That's the image chosen by the left in the 2011 Wisconsin protests. The shape of our state was visualized as a big fist by political partisans who had lost power in the fall 2010 elections but felt entitled to power. The Wisconsin left wasn't silent at all, but what it was noisy about was a desire to be the clunking fist of state power. Indeed, it felt that it already was the clunking fist of state power punching its way back to its rightful place.
Here's how the ACLU wrote about the Wisconsin-as-fist image back in February 2011 (at the height of the protest):
The Blue Fist has become an image of solidarity and strength not only for the Wisconsin union movement but for the global struggle for social justice and democracy.Door County is that extra jag next to the little finger. The ACLU doesn't explain the star. What's the association there? Communism? No, no, that would be a red star. This is a white star (on a blue field). Surely, it must refer to the stars on the American flag.
“We have to credit Scott Walker. He helped the Blue Fist come alive,” explained [Norm Carley, a UW-Milwaukee graduate from Steven’s Point, who "was part of the team that brought the Blue Fist to life"] “The fist has been a symbol of the struggle for years and years. Putting Door County on the closed hand, made the image into the Wisconsin Blue Fist."
Anyway, that's where my mental processes go when I hear about the left's silence about the clunking fist of state power. I'd like to hear more from libertarians of the left. But the left I see isn't critical of the fist. It wants to be the fist.
Posts
129 comments:
State Power is only a problem when you aren't in charge of running the State.
Even Small-Government Republicans can't resist.
"Imagine a fist pummeling a human face...forever."
Ann: There are no libertarians on the left.
AA:
I'd like to hear more from libertarians of the left.
These people do not exist.
I see the fist, I think of fisting.
I'd like to hear more from libertarians of the left.
If you think that there actually are any "libertarians of the left" then mentally you're not living in the 21st century.
But the left I see isn't critical of the fist. It wants to be the fist.
Yup.
So the Left in Wisconsin have been playing in airline toilet water or fisting Smurfs? Or both?
"Ann: There are no libertarians on the left."
What is the sound of one hand clapping? It's a punch in the face.
Ross Douthat wrote a really silly column on "liberaltarianism."
Isn't that star the state capital?
Madonna nailed it: "What they need is a Big Strong Hand to lift them to their higher ground"
Why do you think they worship the likes of Stalin, Castro and Che? The Left *wants* to be enslaved.
Althouse, you are confusing leftists with liberals.
Leftism is not a libertarian oriented political philosophy. It is authoritarian by design and un-American in it views of human rights and the State. They are about accruing power over other peoples lives, nothing less nothing more. They try to turn every opponent into sub-humans, so they can be disregarded as equal and swept away. Leftists will kill there opponents if they can get a chance. From Madame Guillotine to the Gulags and Lao Gai, they show their true nature.
The "fist" poster just screams "Revolutionary Communists Unite!" So retro. So reminiscent of Stalin. They spout the same stupid commie crap to this day.
I didn't punch you in the face, Ann.
Most libertarians don't believe in force or fraud to achieve political ends. This makes them diametrically opposed to progressives, who use force (Occupy Wall Street) and fraud ("If you like your plan you can keep it") all the time.
Many Democrats and "centrists" dream of peeling off some libertarians to vote for their candidates. But their M.O. (bribery using funds from the public trough) doesn't work that well. That's why Democrats are so freaked by the Tea Party. The Lyndon Johnson Great Society ploy -- which achieved amazing Democrat success in getting the black vote where their Ku Klux Klan wing failed -- is useless when a group rejects government largesse.
Still, Ross Douthat can fantasize...
I googled "libertarians of the left" and got over 4 million hits. The top hit was the Wikipedia article "Left-libertarianism."
Left-libertarianism can refer generally to three related and overlapping schools of thought:
Anti-authoritarian, anti-propertarian varieties of left-wing politics, and in particular of the socialist movement.
The Steiner–Vallentyne school, whose proponents draw conclusions from classical liberal or market liberal premises — either emphasizing links between self-ownership and egalitarianism. The term in this sense can also be seen as referring more broadly to political philosophies in the liberal tradition which embrace egalitarian views concerning natural resources, holding that it is not legitimate for someone to claim private ownership of such resources to the detriment of others. In this sense, the work of David Ellerman can also be seen as left-libertarian.
Left-wing market anarchism, which stresses the socially transformative potential of non-aggression and free markets.
The second hit goes to The Alliance of the Libertarian Left, "a multi-tendency coalition of mutualists, agorists, voluntaryists, geolibertarians, left-Rothbardians, green libertarians, dialectical anarchists, radical minarchists, and others on the libertarian left, united by an opposition to statism and militarism, to cultural intolerance (including sexism, racism, and homophobia), and to the prevailing corporatist capitalism falsely called a free market; as well as by an emphasis on education, direct action, and building alternative institutions, rather than on electoral politics, as our chief strategy for achieving liberation."
Agorists? "Agorism is a libertarian social philosophy that advocates creating a society in which all relations between people are voluntary exchanges by means of counter-economics... Agorists generally oppose voting for political candidates and political reform. Instead, agorists stress the importance of alternative strategies rather than politics to achieve a free society. Agorists claim that we can achieve a free society more easily and sooner by employing such alternative methods as education, direct action, alternative currencies, entrepreneurship, self sufficiency, and most importantly 'counter-economics.'"
I'd like to hear more from libertarians of the left. But the left I see isn't critical of the fist. It wants to be the fist.
So, what would you call such an abnormal link between libertarians and the left?
A fistula?
Fistula: an abnormal connection or passageway between two epithelium-lined organs or vessels.
Bathed by the fist, is fresh and delicate / As vernal corn-field, or unripe flax
Ann, can you name any actual leftist libertarians?
Don't forget anarcho-syndicalism!
"The ACLU doesn't explain the star."
That star would be Madison, the only city in the state that matters to the blue fisters.
Rejection of force or fraud to achieve political ends is a core belief of libertarians.
Anarchists are radical libertarians who get turned on by the violent and trendy cultural affects of the left. In a leftist government, the anarchists are the first ones to get shot.
And leftists are happy to have anarchists around for awhile, until they are no longer useful.
Ann: There are no libertarians on the left.
Unfortunately, many on the left have been duped by libertarians. By design. In his early days, Milton Friedman was a paid lobbyist shill, a propagandist who would say whatever he was paid to say.
"Lying To Liberals" Guide Book
The star is Madison. Sheeze.
You can google up whatever definitions you want, as a practical matter, people on the left in this country (probably everywhere) are not libertarians.
As stated above, name one example of a person you think is both on the left and a libertarian.
The article linked by garage is fraudulent. There is no "lying to liberals" guidebook. Rather, it's a foaming-at-the-mouth leftist propaganda piece that links to an unavailable 1977 archive of a Reason Magazine article.
Nice try.
garage,
That link reads like an explanation from a pimp on why he needs to keep a firm hand on all his "bitches".
Pimp's "firm hand" = fist.
Pimps, fisting, whatever.
If you actually try to make a fist like that, it doesn't look at all like Wisconsin.
Its so sad to see a former troll reduced to just dialing it in. Did you guys lop off Garage's balls while I was away?
Illuninati said...
Here is the traditional definition of the left:
In politics, the term left wing derives from the French Revolution, as radical Montagnard and Jacobin deputies from the Third Estate generally sat to the left of the president's chair in parliament, a habit which began in the Estates General of 1789. Throughout the 19th century in France, the main line dividing left and right was between supporters of the French Republic and those of the Monarchy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics
In the French Revolution 1793-1794 the leftists brought us the Reign of Terror. The entire 20th century was dominated by leftists followers of Marx who killed about 100,000,000 million people in one century to give us about a million murders a year. Leftists act with the ferocity of a religious belief which provides them with a sense of absolute moral superiority based on the mimetic process (not on any old fashioned absolute moral rules). Now days leftists like to call themselves liberals although as collective memory erases the crimes of the left the stigma of openly admitting ones Marxist sympathies is almost gone and many gladly embrace their socialist or Marxist title.
Fen, that's cruel. :)
The Wisconsin fist is made from a left hand, not a right hand.
How do you continue the "fist of state power" metaphor? The vagina of a supine electorate? The lubrication of propaganda?
Lefties are largely socialists. State power is how socialism gets anything done.
So, we really shouldn't assume that lefties but be for anything BUT state power. So long as its the type of state they're pushing.
When its a non lefty govt in power, all of a sudden they become libertarians arguing about the police state.
EDH wrote:
That link reads like an explanation from a pimp on why he needs to keep a firm hand on all his "bitches".
"You see, a pimp's love is very different from that of a square."
Fen, that's cruel. :)
Yea that was some sick rebuttal. "Troll!"
That logo is classic leftist imagery. Very Soviet in style.
jr565 said "Lefties are largely socialists."
No, all lefties are all socialists. Obama is a communist. Democrats are socialists. Even the good ones. It is all socialism and communism. Don't be big-minded and think otherwise. Lefties are small-minded and think forward, toward power.
"jr565 said...
Lefties are largely socialists. State power is how socialism gets anything done.
So, we really shouldn't assume that lefties but be for anything BUT state power. So long as its the type of state they're pushing.
When its a non lefty govt in power, all of a sudden they become libertarians arguing about the police state."
It amazes me that they can't connect the dots. A few months ago they were all concerned with the Fed "shutdown"...who was going to protect our food supply with no FDA. A few later they were all concerned when the FDA changed manure use on farms rules because it was going to hurt the organic farmer.
There was an attempt by some libertarians to merge liberalism and libertarians because as noted by libertarians they actually have a lot in common.
On foreign policy libertarians are the modern day liberal.
But the merger can never work out as there is a fundamental rift on matters of the economy and the state.
But I can see why SOME libertarians were fooled.Back when it was Bush liberals were speaking the libertarians language. Both on the police state and on govt spending.
Obama and co. sounded positively tea partyish when it came to the debt.
And so so Libertarians like Will Wilkinson thought there could be a merger.
Ah, but see, that' s because poor Will fell for the liberal con.
Also why I dont read much by him anymore (is he even still writing stuff?).
If he would fall for that anything else he would write can't be of much value.
That logo is classic leftist imagery. Very Soviet in style.
I think the Left gets off on that imagery.
"I see the fist, I think of fisting."
A ventriloquist and his dummy. The Hard Left and the Democrats.
Though Garage's link is otherwise worthless, it does inadvertently demonstrate why left-libertarianism ends up being such a contradiction in terms. The author, it's safe to say, wants a lot more things to be under political control-- but gets apopleptic over the most basic techniques of political salesmanship. How does he imagine these things are going to get decided once The People, United take over? (Would it have been better if the author of the Reason article had called it "framing"?)
In his 1977 "early days", Milton Friedman was 65 years old. Just goes to show how sneaky these libertarians can be.
Wisconsin might have the 3rd highest property taxes in the country. NJ is 1st, IL is 2nd.
The linked article is more interesting. At first I was surprised at the source. "The Guardian"?!? But eventually I got down to the money line in the final paragraph. Quote.
"It is not intended to overlook what only the state can do: redistribute income; confront corporate power; forge the international agreements we need to fight everything from climate change to corporate tax avoidance. But there is no argument for extending those truths into the kind of boundless leviathan that Britain has ended up with."
Do they really believe that you can have the former without it becoming the latter? Or is it just cynical propaganda?
The Wisconsin shaped fist isn't just threatening a punch in the face, it has a little switchblade sticking up next to the pinkie.
Paul the problem when We The People Take Over is that not everyone is with the program. That's why the left can never get rid of the fist.
My impression of the soi-disant "libertarian left" has always been that they're assuming away the "not everyone is with the program" part, and that's why they think they can dispense with the fist. (Cf. Ursula LeGuin's The Dispossessed, in which they're several generations into their anarcho-syndicalist utopia and yet everyone is-- improbably-- still with the program.)
If you think that there actually are any "libertarians of the left" then mentally you're not living in the 21st century.
There are libertarians of the left, but mostly "nookie" libertarians, big on free sex, abortion, and that sort of thing. The Soviets had to put them down in the 1920's as they didn't produce sufficient citizens for the state.
There was an attempt by some libertarians to merge liberalism and libertarians because as noted by libertarians they actually have a lot in common. On foreign policy libertarians are the modern day liberal..
I’ve noticed that whenever someone tries to suggest that libertarians and liberals have things in common they usually pick issues where there isn’t a clear libertarian position like abortion, SSM or foreign policy. A libertarian can just as easily be pro-life as pro-choice since abortion involves one person taking another person’s life. SSM has never been about “rights” but rather “benefits” that come from the recognition of a relationship. And foreign policy is about the relationship between states not between the state and citizens.
n his 1977 "early days", Milton Friedman was 65 years old
That's a great point. One that I didn't make.
Broccoli Scott, just how do your fellow conservatives treat gay people who want equal civil rights? I question how a gay person can be a conservative or right leaning libertarian and reconcile the abuse shown to "uppity" gays who have the nerve to defend hemselves. You must be a forgiving sort. Or have amnesia.
And foreign policy is about the relationship between states not between the state and citizens.
A highly popular category mistake among libertarians is to pretend that the states in question are individuals and then apply the non-aggression axiom as usual. (Iraq was just minding its business, and the US initiated force against it!)
Granted, they do still have the true observation that war always increases the state's power over its subjects-- but that word "always" is exactly the problem. Since it's true of every war, accepting it as a conclusive argument leaves you no stopping point short of pacifism.
Inga: "how do your fellow conservatives treat gay people who want equal civil rights?"
Hard to say, since you define "civil rights" so broadly. In your world we have a civil right to "free" birth control...
Maybe you could be more specific?
(and are you still pretending to be a nurse who can't recall what gauge the IV needle is?)
This is an impressively lazy post. Althouse waits until after she has already posted to read up on the topic on Wikipedia. Simply trolling the commentators with this one.
Why not start with Glenn Greenwald? I vaguely recall him having been in the news in recent months.
Fen, when you can't defend your arguments on the merits you resort to personal attacks, yawn, it's old and tired. Try to defend your stance on issues for once. I doubt you are capeable.
Inga. Which "civil rights" are being denied gays?
Inga even gays aren't gay 24/7. They get up and go to work like the rest of us and pay bills and taxes like the rest of us and gosh darn some of them don't like having to pay for things that don't benefit us, just like hetero people.
MadisonMan said...
State Power is only a problem when you aren't in charge of running the State.
Even Small-Government Republicans can't resist.
That's for sure. Check out South Carolina if you don't believe it. The legislature keeps its thumb on everything local it possibly can.
Broccoli Scott, just how do your fellow conservatives treat gay people who want equal civil rights? I question how a gay person can be a conservative or right leaning libertarian and reconcile the abuse shown to "uppity" gays who have the nerve to defend hemselves. You must be a forgiving sort. Or have amnesia.
Um, which president passed DOMA? Which president said they were for traditional marriage until the eve of the election?
Just because some jumped on the bandwagon recently doesn't mean they were always on the bandwagon.
Marriage is a Fundamental Right. 14 SC cases that say it IS.
Inga said...
...just how do your fellow conservatives treat gay people who want equal civil rights? I question how a gay person can be a conservative or right leaning libertarian and reconcile the abuse shown to "uppity" gays who have the nerve to defend themselves
I, and every conservative I have ever known, fully support equal civil rights for gays. They should have the right to marry. They do have the right to marry. They always have had the right to marry. What they can't do is insist that society treat something that is not a marriage as if it were a marriage. Straight people can't do that either.
As far as defending themselves, conservatives support the second amendment for all people, regardless of sexual orientation. Maybe if Mathew Shepard had been armed, he'd still be alive today.
The modern left is libertine, not liberal. They are stereotypically left-wing in their desire for money and control, which is to say they favor formation of authoritarian monopolies (i.e. intelligent design). Their great moral achievement is in degrading select human lives to a commodity throughout their evolution from conception to death. As with many of their causes, the population control protocol is designed to preserve an environment and standard of living for a select minority. They reject capital punishment, but favor state-sponsored execution of millions of human lives annually through lethal injection or dismemberment. They are bigots by virtue of their public pronouncements, but are entirely consistent with their internal motivations.
Evolutionary fitness is not a principle of a species but of a class. People voluntarily subscribe to the Dodo Dynasty at their own peril.
Tell that to Broccoli Scott or Palladian, Iggy, maybe they'll buy it.
Althouse wrote:
Agorists? "Agorism is a libertarian social philosophy that advocates creating a society in which all relations between people are voluntary exchanges by means of counter-economics.
This is why libertarians are not conservative (if you'd call Agorism libertarian). Any time you are talking about "creating a new socity" you are dealing with a revolutionary movement. How do you achieve such a change? Through some degree of force.
Same impulse as the Khmer Rouge remaking society.
We already had our revolution.
Whether they buy it or not does not change its truth.
We're now entering into the "conservatives have always been champions of gay rights" territory. Progress I guess.
Conservatives support rights. Period. Not gay rights, not straight rights.
If you think in terms of rights only applying to a subset of the population, then what you are thinking about are probably not rights.
Garage, they are fickle about what they want to consider "rights", it seems.
Ignorance is Bliss said...
I, and every conservative I have ever known, fully support equal civil rights for gays. They should have the right to marry. They do have the right to marry. They always have had the right to marry. What they can't do is insist that society treat something that is not a marriage as if it were a marriage.
This is weak piss as an argument, and the authoritarian tone doesn't help. When did you get to be the 'decider' on what people can and can't do?
Can you give an example of conservatives being fickle about what they consider rights?
Ignorance is Bliss said...
Can you give an example of conservatives being fickle about what they consider rights?
The right to privacy. Running hot and then cold on the Patriot Act and its consequences.
AReasonableMan said...
When did you get to be the 'decider' on what people can and can't do?
You make a valid point, and I admit that I was wrong.
They can insist. They can even stomp their feet if they want.
With regards to the patriot act most of what I've seen has been disagreement between different conservatives, not changes of opinion. This is similar to what I've seen from liberals.
Inga: "Garage, they are fickle about what they want to consider "rights", it seems."
This confusion of yours is the result of not understanding "fundamental rights" and instead wanting to elevate your particular political preferences to the status of rights.
This is why the left inevitably, inevitably, institutes hate speech rules, thought crimes etc whenever they gain sway in a particular environment.
The left's idea of rights always ends up including the "right" not to have to hear from any opposing viewpoints.
Iggy, marriage rights. Why be coy?
Inga said:
"I question how a gay person can be a conservative or right leaning libertarian and reconcile the abuse shown to "uppity" gays who have the nerve to defend hemselves."
The only person I've ever heard discuss "uppity" gays are leftists who are making up lies about conservatives.
garage mahal: "We're now entering into the "conservatives have always been champions of gay rights" territory."
Conservatives don't believe in "gay rights".
Conservatives believe in rights.
Period.
The left's idea of rights always ends up including the "right" not to have to hear from any opposing viewpoints
Yet you're here day after day stepping on rakes. We want righties like you talking as much as possible about your nutty and unpopular ideas.
Ignorance is Bliss: "
As far as defending themselves, conservatives support the second amendment for all people, regardless of sexual orientation. Maybe if Mathew Shepard had been armed, he'd still be alive today"
Probably not, considering the most conclusive evidence we have to date is that Mathew Shepard was murdered by his fellow meth-taking homosexual lover so, needless to say, his guard was probably down.
The Supreme Court ruled 14 times that marriage was a Fundamental Right. I trust their judgment more than your opinion Fen, er, I mean Drago.
garage: "Yet you're here day after day stepping on rakes."
Because the left does not (yet) control this blog.
That's why.
Where the left does control blogs (DailyKos, DemUnderground) opposing viewpoints (from the right) are banned.
Thanks for stepping on another rake garage.
You must have run out of undamaged rakes by now.
"Inga said...
Garage, they are fickle about what they want to consider "rights", it seems."
You aren't? So you think adults should be able to marry children? That it is their right?
A woman to marry an already married man?
garage: "We want righties like you talking as much as possible about your nutty and unpopular ideas."
LOL
Sure you do.
Which is why the lefties, where they have power, work so diligently to keep conservative voices unheard and shackled.
Once again,garages "take" (rhymes with rake) on things flies in the face of reality.
Thanks garage, though another example of your fundamental lack of comprehension was not really required.
Obama is a communist
I think Obama sees the world through communist colored glasses, but is more a fascist in actual practice.
Inga: "I trust their judgment more than your opinion Fen, er, I mean Drago."
Did you "trust" the Supreme Court opinion on whether or not to allow homosexual marriage prior to their ruling the way you wanted?
"Inga said...
The Supreme Court ruled 14 times that marriage was a Fundamental Right. I trust their judgment more than your opinion Fen, er, I mean Drago."
Seriously Inga, are you really that stupid to not understand that what is at issue whather marriage is a "right", but what "marriage is?
I mean I know you are stupid, but that stupid?
Inga said:
"The Supreme Court ruled 14 times that marriage was a Fundamental Right."
I'm curious to hear Inga's definition of a "fundamental right" and who confers "fundamental rights?" From this argument it sounds as if Inga believes that the Supreme Court has the power to confer fundamental rights probably because the Supreme Court is the government organ which has been empowered to convey those rights. Is that correct?
As I often say of State-cultists like "garage mahal," they've got the Mailed Fist so far up their rectums they can taste Rustoleum.
Which is why the lefties, where they have power, work so diligently to keep conservative voices unheard and shackled.
In your fevered mind I'm sure that is true.
Inga said...
Iggy, marriage rights. Why be coy?
I wasn't being coy, I was trying to avoid assuming that you were saying something stupid. Now that you have responded I don't have to assume.
Would you care to explain in what way conservative's opinions on marriage rights have changed?
AReasonableMan said...
This is weak piss as an argument...
By weak piss do you mean you are unable to refute it?
I didn't say they changed Iggy, y'all were always bigots where gays and blacks are concerned. Time to tell the truth.
Inga said...
I didn't say they changed Iggy...
You used the word fickle. Apparently you don't know what the word means. In a discussion about same-sex marriage.
This is a metaphor or something, right?
John Locke was most influential in bringing fundamental human rights into our country:
17th-century English philosopher John Locke discussed natural rights in his work, identifying them as being "life, liberty, and estate (property)", and argued that such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract. Preservation of the natural rights to life, liberty, and property was claimed as justification for the rebellion of the American colonies. As George Mason stated in his draft for the Virginia Declaration of Rights, "all men are born equally free," and hold "certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
If you pay careful attention, you will find that the fundamental rights can not be surrendered in the social contract, aka government. In other words fundamental human rights are above government. Any "rights" conferred by government are secondary and fungible.
This is a metaphor or something, right?
For Inga, yah pretty much. Just like "civil rights" means whatever she wants it to mean.
Homosexuals have been getting married for many years. I know because the husband of a college friend left her for another man. As far as I know, no one objected when the two men got married except for my friend. Her objection was that her former husband abandoned his children as well as his wife and left her to support them all by herself, despite the fact that she had metastatic breast cancer. Fortunately one of her female friends who was straight by the way stepped in and offered to take the children if my friend died.
So why do we have all this agitation on the left for us to change the definition of marriage? One possibility is that the left views government as the highest authority on earth standing in the place of God for theists. Perhaps the left views marriages between two individuals who love each other as less authentic unless they have been validated by a government bureaucrat.
Illuminati proves by means of unverified anecdote that gays are not perfect human beings. Who knew?
Love the spike where the sixth finger should be.
Adorable.
The right to life was once a fundamental even an unalienable right. Today, we have state-sponsored execution of around one million human lives annually through lethal injection or dismemberment, and for nothing more than sex, money, ego, and convenience. There are predictable consequences which follow from progressive morality. The denial of basic biological facts is equally perverse.
That said, the court cannot rule narrowly on this issue. If they uphold the ruling of the lower court only, then they are guilty of arbitrary discrimination (i.e. bigotry). The homosexual lobby, and especially their heterosexual patrons, should reconsider their position. They have framed the issue to serve their interests to the exclusion of any rational, consistent argument.
inga wrote:
"I didn't say they changed Iggy, y'all were always bigots where gays and blacks are concerned. Time to tell the truth."
the default ad homonim attack, calling repubs racists. Yawn.
"The truth is that the arrogant, centralised state is as much of a problem as the out-of-control market, and the dominion of one is symbiotically related to the tyranny of the other. From that, all else follows. The future politics of the left will either be pluralist, localist and libertarian, or it will shrivel."
It seems to me that leftist politics are already pluralist with the politicians calling the shots and the non-political groups becoming politically oriented with little hope of breaking the mold. What would ever cause the seat of power to shrivel?
Inga wrote:
"Iggy, marriage rights. Why be coy?"
What do those rights entail? Be specific.
Sigh.
Jr. It's obvious you didn't read my link, a 11:45 AM, did you?
" Fourteen times, since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is the fundamental right of all individuals".
"In these cases the court has reaffirmed freedom of personal choice is protected in the Due Process Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment, against the states unwarranted usurpation, disregard or disrespect."
I love being Inga's straw dog. If you really want to know what I think:
I support gay marriage. I support smaller government; and prefer the meataxe approach. I think the entire healthcare insurance industry deserved a big antitrust smackdown; but since the insurers contribute so much to Democrat congresscritter campaign coffers and show up at all their fundraising events, fat chance that will ever happen. ACA was a love letter to the insurance industry. Foreign policy should be cheaper and focused on, you know, protecting the country; not making fat defense contractors even more corpulent.
I think abortion, gay marriage, and gun control are the biggest squirrels in American politics. When they end up in the news cycle, it's often because somebody is trying to distract the electorate from something else that merits attention -- like government corruption, suffocating regulation, and the loss of civil liberties.
What do I think of social conservatives? I don't. But if a congresscritter is a reliable vote against big spending, I will forgive them for hand-wringing on gay marriage. The Tea Party groups avoid socon issues, and I enthusiastically support what they are doing. And I will never vote for a progressive who is "right" on gay marriage if they're wrong on the economy. Paul Wellstone is an object lesson on how progressives will throw gays and lesbians under the bus if it's expedient.
I think progressives are ignorant or vile, depending on whether or not they really know what they are doing to this country. But it doesn't matter which side of the divide you're on. Y'all are worthless in my book.
And that's what I think. Don't misrepresent me.
Poor Inga seems to think that the writers and signers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights thought they were including gay marriage as a Constitutional right, and that the Supreme Court was thinking of gay marriage when they called marriage a right in 1888. Is it possible that a literate human can be that ignorant? Apparently.
Inga wrote:
Fourteen times, since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is the fundamental right of all individuals".
"In these cases the court has reaffirmed freedom of personal choice is protected in the Due Process Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment, against the states unwarranted usurpation, disregard or disrespect."
Ok, but even if we say it is a right what does the right entail? I have a right to marriage. Can I marry my sister? Can i have a harem.
Or are they saying you have a right to marry so long as you meet the requirements of marriage, and not that marriage means whatever you want it to mean.
The writers of the Constitution were slave owners, were they not? So does it follow that slavery is right and just? Dr. Weevil, you have a piss poor argument.
When the Supreme Court decided that marriage was a right, if we are going by your argument marriage was defined as between a man and a woman only.
Was the Supreme Court saying you had a right to more than how marriage was defined?
No.
The writers of the Constitution were slave owners, were they not? So does it follow that slavery is right and just? Dr. Weevil, you have a piss poor argument.
The supreme court argued that blacks were 3/5ths of a man. Does that make the Supreme court always right?
Inga wrote:
Fourteen times, since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is the fundamental right of all individuals".
Ok, is a one year old an individual? Yes. Does he have a right to marriage? Yes. Can he marry as a one year old? No.
Why not? Because marriage as defined doesn't allow one year olds to marry.
The Supreme Court would uphold that argument. They also upheld the restriction on polygamy. Despite saying that everyone has a right to marry.
Are an incestual couple individuals? Yes.
Do they have a right to marry? Yes.
Do they have a right to marry each other? No.
I can go down the list of restrictions in marriage and apply the same test. And you'll see that the Supreme Court was not saying you had a right to marry the way you are saying you have a right to marry.
Because if that were so, then the incestual couple would have a right to marry.
But they dont.
Scott, you represent yourself. I merely wonder why or how you think the way you do as a gay person. It makes no sense to me, but hey if it makes sense to you, that's all that matters. To some people money means everything.
Inga: So you would see Scott as sort of off the plantation? Like a black conservative? Confusing to you?
Amazing, isn't it, inga.People have more dimensions than their sexual preferences. Conservative leaning people tend to be more accepting than you party apparatchiks.
Inga said...
Fourteen times, since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is the fundamental right of all individuals.
Yes, and as I said before, this is a right that gays already have, the same as anyone else. To see them as being denied a right you first must redefine marriage, something that none of the Supreme Court rulings even hint at.
Speaking of "piss-poor arguments": because the Founders (not all of whom were slave-owners) permitted but did not endorse something they knew to be wrong, but thought would soon wither away (slavery), they must also have intended to permit, indeed to require others to permit, something they never imagined anyone would think was a human right (gay marriage). Someone here is utterly clueless, and I don't think it's me.
Scott, in response to Inga, makes a wonderful case for small government, ending with a request to Inga to not misrepresent him.
Inga replies with...
Scott, you represent yourself.
...
To some people money means everything.
Request denied.
Inga, it's not about money, it's about liberty.
If you don't get that, then you will never understand the motivations and passions of libertarians; ones that transcend conformist notions of gender politics.
@Althouse, nice of you to come up with a list of "libertarians of the left" in your 9:25 comment. But do more than a negligible handful of such people exist among the 313 million inhabitants of the United States?
Sure, it's possible to identify strains of leftist political philosophy that selectively incorporate libertarian-ish thinking, but, at least in my experience, proponents of those strains tend to be a lot more "left" than "libertarian", especially when pushed to reveal practical policy preferences.
It reminds me a little bit about the left's use of "democratic" ideals: there may be over four million hits for "libertarians of the left", but there are more than 350 million hits for "people's democratic republic".
Althouse,
Sure you'd like to hear from the libertarian left, and you even found a wiki page about them.
But, let's be realistic.
All fifteen of them are pretty busy, so it may take quite a while for someone to get back to you.
CWJ @ 10:39am,
Look, there's hope for this author. The cognitive dissonance is beginning to get to him; he's starting to notice the cracks in the facade.
Now he may well get frightened some day and scurry back to warm, comforting Big Brother... but he might just take the leap to freedom, too. Here's hoping he does!
I like the "stepping on rakes" imagery! Is that original to you, garage mahal?
Brings to mind lots of cartoons from my boyhood. It might be a way to guess your age, in fact.
Imagine a world covered with rakes. You eat breakfast, drink your coffee, and go out the door. Rake! No, it's OK; this one is teeth-down. Rake! Crap, this one is teeth-up! That'll be difficult to explain in the 10:00 meeting.
Rake! Crap, who put that in the hallway?!
Inga wrote:
Scott, you represent yourself. I merely wonder why or how you think the way you do as a gay person. It makes no sense to me, but hey if it makes sense to you, that's all that matters. To some people money means everything.
NOt sure if Scott is gay or if you are saying he's gay. But, do you think that gay republicans are the equivalent of uncle toms?
The movie V for Vendetta would NEVER be made when an Obama was in office. And more certainly an actress like Natalie Portman would NEVER be in a movie like V for Vendetta if it were an Obama white house.
In V for Vendetta, the main character is out to destroy the govt because it's so Naziish (stand in for Bush's govt and when written stand in for Reaganism/Thatcherism.
And at the end the citizens become terrorists dressed in Guy Fawkes masks and engage in acts of terrorism to overthrow the evil regime.
Darth Vader will not say "if you're not with me then you're my enemy" (echoing Bush's "if you're not with us, you're against us") and Obi Wan won't anwer "Only a Sith lord deals in absolutes" if the president was Obama.
(And if you have a light side of the force and a dark side of the force, that kind of implies an absolute George Lucas. So, the Jedi also deal in absolutes. And they are against the Sith absolutely).
Post a Comment