Tag Archives | Terror

Haters of Gays versus Lovers of War Propaganda

Carrie Prejean, pageant contestant and anti-equality activist, explains:

On April 19, on that stage, I exercised my freedom of speech, and I was punished for doing so. This should not happen in America. It undermines the constitutional rights for which my grandfather fought for [sic].

Wow! What happened? Was she arrested? Was she fined?

Um … no. All that happened was that she was verbally attacked for her views. Does she really think she has a constitutional right not to be criticised? That she can express whatever bigoted views she wants, but others have no right to call her out for them? Is freedom of speech something that applies only to herself and not to her critics?

Carrie Prejean and Keith Olbermann

On the other hand, some of her critics have been saying inane things too. Olbermann, for example (sorry), tonight said something like “Her grandfather didn’t fight for her right to speak her mind in a beauty contest, he fought for her right not to have her speech interfered with by the government.”

Huh? What did World War II have to do with defending her right not to have her speech interfered with by the government? Didn’t the U.S. government on the contrary use World War II as a pretext to increase such interference? Or does Olbermann mean that Prejean’s grandfather was fighting to prevent Nazi Germany from conquering the U.S. and imposing still harsher censorship? If so, does Olbermann really believe that the U.S. was in serious danger of being conquered during World War II?


For Great Justice! or, Bob Barr Wants You to Stop Worrying and Trust the Government

Bob Barr, last year’s (ho ho ha ha) “Libertarian” candidate for president, is dismayed that the American people are losing their trust in government. Yes, you read that right.

Big Brother BarrBarr is particularly upset that “the U.S. Department of Justice is among the least trusted of federal agencies. … Nearly four times more Americans found the Postal Service worthy of their trust than they did Justice. ”

Why is that such a bad thing? Barr explains:

Confidence in the Justice Department’s ability to operate according to high standards of fairness is essential to upholding the rule of law in America. Lack of trust in government erodes the ability of the Justice Department to successfully prosecute important cases, including those involving corruption in government. If the citizenry lacks trust in law enforcement, especially at the federal level, they will be more hesitant to bring information to the government’s attention. If the average citizen perceives top government officials as thumbing their noses at the law, those citizens may feel emboldened to themselves violate the laws.

Okay, so Barr’s reasons for thinking it’s a bad thing are all reasons for real libertarians to think it’s a good thing. The Justice Department is the enemy; libertarians don’t want to make it easier for the Justice Department to “prosecute important cases.” Nor are libertarians eager to see citizens “bring information to the government’s attention”; a culture in which people are constantly informing on their neighbours is not one conducive to liberty. The attitude that Barr complains about, of skepticism and disrespect toward the established laws, is just the sort of attitude libertarians seek to foster.

It may be objected: aren’t many of the established laws just? and aren’t many of the crimes the Justice Department prosecutes genuine invasions of person or property that violate natural law?

Sure. But that’s going to be true of just about any legal system. In Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, ordinary citizens were for the most part forbidden to kill, rob, defraud, and assault one another; many of the crimes prosecuted even under those regimes were no doubt genuine crimes that deserved to be prosecuted. But that’s no argument for saying that it would have been bad to inculcate a culture of distrust toward government under such regimes.

Admittedly, our Department of Justice can’t yet get away with as much as the legal authorities in those countries could. But take a look through the links in the “What We Do” sidebar at the right side of the handy-dandy DOJ website and see what by their own admission they are already empowered to do: these are the folks who enforce such liberty-destroying policies as drug prohibition, gun control, immigration restrictions, tax laws, antitrust laws, obscenity laws, intellectual property laws, the PATRIOT Act, and a host of economic regulations mostly designed to make it harder for small businesses to compete with bigger, richer ones (e.g., the American Disabilities Act). They’re also the folks who run our horrific prison system.

So they also prosecute some genuine bad guys? Who gives a damn? We could do that without them. The real problem is that people aren’t yet distrustful enough of the Justice Department.


IMP in The American Conservative

Isabel PatersonStephen Cox teaches conservatives about Isabel Paterson.

(Though it’s a gentle introduction; Cox spares them the Paterson who attacked the corporate elite, condemned the U.S. for perverting science to “fry Japanese babies in atomic radiation,” and told Ayn Rand that garden-variety collectivist ideas came from liberals and really godawful collectivist ideas from conservatives.)


Escape From the Phantom Zone

The Art of the Possible website is on the fritz again, but thankfully I managed (with the help of James Tuttle) to salvage my six major posts there (mostly on conflation stuff) the last time their website went down. I’ve now posted these on my own website so I need rely on AOTP no longer. Here they are.

I know Kevin Carson has also succeeded in rescuing copies of his own AOTP contributions, and I hope he will post his online as well.


Romper Room

I love this description: Sardis (city of Gyges and Crœsus) was under Persian rule “until the great Hellenistic freedom fighter, Alexander the Great, romped into Sardis.”


Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes