jriggenbach

What is wrong with that? Better that than a banker or politician, she worked for herself who can say that now? why? do you have proof of that? why? do you proof of that? and? Half a dozen or so? Well done marginalization. You are very clever in your dismissal of Rose Wilder Lane but what influence have you had? RWL made a difference pippi I'm very sorry that you're unable to comprehend what you read, "Pippi," but I'm afraid I'm unable to help you with that problem. My deepest apologies. Best, JR

Wait a minute. Do you mean to say that if someone attacks you and then you retaliate by going to some completely different neighborhood (or maybe even a different state or a different country) - some neighborhood or state or country where the people who attacked you don't live - and kill a bunch of people and maim and cripple a bunch of others and destroy a bunch of homes and businesses with bombs . . . you mean that's not self-defense? If that's not self-defense then I'd like to know what is! Dennis Hardin

Book review of Demonic: Coulter attibutes the long-term success of the American revolution to the influence of another Enlightenment thinker, John Locke. Such a stupid, ignorant, clueless woman. No insight to offer at all. True. None whatever. Glad you've seen the light on this bimbo, Dennis. Her absurdly oversimplified view of the revolutions of the late 18th Century is comical, though, you have to admit. JR

<...> I assume by "scum," you mean "police officers." JR If JR had to work as the mayor of NYC for some time, I bet he'd be glad to have what he calls "scum" to help him do the job. JR wouldn't ever have to work as mayor of NYC or anywhere else. He wouldn't run for the office, and, if somehow "elected" to it anyway, would refuse to "serve." He gets no kicks out of telling other people how to run their lives, much less out of locking them in cages and seizing their property if they don't take his advice. JR

Which sources would you recommend for the strongest arguments against anarchism? Who, in your opinion, offers the best criticisms of the ideas of Friedman, Rothbard and Smith, which I might use to supplement my studies in Anarchism 101? J I've never seen any arguments against anarchism that I regarded as other than inept. Almost all of them are directed at straw men. JR

Yes, it can. I deny it. Ann Coulter is an ignoramus and a moron. She doesn't even understand what "capitalism" (in the Objectivist sense of completely unimpeded markets) is. Since Coulter is no Objectivist, there is no reason for her to adopt Rand's idea of "capitalism" in the Objectivist sense of completely unimpeded markets. If you look at it that way, then Coulter's status as an "advocate" of "capitalism" turns out to mean that she advocates whatever she advocates and she calls it "capitalism" whether it is or not. I, for example, am an advocate of socialism - not what the Marxists mean by socialism, because I'm not a Marxist; rather what I mean by socialism, which is a system in which everyone has lots of beer. Presto! I'm an "advocate" of "socialism." Coulter is far from using the term capitalism in a similarly odd way as you describe it with socialism in your above example. When she exclaimed during the health insurance debate: "What we want is Capitalism!", the basic definition of capitalism covers exactly what she has in mind: What Coulter had in mind was the Republican proposal, which is an example of "capitalism" only in the Marxist sense in which capitalism means what we free marketeers would describe as mercantilism, state capitalism, or simply fascism. Because she is an ignoramus and a simpleton, Coulter doesn't realize that this is not the same as what you've just so helpfully defined. Apparently, you don't realize it either. Why does this not surprise me? Anarchism, and, hence, "anarcho-capitalism" has nothing to do with this. You could have a completely free market, true capitalism, under the sort of government Ayn Rand advocated, one that had no power to tax. That government would not interfere in the market, which is to say, it would not interfere with people's economic activities. Yet it would not be what you half-comprehendingly describe as "anarcho-capitalism." Ludwig von Mises, no anarcho-capitalist by any standard, also advocated a completely free market under an extremely limited government, which would not interfere in market processes. Ann Coulter wants a government that interferes more or less constantly in market processes, mostly to benefit "businessmen" who would rather use the power of the State to enrich themselves than do it "the old-fashioned way" - by competing for their riches in the marketplace. JR

Then, as usual, you suppose wrong. So they won't draw the line when other fundamental values they have are being attacked? What does for example a die-hard advocate of of free market capitalism - but who is also an animal rights activist and opposed to rearing hens in far too small cages - do if the cage eggs sell a lot better on the market? Can you definitely say that the animals' rights will take a back seat then in this person's mind and he/she'll opt for monetary profit instead? Your obtuseness never fails to startle me, Xray. I'm not giving you a law of nature which will enable you to predict the behavior of particular individuals. I'm telling you that there are people who advocate completely and utterly free and unimpeded markets - what Objectivists and most other libertarians call "capitalism." Whatever personal preferences they may have (for eggs laid by free range chickens, for example, a preference I happen to share), these folks appear to understand that they have no right to force others at the point of a gun to honor those preferences. That's correct. If some people violate others' rights in the process of manufacturing and marketing products, they can be prosecuted for those rights violations. That is a separate issue. It is actually a key issue, especially from an anarchist perspective. It has always interested me in what way rights violations are dealt with in Anarchia. Do the offenders get prosecuted as well? If yes, how is it done? This is not an introductory course in Anarchism 101. Go and read the obvious sources - Friedman's Machinery of Freedom, Rothbard's For a New Liberty and Power & Market, the Tannehill's Market for Liberty, Ghs's "Justice Entrepreneurship in a Free Market." For some fictional examples of how such a system might work, see Robert A. Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. If you have questions about what you read, come back and ask them. If I'm not around, maybe Ghs or one of the other anarchists around here will step in and help out. Yes, it can. I deny it. Ann Coulter is an ignoramus and a moron. She doesn't even understand what "capitalism" (in the Objectivist sense of completely unimpeded markets) is. Since Coulter is no Objectivist, there is no reason for her to adopt Rand's idea of "capitalism" in the Objectivist sense of completely unimpeded markets. If you look at it that way, then Coulter's status as an "advocate" of "capitalism" turns out to mean that she advocates whatever she advocates and she calls it "capitalism" whether it is or not. I, for example, am an advocate of socialism - not what the Marxists mean by socialism, because I'm not a Marxist; rather what I mean by socialism, which is a system in which everyone has lots of beer. Presto! I'm an "advocate" of "socialism." Do you have any other pointless word games you'd like to waste our time with? JR

Does Coulter believe in a free market in heroin? In "pornography"? Then she does not believe in a free market. And she does not "advocate capitalism." JR I suppose even the most die-hard advocates of free market capitalism will draw the line when other fundamental values they have are being attacked. Then, as usual, you suppose wrong. That's correct. If some people violate others' rights in the process of manufacturing and marketing products, they can be prosecuted for those rights violations. That is a separate issue. Yes, it can. I deny it. Ann Coulter is an ignoramus and a moron. She doesn't even understand what "capitalism" (in the Objectivist sense of completely unimpeded markets) is. Like everyone else in the political mainstream, she's a garden variety fascist. JR

Yes, I remember it well. It was a terrible problem. You see, if there's a "whore" or a "junkie" on the sidewalk, then children can't walk on that sidewalk. (I've forgotten just why, exactly, but I'm confident there's an explanation. If they try to walk on that sidewalk, their legs give out and they collapse to the ground.) I assume by "scum," you mean "police officers." JR

There is no "import-export balance of trade issue." Those who think there is do not understand economics. JR

Does Coulter believe in a free market in heroin? In "pornography"? Then she does not believe in a free market. And she does not "advocate capitalism." JR

Here are a couple of crazy ole Uncle Ron's foreign policy positions from the wikipedia site which Roger mentioned. All I can say is: Are you people f**king serious? This is not merely nutty. This is sheer insanity! We should do nothing to help protect Israel as our one crucial ally for freedom in the Middle East? We shouldn't make every effort to "guarantee their survival?" We shouldn't take sides in their ongoing conflict with the Palestinians who challenge their right to exist? We should join the spineless pacifist Dennis Kucinich in embracing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad despite the Iranian leader's speeches advocating the destruction of Israel and the US? Paul wants to remain neutral with Iran, the foremost state sponsor of terrorism in the world, whose leaders are abetting the killing of our soldiers in Irag and Afghanistan? If we will only "mind our own business," they will surely stop knocking down our skyscrapers and blowing up our planes. Did you also happen to note that Paul's de facto pacifism is a product of "everything he was taught as a Christian"? He has absolutely no grasp of the ethical principle of self-interest and our right as a nation to act on it. The devotion of Ron Paul supporters is a genuine inspiration. I'm beginning to think he could argue that the world was flat and his defenders would say: "Oh, that's okay. That's just lovable ole Uncle Ron being his cantankerous self. He's a great ole guy. Don't hold that against him." In Thursday night's debate, He articulated his wildly bizarre view that it's fine if Iran has the bomb. So what? The U.S.S.R. had the bomb for decades and we were just fine. His legions of knee-jerk supporters burst into applause. The problem, of course, is that M.A.D. ("mutually assured destruction") only works if the enemy views death and destruction as unthinkable. Mahmoud and his merry band of jihadist fanatics believe they are on a mission to wipe the Zionist menace and the Great Satan off the face of the earth—and they believe Allah will reward them for their noble deed in paradise if they should perish in the process. To them, their own survival is a secondary issue. The Soviet Union was a bastion of lucid rationality by comparison. This craziness only serves to marginalize libertarianism as a movement from the lunatic fringe. His campaign has as much realistic chance of success as anarcho-capitalism has as a viable political system. So now crazy, lovable ole Uncle Ron's supporters are thrilled that he came in second in the Iowa straw poll. Wow. The Ron Paul juggernaut looks unstoppable. 4671 votes. He only needs about 65 million more votes to get to the White House. With his foreign policy views, he'll be lucky to get one million. I know it's useless to try to talk sense to Ron Paul's lock stepping hordes of devoted acolytes. I just like to remind them that there are plenty of us who think they're nuts. When an Argentinian donkey begins braying, the racket can become intense. It is said that the sound of millions of them braying all at once (ordinarily about anti-concepts and floating abstractions like the "rights" of nations and the crying need for a nation in North America to have "allies" in a desert halfway around the world) can strip the paint from a Humvee in ten minutes flat. JR

I saw her books back in 2003 and was hopeful, but after a few pages, I realized that she is vacuous. Since then, having seen her on talk shows, I am all the more certain that she is a mean, evil, spiteful, hateful mouthpiece whose job it is to be ridiculous so that Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck (and John Boehner) seem reasonable. She is troll. And she looks like a troll. See her without the long blonde hair and you see a monster, which is what she is. I think it would be a mistake to underestimate Coulter. She is a very savvy media whore who had made herself rich by spoon-feeding pablum to the infantile contingent of the conservative movement. If you watch Coulter in spontaneous debates, you will see that she is a smart cookie who obviously knows what she is doing. Coulter knows how to put on a good show, from her micro skirts on up. Ghs I guess it all depends on what sort of "show" one considers "good." JR

Yes! For example, it's both civil and benevolent! JR

[. . . ] I see now that expressing my misgivings along with approval and optimistic anticipation constitutes "bashing." In fairness to Dennis, Roger, I think you have to acknowledge that it would certainly seem that way to a donkey from Argentina. I mean, they've had severe problems down there with the beasts losing their motivation so utterly that they stop eating the vegetation that grows on those vast, grassy plains they have down there (I can't remember what they're called, just offhand), and the result is mass starvation - literally, piles of corpses. Under the circumstances, anything that looks even slightly like bashing - the scurrilous remarks Brian Doherty has made about Ayn Rand, for example - is likely to be taken perhaps a bit more seriously than you or I might be inclined to take it. Just sayin' . . . Helpfully, JR

(DELETED FOR UNEXPECTED, UNUSUAL AND SERIOUS REASONS.)

Come on, Jeff. Us against them again? The same rhetorical gimmick again? Nobody I know of claims that the system of checks and balances closes all loopholes against tyranny. It just slices power up. In fact, the only people I know of who are perceived as claiming your meaning are people who don't, but are misrepresented by being misassigned that meaning like with your remark above. The wording in my remark above was taken verbatim from Ayn Rand, Michael, from the quotation you introduced into the discussion. As for the rest of your reply, I can only describe myself as speechless with wonder at the prospect of being led back to freedom by Glenn Beck. Best, JR

This is from "The Nature of Government" in The Virtue of Selfishness. Some people disagree with Rand on this, but I don't. From what I have learned over life and study about human nature, she was spot on. I may disagree with those people who disagree, but I won't call them names like Rand did. I realize that she was lonely in her own fashion and had her own ways of getting attention. Michael I can speak only for myself, of course, but I know that I am struck dumb with admiration by the way the American system of checks and balances has left no opportunity, no legal loophole for the development of tyranny. Every time I think about it, it brings tears to my eyes. JR

You introduce checks and balances, of course. These will magically mitigate the unimaginable excesses committed by monkeys doing what they naturally do, just as checks and balances magically mitigate the unimaginable excesses committed by politicians doing what they naturally do (abuse the power they have been naively given by the voters, who naively trusted them not to abuse it). But you know all this. JR

Rich, my fellow madman iconoclast, there are a couple of us here (at least) who have been keeping in touch with Phil. From all reports he is doing well and feeling pretty sprightly. He shares with me from time to time some fun things he has written. I paste one such below. . .here is Phil the light-hearted: It's a pity Phil's no longer here. I'd love to read his comments on "Fern Hill" by Dylan Thomas. JR

This is correct. After being beaten to a pulp a few times by bullies, who somehow were always immune to my stunning intellect and impeccable arguments from principle, I decided to start looking out for them and finding ways to restrain them before the beating. Or, to be more exact, you decided to start yelling for someone else to restrain them before the beating. Some people, after being beaten to a pulp a few times, might conclude that they had been foolish to entrust their personal security to the State. They might conclude that the State was useless for personal security (it is, of course, since its actual purpose is something else entirely). They might conclude that they should provide for their own personal security from that point forward - just as they provide for their own footwear. After all, they don't sit around explaining on Internet forums why the State needs to provide everyone with footwear because if people don't have footwear bullies might step on their toes. You seem to have concluded none of this. You seem to have concluded that it was obviously necessary for the State to take care of your personal security - and everyone else's, too. Was this because the State had done such a good job of providing you with personal security up to that time? I'm a little confused, here. Did I miss a meeting? JR

I guess when we look out at the world, we tend to see what we expect to see - what we're looking for. JR

Actually, this is inaccurate. I hold that political principles have to apply to human beings to be valid, i.e., they must be based on human nature--which in MSK-speak includes (among other things) the tendency of individuals to periodically bully others when they can get away with it. I hold that forcing human beings into a mold not suited to them in order to make sense of a principle with incomplete conceptual referents, but pretending you are not doing that, is trying to have your cake and eat it, too. It's probably my limited intelligence that leads me to conceive of such things... Michael EDIT: For further clarification, I don't mind letting equals duke it out--in the name of principle--when one gets the itch to be ornery and starts smacking the other around, but I do support giving the underdog a handicap when he or she is severely outgunned or just plain too weak to fight a bully. (I'm not too big on the right of bullies to start bullying at whim...) Oh, yes. I'd almost forgotten. Because there are bullies, we must take an institution that was originally invented by bullies to enable their bullying, an institution that in all of human history has never been anything but a tool to further the goals of bullies, and put our faith in that institution to protect us from bullies. Uh huh. The logic of this is so compelling, I can't believe it slipped my mind when I was writing my earlier misguided post. JR

I think what Michael is trying to say here, Nick, is that principles are inconvenient things, because they keep leading you to conclusions you don't want to reach. It's better to rely on "common sense," i.e., whatever seems right and reasonable to you for whatever reason it happens to seem right and reasonable. That way, you can have your cake and eat it, too. Helpfully, JR

Because otherwise, trials could be repeated indefinitely until the prosecutors' desired guilty verdict came in. Just as they can be in Canada. JR