Give me liberty? Give me a break

I once thought of myself as having a libertarian streak, but if it means that my views are aligned with those of Robert Thatcher and John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, then I probably do not [“Wholly Satisfied with Whole Foods,May 4 Xpress].

To say that there is no political consensus on global warming would be a correct statement, but to say that there is no scientific [consensus] is just ignorant. It's not hard to find the facts. For example, more than 90 percent of climate scientists agree with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Perhaps Thatcher should check this out with scientists rather than with CEOs of corporations.

A viewpoint opposite to the scientific consensus — as is John Mackey's — is not courageous, but merely stupid and obstinate. His pronouncement that no one has an "intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter" seems contrary to the Declaration of Independence, that people have “unalienable rights” to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” (it's pretty hard to be happy without food), or to the Constitution's assertion that the proper role of government is to provide for the general welfare. If it's unfettered capitalism that you want, then Somalia is where you need to be — no pesky government regulations there.

Me, I'm not that big on governmental control of social behavior that doesn't harm any bystanders, but I do believe that capitalism is more than a sheep and two wolves voting on what's for dinner. Using the free market (the profit motive) as the sole guide to a better society is way too Ayn Randish and social Darwinistic for me. No society in history has ever survived under that governing philosophy, and I don't think that stupid ideas deserve equal consideration, even when they are popular.

— Glen Reese
Asheville

SHARE
About Webmaster
Mountain Xpress Webmaster

72 thoughts on “Give me liberty? Give me a break

  1. The writer is confused on a number of counts.

    1. Capitalism requires government. It requires the absence of political controls on the economy and an objective rule of law that protects individual rights, including property rights. Somalia is not an example of this. Somalia is an example of anarchy, or no protections for rights. It is a counter example. For an explanation of the proper role of government in a free society, see this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcZ5ugzniCQ

    2. Having the negative rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as we do, does not imply that others must provide us with our material needs and wants. It means that we each have a right to be free from interference from others in exercising our judgment and taking action in the world. For a proper understanding of man’s rights, see this essay: http://is.gd/rEqa2R

    3. Global warming is a hoax. Who doesn’t get that now?
    ……………………..

  2. As the dismal public education system has failed, how often these common mistakes are made.

    The natural born human unalienable rights fundamental to liberty and outlined in the Dec of Ind are just that – rights, not entitlements. Notice that the words “pursuit of happiness”‘ do not include a guarantee.

    This means no one should be prohibited from exercising their rights, unless they have violated the individual rights of others.

    Also, GENERAL welfare is stated as being for the “US of America” as a whole entire nation, not SPECIFIC welfare for individuals — just as a gov’t created “INCORPORATION” should not be considered an individual.

    A heathy economy is only possible in a true capitalistic free market. Nations fail when the market is controlled or otherwise interfered with. Free markets are most often prohibited, thus one reason for the plethora of failed nations.

    The failure to maintain a Constitutionally LIMITED & ACCOUNTABLE gov’t, in both the social AND economic arenas, will prove to be a fundamental cause for the impending collapse of this world as we have known it.

    Status quo authoritarian collectivism, socialism or fascism, has gotten us to our present dismal state. Let’s give liberty a chance… for a change!

    Google Ron Paul & Dan Eichenbaum — 2012 Revolution! 8-)

  3. Dionysis

    “3. Global warming is a hoax. Who doesn’t get that now?”

    Oh, the majority of the world’s scientists and most everyone else with more than two brain cells to rub together.

    Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

    “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.” (October, 2009)

    American Meteorological Society: Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society

    “Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change.” (February 2007)

    American Physical Society: Statement on Climate Change

    “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.” (November 2007)

    American Geophysical Union: Human Impacts on Climate

    “The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.” (Adopted December 2003, Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007)

    American Association for the Advancement of Science: AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change

    “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.” (December 2006)

    Geological Society of America: Global Climate Change

    “The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries.” (October 2006)

    American Chemical Society: Statement on Global Climate Change

    “There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century.” (July 2004)

    National Science Academies

    U.S. National Academy of Sciences: Understanding and Responding to Climate Change (pdf)

    “The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.” (2005)

    International academies: Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change (pdf)

    “Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring.” (2005, 11 national academies of science)

    International academies: The Science of Climate Change

    “Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.” (2001, 16 national academies of science)

    Who to believe? The majority of the world’s best scientific minds and our own eyes, or the selfish pronouncements of a relatively small group of pikers who chronically complain about everything, while embracing some goofball ‘philosophy’?

  4. Robert Malt

    The author is obviously very confused, but rather than taking the time to refute him point by point, I’ll simply say this:

    The right to the pursuit of happiness does not equal the right to use government to steal from others on your behalf.

  5. Dionysis

    “The right to the pursuit of happiness does not equal the right to use government to steal from others on your behalf.”

    You mean like the estimated $125 billion in corporate welfare siphoned from U.S. taxpayers? Agreed.

    From the libertarian Cato Institute:

    “…corporate welfare cost American taxpayers $92 billion in fiscal 2006, a figure that has grown to approximately $125 billion per year. And, the beneficiaries include such major companies as Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, and General Electric.

    The Cato Institute defined corporate welfare as “any federal spending program that provides payments or unique benefits and advantages to specific companies or industries.” Stephen Slivinski, director of budget studies of the think tank, conducted a detailed policy analysis of the issue in 2007 titled, “The corporate Welfare State: How the Federal Government Subsidizes U.S. Businesses.

    The report shows that despite all of the public pleas for the federal government to play a reduced role in private businesses, many Fortune 500 companies are using the federal government as their personal ATMs and have made no moves to get off of the dole.

    The largest direct subsidy program in the federal budget is for crop and farm subsidies. Even though Congress voted in the late 1980s to phase out agricultural subsidies, they have instead increased during the past years, rising from $9.3 billion in 1990 to $24.3 billion in 2005.

    Most farmers don’t receive direct subsidies from the federal government…So, where does all the taxpayer money spent on farmers actually go? Mainly to large corporate agribusinesses and the richest farmers. In 2005…the richest 10 percent of all subsidy recipients received 66 percent of all subsidies.”

    http://www.thecincinnatiherald.com/news/2011-02-05/Commentary/Democrats_and_Republicans_Should_End_Corporate_Wel.html

  6. Robert Malt

    Stealing is stealing. To be intellectually honest and consistent, you cannot say that (corporate) looters are bad, but (individual) moochers are ok. Both are undesirable and enabled by government.

  7. Corporate welfare is not capitalism. Corporate welfare is government interference in the free market.
    …………………………………..

  8. Charles Swann

    What’s so laughable about people like Tim Peck and InfinityBBC? They claim that a completely unchecked free market is the only answer, and yet they have no proof whatsoever of this system at work in the actual world.

    And Robert: I think we can say that corporate looting on the scale of millions of dollars is far far worse than someone who’s receiving 50 dollars in food stamps every month. I mean, if we’re being intellectually honest. No one would claim that a 15 year old who killed someone in self defense is the same as a genocidal despot.

  9. dpewen

    Great letter and I agree … libertarians will not succeed in this country.
    I also will not shop at Whole Foods!

  10. travelah

    Property is theft.

    Stop appropriating stolen goods and start floating.

  11. Quid

    This “omg Somalia is Libertarian” fallacy is getting old. Its almost as old as the fallacy that the constitution somehow claims your rights are to be provided for you.

    If you don’t like capitalism, fine. However, at least understand what it is first.

  12. bill smith

    If you think you like capitalism, fine. However, at least understand what it actually is first.

  13. “yet they have no proof whatsoever of this system at work in the actual world.”

    Hong Kong.

    Someday we should try it in America instead of continuing to push toward the demonstrated failure of socialism.
    …………………..

  14. Hugh Akston

    Keep up the good work Mr. Peck, time and time again you have shown the naysayers the door. How many times will you have to make the same (brilliant) argument to the willfully ignorant? Yes, Hong Kong is an excellent example of what this country should be. If only we had the proper leadership! Would you consider running for public office sir. Seriously, I would be honored to support you in any way I could.

  15. bill smith

    [i]Hong Kong.[/i]

    Ah, so all we have to do is be protected by a large super-power’s military, while benefitting from a carefully-protected place in the market. ISn’t hat what we have now?

  16. sharpleycladd

    Hong frigging Kong. Give me a break. Jeez. Gawd. Hivemind hell. Yes, Mr. Peck, I agree that Hong Kong has produced great novelists, humorists, agronomists, philosophers, but they all head the head/thorax/abdomen thing going on. The human being people are pretty miserable.

    Absolutely inhumane your philosophy is.

  17. mule

    Finally a “libertarian” admits that such a system can only flourish within a totalitarian state.

  18. Hugh Akston

    Uh, yes. Let me quote Rand on this: Never the rose without the prick!

  19. sharpleycladd

    Demonstrate, for me, the failure of America’s mixed economy (we are not a socialist country, by the way). The National Parks System, including the Blue Ridge Parkway, Social Security, Microsoft, Medicare, McDonald’s, public libraries, the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System, General Motors (that’s a good one, private auto company that built exactly 138 private autos during WWII and our government just bailed it out) etc.

    If we fail in this country, it is (until lately, see Tim Moffitt and other Republicans) our singular ineptitude at consolidating power in one place. You got your government, your tycoons, your trade unions, and all these sloppy constituencies that want to have dignified retirements, access to public facilities no matter what color they are, etc. It is a mess.

    Doubtless, one government composed of one people (ein reich? ein volk?) would be no end of neater. Then, we could locate the Other outside our borders and wage war on it.

    All in the name of liberty, of course.

  20. Ken Hanke

    I’m still waiting for one of these commoner libertarians to explain just where they expect to end up in this utopian foodchain they like so much. Being an Ayn Rand fanboy can only take you so far. And since this is all about self-interest, what is it they expect to reap? What great talents or skills do they possess? What do they produce that will make them one of the elite?

  21. Dionysis

    “What great talents or skills do they possess? What do they produce that will make them one of the elite?”

    An excellent question, which so far has gone unanswered. It is interesting that throughout the history of this country, including today, so many people have been successful in spite of the burdensome constraints of our mongrel system, yet Mr. Peck habitually blames this country’s lack of a “pure capitalist system” for his own inability to do the same. Oh, if only the U.S. would jettison its current political/economic system and warmly embrace Objectivism, he would soar to the top.

  22. it’s amazing how the masses — seemingly especially those in and around Asheville — are so against any increase of personal liberties, while they seem to so enjoy and willfully embrace the continued increase of tyranny.

    what do “you people” really want? will you be happy when gov’t dictates every single aspect of your lives? well, you’ve not all that long to wait, for i cannot think of many areas of private life which haven’t yet been violated by the tyrant government We the People have allowed to fester for decades.

    whether it’s control over the bedroom or the economy, the collectivist mindset has a stranglehold over the minds of the masses — the BORG. it matters not whether it comes from the “political right or left”, which is a deception in and of itself.

    the collectivist mind wants nothing more than to force its will upon the will of the individual mind using the power of gov’t. in the process, the collectivist mind makes excuses for stealing the resources of future generations, saying it’s all for the “common good” or “general welfare” of the people. yet there seems to be no accountability for these authoritarian actions of socialists & fascists.

    for example, the author of this erroneous article seems to long for the continued government intervention in the marketplace. two wonderful examples of this are in the areas of education and health care / medicine.

    however, he and his fellow local BORG ignore the fact that since the federal gov’t got involved in the area of health care, it has caused MASSIVE increases in cost, while in public education, MASSIVE decreases in quality.

    gee, is it any wonder why more and more Americans are getting wiser to the status quo elitist partisan duopoly and are finally turning to libertarian philosophies?

    and FYI, Ayn Rand is not the lone author of libertarian philosophy, so please get a grip.

    but excuse me all you local “Neo-Libs” for interrupting all the personal attacks, as you all seem to have nothing more to rely upon — just like the “Neo-Cons”, you all serve tyranny so wonderfully… which is EXACTLY what your slaveholders want you to do! 8-)

  23. Hugh Akston

    “What great talents or skills do they possess? What do they produce that will make them one of the elite?”

    For some of us, it is reward enough to be philosophically elite.

  24. Ken Hanke

    And once again, the question goes unanswered by one of the libertarian reps. What’s so hard about telling the rest of us what you expect to gain by this unfettered capitalism dream?

  25. Hugh Akston

    what do “you people” really want? will you be happy when Big Business dictates every single aspect of your lives?

    Mr. Catatrophe, I am troubled by your continual attacks on freedom.

  26. Hugh Akston

    And once again, the question goes unanswered by one of the libertarian reps. What’s so hard about telling the rest of us what you expect to gain by this unfettered capitalism dream?

    The separation of the chaff from the wheat will be reward enough for me Mr. Hanke.

  27. mule

    “the collectivist mind wants nothing more than to force its will upon the will of the individual mind using the power of gov’t.”

    If you fashion yourself a hat out of tinfoil, the government thought rays can’t reach your brain.

  28. “What’s so hard about telling the rest of us what you expect to gain by this unfettered capitalism dream?”

    1. I would refer the gentleman to the comments I made moments ago. The one with links. In short, economic liberty, peace and prosperity and the only moral social system that is consonant with human nature.

    2. The ratio of valid argument vs. insult and personal attack is interesting. What? — about 20 to 1? What a waste of time for me.
    ………………………….
    ………………….

  29. sharpleycladd

    The state of nature, post-Eden anyway, is slavery. Governments can mediate the aggregation of power in a few hands and the subjugation of the vulnerable. They do not always do this, but they can.

    The letter-writer’s reference to Somalia was attacked pretty violently by some, probably because it’s true. The right-off-the-bat, scorched-earth nixing of Somalia as a talking point is very telling. The “starve the beast” club that would bankrupt government and deliver the poor and vulnerable to the tender mercies of organized capital really doesn’t want to talk about places where the pursuit of cash money has already overridden human decency and the law.

    And lest any Neitzschean supermen in the audience think they’ll make out all right in a society where power has been redistributed from the polis to the cartels: In the face of corporate interests that have more cash at their disposal than most nations, we are all poor and vulnerable. Power abhors a vaccuum, etc.

    I’m still hung up on hearing America described as a “failure,” frankly, and chalk that unfortunate remark up to some overblown rhetoric in defense of a supposed-but-never realized system of government (non-government?) that cannot possibly work for more than 3-4 people at the top.

    America is a mess. Being a citizen requires a good deal of attention, an alert eye for compromises that don’t smell nearly as bad as other compromises, and a thoroughgoing distaste for ideology. What is required is principle, which is something that libertarianism in general, and Randian objectivism in particular, really and truly lack.

    An ideology composed around the central tenet of self-interest cannot, by its very nature, behave in a principled way. There is only self-interest, which may be served by different strategies in different situations. There is absolutely no room for negotiation or compromise, other than on the basis of calculations of relative abilities to deliver violence between one and his/her opponent.

    “Collectivism,” as it’s so derisively referred to by some here, is actually a host of political philosophies that are rooted beyond the narrow, selfish, parochial self. “Collectivist” philosophies, whether they’re hardcore socialist or New Deal American soak-the-rich or welfare-to-work Democratic Leadership Council ideas, face the fact that some people don’t learn, earn and adapt to change as well as others, and do something about it. Usually the expensive thing, never exactly the right thing, but there you are. The water’s safe to drink, old people aren’t eating dog food, and – if it weren’t for these wars – we’re only out about 18% of GDP.

    This is how adults think. Life is full of surprises, almost none of which are anticipated by rigid ideologies like Marxism and Randian Objectivism (in the end, in terms of orthodox misanthropy, is there really a difference?).

    I have college-age kids, and enjoy their animadversions into this or that ideological dead end. And I tell them, when they fall in love and have children, they’re going to have no room for the evil, callous “sucks to be you” approach objectivists/Leninists have toward people with diabetes and the Romanovs.

    It’s called growing up.

  30. [b]2. The ratio of valid argument vs. insult and personal attack is interesting. What?—about 20 to 1? What a waste of time for me.[/b]

    You do know that you just said that for every 20 valid arguments there were 1 insults and personal attacks, right?

    Ratios? How do they work?

  31. Hugh Akston

    In short, economic liberty, peace and prosperity and the only moral social system that is consonant with human nature.

    Well said Mr. Peck.

  32. Ken Hanke

    In short, economic liberty, peace and prosperity and the only moral social system that is consonant with human nature.

    But you won’t or can’t tell us how you expect to personally benefit?

  33. sharpleycladd

    Muzak in their barns is consonant with bovine nature, and yields sweeter milk. You can look it up.

  34. indy499

    Hanke, I expect to distinguish myself and benefit from utopian capitalism by working very modestly as undistinguished movie reviewer.

  35. “what do “you people” really want? will you be happy when Big Business dictates every single aspect of your lives?”

    Big Business is ALREADY dictating every single aspect of our lives in Neo-Amerika through its own crony UN-Limited & UN-Accountable government. therefore, consider waking up to this fact.

    what most liberty advocates want that i’ve met is to live freely, within the boundaries of unalienable individual liberties, while not violating the individuals liberties of other individuals.

    wherever/whenever the rights of any individual are violated, by another individual or corporation, it is then the responsibility of government to protect those rights — that is the proper function of gov’t, which has largely been lost in Neo-Amerika, from local, to state, to federal.

    the question that i’ve been presenting is how much more of the same do YOU PEOPLE — “Progressives” / Socialists / Fascists / Neo-Libs / Neo-Cons — want???

    if you all truly want to continue on the same track that is desired by all these tyrants — these people who want to control the lives of individuals — then just keep following the collectivist mindset and enjoy tyranny.

    but just remember that there are many other individuals who do not want tyranny to continue on its continued long running course. there are those of us who actually enjoy freedom — both social freedom AND economic freedom.

    those who CHOOSE to live in gated communities OR communes SHOULD have the right to do so. HOWEVER, they DO NOT have the right to FORCE everyone else to do likewise.

    the more the collectivists attempt to force their socio-fascist agendas upon individualists, the more the individualists will resist in order to protect what few freedoms we have left.

    but if you continue to refuse to look at the FACTS (for example as i posted earlier, how the intrusion of the free market by government in the areas of public education and health care has proven to be a dismal failure), and mindlessly continue calling for MORE gov’t intervention, thinking somehow that it’s magically going to improve, then you are simply playing the fool.

    “But you won’t or can’t tell us how you expect to personally benefit?”

    the answer is to your question which has ALREADY been answered in previous posts, is that We the People — all of us — would benefit by being a nation of FREE people with a thriving economy. we would ALL be more free to pursue our own individual happiness. our judicial system might actually finally make sense and only punish true criminals that violate the unalienable individuals rights of others.

    again… we’ve been living under a Socialist-Fascist gov’t for around 100 years — for simplicity, i generally reference 1913, as that’s the birth year of the Federal Reserve & “Income Tax” (originally, supposed to be ONLY a capital gains tax for the rich, but we know how that went).

    the Liberty/individualist faction of contemporary society continues to ask the authoritarian/collectivist factions if they REALLY want to maintain this status quo. if so, then keep right on with gov’t politics as usual, placing the same old authoritarian collectivists into political offices, and continue serve your slave masters well.

    we advocates of LIBERTY will continue to try and educate those who have ears to hear, minds to think, and hearts to care enough about the future of humanity, and what kind of world our children will inherit.

    for those reading this thread who do, i ask that you consider watching this short video i’ve embedded in my blog, entitled “The Philosophy of Liberty”:

    http://infinityliberty.blogspot.com/

    i also ask that you consider Dr. Ron Paul and Dr. Dan Eichenbaum (local) in this upcoming primary — i registered Unaffiliated so that i can support liberty candidates on whichever ballot they reside.

  36. Ken Hanke

    Hanke, I expect to distinguish myself and benefit from utopian capitalism by working very modestly as undistinguished movie reviewer.

    Trust me, you’ll be living very modestly.

  37. bill smith

    [i]Big Business is ALREADY dictating every single aspect of our lives..[/quote]

    And you think REMOVING the tiny shred of regulations which marginally limit those corporations will DECREASE their influence? How so? Please explain.

    Will this ‘free market’ prevent another BP Gulf episode? Will it clean up the toxic spills in the WNC region?

    Please explain, in detail, how the little guy will prevent the big guy from stepping all over him in this ‘free market’.

    Thank you.

  38. sharpleycladd

    Ouch!

    “May a State … produc[e] a substantially fraudulently altered official trial record; which … is obviously wantonly fraudulently deleted, abbreviated, juxta positioned, hashed together, jumbled and lengthened with substitute material in an obvious attempt to keep secret the gestapo like farce kangaroo court trial to support an unjust felonious conviction of the citizen, a volunteer Veteran of World War II …”

    I had to do some abbreviating and juxta positioning to fit that in.

  39. mule

    “we’ve been living under a Socialist-Fascist gov’t for around 100 years — for simplicity, i generally reference 1913, as that’s the birth year of the Federal Reserve & “Income Tax” (originally, supposed to be ONLY a capital gains tax for the rich, but we know how that went).”

    Seriously dude…..Reynolds Wrap is half price at Ingles right now. Stock up.

  40. sharpleycladd

    Instead of benefiting the common man, they seek to gratify the insatiable desires of the playboy scum-on-top.

  41. bill smith

    ugh, damn coding:

    [b]Big Business is ALREADY dictating every single aspect of our lives..

    And you think REMOVING the tiny shred of regulations which marginally limit those corporations will DECREASE their influence? How so? Please explain.[/b]

    Will this ‘free market’ prevent another BP Gulf episode? Will it clean up the toxic spills in the WNC region?

    Please explain, in detail, how the little guy will prevent the big guy from stepping all over him in this ‘free market’.

    Thank you.

    (having to wait a day or two to have a post appear sure kills the conversation)

  42. bill smith

    [b]Economic liberty in Montford:[/b]

    Oh, but IS it economic liberty, Mr Peck?Did she buy those lemons on the free market, or was their price subsidized by the taxpayers, and harvested with illegal labor?

  43. sharpleycladd

    The writer is correct on a number of counts.

    1. While laissez-faire capitalism has its extremely misinformed supporters, the fact is that virtually no wealth in this country has been created without government intervention. From expropriation of native lands, deeding of land grants in Oklahoma and for the transcontinental railroad, through the massive infusion of federally-paid college tuition and mortgage financing in the postwar GI Bill, on to such technological innovations as the internet and pharmaceutical advances driven by federal research, only government is capable of capitalizing on technological and geopolitical trends and developments, and the actions of our government are responsible for the affluence we enjoy today. Those who espouse the “lone great man” theory underlying laissez-faire capitalist thinking are sadly misinformed.

    2. Global warming due to human activity is well-settled science, and those who seek to deny it invariably have ulterior – usually economic – reasons for denying the plain facts of the matter. Or they’re just unintelligent, or lszy.

    Kudos to the letter-writer. Our nation needs more well-informed citizens.

    ………….

  44. uh-oh

    I just wish “the pursuit of happiness” had made it into the Constitution. If you can buy happiness I suppose it did.

    While I am skeptical about predictions about the climate, I am sure that Man influences the environment

  45. uh-oh

    I just wish “the pursuit of happiness” had made it into the Constitution. If you can buy happiness I suppose it did. Of course everybody’s ideas about happiness isn’t remotely the same.

    While I am skeptical about predictions about the climate, I am sure that Man influences the environment,thus climate, in the most negative ways. Anyone who doesn’t think the environment and climate aren’t related also goes with the earth being the center of the universe and flat, or just feels continued comfort in excessively wasteful life style. Since there is no easy cure it is just easier to yell “hoax!” and bitch about the price of fuel and the good old days.

  46. Wolf's Head

    Most all of you need to learn the name of Edward Bernays and realize that you’re mostly not even debating the relevant points here as your talking points have been given to you by your “government masters” by your watching too many hours of American Idol.
    Then realize that the word “democracy” is the one forced down your throats by those same masters. We are indeed a Republic, or were until last week’s “Master’s Meeting” passed the Patriots Act again while all you little sheep were squabbling over meaningless points of contention.

    Chomsky’s words ring ever so true here:
    “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”

    Oh, and know this, we’ve never actually seen the Invisible Hand of the free market work as Big Brother needs both hands to keep you in line and living in the illusion of freedom.

    Time to wake up and learn Brothers and Sisters, Resistance is alive and Revolution at hand so learn, and learn quickly as opportunity draws nigh but time is short and the window open but for a brief time.

    Remember this, there is strength in numbers and we are ALL one, to see this is only to open one’s eyes…..

  47. bill smith

    [i]Time to wake up and learn Brothers and Sisters, Resistance is alive and Revolution at hand so learn,[/i]

    Is it on sale down at the Hot Topic again this summer?

  48. sharpleycladd

    I know Edward Bernays, and I’m sadly familiar with the reaction to his work in the form of such exogenous ideologies as objectivism, which is clung to with such thoroughgoing peoplehatingness in these boards that the comparison to Naziism – just on the basis of pure meanness – is unavoidable.

    Generally, societies don’t got through major category breakdowns (e.g., a revolution that would have us calling one another brother and sister, or Tim Peck’s revolution, which would have us curing dead winos in the shed for sale to passersby as bacon or scrapple) without a buttload of violence.

    I’m just saying.

    Edward Bernays notwithstanding, I don’t differentiate between one ideology and another if their path to change involves violence. The fact is, if you live in a culture, you have to argue your position in terms other people can understand, terms other people are familiar with.

    There’s more to a language than mere words.

    Violence is a language, too, blissfully free of those troubled words and categories that “the man” might have laid out for you.

  49. sharpleycladd

    I certainly wasn’t suggesting that Mr. Peck would kill winos, only that – since there’s neither a public health department to collect the corpses of substance abusers who’re dropping like flies without the benefit of a social safety net of any kind, and – since there’s no Department of Agriculture to inspect meats for minimum standards of safety, cleanliness, and non-human-ness, well…

    Waste not, want not.

  50. sharpleycladd

    By the way, the Lew Rockwell thing could be tighter, logic-wise. There are a few spurious predicates, among other things.

    If I have a brain tumor that makes me think like a libertarian, can I shoot the doctor who drills into my skull – my property – to relieve the pressure?

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.