Or Belarus.
I am going to say something funny, and this topic will be over.
No one gets more fiercely excited about libertarians than ex-libertarians. At least in the American context.
I could name you several genuine progressives, the kind who were protesting loudly on the streets for months to get the CRA passed in the 1960s, and none of them have a had a bad thing to say about libertarians. Robert Scheer, veteran journalist and editor of Truthdig, defended Ron Paul by saying, “Just what is it about our bloated federal government that when anybody advocates cutting it down, television pundits start foaming at the mouth?”, adding further that the American government’s excesses in spending have been in things least beneficial to the poor. Alexander Cockburn, editor of Counterpunch, again defended the folks of Mises.Org and company by saying that on most basic issues, there is absolutely no difference between sane people and libertarians, like how the Iraq War was wrong. Saul Freedman, journalist and nephew of a “non-card carrying socialist”, also said that libertarians have given a much needed addition to the scant opposition to government excesses.
Remember also that in the Bush era, any sane person was worried about deficits, and not just libertarians. It was not something that fell across party lines.
So who are the ones who are most fiercely criticising libertarians? Ex-libertarians. I will not name them. You know who they are. You might object by saying that they might never have been. But you know, let’s accept that they once were. Here’s the genuine problem. These people got interested by reading internet columns, YouTube videos, conspiracy theory sites, and so on. Once they found out about chains of groups like us, they had an interest. But it was a high time-preference interest. Looking at specifics requires slow and patient reading over a very very very long time, suspending all judgment. And then that will only leave you with the basic knowledge that there is more uncertainty than certainty. And when I came to this forum, I realized the giant volume of reading that I still had to do throughout my life. But what happens is that we use too much hyperbole, and sometimes show little sense of proportion when we talk. And for those who are more impatient, they get frustrated much quicker, both with the lack of quick answers and our lack of serious talk.
Either way, nobody will get any knowledge of Austrian economics from this message board. It’s mainly for socializing. You have to read, and we unfortunately can’t give the quick answers here.
…
I sure hope you aren’t trolling here.
Seriously. Do we all need to immediately jump up and proclaim that it’s wrong? Of course we think it’s wrong. Are you really going to think that we endorse it otherwise? Just what kind of people do you think we are?
If you’re going to call us hypocrites, why don’t you do so in an honest, direct manner?
My god person…
Grayson, do you think the majority of people in here agree with Caley? Why or why not?
If it please you and Epicurus ibn Kalhoun, let me note for the record that I do not think it was right for the (alleged) Rand Paul supporter to have stomped that woman – assuming that the event wasn’t staged.
Off topic, but jeez, one thing mises.org has taught me is A LOT of latin. I constantly have to look this stuff up!
Caley is simply pointing out that he doesn’t agree with a double standard. Family, age, sex notwithstanding. Violent action is violent action.
me: Dude, Bunning was just saying take the unemployment benefits money from the unspent TARP or stimulus funds. if you don’t understand horse-race two-party current events politics, then don’t talk about it.
Lilbrune: RIght, because never talking about something is a great way to learn to understand it.
Lilburne, you took what I said out of context and twisted its meaning. When I said “don’t talk about it”, I mean don’t talk about politicians’ motivations and policies if one doesn’t know what they are. There was an incorrect claim made regarding Bunning’s justification for not extending unemployment benefits (he just wanted them taken from stimulus or TARP funds). My point is if people aren’t going to take the time to understand the positions of politicians, then they shouldn’t make claims. And then you say: “RIght, because never talking about something is a great way to learn to understand it.” But I think you didn’t understand what I was saying, inadvertently and ironically confirming my point: if people aren’t going to take the time to understand what other people are saying, then don’t engage!
But don’t sweat it, I’m still your biggest fan, based on those awesome Krugman articles.
That’s not how it reads to me.
What is “it”? Stomping a young lady. “I don’t think it is” what? Wrong. He’s saying that he doesn’t think stomping a young lady is wrong as long as she advocates state violence. If he’s really against double-standards, he shouldn’t object to the notion of an ancap stomping any of his state-advocating loved ones.
Why has a thread started with the intention of demonizing someone because of the actions of a supposed supporter gotten into the second page?
Witch-hunt.
Because people enjoy arguing- especially when it comes to slapping labels on each other while at the same time elevating their own status.
I thought it was more a commentary on the aggressive nature of many pop right libertarians; social security evil, big man stomping on liberal female activist is ok, or she deserved it, or it’s a black flag operation, or she should apologize to him.
Seriously, that’s his stance now
More like, social security bad, big man stomping on liberal female activist, also bad. As far as some people questioning her motives, that should be expected from a crowd that’s naturally skeptical, such as this one.
But what I find truly remarkable is that your participation on this forum primarily consists of (a) having your positions entirely refuted from both an economic and philosophical standpoint, and (b) your attempt to create a narrative of “right-libertarians” as ruthless/heartless. You said yourself that you “take heat” on this forum “because you defend the poor,” even though we repeatedly show you that your positions (supporting labor unions, social security, etc) actually hurt the poor, that they are self-defeating. I wonder if (b) is how you deal with (a)?
What do you think? It would explain your vigorous participation in this pointless thread.
Are you suggesting I love people that advocate violence against me? Har har.
My apologies. But it would seem the context of what you said was “that goes w/o saying that Lilliburne (the voice of reason) would be the only one to denounce the curb stomp.”
Perhaps it’s not my reading comprehension?
A) That goes without saying (that an old man curbstomping a young lady is wrong)
B) That goes without saying (that Lilburne should be thanked for being a voice of reason, and denouncing it when no one else had, including myself although I obviously agree since I believe he should be thanked.)
C) That goes without saying (that Lilburne, as a voice of reason, would say that… which I disagree with therefore I disagree with [the voice of] reason.)
I got it on the first try. Your response looked to me like you were selectively changing the context so that you could continue chastising/arguing/expose the inner “jerk”… I didn’t know whether it was intentional or not but that’s what it looked like… it looked like you saw an opportunity to stretch language to continue “calling people out.” [i’m not trying to get on your case here, either, but it does seem like something you might typically choose to do, you do seem to revel in this sort of quirky-baiting people into saying something you can roll with thing (softcore trolling?), from my admittedly limited experience lurking here. Sometimes it can be hard to tell how genuine you’re being.]
Anyway, since apparently people are being judged on their morality here for whatever reason, for the record, I think it was wrong. I also thought it went without saying. [I also think Caley has a valid point, but I still can’t justify it morally. She didn’t deserve it, as far as my opinion is concerned, which is probably negligible.]
Also, the video was absolutely NOT a curb stomp (neither was the wrestling video posted above). That is just inflammatory rhetoric. It looked like he mostly was trying to hold her down (which he should not have) with his foot, and was giving her a hard “nudge” to keep her down (which is worse than just holding her still, but it still was nowhere near say a swift kick in the ribs).
But a curb stomp(just a wiki page, no violent images)… now that is an ABSOLUTELY, and I mean UTTERLY disgusting act of violence. It is 100% intended to inflict SERIOUS bodily harm, if not death. If it was a real curb stomp she would almost absolutely wound up in an ER, and she definitely wouldn’t be standing around complaining of a “headache”, I would be absolutely astonished if she would even be able to speak clearly. Anyone equating what happened in that video with one is being disingenuous, period. Most who simply heard about this without seeing the video and knew what a “curb stomp” was would no doubt be shocked and outraged. It is associated with very extreme violence.
It was mob violence (hey it’s like voting, but for real!), and it was a disgrace (to all involved, really…politics), but I think it was blown way out of proportion. Honestly, I’d be pretty satisfied if a few incidences like this was the extent of politically motivated violence as the political climate changes and we watch events unfold, I’d prefer it was zero of course, but if it got no worse than some isolated incidents of this, I’d feel pretty dang relieved. There was some (imo, relatively minor… though very much unwarranted) aggression, but at least there was no blood spilled.