This Canard Again
Libertarianism can’t work, you need only watch an episode of Cops.
I forgot I said that. Heh. Any hoo:
Every once in a while, Tom gets it in his head to make the assertion that a criticism of something is invalid unless the person doing the criticizing offers a better plan. Sorry, but that’s horseshit. I can tell you that something sucks and not have a better solution. For example, abortion sucks. Making abortion illegal sucks. They both suck. I have no solution for that problem but when someone says we should make it illegal, I point out all the problems that will create. And I do so without offering a solution to make everyone happy.
Apparently, I should give accolades and a Coca-Cola to someone because they have a plan, any plan. Even a bad plan. Let’s take a scene from any action movie where the hero is about to cut the red wire (or maybe the blue one). He’s got a 50/50 shot? He cuts the wrong wire and everyone dies. Well, good for him. He had a plan.
On the universal health care bit, I’m not a fan. I don’t want the same people who spend $900 on a hammer having any say in my medical decisions. Period.
And one more canard:
Nearly 50 million Americans without health care?
That’s horseshit too. Now, if he’d said 50 million Americans without health insurance, he may have a point.
He also says that libertarians have no solution to global warming. He’s right. And neither do you. Not one that is workable, any way.
January 12th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Tom’s right. Criticising something without offering a better alternative is lame. However, he seems to be confusing the valid argument that you shouldn’t criticize X unless you can propose something better than X, with the not-so-valid argument that where X is the status quo, you shouldn’t criticize Liberal Proposal Y unless you can offer something else that will improve X as much as the liberals claim Y will. Sometimes leaving well enough alone is the better proposal.
January 12th, 2007 at 10:35 am
When a person who calls themselves a Liberal and doesn’t understand what the word means what does that tell you?
Modern Liberals are not Liberals, they are Social Democrats. The same Social Democrats who have destroyed Western Europe with feel-goodism and nannyism. They are the embodiment of political correctness.
Their philosophy is that the government MUST do something. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would smack the taste out of the mouth of the Modern Liberal.
Libertarians are kryptonite to modern liberals. Classic Liberals, like myself, like Libertarians and Conservatives. We understand them. Modern Liberals cannot debate small L Libertarians or Conservatives so they are reduced to having to call them names. Their favorite ploy is to try to make all Libertarians big L extremist Libertarians which is impossible because small L Libertarians often despise big L Libertarians as much as Modern Liberals.
Childish but typical behavior. Modern Liberals cannot admit what they are and their only recourse is to insult and demean those who reject the idea that the government MUST do everything. When Socialism failed it was repackaged as Socialism Lite, aka Social Democracy. Why would anyone think that will work?
Thank God for the Classical Liberals that founded this nation who understood the difference between a Democracy and a Republic.
January 12th, 2007 at 11:25 am
#9, of all the hills to die on, trying to reclaim the word “liberal” seems like a rather petty one. As for “the difference between a Democracy [sic] and a Republic [sic],” I’d suggest you consult a dictionary first and pontificate later. The only difference between the two is one of specificity, i.e., all republics are democracies, but not all democracies are republics.
January 12th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Seems to me that words are important. Every time you allow the meaning of a word to change you lose a little freedom. People today will have fistfights over what the word “Progressive” means. Everyone wants to be a Progressive.
You might remember the dust up over Orson Scott Card’s new book “Empire“.
People are refusing to purchase any books by Mr. Card because he had the audacity to demean in their eyes their sacred word “Progressive”.
By the way, no one is dying on a hill, you can call me a Conservative. I am clearly a Conservative, but technically I would also be a Classic Liberal. It is just an example of how a word lost its meaning in the realm of political correctness. If Thomas Jefferson were alive today would he consider himself a Liberal?
I do however think that there is much more than a difference of specificity between a Democracy and a Republic. Our Republic is tilting towards a Democracy. Is that a good thing? Our government is much different than those in Western Europe. I hope and pray our Republic stands.
Words have meaning, letting people change that meaning is not a good thing for individual freedoms.
January 12th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Split the difference:
Put forth a Constitutional amendment allowing abortions “on demand” in the first trimester (12 weeks) and ban it with an exception for the life of the mother for the last two trimesters. Simultaneously, fund subsidies for female contraceptives in order to prevent pregnancies from happening in the first place.
The question, in my mind, comes down to one question; is it an individual “human” life? My definition for Human, would be brain function, and considering the brain doesn’t begin to form until the 10th or 12th week, than I would consider the fetus up to that point simply a part of the mother. Once it begins to develop a brain, it’s humanity begins to develop, and thus should be afforded *some* protections.
Of course, this measure wouldn’t ever be able to pass due to the polarized state of the debate, but I think its a reasonable compromise. It’s illogical to say that it is the “right” of the mother to end a pregnancy 2 hours before delivery, just as it is illogical to say that a 5 day old mass of dividing cells is equivalent to a full grown human being.
January 12th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Xrlq:
you shouldn’t criticize Liberal Proposal Y unless you can offer something else that will improve X as much as the liberals claim Y will
I made no such argument, and indeed, I specifically mentioned conservatives as also trying to solve problems. My problem with libertarians is that even when it’s clear that the status quo isn’t working, they still almost invariably argue for the status quo instead of change.
Sometimes leaving well enough alone is the better proposal.
Well, sure. Sometimes. But not always. Far from always. But it’s always the libertarian “solution,” if the solution isn’t “do less.” And yes, “do less” is sometimes a valid solution, too (cf., war on drugs); but again, far from always.
Uncle:
Actually, thank you. Abortion is a perfect example. Some people think abortion should be legal, and others think it should be illegal. But among these, the vast majority on both sides think we ought to do things to reduce the abortion rate. Pro-lifers want to do so by criminalizing abortion, and pro-choicers want to do so through comprehensive education and improved access to contraception. But both sides acknowledge that abortion is problematic, that “do nothing” isn’t a viable option to solve those problems. And both sides suggest what ought to be done. You may not agree with this side or that (and if you’re like most people, you don’t fully agree with either side), but they’re far from devoid of ideas.
Health care / health insurance: A distinction without a difference, frankly. What you have is tens of millions of americans with inadequate access to health care because they simply can’t afford it. Now if you think quality health care ought to be a privilege of wealth, then you probably don’t have a problem with this: “Hey, you! Sick kid over there! Quit bitching to me, you should have picked better parents!”
And neither do you. [have a solution to global warming]
A full-blown solution? You’re right, I don’t. But I can suggest several things to stop the acceleration of the problem, and to mitigate it. All of which would be almost universally opposed by libetarians, and all of which would cost considerably less than, say, a three-plus year foreign war.
January 12th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
What you miss is “Take your lumps” is a plan.
“People don’t have health care!” Yup. If you don’t have health insurance, take your lumps.
And, “I don’t want to do what you want to do, you do your thing and I’ll do mine” is vastly different than “I dunno.” It sounds more like you are ticked off that there is that one guy who always does what he wants to do no matter what the group is doing.
January 12th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Heh. I think i see why phelps isn’t in marketing.
January 12th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Shorter Phelps:
“Hey you. Sick kid over there. Take your lumps!”
That damn five-year-old asthmatic should stop coughing and complaining and get a job with some decent health care benefits. Oh, right, those damn nanny-staters passed laws preventing five-year-olds from getting jobs… Hey, I think I’m seeing the light on this whole libertarian thing! 🙂
January 12th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
That about sums up every other person that posts here re: the last congressional and presidential election.
Phelps would feel different if he lost his job/health insurance and his wife or kid got cancer or another serious disease-thus eliminating him from future coverage if he ever did get another job w/health insurance benefits.
January 13th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
#9, care to elaborate on your theory that linguistic evolution impacts individual liberty? If there’s a connection there, I’m not seeing it. The more intuitive view is that euphemisms soon take on the connotations of whatever they were supposed to cover up. Posing as “liberals” may have bought some progressive/socialists an election or two along the way, but once everyone understood that “liberal” now means left, the game was up.
As to Jefferson, no I don’t think he would consider himself a liberal by today’s terminology. Then again, I’m not sure I’d want to claim a slave-owner who brings Nifong-esque criminal charges against his political opponents as a libertarian, either. I guess he could pass as a right-winger, but only among liberals who understand the phrase “right-wing” as a catch-all phrase for “stuff I don’t like.”
January 14th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
No, Justin, I wouldn’t feel different. First of all, losing insurance or jobs isn’t something that just “happens”. It happens as a result of the choices you make and the actions you take. Anyone in the US can go out and spend money on health insurance. You don’t have to wait on your employer to do it for you.
And where is Mommy Government supposed to STOP taking care of all the shit you are too lazy to handle? I’m hungry! Feed me! I’m cold! Adjust my thermostat! My feet hurt, buy me new shoes.
Hey, kid over there with worn out shoes, Justin is going to get you some more. All he has to do is shove a gun in my face and make me buy them. Oh, and some candy too, because no one should have low self-esteem.
There is nothing magical about health care. If you spend the money on, you have it.
Oh, and jackasses? ALL FIVE YEAR OLDS WHO’S PARENTS CAN’T AFFORD HEALTH CARE ALREADY HAVE GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE CALLED MEDICAID. Nimrods.
January 14th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
For the record, this doesn’t happen in Canada. The bureaucrats don’t have a say in your medical decisions, its the doctors who do. A friend was a doc in both Canada and the US and said that frankly the insurance co’s and HMOs have way more say over your health decisions than the .gov in Canada. Having said that, the bureaucrats do have some say in how much to spend on MRIs, etc. which will affect if and how long there is a wait for the service that you wanted.
January 15th, 2007 at 1:15 am
As to Jefferson, no I don’t think he would consider himself a liberal by today’s terminology. Then again, I’m not sure I’d want to claim a slave-owner who brings Nifong-esque criminal charges against his political opponents as a libertarian, either. I guess he could pass as a right-winger, but only among liberals who understand the phrase “right-wing” as a catch-all phrase for “stuff I don’t like.”
Burr? You want to go with Burr? No fools errand for me. Try again.
January 15th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
No, I won’t. Whatever one thinks about Burr personally, Jefferson’s case against him was laughable, both in terms of the pathetic “evidence” submitted, and in terms of the clear constitutional requirement Jefferson simply ignored. To let Jefferson off the hook because you think Burr was a bad guy makes no more sense than arguing against Miranda rights because Ernesto Miranda was a worse guy – and, unlike Burr, not one whose clear, express constitutional rights were violated in the first place.
January 15th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
No, I won’t. Whatever one thinks about Burr personally, Jefferson’s case against him was laughable, both in terms of the pathetic “evidence” submitted, and in terms of the clear constitutional requirement Jefferson simply ignored.
Note to self, from now on use James Madison in all places where you might think of the words Thomas Jefferson.
I guess you would like for me to admit that our great Republic was created by drunk slave owners. Maybe racist and misogynist also. The Romans weren’t exactly peaches either. I got news for you, we are all flawed and messed up beings. So are you saying Jefferson could be at times Clintonesque? I will take Jefferson over Burr any day. Warts and all.
January 16th, 2007 at 10:18 am
I don’t know enough about Burr to agree or disagree, but that’s irrelevant. I never held out Burr as an example of anything. My point wasn’t about Burr. It also wasn’t that Jefferson is generally a bad guy, only that he was flawed enough that libertarians ought to think twice before trotting him out as though he were some sort of gold standard. He isn’t – at least from a libertarian perspective.