Comments on: Tea and Sympathy

By: The shell game of democracy or, now the glove is off the other fist « A Terrible Blogger is Born!

Wed, 06 May 2009 21:46:05 +0000

[...] neocon Right like Fox News so on. For excellent critiques of the Tea Parties see here, here , and here. But what was perhaps worse than the Tea Parties were the liberal response to [...]

By: Tim

Tim — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:31:21 +0000

I prefer to use “bipartisan monopoly,” as described here: http://democracyisnotfreedom.com/bipartisanmonopoly01.asp

Cheers,
Tim :->

By: Doc Ellis 124

Doc Ellis 124 — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:22:26 +0000

Greetings,

I have linked this article to my FaceBook page:http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/home.php?ref=home.

Thank you

mongol Doc Ellis 124

By: Jim Ostrowski

Jim Ostrowski — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:35:28 +0000

All headache-inducing philosophizing aside, I view the tea party movement as a great way to advance the cause of liberty. To that end, I developed a 12-point plan and presented it to the Buffalo tea party where close to 500 people attended.

http://politicalclassdismissed.com/?p=6155

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 07:35:05 +0000

I totally agree with SMDQR [I saw nearly zero in the way of rage or anger either; they WERE more like a festival].

And I disagree with the poster who called them “lame”.
The only lame thing is the follow up by the Republican organizations, to my email.

I think your point could not have been a better one, about the value of having participated.

By: Stephan Kinsella

Stephan Kinsella — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:17:40 +0000

Roderick:

“I wasn’t claiming that there’s such a duty — just that the thesis that there’s such a duty doesn’t entail these other claims, so an aversion to the other claims isn’t a reason for rejecting the thesis itself.”

this makes sense.

“My own position would be that we have an imperfect duty (i.e. a duty where we get to choose the occasions of its performance) to contribute reasonably often to public goods, and contributing to the cause of liberty is one way, though not the only way, of discharging that duty.”

sure, I can go with this. General as it is, it doesn’t leave much room for the activist-minded–who have chosen to do that–to assume a specific, contextless obligation of fellow-libertarians to follow suit.

By: Blagnet.net » Quote of the day

Blagnet.net » Quote of the day — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:17:58 +0000

[...] Roderick Long, on the recent anti-tax tea parties: Whichever party is out of power always begins to emphasise its libertarian-sounding side in order to divert anti-government sentiment toward support of that party rather than toward genuine radical opposition to the entire establishment. [...]

By: Roderick

Roderick — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:35:27 +0000

I wasn’t claiming that there’s such a duty — just that the thesis that there’s such a duty doesn’t entail these other claims, so an aversion to the other claims isn’t a reason for rejecting the thesis itself.

My own position would be that we have an imperfect duty (i.e. a duty where we get to choose the occasions of its performance) to contribute reasonably often to public goods, and contributing to the cause of liberty is one way, though not the only way, of discharging that duty.

By: Stephan Kinsella

Stephan Kinsella — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:32:08 +0000

Roderick, but some of them do; in any event, I disagree that there is this duty anyway (he says while spending vast time trying to promote the cause…)

By: Roderick

Roderick — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 03:31:00 +0000

I don’t think “libertarians have a duty to promote the cause” entails either “no one counts as a libertarian unless they promote the cause” or “libertarians have a duty to engage in ineffective or counterproductive forms of activism.”