The Libertarian Snakebite Kit - Day

Monday, April 4, 2005

4:41PM - Just another neo-fascist rambling

In the article Saving the Marriage (Cont.), Pejman Yousefzadeh states:
Nowhere does Browne give any reason libertarians -- whether large-L or small-l -- "must give up [their] foolish notions and adopt Republican positions." I advocated no such thing in my article and what's more, that's not how political coalitions work. In the real world, if libertarians decide to throw their support to Republicans, they would do so on a quid pro quo basis -- as would just about any constituency seeking to be part of a governing coalition, or a coalition that hopes to achieve governing status. Libertarians would offer their support to Republicans in exchange for having the Republican Party adopt more libertarian positions on a variety of issues.

The only reason that we are supposed to join the 'coalition' is that the Republicans and Democrats do their best to limit real Americans choice to form other parties. Nowhere else except third world countries does the government decide who should be able to form a political party that reflects the views of its members.

For eample, I'd like to know how a libertarian's view that the government has no business regulating my private life is going to be reconciled with the religious right's insistence that they have the right to have every part of society conform to their prudish, sadistic and violent view of the world. Personally, I can't fathom the hypocrites that profess to be pro-life, yet support capital punishment; the hypocrites insist there is a difference between the two stances, but it never holds up under logic.

In the U.S., the B.O.Y.N. parties, as the author states well, are coalitions of people whose major aim is to grab power and retain it. There is no attempt to do anything for their constituents after being elected. If you don't believe me , just try writing to your "representatives" to the legislatures. All you get is some crappy boilerplate reply from a shit-bag that doesn't give a damn what their constituents views and concerns are. The only "constituents" that they care about are the contributers to their campaigns. After all, the best definition of a career politician that I know of is "a honest politician once bought, stays bought".

I don't know why I even bother to reply, because TCS seems to be slipping towards a neocon agenda. I don't care about power like this Semitic ( go check out the description of semitic in your dictionary before you call me a Jew hater, loser-Jews) freak. As far as I'm concerned the anti-American shit-bag author can go back to the land that s/he came from. The more extreme elements of the Republican party neocons want to install a one party system in America, which sounds to me like a authoritarian governemnt that tells me how I should live my life, which completely disregards the Constitution of the United States.

7:17PM - Why do you think your liberties are safer working with GOP than with Dems?

In a feedback discussion related to that "wonderful" article suggesting that libertarians are stupid not to collude with the "conservatives"

E. Allen:
(1) The religious right wants to disincorporate the first amendment, returning us to the days when states could institute a state religion, use tax dollars to support it, ban those who blaspheme it, etc. Clarence Thomas has spoken approvingly of this idea. How do you think Bush's appointees will view it?

(2) The excesses of the Patriot Act. There are some conservatives working with the ACLU to help roll back these:

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/sunnews/news/opinion/11236206.htm

I'm glad to see there are some in the GOP still care about some liberties. They're in a shrinking minority.

Andrew's (a so-called conservative-libertarian) reply:
1. The first amendment says 'congress shall pass no law' with respect to the establishment of religion. It was never intended to limit the states.
For me, democracy is the utmost freedom, and a supreme court that rewrites the constitution is undemocratic.

2. The 'excesses' of the patriot act take away none of our constitutional freedoms. At least, no list has ever been compiled.

My replies to Andrew's post:
1. And in most states, legislators pledge to uphold the federal and state constitutions as a part of their swearing in ceremony. And by the way, this is a Republic, not a democracy, stupid.

2.Try reading the book 'Terrorism and Tyranny:' by James Bovard.

As always, I expect Reptiles to have their head up their ass. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

8:24PM - Re: Re: Greatest threat to American freedom today is religious right

"Spirit of 76": I think the difference is that the Left is a very top-down form of coercion. The Right is more of a voluntary, bottom-up coercion.

Wow (to quote your previous stupid comment), tyranny is OK if the fascist right invokes it. What a concept.

"Spirit of 76": Political migration was the basis of the colonization of America after all! 'Tolerance' as we have come to understand the word is a by-product of 1920s vintage propaganda to try to ease the tensions brought about by the massive influx of Irish/Italian Roman Catholicism and Eastern European Jewry into what was then a strongly Protestant land. I submit that our problems today are a direct result of that period and the abandonment of the above-mentioned governing policies. (Of course, the Civil War and its resolution set the stage...)

Wow, the Irish started their huge influx in the 1840's and 1850's loser. The Irish Potato Famines. And Maryland was a state with a mostly Catholic population. The founders of this country were largely non-religious, I don't think that they would appreciate being called Protestant, because quite a few were definitely not. So I guess that makes it clear that you're one of those anti-Catholic KKK types. And further deluded by the right-wing revisionist pseudo-history. My one big question is, KKK boy, why do you hang out with the Jew-boys? I thought your type hated them too.

"Spirit of 76": But no. The American Right is not interested in a police state. I hope you will acknowledge the difference.

Sorry, but if you support the Bushies, mostly neocons, you support the Patriot Act police state they advocate. And as Ben Franklin stated in 1755 (I know, he's another anti-American liberal, yes, he was, a classical liberal): "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." And I pray that you burn in hell, too.

← Previous day

(Calendar)

Next day →