrnny dwn.
snp
>>>Wht d y hp t ccmplsh by, fr nstnc,
>>>cllng fr th bhdng f pblc ffcls?
>>
>>Slf-vdntly, th csstn f lf n prdtr.
>
>nd why d y wnt t ccmplsh tht?
Th “why” shld b slf-vdnt.
>D y thnk t wll mprv yr lf?
f gt wy wth t, crtnly. f dn’t, n. f crs, t crtn lvl f trg, ppl n lngr cr f thy’r cght. (Thr, nd th slmc mltnt, t tk tw phlsphy-ppsd mndsts, r xmpls f ppl wh rn’t stymd by th prspct f jl-tm. “mprv” s n rbtrry; qlty f lf s prsnl vltn ncmpssng ll srts f ndvdl prfrncs, sch s, fr nstnc, th rlsh t sng jstc ppld, nd tht n ppstn t thr dsrs, sch s fr mkng lv gn tmrrw.)
>y r ffctvly bstng, wtht nnymty, f dlng t
>vglnt jstc. S whr’s th sns n tht?
Nnsns — ‘v cnfssd t n sch thng. ‘m smply sttng tht f *hd*, t’d b mprdnt t tll y.
Lk, Jhn: Y nd cn hv prfctly rsnbl dscssn nvlvng th mst ptntlly ffctv bttlfld tctcs n gvn sttng — sy, th strn Frnt crc 1943 — wtht ctlly drssng p n cmbt cctrmnts.
June 28th, 2004 at Jun 28, 04 | 6:40 pm
JTK: What do you hope to accomplish by, for instance, calling for the beheading of public officials?
MJS: Self-evidently, the cessation of life in a predator.
JTK: And why do you want to accomplish that?
MJS: The “why” should be self-evident.
It’s not evident to me. Seems to me you could be worse off afterwards even if you don’t get caught.
JTK: Do you think it will improve your life?
MJS: If I get away with it, certainly.
How do you expect it to improve your life? Through the pleasure you’d take in dealing out justice to the wicked?
JTK: you are effectively boasting, without anonymity, of dealing out vigilante justice. So where’s the sense in that?
MJS: Nonsense — I’ve confessed to no such thing. I’m simply stating that if I *had*, it’d be imprudent to tell you.
But there’d be no harm in honestly admitting you hadn’t, so the implication of your coyness is clear. You are clearly trying to leave that impression.
June 28th, 2004 at Jun 28, 04 | 6:56 pm
>Sms t m y cld b wrs ff…
Wll, why shld *y*, cr, Jhn? t’s rlly my dcsn, sn’t t?
>>Nnsns — ‘v cnfssd t n sch thng. ‘m smply sttng
>>tht f *hd*, t’d b mprdnt t tll y.
>
>Bt thr’d b n hrm n hnstly dmttng y hdn’t,
>s th mplctn f yr cynss s clr….
Wht *s th pnt* f y skng m, n pblc frm, f ‘v cmmtd wht y knw th stt cnsdrs t b crm, nd sggstng shld “hnstly dmt” t n nswr n wy r th thr?
…nd y’r flggng *m* fr “cynss”?
Bllsht.
June 28th, 2004 at Jun 28, 04 | 7:31 pm
JTK:>Seems to me you could be worse off…
MJS: Well, why should *you*, care, John? It’s really my decision, isn’t it?
I care because I value you. It’s your decision but it looks like very bad judgment to me, judgment which could possibly be improved if we walk through your reasoning.
What *is the point* of you asking me, in a public forum, if I’ve commited what you know the state considers to be a crime, and suggesting I should “honestly admit” to an answer one way or the other?
…and you’re flagging *me* for “coyness”?
Bullshit.
I can honestly admit that I’m not furtively dealing out vigilante justice. The fact that you won’t must be intended to communicate something.
So here’s my point: If you’re not furtively dealing out vigilante justice then you look ridiculous for calling Lopez on posting a picture of a gun because you think he’s not willing to back it up, while you’re calling for the beheading of bloggers and public officials but unwilling to back that up yourself. And oh yeah, in this case -you also look ridiculous for trying to leave the impression that maybe you are furtively dealing out vigilante justice.
And if you are furtively dealing out vigilante justice then you look stupid for drawing attention to that fact here.
If you are comitting such crimes then drop your dark hints about them somewhere else. I don’t need that here.
June 28th, 2004 at Jun 28, 04 | 8:58 pm
Revenge
Margie thinks garbage men are filth, and wants them to get what’s coming to them.
Clip: Garbage Men Getting Hernias
Garbage men - extras
Mark Newell took revenge into his own hands, against his bank clerk, and has some home video.
Clip: Blowing Up Bank Teller’s House
Mark Newell - Flaherty
However, the teller gets her revenge when Mark is taken away for seven to ten years. A lunatic with dynamite strapped to his head shows up, claiming he hates the show.
Host: Ennio Gorodetsky - Thomas; Margie Walker - Kathy Laskey; Mark Newell - Flaherty; Angry Guy - Moranis; Audience - extras; Announcer - staff announcer
BUMPER
( From the SCTV Episode Guide )
June 28th, 2004 at Jun 28, 04 | 9:34 pm
> dn’t nd tht hr.
Thn why th blth ccptnc f Lpz’ “qck rfttn” — nlss y’r crtn, lk th cmms sch s Lcknr wh *lgh thr sss cln ff* whnvr cnsrvtvs flsh thr gns, tht h’ll nvr, vr stp t th “crm” f vglnt jstc (hnt: f “stt jstc” s n xymrn, thn wht thr knd s thr?)?
June 28th, 2004 at Jun 28, 04 | 10:10 pm
I didn’t blithely accept his refutation - I took issue with it. I think the final paragraph of this blog entry is half baked for reasons I’ve stated. But it’s well within the range of acceptable material for a blogger here.
If Lopez is shooting bloggers I don’t need that here either. I’m persuaded he’s not. I certainly won’t tolerate him dropping hints here that maybe he is shooting bloggers or public officials. He’d have to take that on the road, same as you or anyone else. He hasn’t done that, all he did was blog a comment I consider injudicious. Which is fine with me as a matter of editorial policy.
…commies such as Lockner who *laugh their asses clean off* whenever conservatives flash their guns..
…and what do you figure people think about your call to have them beheaded?
June 28th, 2004 at Jun 28, 04 | 10:22 pm
John L.,
Do you really think you’re apt to start shooting people for blogging, or voting, or verbally promoting violence via politics, or cheerleading for it?
June 28th, 2004 at Jun 28, 04 | 10:38 pm
John K.,
Do you really expect anyone to believe that you’re going to do anything in real time except wave bye-bye if a gangsta with an AR-15 decides to make off with your car?
(FWIW, I would consider any other immediate course of action, where the only value at stake is the car, to be patently insane. Gangstas and Jihadi, etc., die young because they are insane. Some libertarians experience self-loathing because they cannot reconcile their imaginary self-image to their habitually sane behavior. It’s the crisis of mind, I think, impulse versus measurement. Sane humans always measure.)
–GSS
June 28th, 2004 at Jun 28, 04 | 11:15 pm
Do you really expect anyone to believe that you’re going to do anything in real time except wave bye-bye if a gangsta with an AR-15 decides to make off with your car?
I’ll act in accordance with my best judgment of the tactical situation.
Sane humans always measure.
Yes, and sane humans shoot thieves when it makes sense to do so.
If you are not willing ultimately to defend your property by deadly force or free ride on some force producer who will do it for you then I don’t think you’ll get to keep your property.
June 28th, 2004 at Jun 28, 04 | 11:35 pm
>>Sane humans always measure.
> Yes, and sane humans shoot thieves when it makes sense to do so.
And that would be the extreme exception, as your life’s history aptly illustrates. Continuous thievery, zero shots fired. Very sane.
> If you are not willing ultimately to defend your property by deadly force or free ride on some force producer who will do it for you then I don’t think you’ll get to keep your property.
I can’t imagine any circumstance except an extreme emergency where you could justify deadly force, and even then your action could not be righteous, merely exigent. You do not ever own other people, regardless of their behavior. There cannot possibly ever be a circumstance whereby you acquire the moral or political right to dispose of another person’s life. The rest of the sentence is nonsense: It omits obvious alternatives. An excellent protection from freelance thieves, for example, is not the deadly force you do not deploy, but the locks on your doors. No death, no free rides, just capitalism in real life. And, obviously, your best defense against all thieves is a philosphically-consistent culture of egoism. The ego is what you are shouting down when you sputter on about how you intend to kill people. You don’t, to your credit. You just say you do, to your fault.
Be who you are, John. You’re a much better man than you pretend to be.
Greg
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 12:54 am
…think it’s your money anyway. Link to Yglesias piece via No Treason and link to Lileks Bleat via VodkaPundit.
Posted by: John Venlet
on Jun 28, 04 | 7:44 pm | Profile
[0] comments (0 …
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 6:24 am
Do you really think you’re apt to start shooting people for blogging, or voting, or verbally promoting violence via politics, or cheerleading for it?
No.
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 6:30 am
Sabotta,
This is a nation that was founded on violent revolution. In fact, our forefathers engaged in such practices as tarring and feathering those befuddled souls who objected to their little revolt. Now that’s some violent intimidation. Of course, that says nothing to the plight of African slaves, or of the natives who were subjected to literal physical and cultural genocide. The American Civil War, of course, led to the ironic spectacle of Northern slave-soldiers being killed by the thousands to ostensibly liberate the Southern slaves. Moving forwards, we come to the American empire abroad, where the Chinese, Phillipinos, and Spanish were brutalized into submission. And then World War One, Two, Korea, Vietnam, etc., etc.
All of which leads us to where we are today: inhabitants of one of the freer and more prosperous nations on the planet, whether by design or accident or in spite of it all. Should we then despair at the thought that our relative freedom and prosperity comes at the expense of untold millions of innocent deaths?
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 8:33 am
Lpz> Ths s ntn tht ws fndd n vlnt rvltn.
N t wsn’t.
<>LBRTY ws scrd v rvltn (whn th prncpls n “Cmmn Sns” nd th Dclrtn f ndpndnc wr pt nt <>ctn); th “ntn” ws n rtfcl cnstrct crtd sm yrs ltr wth th dptn f th Cnstttn by sm gssy ld frts n Phldlph wh thght thy cld spk fr vryn.
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 9:31 am
Swnn> Cntns thvry, zr shts frd. Vry sn.
t s nstrctv t nt hr tht f vry nn-thf-wh-nvr-shts-thvs ws s “sn” s Grg prsms h s, thn thy’d ll b slvs lbrng 16-hr dys n th flds nd mns. Grg s, hwvr, stll mrgnlly fr bcs h’s lvng pn th dscctd rmnnt f n dl stblshd nt <>rlty by ppl whm h wld cnsdr ttrly flt-t nsn fr pckng p thr sqrrl rfls t dclrd wr pn th wrld’s strngst mltry pwr n thr tm.
MJS>…cmms sch s Lcknr wh *lgh thr sss cln ff*
MJS>whnvr cnsrvtvs flsh thr gns..
>
JTK>.nd wht d y fgr ppl thnk bt yr cll t hv thm bhdd?
Y’v dptd th mbgs-cllctv fllcy n rdr t fstr th mprssn tht my st-f-ll-ths-’d-lk-t-s-fntnng-t-th-nck ncmpsss ny rndm bnch. Tht’s mschrctrztn.
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 10:19 am
JS> nd f frdm cn nly b blt n fndtn f trrr…
Yr “f” s bltnt msrprsnttn f ny pstn ‘v vr hd. s sl, y cntn t rg gnst n “mprssn” y hv f m, rthr thn ctlly *lstnng*.
JS> …nd vlnt ntmdtn….
<><crckt.wv>
“Yh; tht’s whr th fllcs wll ld y: nt ths knds f stpd snt-ldng rgmnts cntnng bltntly smggld fls-prmss sch s tht cntr-thrt t n nttry thrt s “vlnt ntmdtn”.
<><crckt.wv>
JS> n fndtn f gnrng th rghts f sm….
<><crckt.wv>
“Whr n Sm Hll ds nybdy gt th rght t b n ccssry-bfr-th-fct ccmplc t *nttn f frc*, Jhn”
<><crckt.wv>
JS>…f yr frdm rqrs tht y d nthng bt st rnd wtng…
Bt y bjct t ny sggstn whch ds <>NT nvlv dng nthng bt sttng rnd wtng fr whtvr hppns t hppn. t’s hypcrsy.
JS>..hpng fr sm lng-prdctd ctstrph tht wll brng dth
JS>nd msry t nncnt mllns bt mght, myb brng frdm t y
JS> - thn dn’t wnt yr frdm
Hyprbl sd, ddc y’r hppy t njy frdm s lng s smn ls btns t fr y.
s fr th hypthss n yr rgmnt, tht’s gng t hppn <>nywy — tk t t th bnk. Thn, whn nd f DC bcms hl dvd f kds nd bnny-rbbts nd ll th thr nfrtnt nhbtnts f th Dth Str’s ktchns, y mght jst fnd yrslf wtht n RS t py ll th swn cps wh n lngr hv bss t py thm hyprnfltd ft tlt-ppr.
Gvrmnts stblshd “fr th gd f scty” r jst lvs blt by stpd ppl t prtct thmslvs frm vltn — t yr, my, nd vryn’s frcbly-xtrctd xpns. Bt ll lvs vntlly fl, nd th bggr thy r, th wrs th fld.
Ths cntry hs hd hndrd-yr’s wrth f thf-brdng prgrms nd snctrs n plc, nd th whl plc s gng t rt lk crpntr-nts brng t n k. Y cn s t vrywhr rnd y: Mn Q [*hwvr* y wnt t msr t] s jst plmmtng thrgh th flr; nd th ppl’s gvrnmnt, wth ltd trllns t ts dspsl, s mnfstly nbl t hlt th sprd f [[RL[/] “trrr nd vlnt ntmdtn” knwn s Whbbsm thrght vry pr nd nk f th wrld.
Rmmbr th “Bltwy Snpr”? Cght n pr flk? H ws mslm ntcs. crpntr-nt brng wy. Tht’s th ftr hr shrtly, Sbtt. Gys lk hm, vrywhr; nd th <>drs mng s hvng t dl wth thm, nd ls hvng t pt p wth *bllsht* frm pcfsts vry pc f th wy wh thnk thy’r “sn” fr gmng fr rd.
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 4:54 pm
Swann: all day long, you could set up one-off situations in which the bad guy (yes: they really do exist) gets the drop and makes off with the goods. And you can cheer and sneer every time they win in your one-offs. (The car-jacker with the AR-15 might very well win, just because of the set-up, but maybe not every time.) It won’t do to talk about “san[ity]” in your tones, however, because every reasonable person knows there is nothing wrong with conceiving — and achieving, if possible — the setting right of an obvious wrong, with action. It also really does happen: sometimes, the good guys prevail, through violent action.
Your sneering is unbecoming.
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 5:01 pm
> Your sneering is unbecoming.
Albeit correct with respect to the actual nature of the objects considered. That is:<blockquote>You do not ever own other people, regardless of their behavior. There cannot possibly ever be a circumstance whereby you acquire the moral or political right to dispose of another person’s life.</blockquote>Your rebuttal is absent. Your fashion advice is irrelevant.
–GSS
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 5:13 pm
Billy, let me take you a little more seriously. We have a history, even if I don’t always like the way you comport yourself:
What is wrong with John’s idiotic posturing, with Lopez’s still more idiotic posturing, and with Schneider’s doing the very, very best he can do in his special circumstances, is that it is entirely the wrong approach to take to the systemic problem. We will never rid the world of cannibals by eating them. Mutually-voluntary peaceful human social interaction requires volunteers. Force will never ever produce them, no will epidemic force eradicate their opposites–rather more the opposite, as anyone can understand who dares to understand.
So: It’s a stupid pretense with no action behind it. It will not work because it cannot work. And it does get in the way of achieving what does work.
Now if from here you must posture, rage on. It’s a waste of life, but it’s your life–and John’s and Lopez’s and Schneider’s–to waste. The purpose of life is Splendor, but if the best you can do is bilious acrimony, that’s the best you can do.
Greg Swann
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 5:14 pm
You do not ever own other people, regardless of their behavior.
And the fact that they can’t own me is precisely why I’m entitled to deny them my property by whatever means their action makes neccessary.
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 5:30 pm
>> You do not ever own other people, regardless of their behavior.
> And the fact that they can’t own me is precisely why I’m entitled to deny them my property
John, you can take their property first if you want. We’re not talking about capacity, we’re talking about rectitude. They don’t own you, you don’t own them, and you don’t own them even if they claim to own you. Defending yourself against a (presumed) property crime by resort to deadly force is murder. Thieves are bad. Murderers are worse. Sane humans always measure.
> by whatever means their action makes neccessary.
Here you are pretending that your chosen behavior is caused by other people, a very common dogde. All purposive human behavior is internally motivated, never otherwise.
I’ve covered all of this at enormous length. A good place to start is Meet the Third Thing.
Facts are facts. Posturing is what you do to avoid them.
Greg Swann
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 5:30 pm
It is simple Swann. You steal a crust of bread, I can kill you. That is what they call freedom. Nevermind how many pieces of bread Mr. Kennedy swipes each day (as do we all, see my post above).
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 8:17 pm
“Defending yourself against a (presumed) property crime by resort to deadly force is murder.”
Sez you, G.
June 30th, 2004 at Jun 30, 04 | 5:10 am
Swnn:
<>Wht s wrng wth Jhn’s dtc pstrng, wth Lpz’s stll mr dtc pstrng, nd wth Schndr’s dng th vry, vry bst h cn d n hs spcl crcmstncs, s tht t s ntrly th wrng pprch t tk t th systmc prblm. W wll nvr rd th wrld f cnnbls by tng thm.
Th cnnbls wll b mr thn hppy t mpty t wrld f *y*, Grg, jst s sn s thy’v gbbld thr wy thrgh vryn stndng n th wy lk CHDs ftr ‘Snk’ Plskn. Thn, ‘m thr gng t wtch y hp nt thr mths s mn f yr wrd, r wtch y *dscvr* snty ftr lstnng t yr bllsht fr hlf–dzn yrs.
Lt’s tk lk t th cnnbls wh wnt y n thr plt:
< hrf="http://www.tm.cm/tm/mgzn/rtcl/0,9171,1101040705-658290,00.html" ttl="http://www.tm.cm/tm/mgzn/rtcl/0,9171,1101040705-658290,00.html">< hrf='http://www.tm.cm/tm/mgzn/rtcl/0,9171,1101040705-658290,00.html' rl='nfllw'>http://www.tm.cm/tm/mgzn/rtcl/0,9171,1101040705-658290,00.html
<>Mt Th Nw Jhd
TM nvstgtn rvls hw nsrgnts n rq m t crt n slmc stt nd trn th cntry nt trrrst hvn — By MCHL WR/FLLJH
Sndy, Jn. 27, 2004
Th sf hs ls n th tskrts f Flljh n nghbrhd
whr n mrcns hv vntrd. nsd, grp f rb shks hs
gthrd t dscss th jhd thy nd thr fllwrs r wgng
gnst th .S. Th mn wr wht rbs nd lng brds nd grt
ch thr slmnly. Thy r ll rq, bt thr blfs r ths
f th strct Whhb strn f slm rprssd ndr Sddm Hssn.
nlk mst rq sttng rms, ths n hs n pctrs drnng ts
wlls r tlvsn r rd nstld n crnr. Sch lxrs r
frbddn, jst s thy wr ndr th Tlbn n fghnstn. t th
bck f th rm r fw mn frm Sd rb, wh stnd slntly
s n f th shks, th grp’s ldr, ddrsss m n rbc nd
stltd nglsh. Th wr n rq, h sys, s n f lbrtn, nt
jst f cntry bt f Mslm lnds, Mslm ppl, slm tslf.
Thr s n rm fr ngttn wth th nmy, n cmmn grnd.
Wht h nd hs mn ffr s ndlss, rghts rsstnc. “Myb
ths wr wll tk lng tm,” h sys. “Myb ths s wrld wr…”
< hrf="http://www.wrldntdly.cm/nws/rtcl.sp?RTCL_D=31571" ttl="http://www.wrldntdly.cm/nws/rtcl.sp?RTCL_D=31571">< hrf='http://www.wrldntdly.cm/nws/rtcl.sp?RTCL_D=31571' rl='nfllw'>http://www.wrldntdly.cm/nws/rtcl.sp?RTCL_D=31571
<>“vntlly thr wll b Mslm n th Wht Hs dcttng th lws f Shrh!”
Ths fntcs dn’t ntnd t stp kllng ntl thy r thmslvs klld, r thy r vctrs n thr mpstn f thtyrnny. Thy <>knw frm xprnc tht vlnc <>wrks, nd hv vry rsn t b cnvncd tht th wst s thr t pcfst/cwrdly r t ncmptnt t dl wth thm. Thy’r prkng nrms lttlrs t f thr slv-wvs, nd cvrng th fc f th rth n splntr-clls wh ntnd th dfcng f synggs t b th <>lst f thr bjctvs.
Knndy sn’t gng t by thm ff wth bsnss pln, nd y sr s hll rn’t gng t shm thm by lctrng thm n th rrr f thr wys, r lct thr sympthy. Rght nw, fr ll ts xcrctng lmnss nd ncpnt flr t th tsk, th dscpcbly rttn S gvrnmnt s th nly thng kpng thm t f yr nghbrhd.
<>“Schndr’s dng th vry, vry bst h cn d n hs spcl crcmstncs…
Y’r n t ymmr tsm, scd-frk; snc whn t’s dwn t y nd thm, thy’ll b mr thn hppy t “wst” yr lf fr y bcs y ddn’t vl t ngh t <>kp f frm thm.
July 5th, 2004 at Jul 05, 04 | 8:23 pm
Idiotarian + Keyboard + "Journalism" = Hanlon’s Razor
The Word for the Day is: "Chickanery" Not that I’m looking for sympathy or ennythang, but I do want ya’ll to know that assembling a DailySpam! with two teenage cats doing their best to detach your hand from the trackball,…
August 7th, 2004 at Aug 07, 04 | 6:32 am
…28 2004
A Response To Schneider and Lopez
To the J. Lo and Mike S. not-so-massive massive:
Let’s start with a simple basic principle.
It’s wrong to kill people merely for publicly expressing a political opinion.
Even Nazis. …