Free State Project Forum

FSP -- General Discussion => The Friendly Forum => Topic started by: MichaelWDean on November 23, 2009, 06:01:40 pm

Title: Arguing with liberals
Post by: MichaelWDean on November 23, 2009, 06:01:40 pm
(http://www.rightarmofwyoming.com/AZ549595_320.jpg)

I sent out a mass-mailing about my upcoming CD. I sent it to people who have written me fan letters of my previous work.

I got snippy anti-gun e-mails back from a few (I've gotten a lot of that lately.)

Some indie filmmaker said to me:

Everything about that CD and website is disconcerting and makes me regret giving you the $30 for your book...


====
I replied:
I'm having that effect on a lot of my former fans. lol....

If you want to elaborate and discuss, I'd be happy to hear it.
MWD
========
He was open to it, and said

I think that those of us of the more liberal persuasion are jarred by this sudden expression of an idealogy (sic) that we weren't aware of, and see you (sic) with an assault (sic) rifle makes it even more jarring. Given the craziness of the climate that we're living in, it doesn't surprise me that I'm not alone in having a visceral need to recoil.
====

I wrote him:

Eric,

I'll explain where I'm at (and how I got here). I don't expect to change your opinion, but I'm interested in your response.

I've always been a bit of an anarchist, a guy who didn't like following the rules. That's deeply obvious in my "$30 Film School" book, and all the other art that I've created, my whole life. I'm sure that attitude is part of why that book appealed to you. A lot of people like that book who would be bored by "Filmmaking for Dummies", which may contain similar information, but without the punk rock ethic.

Lately I've seen my country take a turn I don't like. I almost voted for Obama, but couldn't. I really wanted to vote for a younger, black guy, it seemed cool. And the stuffy old Republican running against him didn't seem like he was someone who "represented me." But right before the election, I did a lot of reading and soul searching, and ended up voting Libertarian.

I've become even much more libertarian since then. I've come to the irrefutable conclusion that it is absolutely immoral for the government to "do what's best for me", to over-tax people and force them into health care, or force them into anything.

I used to think that trying to get handouts from the government to make art was a good idea. (I even discussed that in "$30 Film School".)

I now think that's immoral. I wish I could take the book out of circulation because of that, or at least revise it, but I do not own the copyright.

I am not right-wing, I'm NO-wing. I lean more Republican these days, if I have to make a choice on that tired old left/right continuum, but really, I'm not on that chart. And Republicans tend to want to outlaw drugs, and I think all drugs should be legal, and I don't even do drugs. Also, Republicans tend to care a lot what people do in their bedrooms. I think gays should be able to marry, for instance.

It's hard for people living on the left/right continuum to wrap their head around the idea that government should be MINIMAL, that it should only protect our borders (with a strong DEFENSIVE, not offensive, military), protect our rights, and maybe take care of interstate highways. Maybe.

And that a non-regulated, entirely free market should take care of everything else. You all just don't "get it." You'll always say "BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN! THERE OUTTA BE A LAW!"

Both Democrats and Republicans are identical in this sense.

I think that the only things that should be illegal are MURDER, RAPE, ASSAULT, THEFT, FRAUD AND TRESPASSING. Making laws against anything else is immoral.

Most of my life, I believed that Democracy was the perfect form of government. But lately, I've come to feel that Democracy is flawed. Because "51% can tyrannize 49%." That is, If 51% of the population decided that independent filmmaking should be a felony, how would you feel? Not that they would outlaw filmmaking, but I'm sure you can see the relevance in that example.

And if they did outlaw filmmaking, I'll bet you'd make films anyway, wouldn't you?

All laws (other than the "big six" I mention above), and all taxes, are enforced by violence, and are therefore immoral.

Here's what I mean by "enforced by violence": if you refuse to pay a tax or you disobey a law, police will come to your house to arrest you. If you refuse to come out, they will come in and put a gun to your head. If you resist, they will spray the walls with your brain.

This enforcement by violence is immoral when applied to anything but MURDER, RAPE, ASSAULT, THEFT, FRAUD AND TRESPASSING.

Which brings us to guns. You fear guns. But my guns are no threat to you, unless you try to harm me or my loved ones. And you wouldn't do that, so you are safe from my guns.

Just because some idiot uses a gun in an immoral way, it does not affect my guns. Take away his gun. Charge him for murder. Murder is illegal and should be. But don't mess with my gun. Doing so is immoral.

I'm a totally peace-lovin' guy, and ethical. I help old ladies across the street, help friends and strangers constantly, and I would not hurt a fly that didn't hurt me.

But I carry a gun with me at all times (which is legal in Wyoming, part of why I left California and moved here). I have guns in my home. Some are handguns that fit in my pocket. Some are rifles that could take out a Nazi at a half-mile.

I enjoy using guns. I enjoy the history, the mechanics, the science, and the skill challenge. I study guns like I used to study digital filmmaking.

I love to use guns for target shooting, and my wife and my friends and I do that often.

Taking a gun away from a peace-lovin' man, or voting in people who would do so, is immoral.

I used to trust the police to protect me, but by age 45, I've had to call 911 a few times. They took four minutes one time and 20 minutes another time. I got lucky, and the violent thug skulked away.

But if he hadn't, either time, all the police could have done was take photos of my corpse.

A gun makes a little old lady equal in strength, and more, to a violent street thug. And me with a gun means you (or anyone else) can't force me to do anything. You have to treat me ethically. You are ethical, but not everyone is. A gun makes me a free man, because it prevents anyone from forcing me to do anything. And that is totally in keeping with my punk rock anarchist ethic in my book that you loved. Doing your own thing, and not being forced to do things you don't like.

Like I say in my song, "My Gun Keeps You Honest." I don't have to use it to keep you ("you" meaning "the world") honest, I merely have to have it, be skilled at using it, and be willing to use it. Without fail.


Respectfully,
Michael W. Dean

--
He replied:
I appreciate your point of view while disagreeing with it completely.

====-
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: Bazil on November 24, 2009, 02:06:33 am
"When seconds count the police are only 5 minutes away!"

From what I can see you said everything right that you could.  One thing to mention is that guns being illegal won't stop someone who wants to kill you from using one on you since obviously breaking the law doesn't bother him.  Also if he thinks that prohibiting buying and selling guns is going to make it harder to get one you can use this example:  When one of my brothers was 9 years old he couldn't get a gun.  So he made a .22 caliber handgun himself out of some parts he had laying around. It worked quite well, he could muzzle load it or use normal .22 bullets.
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: MichaelWDean on November 24, 2009, 02:24:29 am
True stuff.

Thanks!

MWD
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: rossby on November 24, 2009, 02:29:21 am
One thing to mention is that guns being illegal won't stop someone who wants to kill you from using one on you since obviously breaking the law doesn't bother him.

The very first "live" criminal case I ever worked involved the armed robbery of a gas station convenience store and the murder of its poor clerk.

Both felons went into the gas station with loaded handguns. They demanded all the money in the register, something like $40. They tied the clerk up with rope so he couldn't call the cops. After they left the store and got in the get-away car, the clerk tried to get free. But the felons saw the clerk trying to free himself. Even though they had handguns, one of the felons got out of the car, opened the trunk, removed a crowbar, walked back into the store, and bludgeoned the clerk until his skull was shattered and bloody. The murderer had his handgun tucked in the belt of his sweatpants at the time. Why? The felon thought (incorrectly, to his misfortune) that, if he was arrested, charged, and convicted of murder, that he would be sentenced to less time in prison for not using a handgun.

I assure you, crowbars don't kill people. People kill people.
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: MichaelWDean on November 24, 2009, 02:43:05 am
Yikes!

MWD
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: mvpel on November 24, 2009, 04:24:01 am
Quote
I appreciate your point of view while disagreeing with it completely.

I guess that's what counts for deep, insightful political debate on the left.  I guess he felt too polite to call you a "moron" as seems to be the custom these days.

Oh well, hopefully you've planted a seed in his mind and we'll see him in New Hampshire some day.
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: WendellBerry on November 24, 2009, 07:09:05 am
Quote
I appreciate your point of view while disagreeing with it completely.

I guess that's what counts for deep, insightful political debate on the left.  I guess he felt too polite to call you a "moron" as seems to be the custom these days.

Oh well, hopefully you've planted a seed in his mind and we'll see him in New Hampshire some day.

I thought that the response was totally respectful...
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: Dreepa on November 24, 2009, 09:03:50 am
But Michael they are guns!!!-- nice reply.

(I have a friend staying over and she noticed my gun safe and asked if it were ok.  I said yes  the guns don't unlock the safe, load themselves and then fire when she was sleeping.  at least my guns haven't yet.. .there is always the chance I guess.  I have seen Fantasia)

Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: kyfornow on November 24, 2009, 09:30:55 am
But Michael they are guns!!!-- nice reply.

(I have a friend staying over and she noticed my gun safe and asked if it were ok.  I said yes  the guns don't unlock the safe, load themselves and then fire when she was sleeping.  at least my guns haven't yet.. .there is always the chance I guess.  I have seen Fantasia)



Those would be awfully expensive guns.


The thing is, people can't see passed the beginning of a law or of govermnet.  That is what I was implying with the "Gateway laws" essay I wrote is that even when things start out with good intention, they end up having bad results. 
Using force never has good results of any kind. 
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: Delphina on November 24, 2009, 10:16:46 am
A friend of mine likes to use this argument.

If you feel so strongly about your stance, I suggest you put a gun-free zone sign on your front door. That way all your neighbors, the cops and the criminals will know where you stand and I'm sure they will all respect your position and not bring guns on to your property.
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: MichaelWDean on November 24, 2009, 11:40:27 am
A friend of mine likes to use this argument.

If you feel so strongly about your stance, I suggest you put a gun-free zone sign on your front door. That way all your neighbors, the cops and the criminals will know where you stand and I'm sure they will all respect your position and not bring guns on to your property.

I'm always a fan of that idea.

MWD
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: Dreepa on November 24, 2009, 01:59:48 pm
like this?
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: Dreepa on November 24, 2009, 02:03:32 pm
or this one.
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: rossby on November 24, 2009, 02:19:31 pm
Yikes!

MWD

It often has that mouth-shutting effect.
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: Delphina on November 24, 2009, 03:09:37 pm
or this one.

haha! Yeah, that's one I've seen him use. Love it.
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: Keyser Soce on November 24, 2009, 04:19:40 pm
Quote
I appreciate your point of view while disagreeing with it completely.

I guess that's what counts for deep, insightful political debate on the left.  I guess he felt too polite to call you a "moron" as seems to be the custom these days.

Oh well, hopefully you've planted a seed in his mind and we'll see him in New Hampshire some day.

I thought that the response was totally respectful...

It was a visceral response with no thought behind it. That's why it ended there with no explanation. Because he has none. If he was honest he's say "I'm afraid of guns and I have no idea why. Perhaps I should see a shrink." 
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: WendellBerry on November 24, 2009, 04:25:28 pm
Quote
I appreciate your point of view while disagreeing with it completely.

I guess that's what counts for deep, insightful political debate on the left.  I guess he felt too polite to call you a "moron" as seems to be the custom these days.

Oh well, hopefully you've planted a seed in his mind and we'll see him in New Hampshire some day.

I thought that the response was totally respectful...

It was a visceral response with no thought behind it. That's why it ended there with no explanation. Because he has none. If he was honest he's say "I'm afraid of guns and I have no idea why. Perhaps I should see a shrink." 

Sometimes based on the response someone gives it is just fruitless to engage in a dialogue because no one is going to change their mind.

It is totally appropriate and respectful to say "I guess we are just going to have respectfully agree to disagree"...
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: rossby on November 24, 2009, 04:28:52 pm
Perhaps an invitation to a range would be well received.
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: MichaelWDean on November 24, 2009, 05:08:15 pm

It was a visceral response with no thought behind it. ....

I agree. It reminds me of someone saying "thank you for your input" after getting (rightfully) chewed out in the workplace, when they really want to punch the person telling them how it is.
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: MichaelWDean on November 24, 2009, 05:09:59 pm
Perhaps an invitation to a range would be well received.

Waste of energy. Not true with some leftie/statist/gun-o-phobes, but I'm pretty good at telling which ones are worth the time.

MWD
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: MichaelWDean on November 24, 2009, 05:14:26 pm
....It was a visceral response with no thought behind it. That's why it ended there with no explanation. Because he has none. If he was honest he's say "I'm afraid of guns and I have no idea why. Perhaps I should see a shrink." 

I spent an hour crafting my response to him. And he spent 30 seconds brushing me off. Not that he owes me anything, but he's a cat who has sent me long questions in the past asking for free advice on filmmaking, and I answered him.

Also, he says "I wish I hadn't given you the thirty dollars for your book." (He didn't "give it to me", he bought the book at a Borders store. He told me.) He says it like he's worried he's funding al qaeda or some specious bullshit.

And I get a dollar, not 30 dollars, for each 30 dollar book people buy. 

My hourly consulting rate is 60 bucks an hour.  I've already given him a couple hours of my time, free, before this exchange. He got his one dollar's worth. PLUS the book, which he used as a blueprint to make his films!

These damn kids these days.....  ;D

MWD
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: scamper_22 on November 24, 2009, 05:46:23 pm
You can't argue with most liberals... especially using the arguments you most frequently see used by libertarians..

rights?  who cares... we need people to eat and have healthcare
efficiency?  who cares... at the cost of someone's livlihood...

There are some you will never be able to reach, but there are those who you can.  The easiest to convince, are actually some of the more genuine liberals and socialists.  Those who actually believe what they claim.

When you point out to a teacher that they get their money from property taxes that keep going up... and that is taken from poor people... they start to get a clue that when they get a pay raise, it hurts people.

When you mention that inflation erodes savings so a poor person cannot save... and is thus dependent on borrowing for everything... thus empowering huge financial firms above the poor person... they start getting a clue about printing money and debt.

When you mention to a labor supporter, that unions prevent poor people from getting access to jobs by making sure the one advantage they have (cost) cannot be used, and unions tend to run in the family, thus further excluding people... they start to get a clue.

i've found genuine socialists and liberals very easy to get onto the libertarian side.  No surprise, since many early leftists movement were anti-state... until they took over the state...  :P
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: MichaelWDean on November 24, 2009, 06:04:57 pm
You can't argue with most liberals... especially using the arguments you most frequently see used by libertarians..

....i've found genuine socialists and liberals very easy to get onto the libertarian side....

I've found punk rock "anarchist" angry young guys the easiest to "convert." At least some of 'em. Even if they vote Democrat right now. Ya start with "So, you seem to be a guy who sure likes being told what to do...." lol...

If they've got the right heart for it, I can "convert" them from government codependence addiction into budding genuine libertarians in a half-hour and a couple cups of coffee.

My years doing 12-step work in AA helped. Like helping drunks, it's not hard if you give the facts, and if the person has "hit bottom" already! And if you talk across the table with them rather than down at them, like so many people do with drunks and with liberals.

It also helps in both politics and AA if you used to be just like them, and I was. In both. (Some of you on here remember me asking "why shouldn't there be a war on drugs?" and stuff like that. And some of you gently and firmly and lovingly schooled me.)

MWD
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: madness! on November 24, 2009, 06:35:26 pm
I have given up on using statistics and anecdotes to argue with people. I just like to say some thing like "well, i dont think anyone has or can be given authority over anyone else." most everyone can agree on that, and I dont end up looking like an asshole. With any luck, it will eat at them and they may change over time.

when you throw facts and reason at them and 'beat' them in a debate. they are just going to hop on the internet and find a bunch of other facts to justify and harden their beliefs.
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: kyfornow on November 25, 2009, 12:09:21 am
I have given up on using statistics and anecdotes to argue with people. I just like to say some thing like "well, i dont think anyone has or can be given authority over anyone else." most everyone can agree on that, and I dont end up looking like an asshole. With any luck, it will eat at them and they may change over time.

when you throw facts and reason at them and 'beat' them in a debate. they are just going to hop on the internet and find a bunch of other facts to justify and harden their beliefs.

I made that very point today, and how there are actually people who believe free market idealogy is morally wrong.  They see it as the opposite of what they believe and think that using force to impose a set of values on a collective society is morally right.  You will never ever convince those people regardless of statistics, because they have their statistics and their moral stance.

All you can really say is "Ok, you stay on your property and I'll stay on mine over here, because if you come over here trying to force me to be part of your collective culture we're gonna have a problem!"
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: MichaelWDean on November 25, 2009, 01:41:31 am
Here's an even better one:


E-mail I just got from Jay Crawford, guitarist from my old band, Bomb. This guy was like a brother to me, we practically lived together, on the road, for years. We were on good terms last time we talked on the phone, about a year ago.

It's his response to looking at the website for my new CD ( http://www.LibertarianPunk.com ):

=====
Michael.....Once some one gets talked into these right wing ideas very rarely can they be talked back.....This new found cocky way of life  (in my opinion) is very wrong, very immoral and very dangerous. I'm older then you so consider my opinion if you still can...I doubt you will.
This makes me very sad.
.......Good luck, dumb f*ck.
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: rossby on November 25, 2009, 01:49:55 am
Here's an even better one:


E-mail I just got from Jay Crawford, guitarist from my old band, Bomb. This guy was like a brother to me, we practically lived together, on the road, for years. We were on good terms last time we talked on the phone, about a year ago.

It's his response to looking at the website for my new CD ( http://www.LibertarianPunk.com ):

=====
Michael.....Once some one gets talked into these right wing ideas very rarely can they be talked back.....This new found cocky way of life  (in my opinion) is very wrong, very immoral and very dangerous. I'm older then you so consider my opinion if you still can...I doubt you will.
This makes me very sad.
.......Good luck, dumb f*ck.


You know... give your previous response in which you said you were NO wing... doesn't quite jive with the "Right Arm of Wyoming" thing. (Yeah, yeah, I know where it comes from. But c'mon, you're poking PR in the eye with a pointy stick ;))
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: MichaelWDean on November 25, 2009, 02:01:04 am
I'm somewhere between far-far-right republitarian, and minarchist.

To most people in San Francisco (and many other places), that just means "right wing." Which is now a cuss word to a lot of folks.

I like the band name. It works for me.

MWD

p/s what's "PR"? I'm poking public relations with s stick?  ;D
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: MichaelWDean on November 25, 2009, 02:02:30 am
(http://www.rightarmofwyoming.com/RAOWlogo.jpg)

(http://www.rightarmofwyoming.com/AP-med-small.jpg)

(http://www.rightarmofwyoming.com/cussin-big-jpg.jpg)



Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: WendellBerry on November 25, 2009, 07:22:18 am
Quote
there are actually people who believe free market idealogy is morally wrong.

Because you are talking about an ideal and they are referring to actually existing capitalism.
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: kyfornow on November 25, 2009, 01:25:26 pm
Quote
there are actually people who believe free market idealogy is morally wrong.

Because you are talking about an ideal and they are referring to actually existing capitalism.

No, the people I have argued with are not referring to the system as it is.  They were arguing their ideal against my ideal.  That's what makes it even more frightening.
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: WendellBerry on November 25, 2009, 01:30:42 pm
Quote
there are actually people who believe free market idealogy is morally wrong.

Because you are talking about an ideal and they are referring to actually existing capitalism.

No, the people I have argued with are not referring to the system as it is.  They were arguing their ideal against my ideal.  That's what makes it even more frightening.

The reason they do is because it depends on a particular set of property relations as to whether or not they believe it is morally wrong (exploitative) or not.
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: MichaelWDean on November 25, 2009, 02:56:15 pm
Short e-mail I just got from a zine editor friend in England. He wanted to review my CD, but we got to chatting and he said:

"I presumed all the pro-gun shit was ironic."


===

My wife said, "Gack. Did you ask him if he's bought a blender so he can chew his steaks, or does the government sent someone over to do that for him?"

MWD
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: rossby on November 25, 2009, 03:31:06 pm
My wife said, "Gack. Did you ask him if he's bought a blender so he can chew his steaks, or does the government sent someone over to do that for him?"

I died, man. Really...
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: MichaelWDean on November 25, 2009, 03:44:11 pm
She's a pretty funny gal.

Today's our four-year anniversary! yay!

MWD
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: MichaelWDean on November 25, 2009, 03:45:05 pm
It's funny even without this, but you do know, right, that she was referencing England's ban on steak knives after stabbings went up when they banned guns.

MWD
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: rossby on November 25, 2009, 04:22:19 pm
It's funny even without this, but you do know, right, that she was referencing England's ban on steak knives after stabbings went up when they banned guns.

If that was @ me, I didn't catch the relevance of the blenders. But I do vaguelly recall hearing some years back about "steak knives"... eh. Steak knives? Crow bars? It's all the same.

(Actually, writing that, I realized I made a mistake. It wasn't a crow bar. It was a tire iron.)
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: MichaelWDean on November 25, 2009, 04:28:35 pm
It was @ anyone.

Not sure everyone knows England's recent nanny steak knife history.

MWD
Title: Re: Speaking of gun cartoons…
Post by: MTPorcupine3 on November 25, 2009, 04:51:49 pm
Check this one out:

Title: Re: Not funny, but poignant…
Post by: MTPorcupine3 on November 25, 2009, 04:52:50 pm
Photo:

Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: Brien on December 16, 2009, 11:07:44 am
A friend of mine likes to use this argument.

If you feel so strongly about your stance, I suggest you put a gun-free zone sign on your front door. That way all your neighbors, the cops and the criminals will know where you stand and I'm sure they will all respect your position and not bring guns on to your property.

I also use a similar argument on those who are in favor of increasing Federal income and other forced taxes.  I simply suggest the next time they send in their tax returns, they just voluntarily increase the amount by whatever percentage they feel they want to raise on everyone else.   If they feel the gas tax isn't high enough, or any other tax, they can simply send a check to the Dept of Revenue Services for whatever increase they feel they should be paying for this tax but count me out!   >:(
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: daveneu on February 03, 2010, 03:53:17 pm
You know - I've been sitting here for the last 10 minutes coming up with all kinds of crazy schemes on how to talk to a Naz...uh...liberal. Some of my thoughts were scaring the bejeezus out of me. Not...pretty. I had one involving lighter fluid and a comb. I had to stop and calm down.

OK - I'm back. I think the best thing I can say is something my mommy taught me. Mommy always gave me lessons. O.K. - she always GIVED me lessons. One thing she always told me is never to pick on people less fortunate than me. It's just not nice. Remember - no matter how emotionally vacant or intellectually simple a person is, it's always good to look for the positive qualities in them. It's like...when you're driving down the road and you pass someone in one of those kiddie cars...a...uh...Prius? You just drive by (not difficult to do at all), hold down the snickering until they're out of sight and then have your laugh.

Again in a car - you driving along and ahead of you you spot a 1989 Honda (like the Atchoo or the Stikit) - I don't know - the one with the four wheels.          Let me finish - the one with the four wheels with rubber band tires and there's an "Obama" sticker on it. Whatever you do - don't honk your horn - the displaced air currents from the sound of your vehicle could cause glass breakage and shimmy (more the driver than the car).

Look, give the less fortunate the benefit of the doubt. Forget the fact that they may be dealing with an anneurism. It just might be that you're doing very well and now you need someone to bring you down to earth. Sure - a loved one could probably do the job BU....T - employing the services of a weak-minded, neurologically deficient Naz...uh...liberal might be able to take you someplace that all the others just couldn't...

And when they get you there, now break out the lighter fluid and comb.

Dave N.
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: WendellBerry on February 03, 2010, 04:01:04 pm
Check out Thomas Sowell's book "A Conflict of Visions"

http://www.aei.org/article/23586 (http://www.aei.org/article/23586)

excerpt from Charles Murray's libertarian review:

One mark of a great book is a thesis so powerful that after a few years people take it for granted. Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions (1987) is such a book. Its thesis: The policy arguments between liberals and conservatives, socialists and libertarians, do not arise just from differences in priorities regarding freedom, equality, and security. At root, they draw from different conceptions of the nature of man. The Left holds an unconstrained vision: Given the right political and economic arrangements, human beings can be improved, even perfected. Success is defined by what people have the potential of becoming, not by people as they are. The Right holds a constrained vision: People come to society with innate characteristics that cannot be reshaped and must instead be accommodated. Success in political and economic policy must be defined in light of those innate characteristics.

Once you have this framework in your head, the history of the great political debates of the 20th century coheres in a new way. The expansion of the welfare state, how to deal with crime, how to conduct the Cold War, the feminist revolution, colorblind policies versus affirmative action, who should control the schools--whatever the topic, the positions held by Left and Right make sense in terms of each side's underlying vision of the nature of man.
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: daveneu on February 03, 2010, 04:33:05 pm
The Left holds an unconstrained vision: Given the right political and economic arrangements, human beings can be improved, even perfected.

Yup - There's your Nazi Germany! The Aryan Race! Blond Hair / Blue Eyes! Let's all do the Adolph dance! Yup - Liberal Crackpots! Of course, who has any respect for those ignorant dolts?

The Right holds a constrained vision: People come to society with innate characteristics that cannot be reshaped and must instead be accommodated. Success in political and economic policy must be defined in light of those innate characteristics.

Yup - People are people. They have never changed. But given a balance of free will and a control mechanism where honesty is rewarded and larcenous behavior looked down upon, a civilization can thrive. A self-correcting free market system provides just that. That's the group that I'm a believer of. Proper balance yields spectacular results.

Dave N.
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: WendellBerry on February 03, 2010, 04:46:24 pm
Quote
who has any respect for those ignorant dolts

Well, they are saying the same thing about you...so much for dialogue.

Quote
A self-correcting free market system provides just that

There has never been a "free market system"...only a more or less "freed" system.

Folks attracted to the FSP come from both the left (social) and right (economic) side.

The FSP won't ultimately be successful unless they find a way to engage the left.

Left-libertarians (of which I am one) believe that equality doesn't have to be traded off against freedom in the economic sphere...we are for EQUAL liberty.

We focus much more on distributive justice not so much on commutative justice.
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: daveneu on February 03, 2010, 06:11:44 pm
Well - now we know why the left is so...LEFT!

The left are dolts - and they can say anything they want. Free speech gives them the right. THE RIGHT - not the left!

The left doesn't want a free thinking society. The left wants more controls, more government intervention, and more control over civilization.

Nazi Pelosi

That's exactly why they are dolts.

How in hell can you be a leftest libertarian? Did you read that in a freakin' moron book by Idiot the author? Someone told you so and you put on your sheep glasses and took a hike?

More whine and brie? This is how "skull-emptied" humans have become. We want our cake, eat it too, and not gain any COMMUNISM!

Dave N.
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: daveneu on February 03, 2010, 06:29:16 pm
Wendall -  Hopefully you just have a slight mental disorder. Left-Libertarian. Left-Right. Down-Up at the same time. I think there is a psychological term for this - DEMENTIA.

Here's an easy one - try to keep up with me. What happens physically when you try to go left-right at the same time?

Or that Bipolar illness???

It's like that Batman character with the two faces. We know how well that worked out.

This is why you are writing the way you are. You're mixed-up. Down-Up. Left-Right. Inside-Out. Left-Right. Cold-Hot.

If I were you, I'd contact a team of Specialists. - Really! You sound diseased.

Dave N.

I just plain feel sorry for you. You sound as if you need treatment.
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: freedomroad on February 03, 2010, 08:44:01 pm
Wendall -  Hopefully you just have a slight mental disorder. Left-Libertarian. Left-Right. Down-Up at the same time. I think there is a psychological term for this - DEMENTIA.

Here's an easy one - try to keep up with me. What happens physically when you try to go left-right at the same time?

Or that Bipolar illness???

It's like that Batman character with the two faces. We know how well that worked out.

This is why you are writing the way you are. You're mixed-up. Down-Up. Left-Right. Inside-Out. Left-Right. Cold-Hot.

If I were you, I'd contact a team of Specialists. - Really! You sound diseased.

Dave N.

I just plain feel sorry for you. You sound as if you need treatment.

Everyone reading this please take note, do not make fun of other posters on this forum.  Thank you.

daveneu, As for the person you are replying to, he just knows a lot more about political philosophy than you, that's all.  Since you are missing a bunch of the information he has, you don't understand his perspective.  It isn't a big deal.
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: daveneu on February 03, 2010, 09:29:02 pm
Really - I don't know?

Well - I do keep an open mind. If I'm wrong - then I am wrong.

I revisited the Libertarian Party Website and typed "Left Libertarian" in the search box. There is a search box on the top right of the page.

I got nothing regarding that topic. Are they trying to dumb down the party principals to keep it simple? I really don't know. You'd think there would be some link for an interested party when it is typed in a search box.

Now I did retake the LP quiz. I did come on on the right side of their "top of the diamond" box (little red dot on the right side of the top of the Libertarian part of the diamond).

It gave me a personal score of "60" and an economic score of "100" - but it labeled me "Libertarian" and not left or right libertarian. If there are subdivisions then why are they a secret?

I did not answer the quiz as I really feel - I tried to see it as part left and part right. I really did.

Their quiz box states nothing about left and right libertarians when you originally view the main page. There is a diamond divided into political groups. I'm still trying to maintain an open mind.

Maybe they need to add more information onto different catagories of Libertarians.

As I said - I do try to keep an open mind. Even on this Bizzarro world.

Dave N.
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: daveneu on February 03, 2010, 10:00:41 pm
Ah - I knew something was up. Left Libertarians (as per Google) is just a slight backstep from Anarchists. Ahhh - Anarchists. I seeeeeee. And you think you run the Libertarian party. Interesting. You're organized as well. Oh well, I love a challenge - I am not in love with Anarchists. I don't see the need. You don't really "fit" anywhere. I knew I was on to something.

Well - now I see why the LP site had nothing when I used the search box. They are not exactly proud of this "other cousin table" at the back of the room - away from the others. Well - perhaps more like tortured souls...

I have an e-mail in to the Pres. of the LP. I await her reply. I'll get her take on this.

I'll report back...

Dave N.
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: greap on February 03, 2010, 10:47:56 pm
I'll report back...

Given you just ignored a global mod and continued to insult someone in the friendly forum I don't think you will. Also LP != Keepers of what is libertarianism and what isn't, many people (myself included) think they are more interested in getting elected then maintaining an objective ideal of liberty.

The FSP won't ultimately be successful unless they find a way to engage the left.

If you mean engage in battle I might agree :-) Personally I consider all socialist values to be entirely incompatible with liberty and if any liberty orientated organisations decided to start espousing them for whatever reason I would want nothing to do with them.
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: rossby on February 03, 2010, 11:34:31 pm
p/s what's "PR"? I'm poking public relations with s stick?  ;D

Yeah. I meant, given the name, you're asking for people to be confused about your position... thinking you're right-wing or something.
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: rossby on February 04, 2010, 12:23:38 am
One mark of a great book is a thesis so powerful that after a few years people take it for granted. Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions (1987) is such a book. Its thesis: The policy arguments between liberals and conservatives, socialists and libertarians, do not arise just from differences in priorities regarding freedom, equality, and security. At root, they draw from different conceptions of the nature of man. The Left holds an unconstrained vision: Given the right political and economic arrangements, human beings can be improved, even perfected. Success is defined by what people have the potential of becoming, not by people as they are. The Right holds a constrained vision: People come to society with innate characteristics that cannot be reshaped and must instead be accommodated. Success in political and economic policy must be defined in light of those innate characteristics.

As Sowell himself points out in his book, the range of beliefs about what's prreferable span far more than the two viable choices that individual voters have. But our federal system effectively constrains individual choice in the federal sphere to those two options. It may appear there are two distinct groups, but the political reality is otherwise. We frequently resort to the abstraction of Left and Right because it makes talking about politics easier. But The Left and The Right are abstract collections. The Left cannot hold a vision, nor can The Right. Unless the individual people associating with them are accepting some known principles. Which is hardly the case, as both the official principles of the Left and Right continually shift. And in practical terms, that would further assume that federal politicians even know what they're doing. Which, I humbly submit, is rarely the case.
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: swamp_yankee on February 04, 2010, 01:59:08 am
Dr. Sowell is a conservative. His thesis is a classic conservative thesis that he illuminated, but did not create. The liberals social contract has been around  Rousseau. Innate nature to core values to principles to policy to party politics --- are all different arenas. People frustrate themselves when they conflate the arenas or when they engage in liberal egocentrism.

 
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: Pat McCotter on February 04, 2010, 08:14:58 am
You know - I've been sitting here for the last 10 minutes coming up with all kinds of crazy schemes on how to talk to a Naz...uh...liberal. Some of my thoughts were scaring the bejeezus out of me. Not...pretty. I had one involving lighter fluid and a comb. I had to stop and calm down.

OK - I'm back. I think the best thing I can say is something my mommy taught me. Mommy always gave me lessons. O.K. - she always GIVED me lessons. One thing she always told me is never to pick on people less fortunate than me. It's just not nice. Remember - no matter how emotionally vacant or intellectually simple a person is, it's always good to look for the positive qualities in them. It's like...when you're driving down the road and you pass someone in one of those kiddie cars...a...uh...Prius? You just drive by (not difficult to do at all), hold down the snickering until they're out of sight and then have your laugh.

Again in a car - you driving along and ahead of you you spot a 1989 Honda (like the Atchoo or the Stikit) - I don't know - the one with the four wheels.          Let me finish - the one with the four wheels with rubber band tires and there's an "Obama" sticker on it. Whatever you do - don't honk your horn - the displaced air currents from the sound of your vehicle could cause glass breakage and shimmy (more the driver than the car).

Look, give the less fortunate the benefit of the doubt. Forget the fact that they may be dealing with an anneurism. It just might be that you're doing very well and now you need someone to bring you down to earth. Sure - a loved one could probably do the job BU....T - employing the services of a weak-minded, neurologically deficient Naz...uh...liberal might be able to take you someplace that all the others just couldn't...

And when they get you there, now break out the lighter fluid and comb.

Dave N.

I couldn't resist.
The Little Nash Rambler (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4W7oZBhAJg)
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: daveneu on February 04, 2010, 10:03:39 am
With due respect, I didn't mean to be insulting to the moderator. I apologize for that. I do know that this is a friendly forum - again, my mistake. However, I don't believe in Political Correctness and the path of destruction that it leaves lying in it's wake. It is the signal that alerts you to Communism. It is the Statist (what you define as "liberal" - which is nonsensical btw) who believes in controlling others - for their own self-protection. Not me! I will never apologize for my alertness - and BTW - there are foxes in the FSP henhouse. They use masks - fancy shmancy words - "distributive justice" is just such a term. Nothing LIBERTARIAN about "distributive." Now, while I will agree that everyone has a right to be who they want to be - I will further that response that this "right" ends at the tip of their nose. That's what I SAY! If you want "distributive justice" - well...that's just fine and dandy. However, try to be "distributive" with my stuff (physical / mental / JUDICIAL / whatever) and suffer the "friendly" consequenses that I will impose as a response. I mean this in the most "friendliest" of ways.

Here is an example (the "Left Libertarians" might appreciate this) - I had a friend who lived in my house and believed he could crap up my house by not cleaning his room. After all, he was living in the room alone and kept the filth to his own private area. I disagreed. I tried to get him to be respectful of the home I tried to provide - for six years. He's no longer living in my house - "distributing" his way of doing things OR his girth.  His rights ended with his almost destroying the carpeting in a section of my oasis. Now he pays 3 times as much for 1/2 as much freedom and space. There's my definition of Distributive Justice. I distributed his tushie into the street (in the friendliest of ways) and now there is "just us" - my wife and I.

My court, my game, my ball, my rules.
 
You know - Nikita Khrushchev stated (with regard to the United States) "We will destroy you from within." Now - I await response from the President of the LP with regard to this faction. If she is proud (or actually aware) of "left-libertarianism" then she will state as much. Just like I am proud of who I am. However, I have to say - I didn't get good news on Google with regard to them. As usual, Leftists are destroying every party - Democrat, Republican, and perhaps the party I affiliate myself with. All I know is "destroy from within" means exactly that. Agents have infiltrated our country and our political parties using the concepts of Liberty provided in our Sacred Documents. Maybe - concepts provided in the mission statement of the FSP as well. Hanging us with our own beliefs.  Most good and righteous people aren't aware of this because they are busy and have taken belief that if it is on TV or in the media, then it must be "correct" information - no spin attached. However - when I read a statement such as:

Keepers of what is libertarianism and what isn't, many people (myself included) think they are more interested in getting elected then maintaining an objective ideal of liberty.

Then I get the message that someone or some group is being employed to wants to change what is inherent within the philosophy of the party. That is in and of itself - WANTING TO CONTROL and DESTROY the original mission statement. Just like my friend destroying my carpeting. If you don't like the Party - then go someplace else. However - you will not because your job is to infiltrate and destroy. That's why this FSP group is not "taking off." The population "at large" sees this and just keeps away. Additionally, I do know that from what I am getting as response to my posts, that there is for sure - something going on in this henhouse. Something is rotten somewhere. I'm "happy" to report this in a friendly way.

"But Dave - why are you attacking this particular group - that is not nice!" I attack this group because of their inability to be direct and SAY WHAT THEY MEAN. SAY what is in their heart. Be proud of who you are and then the rest of us can respect you. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

Dave N.

But again - I do apologize for not "respecting" the friendly part.

Oh - just one more thing - do I seem to "know enough" now?
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: daveneu on February 04, 2010, 11:17:50 am
The Little Nash Rambler - I apologize for not watching the entire video. I have dial-up so videos can take long times to load. I did view the first half however.

What was the particular year of this auto? I didn't see it posted - maybe my tired old eyes. It was copper so I'm thinking mid-60's. However was that Nash or was that now considered Rambler?

They weren't all that powerless. I looked at specs from cars produced in the '60's. These were 6 cyl autos. My Jeep Commander - pretty big - has a 6 cyl. It has a curb weight of somewhere around 4000+ lbs. The little Ramblers looked to be around a ton - more or less.

Gas of course was around 32 - 35 cents / gal (+/ -). The cars were all metal in structure. No paper mache.

I have nothing against small cars - but i appreciate the biggest roomiest one I can get my hands on. I'm a bit claustrophobic.

I would never buy a Prius - I know how they produce the batteries. Talk about "earth-unfriendly." The place where they produce the batteries looks like Mars. Nothing as far as wildlife can survive there. I've read up on them. They also have a 100,000 mile life. Toss and buy another one. Now maybe that's changed with their new model. I don't think they tow much.

My father never gave them (compact cars) a second glance. The smallest car he ever had was a 1962 Mercury Monteray (sp?). If the car couldn't climb a hill with the same power as a straight and level highway, he never considered it safe. His view - not mine. I owned an '82 Ford EXP. Talk about small and light on power - a two seater with a hatchback and a 4 cyl.. My first car was a 1974 Ford Pinto Explodeabout. I was a road musician at the time - killed that car by driving 28000 miles in the first year - loaded with suitcases, electronic keyboards (have you ever seen an 88 key Fender Rhodes Suitcase Piano?) and amps. I believe I actually loaded it with more stuff than the vehicle weighed. Oh - and you know what made the Ford Cars so quiet? Newspaper. Found that out when I pulled the rear panels to install speakers for my 8 track.

As far as the EXP - I didn't buy it however because of it's size - I liked it's "chick-appeal." I was 28 years old at the time. It had front wheel drive and I had moved north from NYC (MA)  ::) and wanted something more "snow-worthy." Out of the 23 or so cars I had owned, it was perhaps the smallest one. And...the reddist. I thought red cars go faster than others.

Dave N.

I was sad when I had to part with my '07.5 Chevy Silverado 3/4 ton. A $50K beast! The diesel was killing my wife's wallet (she wanted me to work so I figured she could pay for the fuel) - at the time almost 60 cents more per gallon than the "89" octane. To get to work, I drove 84 miles a day. That was a sad, sad, day. I did not originally buy it because I'm power hungry. I had an Arctic Fox 26X trailer with a tongue weight of about 1500 lbs and 3000 lbs. of carrying capacity bringing it to around 105000 fully loaded. You never want a truck that pulls to capacity - you want emergency and mountain climb capability.
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: RichW on February 04, 2010, 11:40:18 am
The Little Nash Rambler...

Now, that was one of the funniest responses ever.  Thanks Dave.
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: WendellBerry on February 04, 2010, 02:08:04 pm
Quote
Personally I consider all socialist values to be entirely incompatible with liberty and if any liberty orientated organisations decided to start espousing them for whatever reason I would want nothing to do with them.

Well it depends on what you mean by "socialism" doesn't it?

There is state socialism and there is state capitalism.

There is also socialism where labor individually owns their own means of production, gets their full and just reward, but isn't collectivist in nature (mutualism).

There is also the more or less "freed" markets of private individuals voluntarily trading goods and services.

Mutualism falls broadly under left-libertarianism.
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: WendellBerry on February 04, 2010, 02:18:47 pm
Quote
Now - I await response from the President of the LP with regard to this faction. If she is proud (or actually aware) of "left-libertarianism" then she will state as much.

http://www.reformthelp.org/reformthelp/index.php (http://www.reformthelp.org/reformthelp/index.php)

There are people within this movement who are self-described "left-libertarians"
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: John Edward Mercier on February 04, 2010, 04:15:02 pm
Quote
Personally I consider all socialist values to be entirely incompatible with liberty and if any liberty orientated organisations decided to start espousing them for whatever reason I would want nothing to do with them.

Well it depends on what you mean by "socialism" doesn't it?

There is state socialism and there is state capitalism.

There is also socialism where labor individually owns their own means of production, gets their full and just reward, but isn't collectivist in nature (mutualism).

There is also the more or less "freed" markets of private individuals voluntarily trading goods and services.

Mutualism falls broadly under left-libertarianism.
I would place mutualism as central, not so much right or left... just simply a condition of free markets.
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: swamp_yankee on February 05, 2010, 12:47:34 am
Quote
Personally I consider all socialist values to be entirely incompatible with liberty and if any liberty orientated organisations decided to start espousing them for whatever reason I would want nothing to do with them.

Well it depends on what you mean by "socialism" doesn't it?

There is state socialism and there is state capitalism.

There is also socialism where labor individually owns their own means of production, gets their full and just reward, but isn't collectivist in nature (mutualism).

There is also the more or less "freed" markets of private individuals voluntarily trading goods and services.

Mutualism falls broadly under left-libertarianism.


What a bunch of baloney.


















Whar



Wh


Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: John Edward Mercier on February 05, 2010, 01:56:18 am
Independent Contractors do this all the time.
Title: Re: Arguing with liberals
Post by: WendellBerry on February 05, 2010, 07:14:16 am
Quote
Now - I await response from the President of the LP with regard to this faction. If she is proud (or actually aware) of "left-libertarianism" then she will state as much.

http://www.reformthelp.org/reformthelp/index.php (http://www.reformthelp.org/reformthelp/index.php)

There are people within this movement who are self-described "left-libertarians"

Here is another...

http://knowinghumans.net/2007/12/varieties-of-principled-libertarianism.html (http://knowinghumans.net/2007/12/varieties-of-principled-libertarianism.html)