If you are not an idealist by the time you are twenty you have no heart,
but if you are still an idealist by the time you are thirty, you don't have a head.
Randolph Bourne
Image of the Day
Busting More "Progressive" Economic Myths
Okay, any time you have a George Mason economist on a clip, it's gold.
Facebook Corner
(Jeffrey Tucker). Some libertarians are very confused about the rightness and wrongness of interacting with the state. They imagine state services are like any other service that we can use or not, forgetting entirely how much government distorts and monopolizes. They can become ridiculously moralistic about, for example, getting Social Security, teaching in a public system, or taking a government grant. My own view is that if you decline to do these things, or do not have to do these things, that's fantastic. But if you do, you deserve zero condemnation. It's a state-run world and people have to get by as best they can. Sanford Ikeda has further thoughts on this issue. http://fee.org/freeman/detail/am-i-a-hypocrite
It's not a crime for the State to return some of the property it stole from me.
(Reason). A government truly committed to open debate and freedom of speech would make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that offending Muslims (or any other religious group) is not a crime.
No, society isn't some juvenile nirvana, where you are entitled to be an asshole. Being an asshole isn't a successful life strategy. But it is not up to the grossly incompetent State to teach civility. In real life, being as asshole can sabotage your relationships, your career or even result in tragedy.
I do agree that codification of political correction has an arbitrary, chilling effect on free expression. Most people have the judgment to know it's better to not draw attention to arrogant, insulting speech, to let it go. Ironically, the murderers did more to draw attention to Charlie's obnoxious cartoons than Charlie's own marketing efforts--talk about unintended consequences.
But (and I love how ideological trolls try to suggest this is "blaming the victim") we have to understand that insulting rhetoric or humor approaches an abuse of free expression, a form of aggression. We have to accept responsibility for our own speech, actions, and there are social norms of respectful speech and behavior. We can't control how others respond to our message, but we can control the message. Personally, I would have never written or published those cartoons, regardless of the terrorist attacks. Does that mean I think the terrorists were justified? No. I was raised with a certain set of values.
(Reason). Today we are Charlie Hebdo. But what about tomorrow, and the day after?
I do think that free expression has consequences, but I think teaching and enforcing societal norms is best handled by the private sector, e.g., one's family and friends, work, church, etc., not by some legally-enforced politically correct codified litany of special interests. I would prefer that we focus on developing more successful tactics like ignoring abusive speech or avoiding reinforcement of attention-seeking juvenile behavior.
(Cato Institute). "There is no middle ground, no soft compromise available to keep everyone happy–not after the murders at the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo. Either we resolve to defend the liberty of all who write, draw, type, and think–not just even when they deny the truth of a religion or poke fun at it, but especially then–or that liberty will endure only at the sufferance of fanatical Islamists in our midst. And this dark moment for the cause of intellectual freedom will be followed by many more."
Oh, give me a break: a domino theory of liberty, whereby juvenile, uncivil, disrespectful cartoonists attacking people's cherished beliefs are the benchmark of free expression? You are saying intolerant abuses of free expression are the gold standard of expression? Our mothers raise us to understand that it's not what you say but how you say it; ridiculing other people, their families and institutions is a form of aggression, violates social norms and stops, not starts, communication. With liberty comes responsibility; when you practice intolerance under the banner of liberty, you abuse liberty.
Of course, there is no moral justification for taking a man's life, in spite of how disagreeable his rhetoric. Most of us understand the best way of handling disagreeable speech is to ignore it, not give it undue publicity. Most of us never knew what Charlie was prior to this week's atrocity. Millions of people have read, circulated and/or republished the offensive cartoons in question which would have never happened otherwise. Certainly that's an undesirable unintended consequence to the murderers in question. It has hardened attitudes against Muslim immigrants and groups. It's understandable that writers feel unduly intimidated by an arbitrary double standard in free expression when it comes to Muslim sensibilities.
Still, there is some legal recognition of the concept of "fighting words" or in this case "fighting images", which many libertarians consider unacceptable in nature. I think in this case Charlie knew (by the fact of a 2011 firebombing) that it had touched the nerve of the Islamic community by disrespectful depictions of their greatest prophet. Yes, you have the right of unfettered expression but you have to understand your rhetoric has consequences: family members can become estranged, you can alienate customers, suppliers, and colleagues, your business or career can be sabotaged--or worse.
In other words, "rape is always bad, but she shouldn't have worn that short skirt. Actions have consequences, you know..."
Don't be an idiot. A rapist is responsible for violating another person's natural rights. The Charlie terrorists are fully responsible for their murders. That being said, if the woman was my sister or my daughter, I would prefer her to dress conservatively; otherwise, she might attract the wrong type of men or attention. One is responsible for one's actions, and one should exercise prudence in given contexts.
(Reason). We could end up with an Internet that is more regulated and more like a public utility from another era than an information delivery service for the modern age.
Economically illiterate, Statist whores are pushing on a string in their delusional hype to justify FCC intervention; the private sector, not Al Gore or overwhelmed, technologically obsolete, incompetent bureaucrats, is responsible for the spectacular evolution and success of the Internet economy. It's bad enough they are trying to fear-monger over speculative, unsupported monopolistic practices; even Econ 101 students know the result of regulated cable ISP will be regulatory capture and reduced competition. We do not need government inertia clogging up innovation and creative destruction in the high technology economy. There are free market ways to improve competition (e.g., competitively bid access to existing infrastructure; for example, AT&T is reportedly set to aggressively roll out its competitive offering to Google Fiber, including some of the same metropolitan areas), Elon Musk is talking low-cost micro-satellite coverage, there's Google's Project Loon for balloon-based Internet services, etc. What we need to for government to stay the hell out of the way of innovation in Internet services, and stop believing in long-discredited antitrust theory.
(Reason). Of course, "free" [community college] really means "paid for by someone else."
This is fiscally-irresponsible, morally-hazardous, economically-illiterate Obama as usual; what's a few billion dollars to the $7.4T man (and $18T overall, an existing college loan base of $1.3T, and $92.5T in unfunded liabilities)? Community colleges are already subsidized by taxpayers. College is an investment in one's future, with decent rates of return; also (using data within the last few years) the average community college tuition is roughly $3100--a deep discount relative to public university tuition. Thus, there is already an economic incentive for budget-oriented students to consider community colleges. Finally, anyone thinking this initiative is Obama's final goal for free college ends with community college is deluding himself; a number of European, South American, and Gulf Region nations offer free post-secondary education.
(National Review). A gentrified cocoon of progressive privilege has cost Democrats the middle class.
There is no doubt an arugula-eating Obama pondering the mystery of Midwesterners clinging to their Bibles and guns and "dead broke" mansion-living, Big Bank favorite Hillary are out of touch with the common man. But then so were car-elevator Romney and professional politicians Dole, McCain and others.
I think that the middle class realizes that the "progressives" are running on the same old same old issues and despite growing government over decades, we haven't seen any improvements in terms of robust economic growth, a sustainable national debt and entitlements, improving test scores, etc. Much of the Democratic agenda is dated, incoherent objectives relevant to special-interest constituencies, not Middle America. Middle Americans are worried about stagnant wages, an uncertain future for their kids, a government more responsive to the bureaucracy than the taxpayers, cities cutting down on local services to pay off the pensions of self-serving public sector retirees, swelling, expensive prison populations, etc.
The good news for Republicans is there are limits to the Democrats' divisive class welfare politics; a 2012 Hill-reported poll found nearly three-quarters agreeing the top level personal and business tax rates were excessive; there is also the fact that France has quietly dropped the 75% tax rate for high-earning residents in light of modest tax collections not even able to make a dent in an increasing deficit and top French companies unable to attract executive talent.
The bad news is the difficulty of showing the benefits of government not crowding out the private sector in competition for investment dollars, of getting government out of the financial and healthcare sectors, of liberating the education market monopoly into an educational choice paradigm. I think the GOP needs to start by pointing out even if you confiscate all of the wealth of the richest people, it's barely a nonrenewable down payment on government's unsustainable promises. We need to empower people in their own retirement and health system options. We need to liberate the economy from its regulatory shackles which are little more than a jobs program for unproductive government bureaucrats. We need for citizens to realize that impulsive government results in waste and tragedy--the dysfunctional DHS super-bureaucracy and Gulf Region interventions cases in point.
If the GOP is going to win in 2016, it needs to reject the Bush/Obama legacy of massive spending and deficits, hyperactive interventionist domestic and foreign policies: we need for conservatives to reexamine the legacy of the Old Right, of frugality and accountability across government, including DoD, of recognizing the reality that our domestic and foreign commitments must be commensurate with our limited resources.
The problem is that the Republicans in Washington have made themselves part of the elite as well
Absolutely predictable, phone-it-in idiotic bullshit. How many new spending programs have been passed since the GOP regained the House? Listen, jerk, how big was the debt as %GDP before and after the 2010 election?
I see no evidence that the democrat party progressive agenda and all have alienated their base. To the contrary the liberals have been very effective using the divide and conquer tactics pitting one demographic group against another. Blacks vs White, Rich vs Poor and middle class, Citizen vs Illegal Alien...as long as the democrats can keep the pot stirring they will continue to run effective campaigns and keep winning elective offices.
"Citizen vs illegal alien" is a Democratic issue? I don't think so.
(IPI). From Forbes: "Automatic enrollment for traditional IRAs might soon be a reality in Illinois as Governor Pat Quinn signed legislation enacting the Illinois Secure Choice Savings Program into law on January 4, 2015."
Ah, yes, the same political whores who don't even have a solvent retirement system for state workers want to exercise control over YOUR financial future: what could possibly go wrong? Maybe you could use more of your own money this month to pay off bills, but paternalistic Uncle Quinn thinks that he knows best how to spend your hard-earned dollars...
(Reason). A growing chorus of self-appointed arbiters of good taste is calling Charlie Hebdo a "provocative," "racist," "Islamophobic," "homophobic" publication that brought much of its trouble on itself.
A "growing chorus"? What self-serving, high-sounding rubbish! When you knowingly insult people or things important to them, like their family or belief systems, it's a form of aggression; it violates social etiquette, norms. It's an abuse of freedom, not its defining moment.
Those of us Catholic libertarians believe in free will: that includes the freedom to make one's own morally objectionable choices up to the point of violating the natural rights of others. That is to say, we tolerate to a certain degree the wrongful actions of others. For example, I might tolerate the free expression of those who advocate genocide of others, provided they don't act on those beliefs. On the other hand, if some of those targeted by the rhetoric perceive it is a threat, they also have a right of self-defense. Most people recognize there can be abuses of freedom, e.g., inciting a riot (the proverbial "fire!" in a crowded theater).
I'm not arguing for the codification of politically correct speech or of all the possible abuses of free expression. But I'm not going to make the Charlie victims martyrs for the cause of liberty. These people knew they were pushing other people's buttons, and there are risks to doing that. In the case of Charlie, there was a 2011 firebomb. Now you can make a high-sounding claim of "we are not going to let these criminals intimidate us from mocking the cherished beliefs of 1.6B Muslims!", but this is a battle bordering on the abuses of liberty. In real life, saying the wrong thing can ostracize one from friends, family, work, church, society; it's not a matter of "free speech" but using one's freedom responsibly. That's not blaming the victim but making the point that with freedom comes responsibility.
Of course they were assholes. If you're not free to be an asshole, you're not free at all.
I'm glad to see you are living down to your ideals.
(National Review). Unfortunately, according to several commentators, Charlie Hebdo had it coming.
National Review has gone full retard on this issue. I have probably gone through over a dozen threads in this and other groups, and the overwhelming majority of comments have gone into full Muslim-bashing mode. In fact, I think I'm the only commenter I know in any group who has pushed against the groupthink mentality, and I've been deluged with wolf packs of intolerant anti-Muslim jerks without a single "like" or supportive comment. This "rush to blame the victim" is a ludicrous caricature of the status quo--it's like this disingenuous hack contributor has to go back years to find examples of criticisms of those who engage in deliberately provocative acts. I don't think I've seen a single National Review piece express a different perspective on the issue--they are all playing to the same blame-Islam tune.
Look, if you say something about about a schoolyard bully's mother's sex life, you may provoke a reaction. There are certain social norms: just because you have the right to say what's on your mind doesn't make it acceptable or prudent. I'll give an example: when I as a Catholic made reference yesterday to objectionable artistic depictions of Jesus and Mary, I got atheist pushback like "f* Jesus and f* Mary; f* your book of fables". I have a maternal uncle, a retired priest and the best man I know, and yet I see rubbish from Westboro Baptists e.g., priests are sexual vampires preying on the semen of young boys. It all goes back to the old saying, "It's not what you said; it's how you say it." Most of us just choose to ignore provocative speech or behavior, not to give it the oxygen most of these juveniles crave in their attention-seeking depravity.
None of us critics are arguing that the magazine cartoonists "had it coming". None of us believe force by the State, a mob, or fanatics is justifiable against an expression of opinion. But mocking someone's cherished religion is an abuse of free expression; it is a form of intolerance and can be perceived as threatening to others. Don't argue that abuses of liberty are its essence. Just because you can or do say something doesn't mean you should.
(continuation of a thread from yesterday)
Like Ron Paul said, freedom of speech is not to protect talking about the weather, its specifically intended to protect controvesial even offensive things. Because the alternative, letting the Church or State decide what you can say or hear, is far worse. Hebdo was right to push back against muslim crazies making parts of France re-primitized sharia zones, spreading Jew hate and all the rest of it. They don't like our freedom, they can stay in the hell holes they crawled out of.
Freedom of expression is meant to enable conscientious debate, including criticisms of the State. Yes, others should not be able to repress your expression, but when you use that right in a hypocritical expression of intolerance, there are consequences. But you are full of shit if you think our Founding Fathers fought for those who promote uncivil, intolerant speech. That's asinine. Because you have the liberty, say, to advocate the extermination of the Jews, some Jews might understandably take the threat personally and exercise their right to self-defense.
No, liberty is not decided by your self-asserted litmus test of being obnoxious. In civilian society, there are things called manners. You don't tell your boss or a court judge what you really think of them. You can, of course, commit career suicide or sit overnight in jail. There are repercussions for exercising your rights. An atheist can challenge a believer without insulting him. Violate social etiquette or provoke others at your own risk, but don't come crying to me when you abuse your liberty.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Steve Breen via Townhall |
Céline Dion, "Where Does My Heart Beat Now?"
