Replies

“Thanks for the thoughtful response.”

Wish I could say the same. I really do. But your response is simply another rehearsal of the same, tired fallacies and misconceptions one always gets from those of your general bent.

“Liberal (civil) libertarians espouse freedom insofar as they do not impinge upon the freedom of others.”

And entirely fail to appreciate what does and does not impinge on the freedom of others, invariably adding to the list of things that do not a long litany of things that do—mistakenly claiming, of course, that they don’t.

“It's disappointing how far out onto that narrow plank of political spin you go in order to maintain your (incorrect) definition of "freedom." You espouse a much narrower ideal, and then go about creating some wild and fallacious claim to "freedom," when in fact it'd be much more sensible, parsimonious, and truthful to call your philosophy a giant rulebook.”

Tired, tired, tired. I didn’t make any political claims; my arguments were philosophical, regarding the nature of reality. You have no standing to claim any “broader” or higher ground, because your philosophy is a rulebook too. We are only disagreeing over the content of that rulebook, not over any substantive difference in the structure of things.

“Let me get analogy-happy here - if life were a large, playing field, the libertarians would say, "you are free to do as you wish, as long as you stay on the field." The freepers would claim, "you are free to do as you wish, as long as you stay on the field..." followed by a list of regulations thicker than the current NFL rulebook.”

Why don’t you get logic-happy instead? The very concept of a field on which one must stay necessarily implies the existence of boundaries. Again, you are quibbling over the locations of those boundaries, not their essential quality. You wish to assert that my proposed locations for those boundaries makes my claim to freedom a “wild and fallacious” one, while your different placing of exactly the same sort of boundary is legitimate, wise, and truly free. Nonsense. You’re still establishing boundaries on freedom, and therefore have no standing to assume any moral superiority.

“If life were a song, and political ideals were our instruments, you'd insist we all be restricted to a cowbell, and then add "but we're free to play whatever songs we want!"

If life were a song, and political ideals were our instruments, you'd insist we all teach our children to engage in every self-destructive behavior known to man, and then add “but we’re all free to be happy.”

“In what fantasy-land is this taking place?”

In the real world, where religious people are not the ogres you seem to believe them.

“perception is reality”

Never.

“religious references will all ultimately be removed from government institutions. You know it, and I know it.”

The Soviets tried to do that through seventy-years of state terrorism against their own subjects—and failed. So will you.

“Some ideas take time, not because the ideas themselves are fallacious, but because people aren't ready for them.”

Perhaps, but that’s not the case here. Not every change is a change for the better. What you propose is an evil tyranny.

“and left me out in the cold. I'm not an atheist”

In this case you’re making common cause with them, and so will have to take the hit. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

“And why does this tendency of yours to divide things into black-and-white stop when it comes to that obtuse definition of "freedom"?”

Stale, stale, stale. Can’t you guys come up with some groundless smears that are, if not more effective, at least new? Some things are, in fact, black; others white. Still others may be various shades of gray or unknowable. The slur, “tendency of yours to divide things into black-and-white” is merely an attempt to declare victory without a discussion of whether a thing may actually be black or white.

“Hold on a moment while I get rid of these Jehova's Witnesses... okay, I'm back.”

It is incorrect to misconstrue an attempt to persuade as a demand that one accept a belief.

“You're either joking, or philosophically blind.”

No, I simply recognize the difference between an attempt to persuade and a demand. And that’s without even getting into a discussion of the status of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

“but I do not "get it."

I know, and as getting it will require changing your opinion on a few important matters…well, I ain’t holding my breath, that’s all.

“no amount of my arguing in this – or any other – forum, would open your mind's eye.”

How amusing is the arrogance of the narrow minded. I had to come through where you are to get where I am now. The only thing you’re in a position to “open my mind” to is old errors long corrected.

“Once again you've left me and folks like me out of the picture.”

Nope. “Narrow, doctrinaire anti-religious fanatics who are demanding--and invoking the sanction of law to enforce their demands--that all expression of religion be suppressed.” That’s you.

“And you've missed the bigger point”

I didn’t miss it. I explained quite clearly exactly why you are wrong on that point. I’m not surprised that you were unable to face it—actually, it would have astounded me had you been able to give it rational consideration—but the fact remains that your argument has been rebutted, and you have addressed the rebuttal in no meaningful way.

“freedom of an individual to express his beliefs is a beautiful and necessary right.”

Which you are determined to deny to the maximum extent you think possible.

“But you seem to be zeroing in on the extremists.”

Right now, I’m zeroing in on you, yes. Your position, that all religious expression must be driven out of public life, is extreme and hateful.

“Protestant preachers who call Islam evil”

It is.

“Catholic priests whose dalliances with choir boys make the Clintons' personal sex life look like a Norman Rockwell painting”

Oh, really? Are you actually unaware that the bent one has viciously and violently raped several women, and that at least one of them sought medical attention for the injuries he inflicted in the course of the rape? Did you know he sent thugs around to threaten women he’d “dallied” with to threaten them with a Sopranos-type fate if they didn’t keep their mouths shut about it?

We could probably stir up a lively debate on the question of whether buggering a teen-age boy is worse than that, but neither looks like a Normal Rockwell painting by comparison with the other.

“and the occasional young white man who decides to blow up a Federal building.”

Tsk, tsk. Intellectual dishonesty. It’s not an “occasional” thing. So far, it’s a one-time event. And it had absolutely nothing to do with your ridiculous assertion that an expression of religious belief on public property is equivalent to the establishment of a state religion.

“But extremists tend to get noticed – on both sides – and for every "exemplar" you cite there is an opposing extremist you omit.”

Nonsense. The playing field is not symmetrical today. In the attempt to assert that “both sides” are equally culpable, extremists like you falsely paint reasonable people as extremists—and meretriciously drag in people like McVeigh, as though they had anything to do with the discussion at hand.

But the fact is that your position is an extreme one, and its opposite is not. The belief that Constitutional protections of freedom of worship should be honored does not make one an extremist. Believing as you do that the Constitution should be trampled underfoot, however, does make you an extremist.

“dsc, I find most of your philosophy self-consistent”

I really don’t care how “you find” it. You’ve demonstrated through your remarks here that you are incompetent to evaluate my philosophy.

“What amuses me (and disturbs others, I'm sure) is the convoluted steps many freepers take en route to claiming they endorse freedom. Your version of freedom is to real freedom”

Self-congratulatory buncombe. We established above that the only difference between your approach and mine is the placement of boundaries. You set the same sort of boundaries as those you wish to look down upon, and pat yourself on the back because yours are “wider.” However, your insistence on those wider boundaries reflects only an ignorance of history or a refusal to learn therefrom. Setting the boundaries where you would wish is, always has been, and can only be, disastrous.

Listen to the man:

“Conservatism is the antithesis of the kind of ideological fanaticism that has brought so much horror and destruction to the world. The common sense and common decency of ordinary men and women, working out their own lives in their own way – this is the heart of American conservatism today. Conservative wisdom and principles are derived from willingness to learn, not just from what is going on now, but from what has happened before. The principles of conservatism are sound because they are based on what men and women have discovered through experience in not just one generation or a dozen, but in all the combined experience of mankind. When we conservatives say that we know something about political affairs, and that we know can be stated as principles, we are saying that the principles we hold dear are those that have been found, through experience, to be ultimately beneficial for individuals, for families, for communities and for nations -- found through the often bitter testing of pain, or sacrifice and sorrow." --Ronald Reagan (1977)

That’s why I advocate setting boundaries where I do, while you advocate putting them where you do because you reject—on irrational grounds—the “principles…that have been found, through experience, to be ultimately beneficial for individuals, for families, for communities and for nations.”

Sorry for the delayed response, but I've been away from the country, defending Democrat and Freeper chickenhawks. (No GOP distinction necessary.) "your response is simply another rehearsal of the same, tired fallacies and misconceptions... from those of your general bent" Why is it you can't directly address me without first generalizing "those of (my) general bent"? And if you want "tired" I suggest you read some Friederich Hayek. He's so tired he died eleven years ago. He told the world what we already know about economics and socialism. You guys have half the formula right, but are dead wrong on morality. "And entirely fail to appreciate what does and does not impinge on the freedom of others, invariably adding to the list of things that do not a long litany of things that do—mistakenly claiming, of course, that they don’t." So many words, so little substance. With this last paragraph you've said nothing more than "you don't understand everything that goes into freedom," which is a lot like saying "you don't understand everything that goes into rice." READ SLOWLY: rice is rice, and anything your recipe calls for just makes my rice less pure. "your philosophy is a rulebook too" Again, I reiterate my argument: libertarianism, simply stated, is "You are free to do as you choose without impinging upon the freeom of others." If you define one statement as a "rulebook" then you're as slick with facile definitions as Bill Clinton is with the word "is." Mine is not a rulebook. It is simple and beautiful; yours is a cumbersome guidebook of hackneyed and prudish Victorian pap. Incidentally, the more you insist outside of libertarianism's central focus - "You are free to do as you choose without impinging upon the freeom of others." - the more you to help make my initial point: Occam's Razor suggests your "freedom" is fictitious. The remainder of your letter veers into a "you're a liberal Democrat" diatribe - a bizarre argument I find extremely misconstrued and simply wrong. I am a libertarian. Freepers are not libertarians. Pushing religion in school, regulating drugs, and military drafts are "Libertarian" ideals. If you guys were libertarians you'd grow some gonads of your own and stop mysteriously resembling the GOP. You're not fooling us real Libertarians. Gotta cut this one short - couple of my partners are getting the Bronze Star this afternoon.