Letters to the Editor
-
Bucky, are implying that Glenn believes "all government is tyranny anyhow"?
You quote me saying:
" ... Politics to me is just a given, like having umpires or referees in sport - and it seems so obvious that if one starts out with the idea that all government is tyranny anyhow, then one has deprived oneself of any means of combating tyranny in the normal sense, because one has said, it's all the same ... "
Then YOU say:
"Politics in America at this time may well be a force that one must contend with, but ignoring the truth is not a wise plan. Glenn Greenwald spends the majority of his published words setting the record straight and pointing out the falsehoods and pro-government propaganda that pretends to be "news". Should he just stop and tell everyone that all is well and to believe your 5th grade teacher about how our system works? I think not."
Either this is a complete non-sequitur, or you are trying to tell me that he writes his articles because he starts out from the idea that "all government is tyranny anyhow." If this is the case, it's the first I have heard of it, and I should appreciate if someone could show me where he says this. My argument was that anyone who thinks this will have no incentive for trying to "improve" or "reform" it, and therefore no motive for writing detailed critiques in the way that he does.
Oh, and whoever it is who claims to infer from my dismissal of simplistic attitude metrics that I have done them, and disliked the result I have obtained, is just spinning his wheels.
-
hrh
Well, when the poles given for the social scale are control vs. more or less "live and let live," and they are called libertarian vs. authoritarian, it's not surprising to see this crowd have a strong "libertarian streak" as you put it.
What would you call the polar opposite of authoritarian then?
-
@ Aycharaych
What would you call the polar opposite of authoritarian then?
I'm not objecting to the term the test uses necessarily; categorizing and labeling the political spectrum is not in my area of expertise. I'm just saying that "a libertarian streak" as demonstrated by scores on that test does not equate to identifying with the Libertarian Party or an anti-state belief.
Much of the actual debate on this comments section (and by debate I mean discussion that isn't comprised of lobbing ad hominems back and forth) between those who self-identify as Libertarians vs. Democrats is really a difference of opinion about the role of the state vs. private interests. In primarily social policy areas, such as whether government should be in the business of legislating private behavior, both groups largely agree.
But if you look at the left/right poles in the quadrant rather than just the top/bottom ones, you'll note that they sub-label the focus as collectivism vs. libertarianism. I interpret that to mean a difference in perspective on economic goals that give primacy to the needs of the many over the individual vs. the opposite, respectively.
As for the labels, I don't have much personal investment; I think they're calling me a libertarian communist after all. But I also recognize that their model is not a binary one (either you're a libertarian or you're George Bush, for example).
-
@Rowan
It won't make any difference if you ignore bucky or not. Say something critical about Rothbard, for instance, and you are the devil incarnate. Greenwald's articles, like many others, are carried by LewRockwell.com because they are a news aggregator. It helps sucker in the uninformed. This leads Bucky to conclude that Glenn has drunk the kool-aid. Having said that, it is best to ignore him, Sinnard and Brightstar65.
Aych, OTOH, the one who raked you about the test, has his moments of clarity, interspersed with fits of pique.
-
Does anybody remember "Hagbard Celine"?
I think he was the "Captain Nemo" type figure in "Illuminatus", a trilogy of wanky science fiction by ex Playboy writers that did much to corrupt a generation. The fact that I even remember it - along with my remarks about Satanists, Setians, and Crowleyans on the next thread - should show how 'libertarianism' actually impacted me, in the 1970s and 1980s : via occultism. If anyone is curious about what the occult scene was really like in those days, they can't do better than to read this absolutely sweet, poignant memorial, "The Doom That Came To Chelsea," by Alan Cabal (probably not his real name, but I am proud to say that he, or someone using the same name, occasionally sends comments to my blog):
http://www.nypress.com/16/23/news&columns/feature.cfm
-
The law is weak
Glenn, the prwatch.org legal analysis was pretty good, but didn't hit the nail on the head when it comes to the legal consequences of conducting an illegal covert propaganda program. Covert propaganda is routinely prohibited by appropriations acts. Under these provisions, there is no money appropriated for the purpose of illegal propaganda. If money is actually spent in this fashion, then the agency violates the Antideficiency Act. Rarely is any action taken against the employees involved. When illegal propaganda is undertaken by the top like by the Secretary of Defense, who is really going to do anything? In order to strengthen the law, I suggest that individuals who knowingly participate in covert propaganda should be "debarred" by the Federal government, meaning making them ineligible to receive government contracts, grants, and other Federal money. Since the generals in this case, and the PR flacks in previous cases under the Bush Administration were actively seeking government contracts, debarment may be an adequate deterrent.