<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Keith Preston Hopefully Not Victorious</title>
	<atom:link href="http://aaeblog.com/2008/11/25/keith-preston-hopefully-not-victorious/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://aaeblog.com/2008/11/25/keith-preston-hopefully-not-victorious/</link>
	<description>&#34;Austro&#34; as in Rothbard and Wittgenstein, &#34;Athenian&#34; as in Aristotle and smashing-the-plutocracy.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:32:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marja Erwin</title>
		<link>http://aaeblog.com/2008/11/25/keith-preston-hopefully-not-victorious/comment-page-4/#comment-333761</link>
		<dc:creator>Marja Erwin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2008 03:26:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://praxeology.net/blog/2008/11/25/keith-preston-hopefully-not-victorious/#comment-333761</guid>
		<description>We ought to debate claims, not people. Tit-for-tat ad homines won&#039;t get us closer to the truth.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We ought to debate claims, not people. Tit-for-tat ad homines won&#8217;t get us closer to the truth.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Bjørn Perlsø - titancity.com</title>
		<link>http://aaeblog.com/2008/11/25/keith-preston-hopefully-not-victorious/comment-page-4/#comment-333687</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Bjørn Perlsø - titancity.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2008 01:06:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://praxeology.net/blog/2008/11/25/keith-preston-hopefully-not-victorious/#comment-333687</guid>
		<description>&quot;Anonymous’s views are being misrepresented. &quot;

Even if it was true, who cares. &quot;Anonymous&quot; functionally means nobody. Who can take a nobody seriously?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Anonymous’s views are being misrepresented. &#8221;</p>
<p>Even if it was true, who cares. &#8220;Anonymous&#8221; functionally means nobody. Who can take a nobody seriously?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JOR</title>
		<link>http://aaeblog.com/2008/11/25/keith-preston-hopefully-not-victorious/comment-page-4/#comment-332824</link>
		<dc:creator>JOR</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 04:03:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://praxeology.net/blog/2008/11/25/keith-preston-hopefully-not-victorious/#comment-332824</guid>
		<description>While I very strongly disagree with Preston&#039;s stoicism and &quot;Give me rule by gangstas and racialist militias or give me death&quot; political obsessions, I haven&#039;t seen any indication that he is a racist, or a sexist, or anything of the sort. Anonymous has been consistently, and clearly deliberately, dishonest.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While I very strongly disagree with Preston&#8217;s stoicism and &#8220;Give me rule by gangstas and racialist militias or give me death&#8221; political obsessions, I haven&#8217;t seen any indication that he is a racist, or a sexist, or anything of the sort. Anonymous has been consistently, and clearly deliberately, dishonest.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Josh Rhodes</title>
		<link>http://aaeblog.com/2008/11/25/keith-preston-hopefully-not-victorious/comment-page-4/#comment-332755</link>
		<dc:creator>Josh Rhodes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 02:48:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://praxeology.net/blog/2008/11/25/keith-preston-hopefully-not-victorious/#comment-332755</guid>
		<description>Well, I&#039;d say that &quot;lesser-evilism&quot; is probably a valid perspective for anyone who hasn&#039;t heard of or explored any alternatives to Corporate Kapitalist Democracy and the Westphalian Nation-State, but if you understand anarchist and/or libertarian theory, and especially if you claim to be an adherent of one of those philosophies, I can&#039;t see that you&#039;ve got much ground to stand on.  Is the State a criminal band writ large, or not?  If so, well, let&#039;s &quot;disband&quot; the fucker already.  I respect genuine, principled pacifism, and I really do despise unnecessary violence, but what do you do when you&#039;re in the room with a cannibal?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, I&#8217;d say that &#8220;lesser-evilism&#8221; is probably a valid perspective for anyone who hasn&#8217;t heard of or explored any alternatives to Corporate Kapitalist Democracy and the Westphalian Nation-State, but if you understand anarchist and/or libertarian theory, and especially if you claim to be an adherent of one of those philosophies, I can&#8217;t see that you&#8217;ve got much ground to stand on.  Is the State a criminal band writ large, or not?  If so, well, let&#8217;s &#8220;disband&#8221; the fucker already.  I respect genuine, principled pacifism, and I really do despise unnecessary violence, but what do you do when you&#8217;re in the room with a cannibal?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick Manley</title>
		<link>http://aaeblog.com/2008/11/25/keith-preston-hopefully-not-victorious/comment-page-4/#comment-331172</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick Manley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 02:02:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://praxeology.net/blog/2008/11/25/keith-preston-hopefully-not-victorious/#comment-331172</guid>
		<description>I see it assumed in Keith&#039;s arguments, and I know he explicitly mentions this point in his writings. I personally have a Charles Johnson T-shirt collective shirt with the famous quote: war is the health of the state on it (    :

I am at least partially on your side of that debate.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I see it assumed in Keith&#8217;s arguments, and I know he explicitly mentions this point in his writings. I personally have a Charles Johnson T-shirt collective shirt with the famous quote: war is the health of the state on it (    :</p>
<p>I am at least partially on your side of that debate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick Manley</title>
		<link>http://aaeblog.com/2008/11/25/keith-preston-hopefully-not-victorious/comment-page-4/#comment-331168</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick Manley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 01:59:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://praxeology.net/blog/2008/11/25/keith-preston-hopefully-not-victorious/#comment-331168</guid>
		<description>Josh,

I suspect Anonymous disagrees that Keith&#039;s solution is necessary to end them. There are a lot of unsaid premises at work here. If Anonymous really is Aster, then I probably have the best understanding of her world perspective among the commentators here. And I can assure you that she is not quick to use coercion. I would point you to an active blog, but I don&#039;t think she has one right now.

That said, if the Anonymous person isn&#039;t Aster, then I still don&#039;t read an unwillingness to take the warfare state seriously in their comments. To prefer a ruling class as a contextual necessity or lesser evil is not automatically an endorsement of genocidal warfare. Anarchists and Libertarians have historically argued that statism tends to end up that way, but that&#039;s an argument to be put forward in this discussion. So far, I don&#039;t see it being talked about very explicitly,</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Josh,</p>
<p>I suspect Anonymous disagrees that Keith&#8217;s solution is necessary to end them. There are a lot of unsaid premises at work here. If Anonymous really is Aster, then I probably have the best understanding of her world perspective among the commentators here. And I can assure you that she is not quick to use coercion. I would point you to an active blog, but I don&#8217;t think she has one right now.</p>
<p>That said, if the Anonymous person isn&#8217;t Aster, then I still don&#8217;t read an unwillingness to take the warfare state seriously in their comments. To prefer a ruling class as a contextual necessity or lesser evil is not automatically an endorsement of genocidal warfare. Anarchists and Libertarians have historically argued that statism tends to end up that way, but that&#8217;s an argument to be put forward in this discussion. So far, I don&#8217;t see it being talked about very explicitly,</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Josh Rhodes</title>
		<link>http://aaeblog.com/2008/11/25/keith-preston-hopefully-not-victorious/comment-page-4/#comment-331146</link>
		<dc:creator>Josh Rhodes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 01:37:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://praxeology.net/blog/2008/11/25/keith-preston-hopefully-not-victorious/#comment-331146</guid>
		<description>Well, maybe I&#039;m misinterpreting their views... but I didn&#039;t mean to misrepresent them, that&#039;s just what it seems like he/she&#039;s saying, basically.

I should&#039;ve looked back over all the comments to make sure that Anon had actually not responded to mention of U.S. imperialism.  Mea culpa.  But, I mean, you can denounce &quot;criminal aggressions&quot; all you want, but if you hysterically react to the idea of taking action to end them, how sincere are your objections, really?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, maybe I&#8217;m misinterpreting their views&#8230; but I didn&#8217;t mean to misrepresent them, that&#8217;s just what it seems like he/she&#8217;s saying, basically.</p>
<p>I should&#8217;ve looked back over all the comments to make sure that Anon had actually not responded to mention of U.S. imperialism.  Mea culpa.  But, I mean, you can denounce &#8220;criminal aggressions&#8221; all you want, but if you hysterically react to the idea of taking action to end them, how sincere are your objections, really?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick Manley</title>
		<link>http://aaeblog.com/2008/11/25/keith-preston-hopefully-not-victorious/comment-page-4/#comment-330620</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick Manley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:24:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://praxeology.net/blog/2008/11/25/keith-preston-hopefully-not-victorious/#comment-330620</guid>
		<description>Well put! Sergio.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well put! Sergio.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sergio Méndez</title>
		<link>http://aaeblog.com/2008/11/25/keith-preston-hopefully-not-victorious/comment-page-4/#comment-330524</link>
		<dc:creator>Sergio Méndez</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:53:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://praxeology.net/blog/2008/11/25/keith-preston-hopefully-not-victorious/#comment-330524</guid>
		<description>Keith:

Regarding the issue of insults, I think Charles is into something. I do not care to insult back somebody who insulted you (I probably share that trait  of character with you, althought I consider it a character flaw. If you think it, insulting somebody back does not really make you gain any points. Nothing like the cold, reasoned non insulting answer to make anybody look silly when they start calling names).

But I think that even if you are insulting back people, there are ways of doing so. Using innate or physicall traits of the other guy to insult them is clearly low. And in many cases is politically charged to use the stablished predjuices (you know, against women, gays, or race, or socio economic condition) is unaceptable. Is like you are recognizing there is anything valid in using those hot buttons as insults, You may think it is &quot;PC&quot;...so what? Conservatives and right wingers decry &quot;political correctness&quot;, but I haven´t seen them provide a valid argument about the importance of political correctness? Calling a black people &quot;nigger&quot;, as derrogative manner to refer to him or her is wrong, no matter if somebody cries about how evil and &quot;PC&quot; that is. Even on the liberal side I think it is silly to use those kind of insults. Margaret Tatcher was evil, and so were most of her policies, but I don´t need to call her a &quot;bitch&quot; or any other mysogenistic word to insult her. Margaret Tatcher sucks not cause she is a women, nor I am going to attack her based on that. And anyways, why would I when there are so many other ways to insult her without making any calls on her sex?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Keith:</p>
<p>Regarding the issue of insults, I think Charles is into something. I do not care to insult back somebody who insulted you (I probably share that trait  of character with you, althought I consider it a character flaw. If you think it, insulting somebody back does not really make you gain any points. Nothing like the cold, reasoned non insulting answer to make anybody look silly when they start calling names).</p>
<p>But I think that even if you are insulting back people, there are ways of doing so. Using innate or physicall traits of the other guy to insult them is clearly low. And in many cases is politically charged to use the stablished predjuices (you know, against women, gays, or race, or socio economic condition) is unaceptable. Is like you are recognizing there is anything valid in using those hot buttons as insults, You may think it is &#8220;PC&#8221;&#8230;so what? Conservatives and right wingers decry &#8220;political correctness&#8221;, but I haven´t seen them provide a valid argument about the importance of political correctness? Calling a black people &#8220;nigger&#8221;, as derrogative manner to refer to him or her is wrong, no matter if somebody cries about how evil and &#8220;PC&#8221; that is. Even on the liberal side I think it is silly to use those kind of insults. Margaret Tatcher was evil, and so were most of her policies, but I don´t need to call her a &#8220;bitch&#8221; or any other mysogenistic word to insult her. Margaret Tatcher sucks not cause she is a women, nor I am going to attack her based on that. And anyways, why would I when there are so many other ways to insult her without making any calls on her sex?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick Manley</title>
		<link>http://aaeblog.com/2008/11/25/keith-preston-hopefully-not-victorious/comment-page-4/#comment-330467</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick Manley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 14:49:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://praxeology.net/blog/2008/11/25/keith-preston-hopefully-not-victorious/#comment-330467</guid>
		<description>And I timidly refrained from saying what Charles did due to preoccupation with emotional troubles-- more apathy about what happens to the Libertarian movement. Keith, I&#039;ll talk to you civilly like I will anyone else when they respect decent norms of discourse, but the TS insult is simply unacceptable. I am not a Christian, but I regard flame wars between strong personalities as pointless exercises that ultimately go nowhere. 

I&#039;d note that  neither Anonymous or Keith has yet to change their basic worldview or gain a legion of &quot;followers&quot; who agree with them. This is illustrative of why I have not viscerally joined either -- what Anonymous thinks of Keith Preston and what Keith Preston thinks of Anonymous is less important to me then the ideas under discussion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And I timidly refrained from saying what Charles did due to preoccupation with emotional troubles&#8211; more apathy about what happens to the Libertarian movement. Keith, I&#8217;ll talk to you civilly like I will anyone else when they respect decent norms of discourse, but the TS insult is simply unacceptable. I am not a Christian, but I regard flame wars between strong personalities as pointless exercises that ultimately go nowhere. </p>
<p>I&#8217;d note that  neither Anonymous or Keith has yet to change their basic worldview or gain a legion of &#8220;followers&#8221; who agree with them. This is illustrative of why I have not viscerally joined either &#8212; what Anonymous thinks of Keith Preston and what Keith Preston thinks of Anonymous is less important to me then the ideas under discussion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
