I just want to say that I am already very tired indeed of listening to US Democrats and British broadcasters drone on about how President Bush must now reach out to various people, and in particular to his defeated opponents. By this they do not merely mean that he should be polite and dignified in his moment of victory, as he has been, and as John Kerry has been in his moment of defeat. They mean that President Bush should now do what John Kerry proposed should be done (which lost Kerry the Election), instead of what he, Bush, proposed should be done (which was what won). This is a very stupid idea.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
49 comments to No reaching out please |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Indeed, yes.
It has also been deeply irritating that the BBC has spent much of today trying to blame George Bush’s impressive victory on the support of Christian fundamentalists.
It is simply inconceivable to the Left-liberal mind that anyone but the crazed could have voted for this man, so they are looking for any and every explanation – however misguided.
“We loose, now do our bidding”, right, that’s the attitude everyone would expect of collectivists :))
The “Crybaby” picture below says it all – I’d really love to see Michael Moore right now, I’m sure that’s pretty much the face he’s wearing.
What else do you expect from the font of stupid ideas? The current rift between the US and some of it’s former/minor allies may be Bush’s ‘fault’ – but it is their ‘problem’.
Brian: I’ve been watching it with much the same notes. I sort of intended to blog it but on the so few hours of sleep I’m nearly dysfunctional at this point.
I would note that one guest last night, a John Micklethwaite, did correct the anchors suggestion that it was all Fundamentalist; that Bush also had to deal with the libertarian side and could not thus go to far fundementalist.
Any relation of yours? Or have you at least shared a pint or two with someone who surely must have a family tree connection with you somewhere in the last few centuries?
C’mon Brian, of course he should reach out to those who have spent the last four years bitching, whining and squealing. Then he should give them a one finger salute.
TO: Brian Micklethwait
RE: Well….Maybe Just This Once….
“…President Bush must now reach out to various people….” — Brian Micklethwait
I can think of many people President Bush should, indeed MUST, reach out to.
Osama bin Ladin and all of his lieutenants and followers.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Reach out. Reach out and ‘touch(é)’ someone. — Bayonet Drill jingle]
Juan Williams, way left US reporter today said that the Republicans have their work cut out for them trying to figure out how to get those who didn’t vote with them into the tent! WTF?
Is it a customary practice of the BBC to advise the winning party in an election to reach out to its opponents? Like after the last election that Labor won, they advised that party to reach out to the Conservatives?
How true. Reaching out is hard to do when a huge number of people voted for you based on a very stark platform that was laid out.
If Bush had been as waffly as Kerry was, then reaching out would have been appropriate.
we should reach out…..reach out and bitch-slap a bunch of these evil f**ktards who funded or profited from terrorist and those who tried to meddle in our election
Interesting. When Bush Sr and Dole lost to Clinton, the media lectured the GOP that they were “mean spirited” and “out of touch” with average Americans. The Republicans would have to change if they ever expected to win again. Now, the GOP wins and they still have to change?! And they call us the “idiots”?!
Just watch the Democrats reach out to President Bush when he nominates someone to the Supreme Court. If you though the Democrat’s tactics were dirty just wait.
It would be highly amusing if President Bush nominated Judge Bork for the Supreme court again.
heh.
Maybe the reason for all this “reaching out” talk was that Bush was full of it in his acceptance speech….
However, I don’t think many people believed it, you’ll be glad to hear, and America will continue to be politically split into two mutually hostile camps for the term of this Presidency, at least.
However, the reaction of many Samisdatistas to Bush’s victory has been illuminating. Whilst the result was in doubt many commentators here were taking a “pox on both their houses”, “vote for the least-worst” sort of view.
Now their man is in, the unalloyed delight for him and the chortling at various liberal hate figures’ supposed discomfiture is revealing.
The mask has well and truly slipped, people. Libertarians, hell.
John Ellis, it is entirely possible to gloat over the re-election of Bush and the discomfiture of the idiot left without saying one is in favour of all of Bush’s policies. Has anyone these past few days done that? Or are you projecting?
I am pleased that Bush has won as the lesser of two evils, but that is democracy. It is one reason why I value liberty above democracy, and why I hope the GOP rediscovers its small govt. beliefs. We shall see.
I thought John Kerry showed a lot of class on Wednesday.
John
Good point, well made, though slightly off target. Bush was indeed the least worse candidate (aren’t they all?) but it also felt bloody good to see Kerry lose. Four years of bitching, whining, squealing, all topped off with lashing of self righteousness and indignation seriously got on my nerves.
History may show Bush to be wrong on the WoT. We shall see. I know his opponents ARE wrong. And dangerous. Coupled with the shrieking, they seriously got up my nose.
Great joy came from seeing their dreams turn to dust. It may not be politically or emotionally sophisticated but … hey ho.
Dear Mr. Bush,
Since we spent the last several years calling you every name in the book, comparing you to Hitler and accusing you of murdering women and children in an attempt to take over the world, while at the same time belittling your intelligence and moral character, it would only be right that you apologize and run the county exactly like we would have if the rednecks and morons would have voted for us instead.
Signed,
The Left.
TO: John Ellis
RE: True
“…America will continue to be politically split into two mutually hostile camps for the term of this Presidency, at least.” — John Ellis
Some people never seem to learn. Do you think?
Look at the trends that have been observed over the last few years and several decades.
The electoral college data offered here is one indicator, albeit rather new and therefore not quite totally acceptable.
Then there is the Roe effect. Imagine if there had been 18 million more young voters, who apparently favored Kerry over Bush.
Not to mention the blatant evidence of the majority of votes going to Bush this iteration.
And the fact that for the last decade the Republicans have been gaining seats in both houses of Congress.
One would think the Democrats would be able to figure it out, they’re losing the war. At the rate they are going, they’ll be extinct in another 30 years, or so. The only thing that has been holding them together has been their hold on certain positions by aged Reps and Senators and their unrelenting hatred of Bush. [Note: I suppose that when Bush is finally gone, they’ll find someone or something else to transfer that integral part of their philosophy onto. I suspect it’ll be christians.]
But they just keep doing the same thing, over and over again, and hoping to get a different result. Bill Clinton, their current living legend, once commented on how that was a sign of insanity. But I guess they’ve slept since then.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
@Chuck(le),
My point was not about the validity of the election this time (which I accept) or the desirability or otherwise of Bush as a President. I was saying that the mask has slipped, and that many of the principle contributors to this blog (not the commenters on it, who are from all parts of the political spectrum) seem, from their unbounded glee at the result, to be closet Republicans. Not Libertarians, as they purport to be.
@Pete_London:
I think you got my point, and I accept yours. You don’t have to love Bush to hate Kerry, yes? The anti-“liberal” backlash was hardly mature, but hardly surprising, either. As you note. But the enthusiasm for Bush that leaks out all over the front page of this blog at the moment is more than just relief that the “least-worst” won.
For what it’s worth, I wanted Kerry to win, but only because he wasn’t Bush. As a UK citizen, US domestic issues – even the huge deficit – are not really my concern. In the US, Kerry might have been better or worse for his countrymen than Bush, I don’t know.
But for the rest of the World, Bush in the White House is a scary thing, I believe. Maybe that’s one of the big reasons he won. if Americans have any interest in the rest of the World at the moment, it only in how scared of America they can make it…;-)
@Johnathan:
I believe that the tone is wrong for someone who purports to be a Libertarian, that’s all. And from an outsiders view, Kerry’s policies at home didn’t appear to be any more “idotarian” (as you chaps call it) than Bush’s.
I would cite Alex Singleton, Dale Amon and ESPECIALLY Perry de Havilland, just in the last 24 hours.
I enjoyed a chuckle over the assertion that libertarians should conform to a certain mindset about the election. John, the great thing about the free world is that you can believe whatever you want to believe. Only the fundy right and Moore left require strict allegiance. Libertarians, above all overs, should be free to support anyone and say anything.
John Ellis writes:
“But for the rest of the World, Bush in the White House is a scary thing, I believe. Maybe that’s one of the big reasons he won. if Americans have any interest in the rest of the World at the moment, it only in how scared of America they can make it…;-)”
You are Polly Toynbee and I claim my free subscription to the Guardian.
John Ellis – Excuse me? Could you remind me of when I voted you in as my spokesperson? I am part of “the rest of the world” and I am sleeping easier in my bed and feeling considerably more confident with Mr Bush at the helm than I would be if the absurd Kerry, who generously demonstrated time after time after time that he didn’t understand the WoT issues, had got in.
Having that fop and poseur in the White House would have been a scary thing. Having Mr Bush in the White House is hopeful and comforting.
If Kerry had got in he would have made common cause with Britain’s destructive Gramscian head of government, and Chirac and Schroeder and it would not have been long before they were applying cultural strictures, dictated by the religion of peace, to our societies – in the cause of ‘inclusiveness’.
I was absolutely confident that Mr Bush would win and win convincingly and I am relieved that he did. Do not have the temerity to speak for me and all the millions of non-Americans worldwide who have, obviously, a more realistic take on the fight to preserve the liberty and enlightenment of the West than your good self and Mr Kerry, who still isn’t sure whether he was for the war in Viet Nam or against it.
TO: John Ellis
RE: Closet Republicans?
“…from their [entry generators here] unbounded glee at the result, to be closet Republicans. Not Libertarians, as they purport to be.” — John Ellis
So, if they are happy that Bush won, instead of Kerry, they are NOT “libertarian”? That is rather poor logic, John.
As for voting Libertarian, perhaps they would have, if the Libertarians put up someone serious and stood them on a platform that didn’t seem riddled with the sort of thoughts that give most rational people the hebbie-jebbies.
Nothing like supporting pedophilia to drive away voters.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
John Ellis, be a bit careful about attributing motives to folk from their “tone”. It is presumptious. I have been pretty rough on Bush in the past and unless he mends his Big Govt ways, can expect to continue in this vein.
Some libertarians in my experience tend to get alarmed whenever his or her comrades start cheering for a particular politician. To do so is to “get the hands dirty”. Well, give us at least 24 hours to cheer the demise of the idiot left. Fear not John, normal service will be resumed here later unless Dubya makes some major changes. Scrapping steel tariffs and McCain-Feingold would be a start, followed by serious attention to the deficit.
Pedophilia? I don’t remember that being in the LP platform?
GCooper:
“It is simply inconceivable to the Left-liberal mind that anyone but the crazed could have voted for this man”
Not only the “Christians” are considered crazy by the left. You, the moderate, reasonable, low-taxes, small-government libertarian are also crazy in their eyes. If you dare oppose the policies of: tax-the-rich, free-health-care-for-all, Kyoto-Kyoto-windmills – you are a crazy, or dumb (or both) fascist, even if you are not religious.
TO: Ken
RE: LP[edophiles]
“Pedophilia? I don’t remember that being in the LP platform?” — Ken
It’s buried in the convoluted text.
You’ll agree they support unlimited sexuality of adults. Right?
However, look at their matters regarding Families.
You’ll see a sentence that says children should be able to declare themselves immancipated, i.e., adults, at any time they feel like it.
It’s like a ‘binary round’ chemical munition. Two separate issues. Seperated by a barrier. Mix the one with the other by breaking a barrier between the two. And presto! Pedophilia is okay.
Here’s the sentence….
“However, children always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians, and assuming all responsibilities of adulthood.” — Libertarian Party Platform
Hope that helps….
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. It’s either they are very clever about their support of pedophilia, or they are very stupid about how they construct a platform. Either way, they ain’t getting any support from ME.
John Ellis,
I have to agree with Verity and Telcontar on this issue. Just because Chuckle, GCooper and the rest of them might enjoy Bush’s Victory to a point that makes me wonder about them does not mean that they are republicans.
I’m sure Jonathan is right about this settling down soon, in the meantime, enjoy the lively debate, just keep it clean. Republican! Ouch!
I’ve been heartily disagreeing with them all yet I wouldn’t swing that lable around without due cause.
Chuckle –
Stop slining the LP’s garbage around as if it proves you’re right. I’m not a member of the LP nor would I ever be. I doubt that pedophilia was the intention of their position even if it does technically permit it. I resent the LP even trying to establish an official position.
Andrew Robb
“However, children always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians, and assuming all responsibilities of adulthood.” — Libertarian Party Platform
Hope that helps….”
Of course that cuts both ways. A child who declares himself emancipated would end his entitlement to support from his parents – which is a strong disincentive to exercise that right until one is ready to support oneself.
And, when you get right down to it, when someone is ready to support himself, he is not a child, and ideally should not be treated as a child by the law.
Is this a perfect system? No. But, it has its advantages compared to the current system. Not only does it reduce the amount of time that people are unnecessarily deprived of the blessings of liberty, it also acts as an incentive to get ready to support yourself. If your sentence is 18 years no matter what, there’s not much incentive to either practice adult behavior or to finish one’s studies in a timely manner. If, on the other hand, you could move out sooner by studying ahead, learning marketable skills and adult behavior, and making yourself ready to be self-sufficient sooner, there’s a lot more incentive to put forth the effort, hit the books, and earn your way out.
Incentives matter. Teenagers aren’t children because of any cognitive or biological limitations, but because the law says they’re children and there’s little profit in behaving any other way.
Will children who are not ready exercise that right too soon? Occasionally. Of course, right now such children run away – and can’t obtain legitimate employment or housing and can only exist in the shadows, in the underground markets, and in the lawless sections of our society. If they leave prematurely but have every right to work a real (if menial) job and live in a real home, isn’t that better than the status quo? Doesn’t that allow them more opportunity to better themselves than living on the streets?
So I don’t think the platform has either the intention or the effect of “supporting pedophilia”. (True pedophiles aren’t interested in teenagers, but in small children, who won’t be emancipating themselves in any event) It’s just a different way to set the threshold between child and adult, and it’s not like the current threshold is necessarily written in stone.
Anyway, the real reason not to support the LP is because they think that withdrawing from the world will make us safe. That’s just not true in a world where millions of people think their duty to their god is to convert the entire world into an oppressive theocracy, by force if necessary.
TO: Andrew Robb
RE: Serious Head Problems
“Stop slining the LP’s garbage around as if it proves you’re right.” — Andrew Robb, a.k.a. Jack-Booted Thug
Say again, all after “Chuckle”, you’re coming through garbled and stupid.
Or please define ‘slining’
RE: More Indications of Head Problems
“I’m not a member of the LP nor would I ever be.” — Andrew Robb, a.k.a. Jack-Booted Thug
A fight not his own.
RE: A Glimmering
“I doubt that pedophilia was the intention of their position even if it does technically permit it.” — Andrew Robb, a.k.a. Jack-Booted Thug
So, it could be the second option I mentioned above. That you didn’t seem to notice.
RE: Ooops…More Head Problems
“I resent the LP even trying to establish an official position.” — Andrew Robb, a.k.a. Jack-Booted Thug
Better go out and do something about it, then. You with your jack-boots.
From my perspective, they have the right. Just as I have the right to punch holes in their (il)logical platform.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: Ken
RE: Silly Argument
“Of course that cuts both ways. A child who declares himself emancipated would end his entitlement to support from his parents – which is a strong disincentive to exercise that right until one is ready to support oneself.” — Ken
The perfect argument for someone who wants to exploit children. Come along, kiddies. Who needs your parents. We’ll go out and have some ffun.
You just lost a whole lot of credibility with that pretzel logic, compadre.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Chuck
Those who place an exact age as a one size fits all rule have no credibility either. Granted younger persons may be more easily manipulated than older persons into a position in which they might be exploited. However, manipulation is something that occurs in any situation where someone has a weak or uninformed mind. The very fact that sociological philosophies that would be superior to current ones are cast out because of an overhyping of a comparatively unlikely scenario proves that manipulation and exploitation happens at all ages. I also get the impression that minor asserting itself as an equivalent to an adult would have to do so by himself. This would not make legal someone else stepping in with a piece of candy and a promise to take care of the child. That child would not have not asserted himself as able to provide and administer his own rights to the cessation of dependence.
The current system makes many things illegal that it does not seem to have the power to prevent or even effectively punish. Consider in Ken’s argument the fact that incentive to start actually thinking at a young age would have a positive effect, including that of making children less susceptible to manipulation, may indeed be far better than the empty promises of laws on top of laws. Also keep in mind that the term “children” as Ken and the LP appear to be using it includes all of those under the age of 18. In the current system we act as if there is something magical about the 18th birthday. If a more variable system, allowing for the variability of human beings were introduced, it would certainly bear discussion, not outright dismissal based on worst case scenario. Your worst-case-scenario logic is made all the more a “silly argument” by the fact that the current system you like so much is unable to completely alleviate that same worst case scenario you parade around as the reason for you position.
Im with Ken, the LP thinking isolationism is good is a bad position. OTOH forced democracy is not exactly a good thing, and independence historicly works best when forged from within, which I think is the logic behind the isolationist position in the LP platform this year. I am not attacking you for being happy about Bush’s re-election, I quite agree. I simply do not think it necessary or wise for you to dismiss other arguments out of hand simply because you have a near fundamentalist belief that you are on the right path, or are you simply enciting argument with half-serious jabs because its fun?
TO: limberwulf
RE: A Test! A Test!
“Those who place an exact age as a one size fits all rule have no credibility either.” — limberwulf
Have you got a test in mind?
How about one that measures the mylination of the human brain? I’d like that test. Problem is, it would be rather expensive. Maybe even fatal, unless it can be determined via MRI.
In the meantime, the standard approach seems reasonable, to the reasonably prudent individual. And that brings up another thought….
…are you suggesting that the laws are fouled-up? If so, I suggest you offer counter-proposals and have them passed into law. Otherwise, calling the reasonably prudent individual as someone without ‘credibility’ casts an interesting light on yours.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Sure Chuck,
How about what was already stated as a test: A person who can provide for themselves without the financial assistance of anyone else. This would mean that welfare recipients and professional students on their parents dime would be considered minors. I think that would fix a lot of issues in this country, including voting rights granted to ignorant fools with no concept of real life.
As for the current laws, yes, I do think many of them are fouled up. Drug laws are becoming similar to the prohibition laws of the twenties. They are not very enforceable, and they tend to create a well funded crime world. There are also numerous examples of archaic laws on the books, like where you can or cannot tie up your horse. I would like to see the legislature have to review and repass every law on the books every 4 years. That should keep those guys busy and keep them from passing more stupid laws all the time.
My essential point, however, is that laws do not fix problems. If laws fixed problems then gun control would work, because there would be no more guns in the world. The fact is, passing a law does not make criminals change at all. Placing greater responsibility in the hands of individuals means that social pressures and the free market will mean more. It also means that people will be less lazy and take more personal responsibility. This is based on the concept that necessity is the mother of invention. I have found that axiom to be true, and can think of no situation in which it is not.
By the way, I liked your little truism about “the standard approach seems reasonable, to the reasonably prudent individual.” Thats very cute. Of course, you being a “reasonably prudent individual” the “standard approach” will seem “reasonable”. Hard to argue against that except to point out that such a statement is completely subjective and therefore not particularly relevant. My standard approach seems reasonable to me, and I consider myself as reasonably prudent individual as well. Nice one tho 🙂
TO: limberwulf
RE: A Test
“A person who can provide for themselves without the financial assistance of anyone else. ” — limberwulf
A kid with a lawn mower can do that. That doesn’t mean he’s prepared to face the world on his own.
RE: The Law vs. Morality
“My essential point, however, is that laws do not fix problems.” — limberwulf
I can agree with that. Laws just provide, usually, for punishment of people who do not abide by them.
Morality, on the other hand, writes a will to do what is right on the individual’s heart and in their mind.
RE: The Resasonbly Prudent Individual
“…liked your little truism about “the standard approach seems reasonable, to the reasonably prudent individual.” Thats very cute. ” — limberwulf
Glad you liked it. The Law likes it to. It is a legal term. It is a standard by which actions of an individual are evaluated in certain cases.
E.g., Would a reasonably prudent individual do such and such a thing? [Note: Say drive a car that he knows has faulty brakes.] No? Then if Mr. limberwulf did such a thing, he must not be a reasonably prudent individual. Therefore, the fault in this case lies upon him.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
“A kid with a lawn mower can do that. That doesn’t mean he’s prepared to face the world on his own.”
Really? A kid using his parents’ lawnmower at their instruction to cut their yard?
Or are you speaking of a kid using his parents’ lawnmower to cut other people’s yards for pocket money while sleeping and eating at his parents’ house?
Neither kid is providing for himself by any reasonable standard.
Now a kid that studies ahead, finishes school early, gets a real job, and can afford a place of his own, is capable of providing for himself and should be entitled to enjoy the blessings of liberty.
See the difference?
TO: Ken
RE: Quibbles and Bits
“A kid using his parents’ lawnmower at their instruction to cut their yard?” — Ken
Nope. He won it in an lottery at Home Depot. And he’s mowing other people’s lawns at $20 a pop.
But you just don’t get it do you….or you don’t want to see the fallacy of your argument. Even when it is so blatantly obvious.
So, instead you quibble.
To make it more blatantly obvious, a pre-teen runaway girl selling her body on the street.
Later….
Chuck(le)
yes, Chuck,
Morality does indeed function better than laws. Great. But laws do not create morality.
I would propose that if a kid can make a true living with a lottery lawnmower, and get enough business at $20 a pop, and work enough hours to support himself entirely, including tax liabilities, need for transportation to reach the necessaty number of customers, etc. Then such a hard working brilliant child is better suited for adulthood than many “adults that I know.
I do, however, concede the point in the prostitution area. I suppose the question of legality of sex with a minor is still in question, unless a caveat were put in stating that the youth in question must gain support by means other than selling sex. That rather nasty profession would still have to have an age placed on it.
Point taken.
TO: limberwulf
RE: Morality vs. Law, Again
“Great. But laws do not create morality.” — limberwulf
No. It’s the other way around.
RE: Yeah?
“I would propose that if a kid can make a true living with a lottery lawnmower, and get enough business at $20 a pop, and work enough hours to support himself entirely, including tax liabilities, need for transportation to reach the necessaty number of customers, etc. Then such a hard working brilliant child is better suited for adulthood than many “adults that I know.” — limberwulf
Good work with a lawnmower. However, as we should both know, there is more to life than making money. [Note: Where on ‘earth’ would such an concept come from?]
On the other hand….going a step beyond….
…I notice you are not addressing the more blatantly obvious scenario I mentioned to Ken.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Sorry Chuck had better things to do (drink) and nicer people to talk to for a while (women).
Getting quickly to the point, my gripe in the last post was that anytime someone as much as uses the word libertarian in a post you trot out your favorite little argument about pedophilia. Because naturally if they as identify themselves as libertarians they must be associated with the LP, right?
As far my resentment of their establishing a platform, if they have a right establish it and you have a right to poke holes in it, then I have a right to resent it. Partisanism is collectiveism and group think in my opinion, which I have every right to hold, and thefore goes against my beleifs.
Oh and I consider the new screen name a gift from you, I rather like it now.
Andrew
TO: Andrew Robb
RE: LP(edophilia)
“…anytime someone as much as uses the word libertarian in a post you trot out your favorite little argument about pedophilia.” — Andrew Robb
Well. I’m still a bit “up in the air” (look on it as medium hover) about it. It surprised and shocked me to see that in their platform three days ago.
I’ll get ‘over it’, to the point of coming back to low hover after a while.
What I find interesting is that NO ONE has yet repudiated the sentence. Nor has anyone refuted it, although some have tried, it’s been along the lines of “you’re a liar”. But I’m not a liar. It’s in their platform for all to read….those who care to. And their calling me names is just so much denial. I guess they had not seen that plank or not put one and one together, either. And now that they see it, they want to shoot the messanger.
“As far my resentment of their establishing a platform, if they have a right establish it and you have a right to poke holes in it, then I have a right to resent it. ” — Andrew Robb
And it looks like you’re one of those people I was just mentioning. Well….shooting the messangers is not going to change the situation with respect to that platform. Especially as more and more people come to realize the import.
Look at me. I was mildly interested in the Libertarian Party. Engaging in some discussions with members in order to better understand their positions on various issues. THIS, however, has thrown all that out the proverbial window (including the baby, in order to save it).
And, for the time being, I’ll continue to bring up this situation for a while, until I think I’ve exorcised it enough. Then it’ll go to sleep until the next time I encounter Libertarians (big-L, type) and I’ll ask them about it as well. I’m feel like Diogenes, looking for an honest libertarian. One that will repudiate the position.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: Chuck
RE: Holstering My Wepon
If your looking for someone to defend the LP, with me at least, you’re looking in the wrong place. I haven’t tried to because as you said it’s not my fight. The LP is not my party and I don’t endorse their platform. If you want a discussion on the subject, take it up with the LP.
My complaint with your post is the assumption that claiming to be a Libertarian immediatly binds one to the LP in your eyes. If distinguishing myself from them means using the lowercase l constantly then so be it. Although I think the case of one letter making all the difference is picking nits.
Andrew
TO: Andrew Robb
RE: Complaints
“My complaint with your post is the assumption that claiming to be a Libertarian immediatly binds one to the LP in your eyes.” — Andrew Robb
As with Diogenes, whenever I come across a big-L libertarian, I’ll trot this out to see how much they know of their own party’s platform. Hence your seeing it here and there on this site. A lot of people here seem to use the proper noun form of the word. I’m curious to see if they’ll support the platform or repudiate it.
So far, none have repudiated it. I think that an interesting indicator.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Liar, n., One who tells an unpleasant truth. — Ambrose Beirce, The Devil’s Dictionary]
Chuck,
I directly addressed the scenario you mentioned to Ken in my last paragraph, and basically conceded the point by stating the position needs restriction and caveats, exceptions, etc. Did you even read the whole comment?
Basically all positions need provisions for exception. The statement of children being able to assert the rights of adulthood is there to take away the foolishness of an age law that rules without exception. People are different, both by nature and nurture, laws are inflexible, therefore laws must be used as sparingly as possible.
And yes, there is more to life than making money, but most of what I know about life I learned in the process of supporting myself. I rather doubt that even your rather unlikely lawnmower example would include many children in their early teens. The market would likely only permit the exceptional to assert adulthood early, and support of oneself financially would seem as good a measure as could be made.
I voted LP because I agreed with a great many things in the platform, not because I agreed with all of it. I do not claim that the LP candidate was anything near perfect, in fact it needs a great deal of work on a lot of levels. I did find however, that there was more to agree with and less to disagree with than any other platform. My personal positions are of course not reflected by any party platform, because that would be impossible unless I formed my own party.
I suggest you look at all of the issues on your own party’s platform, I daresay there are many there you dont like, or think need work. If that is not the case, then you are not as intelligent as you seem. I would also submit that some of your party’s statements are far better if explained fully than in sound bite form. The same goes for the LP.
TO: limberwulf
RE: Sorry…
“I directly addressed the scenario you mentioned to Ken in my last paragraph, and basically conceded the point by stating the position needs restriction and caveats, exceptions, etc. Did you even read the whole comment?” — limberwulf
…I missed that. Probably distracted by one of the other computers at the time.
Thanks for pointing that out to me.
Regrds,
Chuck(le)
TO: limberwulf
RE: A Kid, a Lawnmower & a Dream
“…I would propose that if a kid can make a true living with a lottery lawnmower, and get enough business at $20 a pop, and work enough hours to support himself entirely…” — limberwulf
The adult who does such for me in the Summer gets $22 per iteration.
He’s a successful businessman in the community (of 100K).
A kid could do as much.
The child prostitute is a bit of a bugger, to the Libertarians’ platform. They will certainly need to do something about that plank in order to be considered serious here.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
“The adult who does such for me in the Summer gets $22 per iteration.
He’s a successful businessman in the community (of 100K).”
That’s all he does? What does he do the rest of the year? How much money does he make?
“A kid could do as much. ”
Once we nail down what “as much” is referring to, we can evaluate the likelihood of a kid doing as much without growing up mentally (as opposed to legally).
An excelent point Ken,
Not only does the ability to be successful in such a venture require a great deal more than availability, it also requires an obliging customer base.
Marketing oneself, budgeting, establishing credit for the procurement of tools and transportation, knowledge of the mechanics of the tools and the skills of the trade are all required. I would guess that the gentleman mowing your lawn does a satisfactory job and has done a great deal to make himself known. I do not say that this is out of the realm of a kid to do, I merely say that it would require an exceptional kid.
Also, bear in mind two market factors.
1) In a society where a child might gain adult status by supporting himself by nonsexual means, there would potentially be a great number of kids with lawnmowers vying for the job in the neighborhood. This would make supply very high, and decrease the value of the service, meaning that only the exceptional would be able to accomplish the task. Your community of 100k has a large number of children does it not?
2) Some persons who would hire the gentleman you have hired would not hire a child. This would be due to perception that a child might not be as dependable, or due to a sense that children should be doing things other than working. I suspect from your attitude towards the idea of someone under 18 being able to gain adult status, that you may yourself be one such potential customer that would not hire a child.
The market can control a great deal. Laws and governments are still required, but not so broadly as many imagine. Remember that market decisions include people’s beliefs and opinions, not merely the basic and measurable factors of price, quality, and convenience. There would be a great many factors keeping your kid with a lawnmower out of the ranks of adulthood, and a child who could overcome said obstacles would deserve at least the consideration that he had earned such status.