This is exactly what 'crazy people' like Ron Paul said would happen with the Global War on Terror in general and with the USA PATRIOT Act in particular.
This is exactly what 'crazy people' like Ron Paul said would happen with the Global War on Terror in general and with the USA PATRIOT Act in particular.
The formal name of the statute is the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001. ...February 27, 2010, Obama signed into law legislation that would temporarily extend, for one year, three controversial provisions of the Patriot Act that had been set to expire: 1)Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.; 2)Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.3)Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf (a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group). February 8, 2011, the House of Representatives considered a further extension of the Act through the end of 2011.Without an extension, the Act was set to expire on February 28, 2011. However, it eventually passed, 275тАУ144.
On May 26, 2011, President Barack Obama used an Autopen to sign the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, a four-year extension of three key provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act while he was in France.
We are told he was a community organizer, whatever that means.
Then he wrote a book, and served a term where Joe Lieberman was his mentor, and then BOOM, there he was, President of the World, the candidate from Langley.
I actually never heard of this though I have toured Monticello ЁЯд╖тАНтЩВя╕П
PS - NPR would have found constitutional problems and the use of it not so cool had the president been Trump ! Very sad state of double standardsтАжтАж.
The significance of difference is relative. Given that the subtopic here is the PATRIOT Act and who is responsible for it, your separation between fools and statists strikes me as more trivial than huge. This is because they did the deed and the damage was done (do we really care about their motives long after the fact?).
My view is that our political system needs more pluralism and less 'two wings of the same grisly gang' (h/t Bill). And the tendency to lump the opposition into a homogenous group is likely a bad call... on multiple levels that makes a huge difference in your ability to make accurate calls, plus differentiate yourself from the fools.
To me, the most appropriate response is often *both* substantive and mocking.
Well stated counter argument (the best one, imo, one of moot-ness!). Here's where I choose to attack it:
"And the tendency to lump the opposition into a homogenous group is likely a bad call..."
See, I not only *like* a 2 (two) Party system, I think it necessary (if used properly by the People, a huge if of course, and a failed condition today) to save the Constitution. I do not mean to be hyperbolic. I think the Constitution has failed, or the People have failed it (whatever Ben Franklin), and the only way short of a bloody (or not bloody?) revolution to re-corral the overgrown State is to have a *united* opposition.
The Dems made similar complaints about folks like Nader and then Sanders (undermining the opposition). In the short term, there may be some merit to the argument. But if we take a longer view, plus accurately describe the initial conditions, a 2P stranglehold on the system is good for corruption and bad for democracy.
To see how this works, maybe consider how your initial assessment of Citizens United was wrong and very short-sighted as opposed to big picture (and the analogy to weight classes in boxing was actually a good one, for what it's worth). With a smaller pool of possible candidates (as opposed to votes 'thrown away', as some like to say), they can be more choosy about which part of their constituency to Represent. In a more pluralistic scenario, with a relatively smaller base for each Rep plus more legit options for voters, they need to be more circumspect and less obviously bought.
And on the topic of being bought, with a 2P stranglehold and fewer Reps to choose from, there is a lower threshold cost to... buy them all. If it takes a dumptruck of money to buy a Rep, and there are (only) roughly 400 stars in the firmament to buy... then you need (checks math) ~400 dumptrucks of money to buy them all. And post Citizens United, how many dumptrucks of money do you reckon there are sloshing about in the influence-buying budget?
I'm just not that sold on a parliamentary system, for which you seem to be. I most certainly disagree that there exosts less graft and "sausage-like-in-construction" politics.
Given the rapidity that this Act of 300 pages was enacted, it is obvious to me that it was pre-written and pre-planned. All that was required was proper crisis.
тАЬYou never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.тАЭ
Or, my personal opposite-day favorite, 'Citizens United', which should have been called "Citizen-Crushing Cabal Empowerment Act", or "The 'Citizens, Get Fucked!' Act"
Citizens United is and was correct, imo, because all it says is that you and I, individual and private citizens, may pool our resources toward mutual and freely decided upon political ends, completely and utterly, did I say *necessarily*? yes I did, independent of any group, especially and most importantly that most dangerous of all groups, Society, and its mindless, vicious, anti-human pit bull, the State.
Riight...Citizens United allows both the wealthy and the poor to contribute unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns. And it confers Sovereign Individual status on both mortal humans and immortal corporations- which don't die; they merely change names when their assets are purchased by even larger corporations. A neat trick that humans are unlikely to duplicate, no matter how far technology advances.
That "vicious, mindless pit-bull, the state"...well, that's all very Rhetorical, but the same State that you reject so heatedly also charters Corporations and draws up and enforces contracts on behalf of owners of Private Property. Citizens United merely underscores the pronounced bias in the US for offering those protections in direct correlation to the net worth of a given individual, or private alliance of wealthy individuals. Some corporations are easily modeled as partaking of many of the same oppressive powers as governments, of course; those powers are sometimes formally certified as private prerogatives by governments (contract law, again.) Other times, there's no necessity for that. After all, for all of the loose talk about serfdom, it's always been more a feature associated with private property owners and employers than democratic republics.
Unless you're a hermit, you are part of human Society. It's how you were raised. Even gangs led by warlords- the only practical form of "minarchy"- comprise Societies, and carry out the same oppressive functions that you loathe so much in governments, minus the protections of civil liberties and individual rights that are found to some degree in all democratic republics. Typically not that much of a problem in terms of practical consequences as long as you pledge your troth to the warlord, of course, although you never can tell.
Anarchy is not a practical option, unless you're a hermit- and the US has plenty of territory consisting of less than one person per square mile; it sounds like you should look into that.
For what it's worth, I find it ironic that in my observation, citizens with the most complaints against 'the State"- particularly the Federal Government- are residents of rural areas who seldom face much threat from the Government themselves; they're mostly upset over things that they read in the media, about events far, far away. (Paranoia is, of course, one of the prerogatives most likely to be embraced by an Individual who has talked themself into viewing Society per se as a hostile entity.) The people most likely to indulge in rhetorical excoriation of any and all Government also have a way of losing all interest in dismantling the Government once the political faction they favor is in power, instead shifting toward support for dismantling only the parts that conflict with their dogmatic ideological preconceptions. Unless they find that they'd personally lose some practical advantage if that were to be done, that is.
Imperious professional managerial class ideological dogmatism and private propertarian class ideological dogmatism have this in common: underneath all of the Manichean absolutism of the idealistic rhetoric, the primary goal is So Much Winning, for their personal private ends of material advantage and social status. And otherwise, so much Whining.
I hope you give me the benefit of the doubt here that I am not copping out by not responding in kind and at length; believe me, I want to and will hopefully someday, but I have no time right now!
Please, please, if you run across me in the future, prompt me without hesitation.
Just one more point I need to add: when considering questions like these, remember the crucial difference between a Bug and a Feature, and be honest about which is which.
Really appreciate your explainer about Citizens United and comparisons of powerful orgs (corps, govs and gangs).
But a small bone to pick with you about who has the most complaints against the Federal gov. I'm a citizen who doesn't fit your description, who is upset about a whole range of things that could probably fit under the umbrella of corruption. And I certainly don't rail against any and all government, though I have noticed a tendency for corruption to creep.
Some folks say, 'Sure, it's a total mess above a certain level, which is why we should focus our efforts from the state on downward'. Problem with that though, is that humans are now collectively facing problems that likely require *larger* govs to address. What can state or local leaders do about climate/environmental issues requiring global cooperation? What can they do about human rights abuses, wars and war crimes, or the development pathway for AI?
Some of the most time-pressured issues we face are simply too large to be tackled with 'think global, act local'. And corruption seems to creep faster near the top, where all the money and power flows. Citizens United accelerated this, plus the process of corps becoming bigger and more powerful than many govs. Reigning that in is maybe going to look like *solving* the problem of corruption at the highest levels plus creating some corruption-free... higher levels yet.
One of the bugaboos on the Right is a world gov. But to me, a world gov is only scary because of the unsolved corruption issue. Solve that, and it maybe becomes a powerful force for positive transformation plus healing. No small order, solving corruption at the highest levels, but pointing this out is neither Winning nor Whining.
Do you ever watch fighting sports, such as boxing, wrestling, or MMA?
If you understand the concept of a weight class, and why they're a good idea that makes sense, you also understand why Citizens United was a terrible ruling.
There's no surer sign of someone who knows full well that they have no valid point to make, than when they try to distract the audience from it by mocking their opponent's point rather than responding to it.
Biden's new rule on Title IX to allow guys to rape girls in school bathrooms. Without any consequences written in. How in the world did the President of the United States allow this and put these previous young girls in harms way?
What's astonishing for me is that 'biden' is proven liar who actually had to abandon his campaign for the presidency. Yet, somehow, it's all forgotten.
The system works.
As former Vice President Joe Biden prepares to take the Democratic debate stage on Wednesday, the pressure is on the front runner for the partyтАЩs 2020 nomination for the presidency тАФ especially after the June debate, after which he admitted he was unprepared for fellow candidate Sen. Kamala Harris to call him out on his past positions on busing.
But for at least one veteran political reporter, that moment is just part of a decades-long history that goes all the way back to the first time Biden made an official run for the White House тАФ and to the scandal that ended that campaign.
I do know the generalities regarding the lies and plagiarism surrounding our тАЬ high hallowedтАЭ president but this article brings to light many of his specific deeds ,that as you point out have been тАЬ forgotten тАЬ by manyтАжтАж
Forty years ago I was sitting cross-legged on a dirty Oriental rug getting drunk on Gallo jug wine and listening to Murray Rothbard talk about Ron Paul, among other things (the other things being a tour de force of the history of the Great Depression, the perfidy of Ayn Rand, a history of metal currency, and complaints about the then-current management of the Cato Institute). His opinion was that "Ron is as good as it gets, he just doesn't go far enough."
40 years ago I was probably still in my Randroid phase. When I learned of RandтАЩs loyalty to the Republican Party, it started to open my eyes. I still voted Libertarian for a long time, but now I think the party was always a kind of controlled opposition--a term I didn't know at the time. I should have been wary of rebranding the pejorativized тАЬA-wordтАЭ, anarchy, with the dressed up and watered-down тАЬlibertarianтАЭ moniker. Now that libertarianism is almost entirely captured by the Republican Party, I wonder what Rothbard would say.
In addition to the numerous philosophical issues Rothbard had with Objectivism, he also had a very personal gripe with Rand dating from the early 1960s when he was briefly part of her inner circle. She was a famously belligerent atheist, who believed that any religious belief, which she named "mysticism," was incompatible with the use of reason. Rothbard himself was a completely secularized Jew, but his wife was a believing Christian. Rand gave him an ultimatum -- divorce your wife or be cast out. To his everlasting credit he chose Joey.
I would suggest it's the other way 'round, as the GOP was essentially purchased by the Koch network via the Tea Party movement it paid to provide broad coverage for, and the Kochs were lifelong Libertarians. David ran for VP on the Libertarian ticket.
I am as libertarian (political system of the founding, another word for Capitalism, true not crony) as anyone on the planet.
I am just as anti-Libertarian, and you all should stop living in the last century.
Just like the Greens on the left, the Libertarian Party, and its myopic supporters/enablers (like the Statist neo-liberal psuedo-free-marketer Koch-cons), allow the Fascist Democrat Party to operate *with crippled political opposition* in their almost-completed take-over of a free People.
"How to Win Friends and Influence People" : Matter = Murray Rothbard : Antimatter. I did not know him at all well (I only met him a few times, very late in his life) but we had a mutual friend to whom we were both very close, and I heard *plenty.* I'm sure Ayn Rand was a gigantic pain in the ass, but Murray managed to alienate almost everyone at one time or another too. The obituary National Review ran when he died was a monument to pettiness.
Thanks, M. Gathering. I read about all this so long ago that you make me realize I must go research to learn it all again!
Edit: Really, I should have added to this indent long before that my strong opinion is that this old and ageless Objectivist/Libertarian feud is moot, pointless, beside the point, non-substantive, self-destructive....you know, all the things we *knew* then, eh?
The government counts on stupid and apathetic people to allow them total control over all citizens. And AI will be used in a similar manner if it's not being used already.
This is exactly what 'crazy people' like Ron Paul said would happen with the Global War on Terror in general and with the USA PATRIOT Act in particular.
And here we are.
Any legislation in this country with the word Patriot in its title is always the diametric opposite of patriotic.
Always remember!
The formal name of the statute is the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001. ...February 27, 2010, Obama signed into law legislation that would temporarily extend, for one year, three controversial provisions of the Patriot Act that had been set to expire: 1)Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.; 2)Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.3)Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf (a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group). February 8, 2011, the House of Representatives considered a further extension of the Act through the end of 2011.Without an extension, the Act was set to expire on February 28, 2011. However, it eventually passed, 275тАУ144.
On May 26, 2011, President Barack Obama used an Autopen to sign the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, a four-year extension of three key provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act while he was in France.
I had no idea and every Democrat blames Bush for this but Obama extended it. Wow
The autopen--from FRANCE.
NPR thought it was very cool:
Obama Wields His ... Autopen?
https://www.npr.org/2011/05/27/136717719/obama-wields-his-autopen
Obama came literally from nowhere.
We are told he was a community organizer, whatever that means.
Then he wrote a book, and served a term where Joe Lieberman was his mentor, and then BOOM, there he was, President of the World, the candidate from Langley.
Kathleen- nice find !
I actually never heard of this though I have toured Monticello ЁЯд╖тАНтЩВя╕П
PS - NPR would have found constitutional problems and the use of it not so cool had the president been Trump ! Very sad state of double standardsтАжтАж.
They are still raising $$ to build it but if you are ever in Medora, ND check it out.
Its funny anyone thinks there's a difference.
Two wings of the same grisly gang.
There is still a huge difference:
At least *some* of the Republicans supporting the extensions were *not* neo-cons and neo-libs. (Fools, yes, but *not* Statists *using* the issue.)
*All* of the Democrats were and are.
The significance of difference is relative. Given that the subtopic here is the PATRIOT Act and who is responsible for it, your separation between fools and statists strikes me as more trivial than huge. This is because they did the deed and the damage was done (do we really care about their motives long after the fact?).
My view is that our political system needs more pluralism and less 'two wings of the same grisly gang' (h/t Bill). And the tendency to lump the opposition into a homogenous group is likely a bad call... on multiple levels that makes a huge difference in your ability to make accurate calls, plus differentiate yourself from the fools.
To me, the most appropriate response is often *both* substantive and mocking.
Well stated counter argument (the best one, imo, one of moot-ness!). Here's where I choose to attack it:
"And the tendency to lump the opposition into a homogenous group is likely a bad call..."
See, I not only *like* a 2 (two) Party system, I think it necessary (if used properly by the People, a huge if of course, and a failed condition today) to save the Constitution. I do not mean to be hyperbolic. I think the Constitution has failed, or the People have failed it (whatever Ben Franklin), and the only way short of a bloody (or not bloody?) revolution to re-corral the overgrown State is to have a *united* opposition.
The Dems made similar complaints about folks like Nader and then Sanders (undermining the opposition). In the short term, there may be some merit to the argument. But if we take a longer view, plus accurately describe the initial conditions, a 2P stranglehold on the system is good for corruption and bad for democracy.
To see how this works, maybe consider how your initial assessment of Citizens United was wrong and very short-sighted as opposed to big picture (and the analogy to weight classes in boxing was actually a good one, for what it's worth). With a smaller pool of possible candidates (as opposed to votes 'thrown away', as some like to say), they can be more choosy about which part of their constituency to Represent. In a more pluralistic scenario, with a relatively smaller base for each Rep plus more legit options for voters, they need to be more circumspect and less obviously bought.
And on the topic of being bought, with a 2P stranglehold and fewer Reps to choose from, there is a lower threshold cost to... buy them all. If it takes a dumptruck of money to buy a Rep, and there are (only) roughly 400 stars in the firmament to buy... then you need (checks math) ~400 dumptrucks of money to buy them all. And post Citizens United, how many dumptrucks of money do you reckon there are sloshing about in the influence-buying budget?
I'm just not that sold on a parliamentary system, for which you seem to be. I most certainly disagree that there exosts less graft and "sausage-like-in-construction" politics.
It takes a village.
Given the rapidity that this Act of 300 pages was enacted, it is obvious to me that it was pre-written and pre-planned. All that was required was proper crisis.
тАЬYou never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.тАЭ
тАХ Rahm Emanuel
Obama? Scourge!!
Yep. Because there's no crisis so big the government can't come up with a catchy acronym for the bill.
Who runs the department of clever acronyms in this country?
The Iron Law of Bill Names! (See: Inflation Reduction Act, which has very very little to do with reducing inflation.)
Or, my personal opposite-day favorite, 'Citizens United', which should have been called "Citizen-Crushing Cabal Empowerment Act", or "The 'Citizens, Get Fucked!' Act"
Wrong. 180 degrees.
you're going to need to do better than that. This is a tough crowd.
Oh, very well...
Citizens United is and was correct, imo, because all it says is that you and I, individual and private citizens, may pool our resources toward mutual and freely decided upon political ends, completely and utterly, did I say *necessarily*? yes I did, independent of any group, especially and most importantly that most dangerous of all groups, Society, and its mindless, vicious, anti-human pit bull, the State.
Riight...Citizens United allows both the wealthy and the poor to contribute unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns. And it confers Sovereign Individual status on both mortal humans and immortal corporations- which don't die; they merely change names when their assets are purchased by even larger corporations. A neat trick that humans are unlikely to duplicate, no matter how far technology advances.
That "vicious, mindless pit-bull, the state"...well, that's all very Rhetorical, but the same State that you reject so heatedly also charters Corporations and draws up and enforces contracts on behalf of owners of Private Property. Citizens United merely underscores the pronounced bias in the US for offering those protections in direct correlation to the net worth of a given individual, or private alliance of wealthy individuals. Some corporations are easily modeled as partaking of many of the same oppressive powers as governments, of course; those powers are sometimes formally certified as private prerogatives by governments (contract law, again.) Other times, there's no necessity for that. After all, for all of the loose talk about serfdom, it's always been more a feature associated with private property owners and employers than democratic republics.
Unless you're a hermit, you are part of human Society. It's how you were raised. Even gangs led by warlords- the only practical form of "minarchy"- comprise Societies, and carry out the same oppressive functions that you loathe so much in governments, minus the protections of civil liberties and individual rights that are found to some degree in all democratic republics. Typically not that much of a problem in terms of practical consequences as long as you pledge your troth to the warlord, of course, although you never can tell.
Anarchy is not a practical option, unless you're a hermit- and the US has plenty of territory consisting of less than one person per square mile; it sounds like you should look into that.
For what it's worth, I find it ironic that in my observation, citizens with the most complaints against 'the State"- particularly the Federal Government- are residents of rural areas who seldom face much threat from the Government themselves; they're mostly upset over things that they read in the media, about events far, far away. (Paranoia is, of course, one of the prerogatives most likely to be embraced by an Individual who has talked themself into viewing Society per se as a hostile entity.) The people most likely to indulge in rhetorical excoriation of any and all Government also have a way of losing all interest in dismantling the Government once the political faction they favor is in power, instead shifting toward support for dismantling only the parts that conflict with their dogmatic ideological preconceptions. Unless they find that they'd personally lose some practical advantage if that were to be done, that is.
Imperious professional managerial class ideological dogmatism and private propertarian class ideological dogmatism have this in common: underneath all of the Manichean absolutism of the idealistic rhetoric, the primary goal is So Much Winning, for their personal private ends of material advantage and social status. And otherwise, so much Whining.
Thank you for this substantive response, M. DC.
I hope you give me the benefit of the doubt here that I am not copping out by not responding in kind and at length; believe me, I want to and will hopefully someday, but I have no time right now!
Please, please, if you run across me in the future, prompt me without hesitation.
Just one more point I need to add: when considering questions like these, remember the crucial difference between a Bug and a Feature, and be honest about which is which.
Thanks for the conversation.
I have the right to make an Anti-Trump film.
You have the right to make an Anti-Trump film.
We do not lose those rights simply because we decide to team up.
The alternative is giving government permission to decide what is and isn't allowable speech -- and we know how that goes.
Really appreciate your explainer about Citizens United and comparisons of powerful orgs (corps, govs and gangs).
But a small bone to pick with you about who has the most complaints against the Federal gov. I'm a citizen who doesn't fit your description, who is upset about a whole range of things that could probably fit under the umbrella of corruption. And I certainly don't rail against any and all government, though I have noticed a tendency for corruption to creep.
Some folks say, 'Sure, it's a total mess above a certain level, which is why we should focus our efforts from the state on downward'. Problem with that though, is that humans are now collectively facing problems that likely require *larger* govs to address. What can state or local leaders do about climate/environmental issues requiring global cooperation? What can they do about human rights abuses, wars and war crimes, or the development pathway for AI?
Some of the most time-pressured issues we face are simply too large to be tackled with 'think global, act local'. And corruption seems to creep faster near the top, where all the money and power flows. Citizens United accelerated this, plus the process of corps becoming bigger and more powerful than many govs. Reigning that in is maybe going to look like *solving* the problem of corruption at the highest levels plus creating some corruption-free... higher levels yet.
One of the bugaboos on the Right is a world gov. But to me, a world gov is only scary because of the unsolved corruption issue. Solve that, and it maybe becomes a powerful force for positive transformation plus healing. No small order, solving corruption at the highest levels, but pointing this out is neither Winning nor Whining.
Do you ever watch fighting sports, such as boxing, wrestling, or MMA?
If you understand the concept of a weight class, and why they're a good idea that makes sense, you also understand why Citizens United was a terrible ruling.
Right.
I just *know* that you didn't compare real world politics to ballet for fat guys.
Edit: ...and favorably, at that!
There's no surer sign of someone who knows full well that they have no valid point to make, than when they try to distract the audience from it by mocking their opponent's point rather than responding to it.
No, sir. You are wrong.
Sometimes mocking a point *is* the most appropriate, valid, *and* substantive response.
As to your "substance," I disagree, but then I repeat myself.
No doubt!
But in my defense, I only claim to exercise my First Amendment right to utter pure opinion, free of charge no less!
The crowd is getting a bargain, says I.
тАЬSee Civil Rights Act тАЬ she said in a low voice... LBJ, not a nice person...
Biden's new rule on Title IX to allow guys to rape girls in school bathrooms. Without any consequences written in. How in the world did the President of the United States allow this and put these previous young girls in harms way?
Symbolic wish fulfillment.
ItтАЩs so much fun to sniff hair --why not more?
CARES Act - largest single upward transfer of wealth in human history
Yes in fact I just learned that the IRA is another ploy just to privatize more public infrastructure.
Guys, don't lump the PELOSI Act into this. Though maybe it's the exception that proves the rule.
Also Kirk's Law:
"Any law named after a victim, or whose title forms a cutesy acronym, is certain to be a bad law."
Biden proudly proclaims that he wrote the Patriot Act (but it took 9/11 to go into effect).
But Biden also proudly proclaimed that he is Neil Kinnock.
And he graduated top of his class
What's astonishing for me is that 'biden' is proven liar who actually had to abandon his campaign for the presidency. Yet, somehow, it's all forgotten.
The system works.
As former Vice President Joe Biden prepares to take the Democratic debate stage on Wednesday, the pressure is on the front runner for the partyтАЩs 2020 nomination for the presidency тАФ especially after the June debate, after which he admitted he was unprepared for fellow candidate Sen. Kamala Harris to call him out on his past positions on busing.
But for at least one veteran political reporter, that moment is just part of a decades-long history that goes all the way back to the first time Biden made an official run for the White House тАФ and to the scandal that ended that campaign.
https://time.com/5636715/biden-1988-presidential-campaign/
Excellent find Bill !
I do know the generalities regarding the lies and plagiarism surrounding our тАЬ high hallowedтАЭ president but this article brings to light many of his specific deeds ,that as you point out have been тАЬ forgotten тАЬ by manyтАжтАж
Nutz!
'biden' pees hisself most days.
Forty years ago I was sitting cross-legged on a dirty Oriental rug getting drunk on Gallo jug wine and listening to Murray Rothbard talk about Ron Paul, among other things (the other things being a tour de force of the history of the Great Depression, the perfidy of Ayn Rand, a history of metal currency, and complaints about the then-current management of the Cato Institute). His opinion was that "Ron is as good as it gets, he just doesn't go far enough."
40 years ago I was probably still in my Randroid phase. When I learned of RandтАЩs loyalty to the Republican Party, it started to open my eyes. I still voted Libertarian for a long time, but now I think the party was always a kind of controlled opposition--a term I didn't know at the time. I should have been wary of rebranding the pejorativized тАЬA-wordтАЭ, anarchy, with the dressed up and watered-down тАЬlibertarianтАЭ moniker. Now that libertarianism is almost entirely captured by the Republican Party, I wonder what Rothbard would say.
In addition to the numerous philosophical issues Rothbard had with Objectivism, he also had a very personal gripe with Rand dating from the early 1960s when he was briefly part of her inner circle. She was a famously belligerent atheist, who believed that any religious belief, which she named "mysticism," was incompatible with the use of reason. Rothbard himself was a completely secularized Jew, but his wife was a believing Christian. Rand gave him an ultimatum -- divorce your wife or be cast out. To his everlasting credit he chose Joey.
Yes. Ayn Rand was wrong, too.
"Now that libertarianism is almost entirely captured by the Republican Party, I wonder what Rothbard would say."
He would say, "Hmm...I was wrong."
I would suggest it's the other way 'round, as the GOP was essentially purchased by the Koch network via the Tea Party movement it paid to provide broad coverage for, and the Kochs were lifelong Libertarians. David ran for VP on the Libertarian ticket.
Nope.
I am as libertarian (political system of the founding, another word for Capitalism, true not crony) as anyone on the planet.
I am just as anti-Libertarian, and you all should stop living in the last century.
Just like the Greens on the left, the Libertarian Party, and its myopic supporters/enablers (like the Statist neo-liberal psuedo-free-marketer Koch-cons), allow the Fascist Democrat Party to operate *with crippled political opposition* in their almost-completed take-over of a free People.
You are at best a fool, M. Liz Burton.
Hmmm not MD2020
A little Thunderbird with a Boones Farm chaser.
I had one swallow of that crap 20 yrs ago and can still taste it!
Rothbard always did have it in for Rand, unreasonably so imo.
"How to Win Friends and Influence People" : Matter = Murray Rothbard : Antimatter. I did not know him at all well (I only met him a few times, very late in his life) but we had a mutual friend to whom we were both very close, and I heard *plenty.* I'm sure Ayn Rand was a gigantic pain in the ass, but Murray managed to alienate almost everyone at one time or another too. The obituary National Review ran when he died was a monument to pettiness.
Thanks, M. Gathering. I read about all this so long ago that you make me realize I must go research to learn it all again!
Edit: Really, I should have added to this indent long before that my strong opinion is that this old and ageless Objectivist/Libertarian feud is moot, pointless, beside the point, non-substantive, self-destructive....you know, all the things we *knew* then, eh?
The government counts on stupid and apathetic people to allow them total control over all citizens. And AI will be used in a similar manner if it's not being used already.
Ron Paul is suffering without a verb to his name... I think you forgot "said."
They have gone way past the patriot act