MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 11 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
Don't Feed the Trolls, and Other Advice For Dealing With Libertarians
By Donal on Thu, 11/14/2013 - 7:55pm |... it is vastly more tiresome to feed the trolls than to be one of them, and no sane person has the endurance to run all the way down that rabbit hole. ...They're a homogeneous bunch ... overwhelmingly young, white, male, and reasonably affluent — Young Republicans, essentially, except for their rejection of pastoral Christianity and jingoism.There’s an irony in that. Here we have a group of young people high on Austrian economics, whose grandparents went to college on the GI Bill, whose parents attended accredited public universities and became professionals, and who consequently were able to grow up in leafy cul-de-sacs in Frank Capra neighborhoods with highways and power lines and fire departments. And now that they have reaped the benefits of the largest and fastest middle-class expansion in human history, largely thanks to the legacy of the welfare state, they have the luxury of loitering on the internet and crying fascism every time their state adjusts the tax rate. Because liberty.... The New Libertarians are just the latest of example of good old privilege blindness, this time toward state largesse in general. Libertarians sit on top of a world built by public welfare, kept safe by government from the squalor and violence of earlier times. Among the many benefits they enjoy is the luxury of ignoring that fact, and believing their lot has come to them through merit alone.
URL:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/73359/don-t-feed-the-trolls-and-other-advice-for-dealing-with-libertarians
- Add new comment
- 2343 reads
Comments
Good read. What is said in the article is true.
by trkingmomoe on Fri, 11/15/2013 - 1:11am
They'd do better steering clear of Ron Paul. Paul was the only presidential to steadfastly campaign for renewing diplomatic relations with Cuba, legalizing marijuana* and ending the vast drug incarceration of black men, of bringing home troops from Afghanistan now rather than later. If he's considered a libertarian, then not all libertarians are the same. He may have some crackpot predilection for the gold exchange and such, but that won't happen in our lifetimes, and I'm happy to have someone pushing the issues that all the grownups and party real politik types cave on.
*he actually put it down as "states rights", meaning he wouldn't be using the feds to attack California medical marijuana distribution, and would respect Washington & Colorado's decisions to legalize it.
by Anonymous pp (not verified) on Fri, 11/15/2013 - 7:35am
Ron Paul couldn't get a majority of a Republicans to cast votes for him.He would be dog meat when placed under Progressive scrutiny. The idea of an invincible Ron Paul is a myth.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 11/15/2013 - 8:07am
Invincible? Straw dog. And even Obama has trouble when placed under Progressive scrutiny. Perfect is always enemy of the luke warm.
by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Fri, 11/15/2013 - 9:23am
The advice was to avoid Ron Paul. The suggestion was that Ron Paul is too powerful to attack, in other words his position is invincible. I think you take on Paul head on. He is a nut. He is a racist and a misogynist. I think that not going after Ron Paul's nuttiness is a mistake. The more he is seen as the Libertarian icon, the more racism and misogyny become acceptable. If you attack Paul, you keep the racists and misogynists among the Libertarian in check. The public won't accept a little racism or misogyny for something they can accomplish without the Libertarians.
Ron Paul will play no part in the effort to legalize marijuana. Given our current Congress that battle will be fought in the states. Public opinion has shifted to a pro-legalization /decriminalization stance. The public will do what Ron Paul could not do in Congress.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 11/15/2013 - 9:52am
I don't really share this view. Yes, this generation of libertarians has completely and unfairly discounted how government helped them get where they are and they say very stupid things like Rand Paul objection to Civil Rights legislation on libertarian grounds.
Also, they are stupid on hard money and budget deficits.
But, they get some things right.
They oppose laws against consensual crimes including drug use, prostitution and gambling.
They oppose government surveillance programs and the unchecked security state.
They oppose most foreign wars started by the U.S.
They can be allies against the religious right.
I think many on the left work too hard to alienate these people. I also believe that, on the left, some libertarian causes (legalized marijuana, for example) are now being dismissed as issues that only privileged white people have time to worry about.
by Michael Maiello on Fri, 11/15/2013 - 8:59am
I'd say that Libertarians go out of their way to antagonize minority communities. They can be considered part of solvent drag in a shared goal of drug law reform, surveillance and foreign wars. I don't see any Libertarians acceptable tax the Leader of the battle from the standpoint of minority communities. Both Ron and Rand Paul have soured the water regarding minority outreach.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 11/15/2013 - 9:59am
I agree with that. Also, I have found that among some progressive activists in minority communities that legalization of consensual crimes is not exactly popular. They might be more willing to support treatment over incarceration for nonviolent offenders but legalization of drugs and gambling, much less prostitution, is not attractive to people who see those very things as having a negative impact in their neighborhoods.
by Michael Maiello on Fri, 11/15/2013 - 10:04am
It is possible that Lori Gottlieb gets some things right, too. But when she trolled about the ACA you felt the need to speak up.
by Donal on Fri, 11/15/2013 - 10:08am
There's another issue here, which is what define progressivism. In some cases I think the Libertarians are more progressive than some who get to speak for our side.
by Michael Maiello on Fri, 11/15/2013 - 10:10am
Does that mean they get a pass for advocating against other progressive issues?
by Donal on Fri, 11/15/2013 - 10:30am
Nope.
by Michael Maiello on Fri, 11/15/2013 - 10:47am
Hi Mike
Let me count all the ways in which you are wrong. You think Libertarians care about civil liberties, well unless you count women of course. Most Libertarians do not believe that women have the right to make decisions for their own bodies, therefore, they do not believe in basic civil liberties of the individual. The problem with Libertarians is that by and large they are men, young men, who really just care about themselves, and not other people at all.
I will never in a million years consider those people my allies. Oh and let's not discuss their abhorrent views on helping the poor, because they would once again they are exposed as overly privileged boys who care only about themselves. Let's not discuss how Libertarians have aligned themselves with white supremists and other disgusting people. And yet they still won't align themselves with women and the right to have a say over our own bodies. Oh let me just say this one more time, never in a million years will I ever align myself with them. I would stand with Max Fucking Baucus before I stood with them.
Libertarians, they just aren't a bunch of folks I can ever respect. And I will unlock this piece as NSFWCorp one more time so you can read exactly why these people cannot be trusted. You have 47 hours to read it, I hope you will.
by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 11/15/2013 - 11:37am
I did read it, but this sounded more interesting:
by Donal on Fri, 11/15/2013 - 11:49am
The question is...does it make sense, or is it really possible, to cherry pick the libertarian or Paulian position one likes and discard the rest?
My answer has been no.
If you look at Paul you'll find, I think, that those positions with which progressives agree are consequences of the positions with which progressives disagree.
So, his principal method for keeping military adventuring in check is by going onto the gold standard. If you can't print money, you won't have the money for foreign adventures. But you won't have money for a lot of other things, too, like all the safety net programs, which he doesn't mind at all.
In fact, he would work to get rid of safety net programs because he, and libertarians in general, regard them as unconstitutional. Not just bad, not just unafffordable, but unlawful.
So, for example, Paul has written a book on ending the Fed, but has he written a book on legalizing consensual "crimes"? He talks about it, and he hooks people that way, but what is his real interest? I would submit that it's gold.
Moreover, he sidesteps a number of issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, which he punts to the state level. This is not just because he wants to sidestep potentially explosive issues (courageous fellow that he is) but because he believes in outlawing at least the first of these acts. Letting the states do the outlawing is his way of sweeping the problem under the rug.
It's also worth noting that fringe candidates can always get away with taking more "daring" positions; they have very little to lose. So I'm always a little skeptical of their positions. When there's little at stake, it's easy to hold any position. Even sincerely hold those position. My cat sincerely believes in same-sex marriage and, believe it or not, has scratched out a position paper on it. Should we support her for president?
by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 11/15/2013 - 11:24am
When young, a large contingent of my generation didn't like the liberal vision of people like Hubert Humphrey much either. Not fans of the wholesome Peace Corps folk singers campaigning for him, but rather, Abby Hoffman et. al. I think he's underestimating the radicalism of youth factor. I suspect those types are mainly the ones acting trollish. Because it's heady and fun and exciting to counterculture the status quo. (Remember IronBoltBruce? I wouldn't describe him as a "young Republican" type beyond that he believed he could make money doing P.R. for libertarian views.)
by artappraiser on Fri, 11/15/2013 - 11:13am