The USA is notorious for its "work or starve" attitude.

"Live and let live is a liberal/libertarian principle but carried to some ridiculous extremes we get the aberrations we are all familiar with." --- lwm and not a sock-puppet!

You keep saying that if carried to some ridiculous extreme that "live and let live" will kill us all. You never give any examples that are based in reality or in theory. Want to try?

Rockwell once pointed out men with kooky ideas (did he know you?) were relatively harmless without the government to enforce their kooky ideas. Many have shown that it takes government to discriminate due to the costs being widely spread out over the population.

What I would really like to know is how the comedians here think that no government at all (or a very weak one) would allow an anarchist or a libertarian (do they know that is not always the same thing?) to tyrannise them? How paranoid can one get?

But I must say, yesterday's hate fest you started was a hoot. I wonder: did Glenn like it?

I could not afford marriage until I was 27. I feared being the equivalent of a spinster.

It's a long story. Someone, a gentle Lady from a Mennonite church insisted on handing me a $10.00 bill.

Each week that ten-bucks went a long way. Without generosity, it would have been much tougher. thanks.

after I sent them a really stinking email direct to the editorial desk, Haaretz finally printed my comment, to the effect that the Lebanese army, and the Lebanese public in general, perceive Hezbollah and its rockets as defensive, not offensive. It makes the rest of the thread look pretty silly, too - almost everything else on it is basically warmongering racist hate speech, saying that the only way to teach good sense to arabs is to carpet bomb them, more or less.

my remark about wanting a job was really more in the context of a thread at the one of the (London) Independent newspaper's blogs, where I also reported this episode.

A economics as if people mattered....

There is the Ludwig W. guy who Bertram Russell liked. Ludwig would act as LWM? Ludwi got 'kicked' outta public assemblies for his stron opinions. He was a watchdog? He'd growl and folk got nasty irate. I mean if a thought had potential ugly consequences in Ludwig's opinion, the Mr. Ludwig W. would offend people in the audience with a shout, "No No No" and his arms would appear to push back the idea wave.

The LWM has similar traits? I listen. Listen.

Let LWM think for 'cringing out louse' too...

LWM may have long flowing blonde hair tied in a pony tail?

Pedinska? You got a G-strap fix for a keyboard?

You keep saying that if carried to some ridiculous extreme that "live and let live" will kill us all. You never give any examples that are based in reality or in theory. Want to try?

I am going to do this as calmly and nicely as possible:

I challenge you to come up with any instance where I have ever said that. Live and let live is non-interference in others lives. I also propose that we live and let die with dignity those who may want to die. The government thinks individuals have right no right to die with dignity if they are suffering from a terminal and painful illness or living in a state that renders the quality of life unbearable to them or their loved ones. OTOH, we have domestic political policies that allow many people to die of hunger or lack of medical insurance and care. You blame the government for this. You claim that doing away with even the minimal state will remedy this magically. I challenge you to find one regular commenter here, including Glenn Greenwald, who agrees with you on this. Sinnard and Brightstar65 are not really regulars and they do not count in any case.

I am now going to repost Glenn's request from a few days ago and his direct response to you after a question you posed. Read them carefully and then reread your last post. It is the tail end of this thread or I wouldn't do this.

Comment Section Request

I've been receiving a lot of complaints lately about the fact that, after the first 10 pages or so of comments, arguments tend to break out among the same small set of commenters over the same small set of arguments -- which grow increasingly unpleasant, personal and ad hominem -- many of which have little to do with the topics being discussed.

I have noticed this myself, and as any regular participant here knows, I really am loathe to regulate the comment section. I'd like therefore to request that those who find themselves in those same arguments take a step back, try to exercise a bit of restraint, and regulate themselves in this regard.

I have no problem with discussions that veer away from the original topic. And I know as well as anyone that political debates can get heated and all that. But if the purpose in posting seems to be just to vent anger towards other commenters you personally dislike, that's a good indication that some restrain is in order -- all with the goal of preserving the quality of the discussions here. Thanks.

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 04:52 PM

[emphasis added]

Bucky... It will take a public warning or two to whoever starts these things. It just takes telling the next offender, "hey, here is your only warning" when the first offensive post gets put up. It does no good to wait until the party attacked responds and then nail that second guy --- that will make it worse in the long run. For obvious reasons, I think.

No. The point I'm making is the opposite. I'm not going to referee and try to navigate childish claims of "who started it." That's the whole point. I'm asking the participants -- all of whom otherwise contribute content of value here and all of whom I'm assuming to be adults -- to regulate themselves and refrain from that conduct, even if they think that the other person "started it".

Thursday, May 8, 2008 04:29 AM

[original emphasis]

http://letters.salon.com/ed5ca3007d7ae628dd365be552a7b6eb/author/index337.html