Kucinich moves for Cheney Impeachment

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

It's time to make it appealing to at least twice two percent -- to start. Well? Do you really want a better society, or do you want a debate club??

I would rather your party, the GOP, considered the virtues of non-intervention instead of submitting to the ultra-statist views of your fellow neo-cons. Brother, I only count one facist sympathizer in this discussion. Only one person here is actively opposed to observing the Bill of Rights. Only one person here gives aid and comfort to petty terrorists by supporting their recruiting efforts by his support of putting my fellow citizens in harms way.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Well, he isn't me, if that's what you wrongly insist on believing: the fascists must vanish and libertarian democracy must prevail. This is doing something about fascism, which you for one are conspicuously unwilling to undertake -- how is this not fascist sympathizing? Too many Libertarians right here don't acknowledge that, trapping themselves in a specious logic -- specious because it's based in utter inaction. You can't have libertarianism if you don't get out there and make it happen, and libertarianism is good for human beings, so anyone caught denying human beings this good must be made to stop, and he doesn't have to survive the experience, does he? If you want libertarianism to happen anywhere on the planet, expect to intervene, or the Stygian less-than-libertarian undemocracy will only persist, because states and political do work towards their own perpetuation, do they not? How is this then to be remedied? Sooner or later, you remedy it by chaining or destroying the fascist elements. Why should libertarians not believe in this? I've never heard any substantive reasons, just excuses and feeble rationalization. That isn't active libertarianism, is it?

My preferred party is the Libertarian Party, and sure, a good second choice for me would be the GOP, because the Democratic Party is such a batch of socialistoid, foreign-policy-feeble idiots: look at their record of gross incompetence at foreign policy for the past two generations. You simply can't tell me I'm not a Libertarian -- you just have to remember I'm not your particular variety of Libertarian, but something much more active, with a longer and wider and greater view. I'm endeavoring to fix what's wrong with the LP that keeps libertarianism from actually occurring anywhere.

Who cares how many fascists die before conversion to true democrats? Those fascists are the dumb ones anyway, fixated upon retaining a license for oppression -- to perform aggressions of the exact nature libertarianism condemns, and ought therefor to justify the destruction of the perpetrators. No matter how democracy's pestiferous foes recruit, it's really solely a matter of bringing up enough bullets to deal with those we can't educate to the point of conversion -- it's bad for mankind if that unteachable lot are let to run about and practice their oppressions. It is helpful for conversions if there are substantial examples of what happens to the ones who couldn't convert because they preferred to be shitheads about it.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

To expand on it: Libertarianism isn't going to prevail anywhere on this mortal Earth unless and until it beats out the other competing ideologies. Ideologies that embrace force and violence to achieve their ends will take a lot of beating. Beating them includes lethal force -- and can you imagine a death less to be mourned than that of undemocratic autocracy? If you could, you'd hardly be a libertarian, now would you?

Those ideologies wedded to force and violence attempt to practice them efficiently. Our virtuous conduct as libertarians is not going to shield our persons or our prospects from those ideologies' attempts at neutralizing us. Instead, we must be efficient at force and violence ourselves, to render their force impotent, which of course was what we wanted all along. Not only that, we must fight more efficiently than they do, and we must diligently undermine their cause to fight against our way. We don't have to prefer force and violence, not at all. But of course we should not submit to murder and thuggery either, and dead thugs menace only the public health, and that but briefly -- until burial.

The reason I say these things is that I understand the nastier side of human nature -- and I desire that it not defeat our ideology. I think you do also.

I care not a fig for "who's the purer Libertarian" in either action or thought -- this timewasting hobby of purer-than-thou-ism is the besetting sin of small third parties. What I see is a want of action, and a want of the thought that embraces action to reify it. I'm not crippled by want of that kind of thought. What I care for is the action of defeating competing ideologies along all possible paths.

[Griff]

wow

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

CHOP
What I care for is the action of defeating competing ideologies along all possible paths.

All possible paths?

Is this intended literally?

[Griff]

There is a line of thought running all through UG's writings. There is this idea that the individual cannot take care of himself and his. He doesn't seem to understand that all of us are fully capable of violence. If we keep that capability for ourselves, it is governed by our ethical considerations. If we hand our capabilities over to others with their own set of goals, we have divorced morality and action. That is why soldiers fight for each other in government's wars rather than for government policy. They are putting their actions on a moral footing by fighting for someone they know.

Your fundemental contempt for the individual is what separates you from libertarian thought. This is not some high brow argument for wonks. This is about viewing the world as a place where each individuals choices matter and have impact rather than a world where ant armies battle for their queen. In psychological terms, I want a society where people have an internal locus of control not external. That is the thing that used to make Americans different. We really believed in our own abilities. Now we shift that belief to the State, that is not libertarian.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Griff

There is a line of thought running all through UG's writings. There is this idea that the individual cannot take care of himself and his.

I don't have that idea, and wonder where you ever got that notion. Prove it if you think you can.

He doesn't seem to understand that all of us are fully capable of violence.

Another notion unsupported by the evidence of my writing. I understand this fully.

If we keep that capability for ourselves, it is governed by our ethical considerations. If we hand our capabilities over to others with their own set of goals, we have divorced morality and action. That is why soldiers fight for each other in government's wars rather than for government policy. They are putting their actions on a moral footing by fighting for someone they know.

I think this part makes sense.

Your fundemental contempt for the individual is what separates you from libertarian thought.

As a libertarian, I do not have a fundamental contempt for the individual. That is why I'm a libertarian. I also am freethinking enough not to trust lockstepping philosophically with any political group -- which is what annoyed Radar so much, I think. He became angriest with me on that score. I do not treat political attachments as a form of religion -- I don't have to sign off on all thirty-nine Articles of Faith, and I will shred the man who insists I do.

This is not some high brow argument for wonks. This is about viewing the world as a place where each individual's choices matter and have impact rather than a world where ant armies battle for their queen. In psychological terms, I want a society where people have an internal locus of control not external. That is the thing that used to make Americans different. We really believed in our own abilities. Now we shift that belief to the State, that is not libertarian.

These points are well made. I pin my hope of a better world on my faith in our own ability to swing the pendulum of this trend back the other way. The individual's choice not to permit any queen's ant armies to kill him, by destroying that ant army and that queen, is to my view highly libertarian and ought therefore not to be disparaged by libertarians, small L or large.

For libertarianism to grow up sufficiently to take its place among the major players, it will need the ability to destroy its bitterest enemies. This isn't really even in dispute between us, being I think self-evident.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

I do indeed, but I'm not frightened of it. We've succeeded at it before, and with nuclear weapons at that. Bear in mind too just how enthusiastic the opposition is about nuclear weaponry...

While it's theoretically a righteous enough question, the action of fighting and defeating fascists does not, on the record, fascists make -- cf. WW2. I think somebody hopes to create a boogeyman with arguments of this kind. It may possibly indicate the subconsciously fascistic, undemocratic mindset so often found among the Left. Being not so far from undemocrats themselves at bottom, they don't understand that for conservatives it's a far longer step from where their heads are currently at to something totalitarian.

What the raving anti-Republicans never seem to think of is that all their arguments are rationalizations for one thing: their contention that you must leave dictatorships alone, fascists untroubled, and oppression and poverty in their fullest effect, to remain a virtuous person.

This is so ridiculous on its face all its adherents should die laughing. That they fail to do so is evidence of a vast mental disconnect. These poor leftist morons actually expect to be taken seriously by people of too much intelligence to be on the Left. Tsk.

Sooner or later I'm going to have to tell somebody around here right to his face that that's a pretty fair way to be a good Fascist, but it's not the way to be a good Human.

If the bad guys are violent, that is no reason for us good guys to be less efficient at violence. After all, what has "settled more issues in history than any other factor?" And what settlement of the issue do we want again?

Some edifying reading -- while this article errs on some points of detail readily spotted by Heinlein fans, it has some perspicacious remarks too about how Heinlein seems to make libertarians. Makes me go hmmm...

Add in John Stuart Mill while we're improving our minds and the shining hour by good reading:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

But back to topic: how much do you want democracy, rather than excess of government, to prevail? Humanity is rather good at rebuilding, regardless of the size, depth or extent of the ash heap. Even Troy was reconstructed at least seven times.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

But back to topic: how much do you want democracy, rather than excess of government, to prevail? Humanity is rather good at rebuilding, regardless of the size, depth or extent of the ash heap. Even Troy was reconstructed at least seven times.

I have not claimed to have any great love for democracy. Organizing the world such that the many have a claim on the one, not already in place through community, just doesn't appeal to me. I prefer change to be brought on in a more organic fashion as communities evolve towards increased openess. Individual rights should be defended with tenacity in the face of democracy. To me democracy is by definition an excess of government. As far as ash heaps go, they are wonderful places for all manner of rodentia to lurk.

[atrw93]

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Thought for the day:

Just remember, the only thing a non-conformist hates,
worst that a conformist is another non-conformist
who does not subscribe to her or his beliefs of
non-conformity.

[Griff]

Are you trying to pith in my corn flakes?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Yeah, that pith is only good if it's out of a sago palm or something.

This was going to be really easy until I realized it was HLJ who posted the nonsense article in the 11/11 thread not you.

Oh, er. I'm sure that was awkward! There's not much to disagree with in HLJ's exerpt, though. It's essentially a martial-artist's viewpoint, or a policeman's, not merely a soldier's, and it is often cited by gun-rights people discussing the philosophical and moral bases of civilians practicing concealed carry, inasmuch as there's hardly a gun-rights advocate who'd disapprove. I've had that sheepdog mindset internalized for more years than I care to count. I see a powerful pro-libertarian, pro-democracy (in a broader sense than I reckon you're using it) effect in encouraging the sheepdog's values throughout the entire populace.

Turning in charity from that towards literary tastes -- for me, Starship Troopers was unmistakeably seminal, but I think the best thing RAH ever wrote was Time Enough For Love. Libertarians love that crack about strong drink.

I can accept the many can have a claim on the one with the proviso that the one has a reciprocal claim on the many. The social contract, in a word. Otherwise you end up with a rationalization for the damnedest degree of selfishness you ever saw, and it's the sort of thing a half-bright sociopath would come up with.

Communism failed in giving the individual's reciprocal claim sufficient weight, and this imbalanced condition helps to wreck Communist social orders.

I'm not persuaded politics evolves, nor that sociopolitical orders simply evolve -- these being human constructs both fleshly and abstract, they are highly influenced by the actions, the exertions, of humans involved in them and in their making. People make these things happen and exist, and people's efforts are the one reason they do.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

It's essentially a martial-artist's viewpoint, or a policeman's, not merely a soldier's, and it is often cited by gun-rights people discussing the philosophical and moral bases of civilians practicing concealed carry, inasmuch as there's hardly a gun-rights advocate who'd disapprove. I've had that sheepdog mindset internalized for more years than I care to count. I see a powerful pro-libertarian, pro-democracy (in a broader sense than I reckon you're using it) effect in encouraging the sheepdog's values throughout the entire populace.

There is much to agree with in your post. I am, however, offended by the sheepdog mentality when it assumes that the people are unable to defend themselves. I think we too often minimize the capacity of citizens. That assumption lead to a standing army and eventually to this offensive war. That is the part the devout leftist doesn't get. Disarming the populace requires an escalation of armaments for the police and army. Weapons good enough for self-defense spread over a vast population are vastly superior at maintaining the Republic to offensive weapons prepositioned all over the globe.

The basic fact is that this administration has been clear on one thing, they hate freedom and have a total disregard for the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The president has stated this word for word, "just a piece of paper" and "don't bother me with it".
When they pass bills they place addendums onto them so they are not applicable to themselves.
No Libertarian supports this regime, and it is a regime and a regime alone.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Rkzen, come to your senses -- I know they are there, for I read your posts.

Your civil rights and liberties have not been infringed by Bush & Neocons, Inc. & (TM). Their political instincts run against that. You still raise hell on any website you like, without a political minder. You still buy the pistol you like. Nobody's searched and seized your property. Et cetera.

Clearly, his actions show he is indeed bothering about and with the Constitution in a way his immediate predecessor never did. That corrupt possum-headed son of a bitch was beholden to illegal foreign campaign contributors, vulnerable to scandal, and tried to hammer Smith & Wesson right out of business, and treated the Constitution not as a guide to his behavior but as a stumbling block to his ambitions. GWB does not have those particular ambitions, I should point out to certain people who can't see straight for prejudices I do not share and regard as very stupid.

There's been a helluva lot of yelling by people of no evident depth of thought about how those awful Republicans are putting everybody in shackles, but the evidence on the ground never supported the contention and never shall. Which is why I am sick unto doing the Linda Blair of it. You heard it here first: the guy who tells you "they hate freedom and have a total disregard for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights" is a lying untrustworthy bastard example of a chimp brain in a human body. Or he's a Fascist trying to lie his way into power. Either way, the back of our collective hand to him, either for subnormal intelligence or doubledyed villainy featuring wannabe oppressor-ness. You know -- the sort of thing I perennially score the Left about.

You can't get freedom when you have less-than-democracy. A Libertarian knows that already. The Bush Administration has done more to eliminate less-than-democracy from troubled foreign parts than ANY Democratic Administration after FDR's. Repeat, any. All the progress made in that direction was made by Republicans. Repeat, all of it.

On consideration, maybe somebody can convince me some progress was made in that direction in the Balkans -- but it's been so quiet I'd hardly know where to look, and at best there the Clinton Administration only began the task. It has had to be continued, insofar as our government is doing anything in the Balkans, by Republicans. The record tells me the Republicans, when they actually get the chance to do something about it, are the ones to trust. The Democrats spend the same times belying their party's name, under the undue influence of the socialist wing of their party and of the Left generally.