Letters to the Editor
Baldie McEagle
Published Letters: 992 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Thank you, bucky
[Read the article: McCain embraces Bush's radical views of executive power]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is not true. One can get people together to form a program to feed the hungry and homeless and there will be no outcry about individual rights. It is when you leave the area of voluntary cooperation and force people to do your will that you will hear an outcry.
You've found an interesting exception, perhaps (I suppose you have never heard of NIMBYism being applied to homeless shelters), and I will confess to a bit of rhetorical exaggeration. But it is exactly that response of "you are forcing tyranny upon me by asking me to step to the side on a public escalator, let alone to register my howitzer" that I was portraying as a typical American reflexive response to any kind of socially-oriented action. In short, thank you for stepping up and providing an example.
To be precise, it's not a matter of approving of the use of force, it's more a matter of defining "force" so broadly that everything except getting the hell out of the way fits into it.
And of course feeding the hungry is fine in America if it's faith-based and therefore "voluntary." I wonder what would happen if one proposed using taxes (gasp!) to do so. It's exactly that withering of the public space that allows faith and corporate welfare to creep in.
Even if you think an action is "for everyone's own good", others may well disagree with you.
That's what democratic debate is for. It's funny---I almost responded jokingly to Glenn's reasonable request by calling it "Socialism!" It's exactly what I'm talking about. Acting with restraint in public on one's own initiative shouldn't be so hard. It shouldn't require either maternal or paternal nannyism, nor lead to anarchy.
-
See Milton for a full workup
[Read the article: McCain embraces Bush's radical views of executive power]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It may seem odd to some people here, but the human being does not enjoy being forced to do things that he otherwise would not do.
It's all about consenting to being governed. Force should not and does not normally enter into it. I wonder if this is where libertarians stopped showing up for class?
On a larger scale, I have to wonder whether Americans have a weaker sense of social capital because we are all uprooted immigrants. Non-Americans grow up knowing certain things about how to behave---they learn to do/not do certain things, and therefore don't need to be "forced."
Here in the US, people wear underwear in public but believe nudity to be a crime. Damned activist judges again!
-
Ledeen wasn't lying
[Read the article: Neocons and the truth: Bitter enemies to the end]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]He said "Yesterday." That meant any time from 1992 to the day before. Clearly, the time for invasion was over by the time Ledeen gave this answer. And now, he believes the time to attack Iran has come, where before he did not.
Thus, he can honestly say he vigorously opposes a war (or two) he strongly advocates.
You've got to be mentally nimble to be a major player in today's post-Cold War global order.
-
Clear enough
[Read the article: McCain embraces Bush's radical views of executive power]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Government is force. It is nice when they are not pointing a gun at me, but implied in every action that government takes is that they have the manpower and force to coerce me into obeying their commands. I am surprised you skipped that whole class, since that is in government 101.
No, it's not.
You wrote, "To be precise, it's not a matter of approving of the use of force, it's more a matter of defining "force" so broadly that everything except getting the hell out of the way fits into it."
No, government really is force. Perhaps the natives or the blacks can see it better than some others but it is not all that hard to understand. We have approximately 8 times as many men and women in prison in this country and that is only the surface of the problem. Government is force.
Since you believe government to be force, and nothing but force, it's perfectly logical that you oppose it with no attempt whatsoever to address complexities. Just please don't complain when it behaves as the enemy you have made it, not as the servant (of "solid citizens" only, granted) it was designed to be.
You wrote, "...It shouldn't require either maternal or paternal nannyism, nor lead to anarchy."
Anarchy is not chaos. The two are often confused with each other, especially by those who want to see misunderstanding. Anarchy is when men and women voluntarily cooperate and provide for their needs through private groups. (it is true that these private groups may resemble your idea of government somewhat)
Voluntary cooperation, sure. Except that I specifically reject the private in favor of the public.
I don't consider anarchy to be chaos---I would have used that word. Rather, anarchy leads inevitably to the rule of force, unlike government by consent. This is what anarchists and libertarians want. And it's what we are moving toward---society organized by private force into layers of private power.
-
Knobbery
[Read the article: Neocons and the truth: Bitter enemies to the end]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I just realized something. If we allow Austrians to have basements, then we are responsible for the welfare of children born of incestuous rape, imprisoned in a basement with their mother, and raised like animals.
Stop the Austrian basements! Inspections have failed! Toothless Austrian laws are not enough!
Knobbery will get you nowhere.
-
The tough questions
[Read the article: Neocons and the truth: Bitter enemies to the end]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Really, the below exchange should demonstrate to everyone how NOT to deal with a troll. People responded to him as though he was serious, when his original comment was plainly as far from serious as anything could be. Now look.
Allow me to summarize Knob's contribution: How many Iranian children are we willing to kill to do Israel's bidding?
-
@knob
[Read the article: Neocons and the truth: Bitter enemies to the end]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Since we're engaging with you, who asked "what to do about Iran? Can you tell us why "we" need to "do" ANYTHING about Iran?
I'm reminded of a Monty Python line about what to call fat Belgian bastards: "Why should we call them anything? Why don't we just ignore them?"
I await your serious answer to this quite serious, if lightly asked, question.