LIBERTARIAN RHETORIC, COLLECTIVIST PRACTICE

THE LIBERTARIAN ^ | Jan 28, 2003 | Vin Suprynowicz

[missileboy]

The Hegelian Dialectic is the dominant paradigm for modern Amerikan politiks - and G.W. employs the double speak to prove it.

[elfman2]

”President Bush's audience was clearly most stirred, Tuesday evening, when his State of the Union address turned to the promise of a thrilling patriotic war on Iraq.”

Not worth reading a second sentence from this embittered little jerk off.

[B. Rabbit]

Far too negative on the foreign policy (which Bush has got a grip on).

Very good points on the economy, though. There seems to be a discrepancy between SOME of W's capitalistic talk and SOME of his socialistic actions.

[missileboy]

While I think Vin has it right regarding the foreign policy, I've got to hand it to you for not displaying the indoctriantion mindset like most on free republic seem to display nowadays.

Many Bushites reject economic arguments that are 110% in agreement with conservative principles, simply because in discussing these concepts, Bush is criticized for not adhering to them.

[Ol' Sparky]

In fact, the notion that Iraq (hardly a sea power) could effectively attack the U.S. or our merchant shipping is quite far-fetched. But, the notion that Saddam could develop weapons of mass destruction for use by terrorists against our nation is a reality. But, liberaltarian pacifists don't have the IQ to figure that out.

[Ol' Sparky]

In fact, the notion that Iraq (hardly a sea power) could effectively attack the U.S. or our merchant shipping is quite far-fetched.

But, the notion that Saddam could develop weapons of mass destruction for use by terrorists against our nation is a reality. But, liberaltarian pacifists don't have the IQ to figure that out.

[LibTeeth]

Your response hides a distinction you seem to want to blur. By referring to liberal-tarian pacifists, you are swinging a rather brood brush, and not very accurately. Many liberals in fact do support the war, because war strengthens the state, and they know they will once again inherit the reigns of power when the fickle pendulum of electoral instability swings again to the other pole. Those liberals who are pacifists are setting themself up as dialectical foils, both to conservative warhawks and moderate liberals who support the war effort. Most libertarians don't disdain war from a sense of pacifism (I don't know too many gun toting pacifists, and I don't know any libertarians who don't shoot there guns as much as they shoot their mouths). Most libertarian criticism is concerned with the growth of the omnipotent state. If Clinton were doing the exact same thing as Bush right now, many on this forum would be far more critical and far more alarmed. This inconsistency contrasts starkly against the coherent set of principles that offset the libertarian stance from the conservative. It could be worse though. The conservatives in Moscow are trying to conserve Marxism, and we haven't sunk to that level yet.

[Jack Black]

Hmm, personally I was stirred and thrilled by the prospect of a great patriotic war. OK, I'll admit it. I hate Saddam, I'm still pissed off about 9/11, I'm still mad about the Kuwaiti war and the burning oil wells and the gassing and I consider it our great patriotic duty to go depose and hopefully kill the idiot ruler of Iraq. And if it goes well maybe a few others too. So, at least that part of the essay I agree with. Bush did a *great* job laying out the reasons why we are going to have a war. I only wish I was in the Army or Marines now so I could help win it. (Think they'd take a 44 year old volunteer?)

[HumanaeVitae]

"The Confederacy — despite the horrible flaw of retaining slavery (but remember, Lincoln repeatedly said the South could keep its slaves if only they'd come back into his Union) — was in fact a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people," whereas "Reconstruction," under armed occupation from 1865 to 1877 ... clearly was not."

This is a complete, total lie. The Confederacy was a socialist institution. Rationing, price controls, etc. What a load.

[elfman2]

”I only wish I was in the Army or Marines now so I could help win it. (Think they'd take a 44 year old volunteer?”

I know the question was rhetorical, but someone recently suggested volunteering to assist the families while the reservist were away. If you can fix a broken toilet or replace a part on an old car, you can keep a spouse from being at the mercy of a $60 per hour professional. I don’t remember who to call, perhaps a reservist station or recruiter

(RE the thrilling patriotic war, the author was belittling us as just being prone to having our buttons pushed by BS.)

[A2J]

And I suppose the North was not socialist, being run by a bearded dictator?

[missileboy]

You're right - Going after leaders and citizens for what they could do with items they might have that could be used in dangerous ways is logically sound. That is why all gun owners should be burned inside wooden church compounds.

Liberaltarian pacifists - such is the drivel of the neocon. Only a neocon could believe that a philosophy which recognizes the owning of firearms or any other weapon as a fundamental right, not to be infringed under any circumstances (stemming from a fervent belief in the use of any and all force necessary to defend one's life) is pacifism. You probably also believe in reasonable gun control, private property under government control, meat-eating vegetarians and consensual rape.

None of these ideas set off the coginitive dissonance detectors of the neocons, due to their condition known as Compartmentalized Brain Syndrome (CBS). They're swimming in a dialectic cesspool of Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis. Hence the Bush doublespeak mentioned in the article, and the doublespeak nonsense of your post.

[missileboy]

Darn - you beat me to it.

[elfman2]

”They're swimming in a dialectic cesspool of Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis. Hence the Bush doublespeak mentioned in the article, and the doublespeak nonsense of your post.

Sounds like typical Libertarian anger that real world government necessitates actions beyond their crippled model. Acting to preserve majority support in a divided nation while promoting ideals through rhetoric is considered doublespeak by them. They have nowhere else in their flawed theoretical system to categorize it.

So as we see, they maintain a high level of ideological purity as they talk about people who really hold office.

[missileboy]

Ah, yes - speaking for the collective known as "the real world". I guess I can drum up support for welfare, minimum wage laws, and even justify ritual killings with that same meaningless pretext. But I wouldn't want to get too theoretical for the Bushites, whose operating principle is to, well, laud whatever "their guy" is doing. No thought nor understanding of any concepts needed to be a sheeple. And anyone else who attempts to develop a consistent set of beliefs can then be ridiculed as ideologues!

Yes, you have in fact perfectly defined doublespeak below. If one acts to preserve "majority support" (since consensus, not the search for truth, should always be the guiding principle, right?) while "promoting ideals", such as tax relief through programs run by taxation, or free medical choice through government anti-choice Medicare, then there is indeed Orwellian doublespeak of the worst kind.

I realize this is getting rather theoretical and it would be much easier to just support the politician with the correct letter preceding their name. But passing of two incompatible ideas as true at the same time is a logical fallacy. The English word for that is "doublespeak" - much like English uses the word "pencil" for a pencil. Words mean things in English, unless of course you're part of the doublespeak itself.

And by what you have posted, it's clear that you don't realize that words mean what they mean, either.

[Protagoras]

Many liberals in fact do support the war,

The most recent legitimate poll I have seen shows more Democrats support the war than not. More than half of all Demcrats support the war. Look at the vote totals and the names of the Democrats in congress who voted for it.

On the other hand, without benefit of a poll, I have unscientifically polled most of the libertarians I know and they are overwhemingly in favor of removing Saddam's regime when they are convinced that he is a threat. They all support the government's legitimate function of defending our rights from thugs like Saddam. Not all of them are convinced that he is a threat which justifies this action at this point, but neither are many conservatives.

On this forum, many loudmouths call anyone who shows the slightest hesitation to sign on to everything the President says, traitors. It seems that those types value your right to dissent, as long as it is dissention to Democrats.

[missileboy]

I have unscientifically polled most of the libertarians I know and they are overwhemingly in favor of removing Saddam's regime when they are convinced that he is a threat. They all support the government's legitimate function of defending our rights from thugs like Saddam.

Precisely. I'd go so far as to say that if I could see evidence that Sadaam were involved in the attacks of 9/11, provided logistics or support in any way, I'd support a US military campaign, after war was declared, against him. Turn his cities into rubble and barbeque his goats. That would be fine.

The neocons will argue that the evidence is alrady there. I of course disagree, but the point here is that that is my standard. Not supporting the war does not automatically make one a pacifist.

[Billthedrill]

Similarly, Mr. Bush is correct when he paints Saddam Hussein as a cruel and murderous dictator. But he's not the world's only cruel dictator — when do we mount our invasion to liberate Tibet, or Chechnya?

I'm getting rather tired of this old wheeze. Can this author show me how that, because we desire for a number of reasons to overthrow one dictator, this somehow commits us to overthrowing every dictator in the world? In point of fact it does nothing of the sort. Changing a tire on your car does not obligate you morally to changing all the tires that are flat in the world.

[elfman2]

”But I wouldn't want to get too theoretical for the Bushites, whose operating principle is to, well, laud whatever "their guy" is doing. No thought nor understanding of any concepts needed to be a sheeple. ”

Ah, there’s that embittered rant again… Upset because he struggled so long to understand an ideological system that’s as consistent and without contradiction as it is disconnected from the annoying complexities of human nature in large social systems that get in the way of its implementation. Crippled by his n dimensional world view in an n+1 dimensional world, everything looks like a contradiction. Just as a ball dissecting a plane simply looks like a circle to the creature living only on the plane, politicians promoting ideals while behaving in such a way as to be electable simply looks like they’re doublespeaking to him.

And we see that any use of the phrase “real word” triggers a pavlovian response to claim the speaker simply doesn’t posses the intellect to understand the imaginary system he promotes.

And so he stews in his anger, recognizing that his supporters are unpersuasive, powerless and loosing ground in a political system running away without them.

[missileboy]

I'm getting rather tired of this old wheeze. Can this author show me how that, because we desire for a number of reasons to overthrow one dictator, this somehow commits us to overthrowing every dictator in the world.

This applies because one of the arguments put forth (amid the many) for the invasion of Iraq is that Sadaam is a cruel and murderous dictator. Therefore, if this is reason for war, then it stands to reason that all murderous, cruel dictators are subject to forceful removal by the US military. So to go back to your analogy, the Bush administration is saying that your tire must be changed because it is black. This begs the question - why not change all tires? In other words, Vin's argument has validity because the Bush administration used the excuse in this way. If they hadn't, that would be a different story.