Letters to the Editor
-
Mona -- Oops!
Looks like you are a libertarian! Explains your "mistrust" comment and it is not for me, but I think I understand the appeal. Is Glenn? I never got that feeling.
-
the “when is force justified” dilemma
You have stated the “when is force justified” dilemma well. Ever since the slaughter in Rwanda, I’m sure Bill Clinton has deeply regretted that he didn’t use force to prevent such an awful tragedy. It no doubt is a sizable part of his motivation for the great work his foundation is doing in Africa now to halt the devastation of aids, malaria and lack of educational opportunities.
The Belgian colonialists who controlled that unfortunate land for so long hold the majority responsibility for the slaughter that later occurred. It is our curse to always look to the immediate situation and never ask how it came to be like this. It was a western colonial power that caused the situation that led to the horror, better the land had never been plundered.
However, once the damage is done, what is it that we are to do when faced with such horrors in this world? We should always remember ironic evil, which is the evil good men do, even as they are trying to do good works.
It is best to let others work out their problems.
-
@ czrpb00
You say:
Mona says:
"I also share Glenn's well-placed mistrust in allowing the state to determine what should constitute a true/false or good/bad idea."
Does Glenn really believe this? Are you mistrustful of traffic laws (speeding, running lights, crossing train tracks when the guard is down, etc)? Environmental laws? Zoning laws? Construction laws/regulations?
Given that Glenn has repeatedly stated that is his reasoning going as far back as his old blog, I do not doubt him. Traffic laws are morally neutral; whether you drive on the left side or right side of the road, whether red means stop or blue does, are irrelevant, as long as everyone understands and abides by the orderly driving protocols their nation has adopted. No one has an arguable right to drive so dangerously as to threaten the death or maiming of others.
If you don't see the difference between mundane traffic laws and govt control of ideas, I don't know how to explain it to you short of a treatise.
-
Endless War
Quoth: "This is the most extraordinary aspect of our political culture. Rep. Davis' assumption is that we are going to be fighting a series of "wars." That is just a given. And the only question is whether we will fight our wars "wisely" or unwisely. We are a nation more or less permanently at war, and we really do not debate whether that should be the case. Enforced Beltway orthodoxy requires that this is a given and anyone who challenges that premise will be deemed extremist and insane"
The Empire That Dare Not Speak Its Name.
-
@ czrpb00
Looks like you are a libertarian! Explains your "mistrust" comment and it is not for me, but I think I understand the appeal. Is Glenn? I never got that feeling.
I don't speak for Glenn; except when there is something he has publicly written I can quote or reference I don't claim to know his position(s). Once in his (vanished) comments section he said he tended to identify with those who call themselves libertarians. But as far as I know, he resists labels, and is a thoroughly independent thinker.
-
bucky 1
"It is best to let others work out their problems."
That is not going to do anything for all the millions of Iraqi refugees that our nation is now morally responsible for. When problems can’t be worked out and innocent victims suffer, we can’t always sit idly by, regardless of whether or not it is due to ironic evil. That’s why many of us are so frustrated and do so much blogging. We saw the Iraq tragedy coming and could do nothing about it and now we have to watch irresponsible, manipulating politicians, in and out of the military, deny their role and blame everyone but themselves. Perhaps when children, if they had learned to be fully responsible for their decisions and the consequences, they might have learned humanity and foresight and made different pre-invasion decisions.
-
Troll Befuddlement
Hi folks. I have been lurking here for about a month to my great enlightenment and pleasure. Only one thing I don't understand - why so much confusion about the trolls? Shooter (and this applies to several others) is a Bebe gun. Just because he is not as clever as many of you does not mean he is not consistent. Everything follows.
-
Mona on Laws
Mona says:
Traffic laws are morally neutral ... No one has an arguable right to drive so dangerously as to threaten the death or maiming of others.
I think these two statements are incompatible. Why does not one have the right to drive dangerously? Because we have values; in this case the value of one's life. Traffic laws are "safety" laws and are moral statements on our values: It is wrong to run red lights because we value life. At least, this is how I always understood law: Rules of right and wrong with regard to our values.
If you don't see the difference between mundane traffic laws and govt control of ideas, I don't know how to explain it to you short of a treatise.
Umm, instead of writing a treatise for me, can you link to one? Specifically one that declares that the law has no relation to values, morality, and ethics (remember safety is a moral rule regarding values -- at least IMHO).
-
@- czrpb00
Why does not one have the right to drive dangerously? Because we have values; in this case the value of one's life. Traffic laws are "safety" laws and are moral statements on our values: It is wrong to run red lights because we value life. At least, this is how I always understood law: Rules of right and wrong with regard to our values.
One has no right to significantly risk killing people. If you don't see the difference between a guy doing 100 mph on a highway, swerving and ignoring stop lights in 3 thousand lbs of metal, on the one hand, and on the other, expression of a noxious political opinion, I can't educate you. I do know which I'd rather face, since traffic accident in the U.S. kill 50K annually.