Thursday, May 20, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Popular Posts
-
Octopuses are smarter than they should be. Every other invertebrate registers as static on an EEG. An Octopus generates the kind of slow l... -
Julian Assange is in jail in UK facing deportation to Sweden on charges of rape. Many people, otherwise sympathetic to Assange and Wikileak... -
Conservative MP Brad Trost believes female politicians should be bullied and terrorized and threatened with jailing for believing in differe... -
'Emboldened.' In every article about white nationalists or the 'Alt right', two terms designed specifically to obscure... -
I think we should start a movement to protect against the insidious threat of 'Ten Commandments law'. Sure the Christians and Jewis...
-
The Christian Labour Association of Canada, not to put too fine a point on it, is a fake union. They're an association with no standing...
-
Spotted at Scott's Dia Tribes : Rachel Marsden , serial stalker, Anne Coulter wannabe, former Fox News personality fired for being too... -
For the comic book fans, hat tip to Andrew Sullivan : Frank Miller is the comic book artist and writer behind The Dark Knight, a bunch of gr... -
The day before a massacre at a Quebec Mosque Kellie Leitch attacked a motion opposing Islamophobia as 'special privileges'. Pres... -
We can't count on liberals and their cherished institutions or standard of decorum and responsible governance they keep hoping against ...
3 comments:
...and fuck you in return, you don't understand diddly shit.
You can disagree with Paul if you wish, but don't mischaracterize what he says, like the other Dipper guy `dalmaxmoron' or whatever he or she is.
For a guy who claims to be a `libertarian', you sure don't know shit about liberty.
I love the automatic assumption that disagreeing with Paul means 'I don't understand diddly shit.' Like most right wing Libertarians and Mr. Paul in particular, your immediate, extraordinarily arrogant and condescending assumption is that fully informed and knowledgeable disagreement with your position is by definition impossible - anyone who disagrees just doesn't understand the fine philosophical point.
In fact of course I understand Rand's point precisely, I'm a left leaning libertarian a proud and longstanding tendency in libertarian thought, I just disagree with him. Vehemently.
And its interesting how selective Pauls' Libertarian absolutism is:
He supports Medicare and wants no reduction in Medicare payments (He plans to continue his career as an ophthalmologist despite being elected Senator) has lately said he would not leave abortion to the states, he doesn't believe in legalizing drugs like marijuana and cocaine, he'd support federal drug laws, he'd vote to support Kentucky's coal interests and he'd be tough on national security.
So he's quite willing to bend his absolutist Libertarian philosophical beliefs to support public healthcare, drug laws and other massive state intrusions into citizens personal physical autonomy, a huge military industrial complex and massive state subsidies for the coal industry in his state - but the state intervention in the private sector that is one step too far for him is legislation forbidding racism.
Interesting priorities.
Also interesting to note R.B that you come up as coming from a Conservative Party of Canada IP - so your Libertarianism is a little situational too isn't it?
Post a Comment