Updated January 12
Stephen Moore, senior economics writer for the Wall Street Journal, pens an excellent analysis of how liberty recedes when government expands:
The current economic strategy is right out of [Ayn Rand's classic novel] "Atlas Shrugged": The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you. ...
With each successive bailout to "calm the markets," another trillion of national wealth is subsequently lost. Yet, as "Atlas" grimly foretold, we now treat the incompetent who wreck their companies as victims, while those resourceful business owners who manage to make a profit are portrayed as recipients of illegitimate "windfalls."
As severely misguided as the last months of Hank Paulson's (er, George Bush's) government have been, things are going to get worse under an incoming administration that promises the biggest expansion of government control over the economy since FDR's New Deal worsened and prolonged the Great Depression.
When the Journal recently revisited Isaiah Berlin's classic "Four Essays on Liberty," reviewer Daniel Johnson quoted an interview in which Barack Obama criticized the U.S. Constitution as "a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the Federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the Federal government or state government must do on your behalf."
Comments Johnson:
If Mr. Obama were to read Berlin, he would learn why America's "charter of negative liberties" has preserved the freedom of individual citizens to pursue happiness in their own ways. On the other hand, what Berlin calls "the positive doctrine of liberation by reason," with its stated dictates, has proved to be incompatible with individual freedom.
Mainstream media is, with near uniformity, singing praises to the Democrats' proposed trillions of dollars of pork barrel "stimulus" spending to politically favored constituencies, and Obama's promise to create upwards of 600,000 new public sector jobs. But life under the new order will mean less freedom for us all, as redistribution and regulation under a exponentially expanding commissariat become the order of the day.
Rick Warren, Again
The plus side, we're told, is going to be an expansion of equality or gay people. That would be a great thing, but the evidence of that is scarce. Not to beat a dead horse, but as a signal of what's to come, smug evangelist superstar Rick Warren's choice by Obama to deliver his inauguration invocation is important, but not for the reasons some on this page think.
Warren, of course, famously compared same-sex marriage to bestiality, incest and pedophilia, and his public sermonizing on behalf of California's Proposition 8, which rolled back marriage equality, played an important role in its passage. He made a few vague statements in a subsequent interview that, while remaining adamantly against gay marriage, he supports "full equal rights for everybody in America," saying "I don't believe we should have unequal rights depending on particular lifestyles so I fully support equal rights." He explained that this covers insurance or hospital visitation.
Some have wildly over-interpreted Warren's remarks as signaling that he is ok with domestic partnerships, but Warren has never said any such thing. (In fact, he later clarified to Beliefnet that "I now see you asked about civil UNIONS - and I responded by talking about civil RIGHTS. Sorry. They are two different issues. No American should ever be discriminated against because of their beliefs. Period. But a civil union is not a civil right.")
Yet Warren is being marketed as a new and improved sort of evangelical, far superior to anti-gay fuddy duddys like James Dobson, in no small part because Warren embraces the idea of a global warming apocalypse and favors a major expansion of the welfare state. That's bought him the support of liberal Democrats looking to expand Obama's redistributionist coalition to include left evangelicals. But in terms of the future of freedom and of individual liberty in this republic, it's more grim news of what we can expect in the years ahead.
More. Max Blumenthal at The Daily Beast on Warren's duplicity regarding AIDS:
Team Obama likes to cite Warren's work on AIDS in Africa to combat criticism about the controversial pastor. But how does burning condoms in the name of Jesus save lives?
Separate but equal? Responding to the tsunami of criticism from his LGBT supporters (but probably not from me), Obama is letting openly gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson say a prayer at the Lincoln Memorial at one of his pre-Inaugural events. Don't know how much traction this lounge act will provide compared to Rick Warren's performance in the big room (that is, the Inaugural podium swearing in), but we'll see. As far as reaching out to the right in order to create dialogue, which some see as a justification for bestowing upon Warren the coveted invocation invite, it certainly would have been more effective - and more fun - to have both Warren and Robinson do the honors together.
Update. HBO, which exclusively televised the Lincoln Memorial pre-Inaugural concert, did not include Bishop Robinson's opening invocation. According to HBO, the decision was made by the Presidential Inaugural Committee.
24 Comments for “The Assault on Freedom”
posted by Brett French on
Do you have no shame for some of the trite drivel, and apologist rationalizations, you proffer on this website. No matter how pathetically the Bush administration has “led” this nation over the last 8 years, you seem to be fully prepared to blame Obama for all the ills associated with contemporary American reality. Please!!
You would be far better off joining the self-haters of the log cabin republicans and stop your silly libertarian amusements. You would have the majority of the gay community make common cause with both our very real and spiritual enemies in order to make some pathetic and feeble progress towards equality. The only way our community will achieve full inclusion and equality is when we seize it through every means available to us. Yes it’s messy, disturbing, and chaotic, but at least in my 46 years I don’t believe our successes can be reasonably attributed to incrementalists such as yourself. NO, we will never cease our DEMANDS that the STATE recognize us as full and equal partners in this endeavor known as democracy.
And no, I am not some left-wing nutjob. I have served in the US Army for 8 years, currently teach at the elementary level, and certainly describe myself as independent regarding both of the 2 corrupt political machines that run this great nation. How about being able to evaluate what works from both parties and putting into practice what is right, rather than what you so often seem to think is expedient. Don’t be a shill for those who detest who you are as a human being, it’s there problem, not yours.
posted by Bobby on
“No matter how pathetically the Bush administration has “led” this nation over the last 8 years,”
—Have we had another 9/11 Brett? No. Was the economy great during 90% of the president’s administration? Yes. Did Bush protect the second amendment? Yes. Did Bush appoint a gay couple as ambassadors in Romania? Yes. Did Bush pass tort reform to keep evil trial lawyers from destroying innocent doctors? Yes. Did Bush showed the evil United Nations and America is a sovereign nation and not subject to their arbitrary rules? Yes.
I can’t believe you’re in the military and you don’t know that. What’s the matter? Don’t like the salary you’re making? Let me remind you army boys of all the free perks you get. Bush even increased your salaries, never mind the free housing, free healthcare, pension for life, free money for college, and the fact that that employers LOVE hiring veterans.
Bush has even increased the participation of women in combat, which is what women in the military want and what Billy Clinton never gave them!
Frankly, it seems to me that a soldier in the army would be loyal to his president. Specially one like Bush that served in the national guard, survived basic training, and had the honor of becoming a pilot, which is a feat in itself considering how many people want to be pilots but get rejected.
Maybe Miller hasn’t served in the military, but as far as I’m concerned, he’s a bigger patriot than you are.
posted by KamatariSeta on
If the Log Cabin Republicans or some other prominent gay conservatives had been palling around with Rick Warren, would you guys be so upset? Or would you say they were just “reaching out” to “evangelicals” like you always say gays should?
Thats my big problem with all this bitching around here in regards to Warren. You guys kept saying for years that gays need to “reach out” and be nicer to these people. Does that just not apply to the left in general in regards to “reaching out”?
posted by avee on
If the Log Cabin Republicans or some other prominent gay conservatives had been palling around with Rick Warren, would you guys be so upset?
KS, unlike Obama, the GOP did not collect gabs of money from gay donors — money that could have, and should have, gone to fighting anti-gay state initiatives. That’s the difference. And just how is honoring a homophobe the same as reaching out and educating religious conservatives?
posted by TS on
I have an extremely unsettled set of attitudes about economic policy.
“The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you. …”
a) I’m not convinced success and failure are always very reliably resultant from skill or incompetence at business.
b) I’m also not convinced “merit,” even if it could be isolated by individuals and companies in the real world, is a good basis for deciding who has a good quality of life and who doesn’t.
There is more than enough for everyone. Why can’t we all just get along? I have heard all the million and one reasons, and they are all starting to sound like sniveling, pathetic excuses. I blame everyone. The greedy executive. The irresponsible “underprivileged” parent with an exaggerated sense of entitlement. The self-indulgent drug addict. The cold-hearted dictator. The Palestinian religious zealot. The Israeli nationalist zealot. The condescending suburban mom. The ignorant masses who deliberately turn away from chances to better themselves. The overconfident expert seeking to silence debate and impose his own will. And of course, my many-flawed self as well.
I wish there were a way everyone could contribute what they could, recieve what they need, and end up like they deserve. I hope in the future things will be better than they are now. I’m not convinced that the libertarian free market would bring about progress. And I don’t think the Democrats’ plan for America will do any good either.
I think the economic culture wars of the post-Marx West reflect the inconsistency of human nature in the absurd situation of modern civilization. Competition is wasteful and often destructive, but without it motivation is impossible. What we profess to want for ourselves, and what we profess to intend toward our neighbors, we regularly disregard when behaving.
posted by Brett French on
Oh Bobby,
You must have served on the same college cheer-leading squad as Mr. Bush. Your bitter diatribe against the benefits afforded to our nation’s veterans is truly pathetic. You wouldn’t know a true sense of patriotism if it smacked you up-side the head. A true patriot does not blindly follow orders of both their civilian and military leadership. All military branches teach/instruct their members in the importance of being able to question and evaluate orders from their command, we don’t simply become mindless automatons because we choose to serve our great nation.
If you feel cheated regarding the benefits our true patriots receive, then I suggest you do one of 2 things. Enlist yourself to take advantage of those oh so generous benefits, or contact your local, state, and federal officials to get them revoked.
As for Bush being such a great leader: I submit that if you happen to be gay, then I would most assuredly lump you in with the self-haters who beg for crumbs. Bush was the one who politically maneuvered to enshrine the Federal Marriage Constitutional Amendment into our nation’s defining document. There can be no baser instinct than to play hateful and divisive politics such as his to get re-elected. Even significant libertarians such as Bob Barr now accept the fact that the DOMA legislation and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policies should be completely abandoned. Now there is a true patriot for you.
The only other thing I can add is that when Phil Grahm stated we had become a “nation of whiners” I believe he may have been making reference to the likes of you.
Respectfully,
You Know Who
posted by Bobby on
“A true patriot does not blindly follow orders of both their civilian and military leadership.”
—Oh yeah? Well the ones that don’t end up deserting their units, going to Canada or simply get high while being on active duty. Unless your CO tells you to rape women or kill innocent civilians, you should follow his or her orders. Besides, the military isn’t a democracy. There are all kinds of requirenments to serve.
“If you feel cheated regarding the benefits our true patriots receive, then I suggest you do one of 2 things. Enlist yourself to take advantage of those oh so generous benefits, or contact your local, state, and federal officials to get them revoked.”
—It’s people like me that pay the taxes that support people like you. You remember that, boy.
I never said Bush was perfect, but he was a million times better than that traitor piece of shit, Jimmy Carter.
It’s a shame that some people in the military hate Bush. You are clearly the minority, and in this case, you are wrong. The irony about it is that people on the left HATE the military. In San Francisco they banned JROTC and military recruiters from public schools. Cindy Sheehan even says that joining the Boy Scouts is a bad idea due to their uniforms, and that everyone who serves in the arm forces is simply trying to get free college tuition or they’re just too stupid to survive in the civilian world.
So you better be nice to us conservatives, because we’re the only friends you’ve got.
And by the way, I ain’t no self-hater. I’m openly gay, openly conservative, openly libertarian, and damn proud of my political views.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Bobby, the left has indeed been incredibly wrongheaded about the military. One of the most monumentally foolish things ever done in the name of gay rights is promoting the banning of military recruiters from college campuses because of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. That showed how much understanding and respect the advocates in question had for the gay people who serve in the military: zip. God forbid we should put our nation’s welfare ahead of our own.
As to Obama’s reported complaint about the constitution, point well taken. But I’ll happily take an always-curious president who has taught the constitution over the incurious president who has been shredding it. As for smaller government, the Republicans did not show the slightest interest in it until, oh, about November 5.
posted by Brett French on
Sorry Bobby-O,
But I just can be your “boy.” Your just a nasty little troll who is too bitter and self-absorbed to know what friendship is about. Sorry, but even though we agree on many things, it’s highly unlikely we would be friends because you seem to think that friends must agree on everything. I simply don’t agree with your assessment.
BTW, as far as the Boy Scouts is concerned I am an Eagle Scout, spent about 20 years of my life in that wonderful organization, and really don’t care what Ms. Sheehan’s opinions regarding their uniforms are. As I stated, I am an independent, sometimes “left” sometimes “right” but usually willing to listen to coherent argumentation and debate. I don’t feel the need to be proud of my opinions, they are what they are. I more properly feel proud when accomplishing goals I have achieved for myself and others.
Have a wonderful day:-)
posted by Bobby on
Richard, I’m glad you agree with me on some issues.
” But I’ll happily take an always-curious president who has taught the constitution over the incurious president who has been shredding.”
—If you’re talking about the 14th amendment, you’re right about Bush. But if you’re talking about the 2nd amendment, we’ll see how Obama treats it.
Brett French, we may agree on many things, but your lack of support for Bush shocks me.
You also don’t sound independent when you say:
“self-haters of the log cabin republicans and stop your silly libertarian amusements. ”
—Log cabin republicans have ideas that go beyond gay rights. They are not self-haters. It would be an act of self-hate to vote democrat when you don’t agree with anything the party stands for.
As for libertarian amusements, if you study American history, you’ll see this used to be a very libertarian country before people like FDR and others ruined it with the new deal, welfare, income taxes and a whole gamut of big state initiatives. All gays should be libertarian because libertarianism celebrates the individual. While a republican/democrat may say “cause X is bad for people, thus we must ban it.” A libertarian lets the person choose. Of course, I’m a republican too because I like war and the death penalty, which the libertarian party does not support.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Bobby said ” I like war”.
Very interesting. I can’t think of any reason a rational and just person would like war. Evil people I can see liking war, people who get pleasure out of hurting others, but not good people. Wouldn’t you prefer to see conflicts resolved peacefully rather than through force? Wouldn’t you rather that war be a last resort? Do you get pleasure out of hurting innocent people?
posted by Bobby on
Cursed are the peacemakers, Priya. The Kingdom of Tibet was based on peace, their military was outdated, when the Chinese started invading culturally at first, the Dalai Lama did his best to be accommodating. Eventually the chinese invaded for real, raped their nuns, killed their priests, outlawed their religion and exiled their leader. Every religion/culture based on peace is at the mercy of others. Costa Rica has no military because the United States protects them. The Pennsylvania amish won’t even strike back if someone punches them in the face. Europeans are so afraid of Islamic extremism that they simply become more anti-semitic and more anti-Israel thinking that will please radical muslims when the reality is that radical Islam will not be pleased until the entire world is muslim. I like peace after my enemies have been destroyed. I’m not like Richard Geere, who wanted to respond to 9/11 with love and non-violence.
You know, Rush Limbaugh made a brilliant observation today. He said that whenever Hamas agrees to an unconditional truce is because their resources are depleted and they need time to get more armaments to launch more rockets.
Frankly, I’m not interested in hurting the innocent, the innocent are more likely to get hurt through their actions or inactions. It’s the guilty I want to hurt. Remember that lesbian that got raped by four men? You don’t think she wants war now? They deserve to die for what they did, at the very least, castration.
But that won’t happen, because the liberals that have created the laws have too much compassion for human garbage. And the fact that the rapists are minorities only makes them more sympathetic. So instead of blaming it on them, it’s “homophobia” that will get the blame, rightwing radio, Bill O’reilly, anything other than the actual rapists. Rape doesn’t carry a long sentence when it comes to adults, maybe they’ll get 5 years, 10 years. Now you tell me, do you want war or not?
posted by Jorge on
Normally I don’t like war, but when it comes to Hamas, I like evil people to get their just deserts. I hope every single one of them is shot dead. Every truce between Israel and its terrorist attackers is a slap in the face.
posted by TS on
“Europeans are so afraid of Islamic extremism that they simply become more anti-semitic and more anti-Israel thinking that will please radical muslims when the reality is that radical Islam will not be pleased until the entire world is muslim.”
Bobby, I’m very puzzled about this very thing. My dad is a homophobic, calculatingly irrational, ignorant man. He always says he’s happy to see Israel kicking the enemy’s ass. (Don’t stop reading; I think you’ll be surprised by where I’m going with this.) I never agree with my dad on politics; I make a point of it. I assume every opinion he has must be based on the same crappy worldview that makes him a homophobic, calculatingly irrational, ignorant man.
So why does the threat of Islamic extremism seem so obvious to me? What is with these idiot Westerners, all over the world, chanting anti-Israel slogans alongside the jihadists? What strange bedfellows! After all, if they get their way and destroy Israel, who do you think will be the next target of their bloodlust?
I’m of mixed opinion on who’s right about whether Israel ought to have been created- it was post-holocaust UNized guilt and everyone should have known it would lead to chaos. I am ambivalent on the question of “right.” But on the question of “practical,” the situation is clear. It’s too late to move Israel now, it’s a minor inconvenience at best, learn to live with it.
I have the same duality for jihad. Our contemporary Western moral sensibility favors privacy and multicultural civil coexistence. Downtrodden Islamic families and communities socialize their children differently. Extremists by definition do actively believe Islam’s destiny is to take over the world and force everyone to live in their scriptural utopia. It’s not a “misunderstanding” as some people keep saying. On the question of “right,” I am ambivalent. Who’s to judge whether our values or their values are more right? On what grounds can we condemn members of another group for developing a different vision of an ideal future than us?
But on the question of “practical,” I see only one way forward. I and many others in the West believe that everyone ought to have a chance to be free and live as they see fit. I think it’s logical, works well, and has great promise for the future. But it is inherently open to invasion by people who say “to live as I please, I must conquer you and make you live as I please as well.” I’m talking about everyone here: jihadists and fascists from without, as well as theocrats, fascists, and arbitrary regulators from within. In practical terms, our idea must be defended, by appropriate means, from all who threaten it. Or it will be destoryed.
posted by Bobby on
Hey TS, I’ve had the same struggles with mine, but if your father is pro-choice, are you going to become pro-life just to be contrarian? I think with our parents we must pick and choose. Decide where they’re right and wrong.
“I’m of mixed opinion on who’s right about whether Israel ought to have been created- it was post-holocaust UNized guilt and everyone should have known it would lead to chaos.”
—Well, contrary to popular opinion, jews have been there for thousands of years, not just after 1948. And frankly, I don’t think jews should be at the mercy of their neighbors, which is what exactly happens when you don’t have a country to protect your interests.
“On the question of “right,” I am ambivalent. Who’s to judge whether our values or their values are more right? On what grounds can we condemn members of another group for developing a different vision of an ideal future than us?”
—To me it’s about freedom. Some people just don’t like it, yesterday I read a comment on a blog, some guy wants schools to fine parents with $50 if their children get an F. Others want to ban public expressions of religion, such as invocation ceremonies. So you can see that fascism is pretty much alive. Whether it’s the right banning porn or the left banning smoking, most people are fascists.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Bobby, its a totally different issue when your neighbours force war upon you, then, of course its preferable to fight back. That’s not the problem with your original statement. You said that you like war, you’re suggesting that given a peaceful alternative you’d prefer to wage war! You said “Cursed are the peacemakers, Priya”! That’s just crazy talk. Its always preferable to resolve things peacefully when possible. The Jesus character in the bible said “blessed are the peacemakers” – you’ve got it dead wrong. You prefer retaliation to preventing the problem in the first place. That’s a bad, bad idea.
Your example of Tibet illustrates what’s wrong with your mindset. You think the only option was for the chinese to declare war and Tibet to fight back. No, the better option was for the chinese never to have declared war in the first place and for Tibet to have no need to have fought back. That was a possibility too and a rational person would agree an infinitely preferable one.
If you like war why haven’t you enlisted and gone over to Iraq or Afghanistan? Mighty cowardly of you to cheer on war when you’re not the one fighting it. Go experience it first, lose a leg or your loved ones and then come back and tell us how you like war.
Bobby said “Remember that lesbian that got raped by four men? You don’t think she wants war now?… Now you tell me, do you want war or not?”.
Your thought processes are stilted. No I don’t want war, and I guarantee you that lesbian doesn’t want it either. Infinitely preferable would have been that she never be raped in the first place. I guarantee you that that’s the situation she would prefer. Your suggestion is that you like the situation where she’s been raped and her attackers murdered. That’s utterly crazy. I can’t believe you’re stuck thinking inside such an obvious box. Bobby, think about the rape never having taken place and no one ever being punished. That’s what you should like, not war. As a society we need to put effort into preventing the original wrongdoing whenever possible, rather than ignoring that to take pleasure in retaliation.
posted by TS on
“On the question of “right,” I am ambivalent. Who’s to judge whether our values or their values are more right? On what grounds can we condemn members of another group for developing a different vision of an ideal future than us?”
—To me it’s about freedom.
My only point was that freedom does not always equal good. For us to value freedom so highly is our preference, for them to devalue it is theirs. I think freedom is logical, beneficial, and worth defending. But there is no inherent property of the universe that makes freedom better than fascism.
posted by Priya Lynn on
TS said “On the question of “right,” I am ambivalent. Who’s to judge whether our values or their values are more right? On what grounds can we condemn members of another group for developing a different vision of an ideal future than us?”
We make that distinction based on who is hurt the least by someone’s values. If someone’s ideal future involves enslaving their neighbours we can condemn their vision of the “ideal” on the basis that it harms others.
TS said “there is no inherent property of the universe that makes freedom better than fascism.”.
Yes, there is. Everyone wants to live a life that brings them the most benefit and the least pain. This can only be acomplished for all when we agree to maximize the benefit and minimize the pain for all in an equal fashion. To do that we must have the freedom to do whatever we want as long as we don’t harm others. Facism denies this freedom to people, denies them the ability to have the best life they can while meeting the obligatory duties of not harming others.
posted by TS on
Yay Bobby and Priya Lynn! We are having a very engaging conversation… This is where I feel it’s important to say that I love doing this, and I find conversation among smart people who disagree way more enlightening than people who can’t think for themselves blandly agreeing.
“Everyone wants to live a life that brings them the most benefit and the least pain. This can only be acomplished for all when we agree to maximize the benefit and minimize the pain for all in an equal fashion.”
What you are stating has been stated by a the philosopher Jeremy Betham, and it has been called utilitarianism. I say that Bentham’s philosophy, while it makes a strong case for how to define absolute moral reality, does not reach the level of “property of the universe.” It has problems associated with it:
Wikipedia: “One difficulty with utilitarianism includes the comparison of happiness between different people. Many of the early utilitarians hoped that happiness could somehow be measured quantitatively and compared between people through felicific calculus, otherwise known as hedonic calculus, but no-one has yet constructed a detailed touchstone in practice.” “Mill’s argument for utilitarianism holds that pleasure is the only thing desired and that, therefore, pleasure is the only thing desirable. Critics argue that this is like saying that things visible are things seen, or that the only things audible are things heard.”
and there are alternatives to it: deontological (right and wrong is in principle, not impact), religious, virtue (the character of people) and care (emotions, nuance, interdependence)
“…we must have the freedom to do whatever we want as long as we don’t harm others.”
I agree that this is a deeply logical, satisfying sentiment. But I am not so confident in it as to say it is the universe’s big kahuna of moral truths. There have been several interesting economic studies recently suggesting that people abuse the freedom to choose, and would be happier if they learned to accept that only the important things in life are worth exercising freedom for. Not that I agree, just pointing out possible alternatives.
posted by Priya Lynn on
TS, that it is difficult to quantify happiness doesn’t negate the principle that that is what we all want to achieve. I would never say that pleasure is the only thing desired. Some find life painful and prefer death. Some inflict pain upon themselves because they desire it. Some sacrifice things for themselves that others may have more. In the end they all are doing what ultimately makes them feel best in some way, achieving what they value most. This is consistent with the principle of all people desiring to maximize the benefit and minimize the pain for themselves. The only way we can allow all to do that to the greatest degree is to agree we all have an equal right to it.
In terms of this moral reality being “a property of the universe” or the “universe’s big kahuna of moral truths” that context is irrelevant. The vast majority of the universe is devoid of life, pain and pleasure and as such does not matter. What matters is us here on this planet and that we can feel pleasure and pain and that managing those feelings in ways that matter most to the individuals involved is all that really counts. Until we find other life elsewhere in the universe we are safe to assume that the only property of the universe that does matter is the property of life and humanity in this obscure corner of it.
posted by Bobby on
Priya,
“You said that you like war, you’re suggesting that given a peaceful alternative you’d prefer to wage war!”
—I guess I like being proactive. I don’t believe in peaceful alternatives, I think in the history of mankind, the strong take on the weak. That doesn’t mean we have to go to war all the time, it just means we need to be open to the possibility.
“No, the better option was for the chinese never to have declared war in the first place and for Tibet to have no need to have fought back. That was a possibility too and a rational person would agree an infinitely preferable one.”
—But that’s not how history works. The strong don’t take pity on the weak. The strong however, will not attack a smaller nation if that nation is too much of a problem to conquer.
“If you like war why haven’t you enlisted and gone over to Iraq or Afghanistan?”
—Because I’m not athletic, I don’t like being told what to do, I don’t like waking up at 5am, I don’t like haring f-g jokes, I don’t want to shower naked with straight men, my artistic mindset leaves little room for attention to detail and the military has way too many details, I don’t agree with DADT, I haven’t been drafted, and frankly, there are plenty of people already in the service.
The question is irrelevant. IF you like photography does that mean you become a photographer? And if you like film does that imply you’ll become a director?
“Mighty cowardly of you to cheer on war when you’re not the one fighting it. Go experience it first, lose a leg or your loved ones and then come back and tell us how you like war.”
—I’ve met soldiers who cheer war. Some even volunteer to serve 3 tours of duty or even more if they let them. Some who lose a leg fight to get back in the army. Just because you hate war doesn’t mean they hate war. For many of them, war is a million times more exciting than being stuck in the typical cubicle job most Americans have.
“preferable would have been that she never be raped in the first place. I guarantee you that that’s the situation she would prefer.”
—That is such a liberal way to think about things. I’d much rather think and prepare for the worse. When I read gun magazines, they talk about different ways a person can be attacked. I imagine those scenarios in my head as well. I watch specials about neo-nazis on the History Channel to learn how they operate. We live in an ugly world, I’d rather deal with that ugliness head on.
“Your suggestion is that you like the situation where she’s been raped and her attackers murdered.”
—No, my suggestion is that she kill her attackers BEFORE they rape her. My suggestion is that she not become a victim but a survivor.
“As a society we need to put effort into preventing the original wrongdoing whenever possible, rather than ignoring that to take pleasure in retaliation.”
—But we can’t prevent all crimes, we can educate all people. Sometimes homophobia, racism, etc, are too strong. Sometimes forcing sensitivity training on an unwilling participant creates more bigotry.
posted by Bobby on
Hey TS,
“But there is no inherent property of the universe that makes freedom better than fascism.”
—Actually, there is. In a free society, you can associate with people who like fascism (cults) and live without freedom
In a fascist society, you have no choice.
Growing up in Venezuela, I was exposed to a culture that puts the society above the individual. In that, culture fitting in is more important than being yourself. Only the popular get to be individualistic, everyone else has to follow them or suffer the consequences. It’s so different from American schools where y’all wear whatever clothes you like and find your clique. In most latin countries kids have to wear uniforms. Uniforms undermine individuality, at lunch hour it’s hard to find your own kind because everyone looks the same.
Ironically, the teachers didn’t have to wear uniforms. So you see, the oppressors want to keep freedom for themselves while denying it to everyone else.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Bobby said “I don’t believe in peaceful alternatives”.
People like you are the reason there is more war then need be.
Bobby said “The strong don’t take pity on the weak.”.
Oh, so the U.S. didn’t take pity on Kuwait when Sadam invaded? You have an extremely shortsighted view of the world. Better to have discouraged Sadam from invading Kuwait than to have waited for the destruction of it and engage in a war that couldn’t undo the harm already caused.
I asked Bobby “If you like war why haven’t you enlisted and gone over to Iraq or Afghanistan?”.
Bobby said “Because I’m not athletic…there are plenty of people already in the service.”.
Your claim to like war doesn’t sound very sincere when you then go on to claim you hate all the things war entails. Your claim that there are plenty of people already in the service is false given that all manner of moral waivers have been implemented in to keep recruitment numbers up to acceptable levels.
Bobby said “The question is irrelevant. IF you like photography does that mean you become a photographer? And if you like film does that imply you’ll become a director?”.
Your analogy doesn’t work. A more fitting analogy would be to claim you like photography when you’ve never seen a photograph, or to like film when you’ve never seen a film. By the same token you’re not in any position to say you like war when you’ve never experienced it.
Bobby said “I’ve met soldiers who cheer war.”.
And many more don’t. A famous soldier said “war is hell”. Those who cheer war, unlike you are in a valid position to express an opinion. Unlike you they’ve experienced war.
I said “”preferable would have been that she never be raped in the first place. I guarantee you that that’s the situation she would prefer.”
Bobby said “That is such a liberal way to think about things. I’d much rather think and prepare for the worse.”.
It is not a liberal or conservative way to think, its the best way to think. While its fine to prepare for the worst, its extremely shortsighted and stupid not to attempt to prevent the worst in the first place. That’s the problem with your way of thinking. You cannot have the best possible world if you only think of reacting to bad things rather than preventing them in the first place. Your attitude is like an employee whose a low performer at work preparing to be fired rather than stepping up his performance to prevent being fired in the first place – its just plain dumb.
Bobby said “When I read gun magazines, they talk about different ways a person can be attacked. I imagine those scenarios in my head as well. I watch specials about neo-nazis on the History Channel to learn how they operate. We live in an ugly world, I’d rather deal with that ugliness head on.”.
Once again the problem with your attitude is that it is reactive rather than proactive. People like you will forever be trying and failing to completely undo bad happenings rather than preventing the bad things from happining in the first place.
IT IS ALWAYS BETTER TO PREVENT BAD THINGS FROM HAPPENING THAN TRYING TO UNDO THE EFFECTS LATER. YOU CAN NEVER HAVE THE BEST POSSIBLE WORLD IF YOU DON’T TAKE THIS INTO ACCOUNT.
Bobby said “No, my suggestion is that she kill her attackers BEFORE they rape her. My suggestion is that she not become a victim but a survivor.”.
You once again miss the optimal solution because you’ve got your “I like war” blinders on. The best solution is that there be no rape attempt in the first place and she have no need to kill would be attackers, or be raped and society subsequently castrate or murder her attackers.
Once again you accept bad happenings as inevitable when they are not. As long as you have that destructive attitude there will be more bad happening in the world than need be. Get it through your head Bobby, its better to be proactive than reactive. As long as you accept war and rape as inevitable and as you insanely do, desirable, the world will experience more of it than necessary. Its attitudes like yours that make the world a nastier place than it need be.
posted by Bobby on
“Better to have discouraged Sadam from invading Kuwait than to have waited for the destruction of it and engage in a war that couldn’t undo the harm already caused.”
–That was Kuwait’s fault, they where drilling into Iraqi territory, stealing their oil. My point is that if Kuwait had had a strong military and had not stolen Iraqi oil, they would have never been invaded. Noriega in Panama made the same mistake, he should have never gotten involved with drug dealers if he can’t defend his own country. North Korea on the other hand, they’ll never be invaded, they’re smart, they have nuclear weapons.
I love the Italian proverb, “if you want peace, prepare for war.” Makes a lot of sense.
“Your analogy doesn’t work. A more fitting analogy would be to claim you like photography when you’ve never seen a photograph, or to like film when you’ve never seen a film. By the same token you’re not in any position to say you like war when you’ve never experienced it.”
—Well, filmgoers haven’t experienced how excruciating it is to write a script, to memorize lines, to set up audio, lights, to coordinate a production, to be on the set for 8 hours. My point is that we all have different functions in society.
Here’s a better analogy. Say a person loves playing basketball but he’s not the best by far, should he try to join the NBA? No.
The fact is that the military is full of homophobes, even when DADT is overturned, gays who join will need to have very thick skin and balls of steel.
My point is this. A soldier who doesn’t want war is like a boxer who doesn’t want to get punched in the face. I’m sorry, but if you join the military, don’t expect it to be just drills.