dan2100

I'm not sure what you mean? Is the choice here run with the conservative statists or sit it out? If these guys are so bad, why don't the libertarians step up instead of complaining? --Brant I'm not sure what you mean by "step up." I do see libertarians doing all sorts of things -- various forms of activism, writing, speaking out, and the like. Your statements makes me think you believe all libertarians are just sitting back waiting for a messiah to come along. What is it exactly that you're looking for from libertarians?

I hate to admit it, but I agree with you here. I do think FDR and his claque did their best to get into the European war and their policy toward Japan was one that was confrontational at best, manipulative at worst. I doubt, too, that there was a direct notion of the Japanese Empire attacking Pearl Harbor and so many people dying. I think it was more like pushing and hoping the Empire would attack somewhere. As for the stupidity of Germany declaring war on the US and invading the Soviet Union, I think the latter was probably worse, but, on the other hand, do you doubt that, eventually, the Soviets wouldn't have attacked Germany? I believe it was only a matter of time before one or the other state made the first move in attacking the other.

I was unaware you'd both read the book and sifted through all the evidence and competing theories. Have you also read through Robert Stinnett's Day of Deceit and Thomas Fleming's The New Dealers War?

I'm not sure what you mean? Is the choice here run with the conservative statists or sit it out?

Didn't he go over to the Dark Side after the 2001 attacks? Well, that kind of depends on one's view of a proper US foreign policy. From the perspective of libertarian non-interventionists such as you, me, and various other posters on this site (I believe that Steve is among these posters), Neil certainly went over to the dark side. From the perspective of those who believe in an aggressively interventionist or even moderately interventionist US foreign policy, which I think includes the majority of self-identified objectivists, it is we who have gone over to or have always been on the dark side. In any case, regardless of Neil's views in this area, it is hard to take seriously someone who is convinced that he has spoken directly to God. Martin This just gets better and better. Is he convinced that God spoke back to him?

http://blog.mises.org/13041/on-pearl-harbor-and-911/ 1000 pages! Well, I reckon I'll have to read it eventually...

"And those who can't teach, teach gym." Woody Allen Woody Allen is brilliant at that sort of comeback. Have any of you seen the Joan Rivers movie?

Whatta lot of cliche crap. It's circular. I mean if you can't teach you can't do? If you can do you can't teach? This is a merry-go-round without the cute horses and music. Go tell Stephen Hawking he can't do. --Brant I don't totally disagree with you, but what exactly does Hawking do aside from teach? (And, no, this isn't some tasteless joke about his disability.) I believe Hawking started out as a teacher but couldn't continue. Exactly what his theoretical work in physics consists of I cannot tell you or comment upon. If I used a bad example, you can easily come up with a better one. There are many, many brainy people in academia who could do quite well outside it. --Brant Which is why I wrote, "I don't totally disagree with you..." I was merely being snarky. By the way, a little googling and the saying seems to have come from Mencken... Well, at least according to: http://www.watchfuleye.com/mencken.html

Whatta lot of cliche crap. It's circular. I mean if you can't teach you can't do? If you can do you can't teach? This is a merry-go-round without the cute horses and music. Go tell Stephen Hawking he can't do. --Brant I don't totally disagree with you, but what exactly does Hawking do aside from teach? (And, no, this isn't some tasteless joke about his disability.)

But recall the old saying, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."

See http://mises.org/daily/4463 A passage that some here might find disagreeable: "...there is nothing even remotely libertarian about the tea parties. There is nothing even remotely libertarian about Fox News, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or Sarah Palin. Yet these are the specific examples Lilla refers to throughout his article, as particular instances of the "politics of the libertarian mob" he so deplores. "Now ask yourself, does either Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin have even the slightest interest in "neutralizing, not using, political power"? Does Glenn Beck? Do any of his colleagues on Fox News? Could you say of any of these conservative Republicans what Lilla says of the proponents of the libertarian spirit, that "they want to be people without rules"? Merely to pose such questions in so open and bald-faced a manner is to see instantly what a preposterous absurdity we would have to pretend to believe in order to answer them in the affirmative. As Johnny Carson would say, "it is to laugh." "The only sense in which the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, Palin, the majority of the tea partiers, and the best known and most representative figures on Fox News may be said to represent the growing libertarian impulse or spirit in the land is this: their employment of a lot of libertarian rhetoric that doesn't at all match the policies they endorse and proselytize for is in itself a kind of indirect symptom of the growth of the libertarian spirit. Conservatives have been using libertarian rhetoric for many decades now, but they've increased this tactic recently in response to the very phenomenon Lilla is writing about — the growing spread of the libertarian spirit through the land. Libertarian ideas have come to exercise enough influence among the general public that at least certain major party politicians and major media feel compelled to pretend to espouse them themselves and do all they can to co-opt them." Comments?

Dan, Of course "checks and balances are inside the government itself." Where else would they be? They exist to check and balance the government. That's exactly where they belong. If the view being offered here is that "checks and balances" are means of limiting government power, then they belong where they actually work. A priori, this might seem to be either within or outside of government -- maybe even both. However, there also appear to be good a priori reasons why internal checks and balances -- those within -- won't work or work as well as those without. And the history of internal checks and balances seems to bear this out. Not at all. An ultimate check on government power is the governed. If the government gets oppressive enough and seems illegitimate, then the governed might rebel. So, normally, political elites don't push too hard. (And some revolutionaries and insurgents actually have made it a strategy to try to make governments become more oppressive -- to foment rebellion. I'm not saying this works. I think it often fails, but not because this ultimate check doesn't exist, but because governments are usually successful in portraying the increased level of oppression as necessary to deal with revolutionaries, insurgents, or terrorists. To the degree any government is successful at doing so, it's merely raised the level of the governed's tolerance for oppression, but not eliminate the ultimate check.) If that's your theory of how checks and balances work, then I don't see how this wouldn't work sans government: if each person has autonomy -- i.e., power over herself -- and "does not want to give it up" and she "will fight for it if another comes along and wants to take it," then the same should hold when there's no government. Actually, this theory doesn't seem to work -- either under anarchy or government. If it worked under the former, then presuming anarchy -- as in statelessness -- was the starting point of humanity, then no government (or no states) would've ever arisen in the first place. If it worked under government, then, regardless of whatever legal or constitutional arrangements there were, we expect no government anywhere to ever act like a government. Why? The moment it encroached on someone's autonomy, she or he would've immediately and violently opposed this. Even some of the Founders, though, didn't seem to accept your theory of jealousy guarding power. Recall the Declaration's "accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." And that rebellion only comes about after a "long train of abuses and usurpations..." And the truth seems to be, as some of the Founders noticed, especially anti-Federalists like Jefferson, is that checks and balances inside at least the Federal government wouldn't matter much because it wouldn't be powerful people or agencies battling against each other -- even if that does happen -- but such people and agencies expanding outward. Such is truly what happens routinely inside governments, including the US federal government: the government expands not by one agency fighting another and winning, but by the government taking away more freedom from the governed. Moreover, many of the anti-Federalists saw the States as a balance to Federal power. In other words, they didn't trust the federal government to guard -- check and balance -- itself. (This is merely a version of the "who guards the guardians" problem.) Recall, e.g., the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions. Well, the other missing part of your theory of human nature is not only are some people will to put up with abuse -- i.e., having their liberty truncated -- but there are others who actually want to do the abuse. And this is not a small problem, especially if you set up a monopoly power where people who want to carry out abuse might do so provided they can become part of that monopoly and move up its ladder. In my opinion it's naive to think such people are easy to deal and not clever enough to overcome all manner of contraints. This is even more vexing if all the checks and balances on their power are internal. Then the problem for them -- that of removing such constraints -- becomes merely one of controlling the checks and balances -- all of which have, for them, been happily centralized (because they're internal). And we see this by looking at US history: the government has repeatedly set aside or re-interpreted its limits. (For the US Constitution: Think of when the enumerated powers were violated. Immediately. But the US Constitution itself was already a violation of the Articles of Confederation. Were constitutions so binding -- even back when giants walked the Earth during the Founding Era -- one would've expected the Articles to survive at least a generation or two. Instead, the Articles lasted a few years before people were scheming to alter them radically -- and they succeeded in doing so!) Capitalism started out in Late Medieval Italy. If there's a checks and balances explanation there, it's one very different from yours; it'd be one of the fact that the Italian city states and other bodies had no central government. This was at one level a polycentric order -- one no ruled by an overarching agency. The checks and balances on these rival governments/states was therefore other governments and states. As none was strong enough to squash the others -- and they did try often enough -- this allowed a rich commerical culture to flourish and gave rise to capitalism. (Of course, this grossly oversimplifies, but I do think this was the political setting for capitalism.) To the degree such happened in America, this seems in spite of and not because of the Federal Constitution. Up until the 1860s, the State still retained enough power and acted, as some have argued, as a check on and balance to federal power. Once this was removed, the federal government was able to expand even faster. (And some have pointed to economic growth being higher in the first several decades of the 19th century over the post-Civil War period. Remember, the postbellum period meant no States' check on federally imposed tariffs and, under the Republicans, all sorts of federal subsidies -- which are not features of free market capitalism, but of state capitalism otherwise known as mercantilism.) It's a pipedream in my view because it relies on a type of vigilance that is always shortlived and because it leaves in place the basic problem: the checks and balances are internal to the agency that needs to be checked and balanced against. Once things calm down, the government will continue to expand its power, especially if the mentality remains in place that the only way to check and balance federal power is via means that under federal control. Public choice theory should be enough to dispell this pipe dream: the power-seekers usually have much stronger incentives to organize and expand their power whilst the vast majority of the governed have much weakers incentives to stop them. The rest appears to be history... Which is not to shortchange efforts to decrease federal power. I applaud such efforts, but they're doomed if they go no further than merely trying to reset the limits while leaving the basic organs of power in place. In my mind, much more radical change is needed, though this will likely require more effort and take a much longer time to bring about. (All of which meshes well with Rand's view that's it's "earlier than you think.")

You're welcome. One must be careful, too, when thinking about current politics to have both a little perspective. Remember, partisans are apt to paint the current political landscape as one with just two choices: their party and their rivals. Their party will, of course, deliver us from the coming collapse -- or whatever stark imagery they'll use to paint today's contest as decisive in history. Their rivals, of course, are worst monsters of all time -- or can at least trace their ancestry back to the worst monsters. Hence, you need to choose sides: get on their side and beat back the Devil or all's lost. Chances are the reality is nothing like this. What I see are petty devils and choosing between them doesn't necessarily accomplish much -- save wasting valuable resources on miniscule squabbles and helping to empower one group of statists over another. In other words, you're playing the game by their rules and don't expect anything more than cosmetic changes. All of this depends on what's meant. Accepting stages would not, in my mind, mean one must be completely silent about the long term or final goal. In fact, I'd see advocating the long term goal is why anyone would think in stages in the first place. Also, one is going to have to accept here that some people might not accept the stages. They might see things as one stage -- one change -- and that's that. And they might be ready to coalition against you once they've reached what they see as an acceptable change. And this might not at what seems to be your end goal of minarchism. (I'm making this up. I've actually coalitioned with people before who were not libertarians. They didn't change during the coalition. While my goal was to persuade them to become libertarians, their goal seemed to be to either persuade other libertarians and me to become their flavor of statist or to make sure we weren't competing with them or both.) But regardles of what the path is -- and let's say the road to anarchism lies through limiting government ever more -- why would this mean lying about the end goal, not keeping up pressure for more radical changes, and not supporting people who want to either stop at some point or expand statism in other directions? (On this last point, I think this is a weakness many libertarian have for the conservative movement. They see the latter as a movement for small government. While their are elements in that movement that want smaller government, the basic thrust of conservatism in terms of government is not for less government but for a particular kind of government -- and one that is interventionist but just intervenes in ways that'd be different than their rivals.) But, in truth, I don't think the exact path is via shrinking government along those lines. I actually think the path to a free society is via both making structural changes that make centralized statism ever more costly for political elites to maintain (or implement) and toward delegitamizing the state by removing support from below. The latter, in my view, necessarily requires spreading the basic libertarian message. If more people come to accept this message, then society will reach a point where the state becomes delegitamized and, since these people will be basically libertarian, another state would be able to takeover. The amount of people necessary to do this need not be large. In my view, it need only be a decisive minority. But none of this means, I hope, that people like Beck or similar conservatives (or anyone for that matter) must be above criticism. I hardly see why people in this forum also need to worry much about supporting Beck. It's not like what you or I argue about here is going to drastically expand or contract his audience or influence -- whether that influence is for the better or worse. I do think it's important to point out what I perceive as mistakes he makes, but I don't have illusions that somehow Beck or many in his crowd really care one way or another.

I wouldn't take it -- his list -- too seriously -- even if he's deadly serious about. In fact, I wouldn't take it seriously at all if he is deadly serious about it. Why is that? I think of Beck as a mixed bag. Yeah, it's great he's promoting Hayek and the like, talking about ideas, etc., but he's also has some glaring flaws -- as I've pointed out elsewhere. Maybe some people are so desperate at this time that they won't question anyone who they feel is remotely similar to them. I think that's bad -- to support people out of sheer desperation. Didn't he go over to the Dark Side after the 2001 attacks?

I don't follow, he wouldn't be renominated until well after the 2010 midterm in any event. Maybe I'm misreading you. Nov. 2 = Democrat election disaster 2012 = greater disaster for Dems if Obama is renominated. If he isn't it may be a Dem disaster anyway, just not as bad. --Brant Much can happen between now and 2012, so it might be premature to say it will definitely be a disaster for the Democrats at that time. And it might depend much on what the field of contenders looks like.

My view is well meaning people believe that government is the only way to achieve these "checks and balances," but I find that both unrealistic -- as governmental checks and balances are inside the government itself -- and a pipedream -- look at the real world. Anyhow, have a good weekend! As usual I'm butting in on a subject that (I have the feeling) many here consider none of my business. I don't see why this matters. This is pretty much an open forum -- moderator willing. Butt in if you feel you must. Cryptic. I'm not sure who is denying this. Even so, this doesn't lead to your seemingly implied conclusion: one can advocate varieties of statism -- ones that are more or less onerous. I believe there are two problems here. One is that what exists currently doesn't limit one to advocating only that. This should clear enough as people have successfully advocated -- in the sense that they've promoted an idea for something that wasn't the case that was latter implemented -- time and again. (This doesn't mean, by the way, that mere advocacy is enough or that there are no limits on what can be implemented in general -- aside from what might be implemented in a given time period. On both, though -- what cannot be implemented now and what cannot be implemented ever -- the limit is not determined by looking around and seeing only what is in place now. Were this so, then someone ought to tell Steve Jobs to stop doing upgrades to the iPhone.) The other is the relation between theory and experience or reality. If the theory is truly reality-based, then there should be an ability to implement it in practice. It's only a theory that's not so based -- as Mises pointed out with theories of perpetual motion -- where there's a problem. (Of course, this is a simplification. After all, theories tend to simplify and a generally reality-based theory might have flaws. But these flaws are examples of it being not reality-based in some respect, no?) Your seeming conclusion doesn't follow from this: that one must not advocate certain ideas like anarchism. In fact, one might make the argument that these very same ideas will find the most traction in America. This doesn't settle the question, but my point is that given that premise, not much follows. (And one might question the premise too. I won't do that at this time, but I don't think it's unreasonable or unrealistic or even unpatriotic to do so.) Whoa! I don't think those are increments at all. Conservatism, as a movement, at best, is a mixture of various currents -- some extremely antilibertarian. I think Spencer in his "The New Toryism" explained why conservatism in Britain in the 19th century had a certain affinity with liberal/libertarian ideas. It wasn't because conservatives as such were closet libertarians. His essay is available online here: http://www.econlib.o...er/spnMvS1.html Jeff Riggenbach has applied much the same logic to conservatism in America today in his Why American History Is Not What They Say: An Introduction to Revisionism. Relevant parts of the book dealing with the error of seeing conservatism as somehow aligned with or related to libertarianism are online at: http://mises.org/daily/3848 and http://mises.org/daily/3859 among others. Now, to be sure, since the conservative movement -- and just about any movement -- is a mixed bag, yes, there are likely actual libertarians and classical liberals mixed in. (And while mixed premises supposedly lead to confrontations where one premise wins out over its rivals -- this doesn't mean people aren't capable of holding them for a long time. But might not the same be said of modern liberals and their movement?) This seems like you're making an all or nothing case here. Either one accepts uncritically everyone who is supposedly opposed to "big government" or one must retreat from any engagement with the culture. Add to this, one must also keep one's mouth shut about one's ideals and principles -- for fear of being seen as merely "theorizing" and "shooting for the moon." My view is one can form alliances, but such alliances should never preclude honest criticism and certainly should not fool one or one's allies into believing there are no differences. My view is also that one must be clear about one's ideals and principles -- and that unclarity or hiding them only serves irrationality and bad ideals or bad principles here. (As Rand might have said, who benefits from pretending what's not the case here? The friends or foes of liberty?) Add to this, advocacy of anarchism today doesn't mean one must believe it will become a reality by next weekend. It might be a transgeneration project -- as some here who've been advocating it for longer than I've been alive seem to believe. But that it might take that long doesn't mean it's an unworthy project. Nor does it mean one must give up shorter term goals, though it probably does mean if one is honest, prudent, and has a measure of integrity, one will try to be sure -- within one's ability to ascertain such things -- that there's no conflict between one's shorter terms goals and one's longer term ones. Finally, one must be aware that many people pretending to be pro-liberty or even just against big government are not so. Some of these, no doubt, might be converted -- as in people being persuaded through some issue or problem to consider more deeply these matters. But many really are not, in my experience, proto-libertarians or really against big government. Recent history should be enough to demonstrate this. E.g., the GOP often talks about free markets and liberty, but its track record is one of regulating markets and shrinking liberty wherever possible. What's strange and very unrealistic to me is that libertarians and classical liberals actually still believe the GOP is salvagable. (And, from history, as Jeff has demonstrated, the GOP has always been a party of big government. It got its start in proto-fascism in the 19th century. Little has change -- save that its rhetoric often contains libertarian-sounding platitudes that dupe enough libertarian-leaning folks to supporting it.)

Dan, This may be true for some people, but I assure you that for others who recognize the need for a government, this is not the case. You cannot eliminate bullying from human nature. So you put checks and balances on it. That's the principle and the reason for it. Not power-lust (as you imply). Once we can figure out how to get rid of bullying, then I see no reason to continue with government. Until then, I want bullies with limitations on their possibilities of action. Real limitations, not pipedreams. The will to bully is the root of power-lust. Michael My view is well meaning people believe that government is the only way to achieve these "checks and balances," but I find that both unrealistic -- as governmental checks and balances are inside the government itself -- and a pipedream -- look at the real world. Anyhow, have a good weekend!

Go to http://jneilschulman.rationalreview.com/2010/06/glenn-becks-libertarian-thriller-the-overton-window/ and then scroll down to the part where he lists stuff from his "There Are Two Sides to Every Review."

Forget the evil bit, what I'm saying is that accidents occur, and so we must be wary of the consequences for allowing offshore drilling. Whether that accident occurs in shallow water or not, the accident is unpredictable and therefore it must be accepted as a possibility. An accident off the coast of California is a cost that citizens are not willing to risk (myself strongly included), and I think that the California citizens have the final vote. Is there a cost? Sure, a little bit of oil will not come from this part of the world. Perhaps the cost of oil will rise a slight slight fraction above current prices (but even that is doubtful). Finally, there is no "big bad" government preventing offshore drilling near California, this is the voice of the citizens. If the citizens of Louisiana and Florida voted to ban drilling in U.S. waters off their coasts, that is their right. In fact, I'm surprised that Louisiana state legislators want to continue drilling to support the engineers. That's a very very small population percentage-wise, and I wonder whether the total population of Louisiana agrees with these legislators. But here in California, these beaches are our living environment. Liberty allows us the right to protect that environment, liberty does not give a green card to producers. Actually, my view is property rights would be the best way to handle this -- not using the state or federal government or a tally of the voters in a given area. In this case, it'd likely be the owners of coastline or of water resources that should have the say. This should in principle be no different than decided whether I can trek through your backyard. We don't decide this by asking all the voters in California or America or the planet. We decide it by you and I coming to an arrangement (or not). And should I decide to trek across your yard, trampling your flowerbed, it should be me and not the taxpayers paying for the damages. I've noticed the same too, though I'm perhaps partly to blame for this. I'll try to refrain from criticizing Beck in this forum.

Such characteristics are just the equivalent of the melting point, boiling point, viscosity, density etc. of water. All very interesting of course, but they are ultimately the result of its molecular structure, which is the essential defining characteristic, even if we cannot in practice derive all those characteristics from first principles. The same for the human genome. "The rational animal" is not an essential characteristic, even if it is at the moment as far as we know a unique characteristic, but that is not the same. If my memory's correct, Rand's view of what an essential characteristic is amounts to that characteristic that explains the most other characteristics. This is epistemological. The ontological side of this is the characteristic that explains the most mpas onto the one that causes the most. In the case of water, in the context of modern understanding, the molecular composition and structure explains all the other traits. I believe Rand argued, in similar fashion, that "rational animal" explained the most other human traits.

So Beck's narrative is that the executive branch of government has been largely taken over by ex 60s radicals who have plans to establish death camps in this country? And that the FBI is tracking these people and working to prevent this from happening? The problem with this scenario is that the FBI is part of the very same government that has allegedly been taken over by these people. To a large extent, the FBI takes its orders from the executive branch. So the idea that it would fight the schemes of the very executive branch that pretty much rules over the FBI seems rather far-fetched. The FBI has a long history of committing all kinds of flagrant abuses of individual rights. As an organization, it is not known for its love of freedom and liberty. So why assume that it is suddenly going to rise to the defense of liberty and fight the nefarious plans of a federal government intent on establishing a totalitarian society complete with death camps? Put not your faith is government agencies to protect your liberty. Martin All the more reason to dismantle the state. I fear, though, that too many people just think power is not the problem -- just that their friends are not in power is. In other words, they don't really want liberty as such, but their favorite brand of tyranny. (For the record, too, I'm not saying Beck is this way. I don't know enough, at this time, to say.)

Yes, other species don't have genomes. The essential characteristic of water is its molecular structure (H2O). Does that imply that other substances don't have a molecular structure? I was being sarcastic. To differentiate genome from genome you have to see how that actually manifests itself in a living organism in order to get some practical utility for a discussion of essential characteristics of a species. Man or chimp? To say "our essential characteristic" is our genome is a sophistical statement although I don't think Bob was trying to be sophistical. Yeah, it's true, but it doesn't tell us we are language speaking, tool-making/using sometimes rational creatures who walk on two legs with a queer foot structure who likes face to face sex even when the female is not in heat, etc. --Brant This is good point. The genome is really more of a causal explanation of why humans have such and such traits. (Though that sort of reductionism seems a simplification: that "genes interact top bring about" is probably more accurate than "they control." Let's leave alone that genomics is in its infancy and genetics is only a little older.) I initially thought Bob was trying to get at who the humans are.

It'd be nice if the attacks were thoughtful rather than just rehashing, say, Whittaker Chambers.

I don't disagree about "keep[ing] an eye on them" -- those now in power. And I also agree that these guys -- the Obama regime -- have some very bad ideas and are promoting dangerous policies. (I bet Martin agrees with you and I here too.) I also see less of discontinuity, however, between them and the Bush regime and even the Nixon regime. Of course, that might not have been how the Weather Underground and the like saw this. (I'd also point out Rand called herself a "radical for capitalism." Of course, you're using a different sense of radical here, but Rand wasn't calling for maintaining the status quo and wanted fundamental changes, though, it seems to me, she wanted the changes to start with the mind and culture and not in some sort of direct action or even political action. The latter, if my understanding is correct, she believed to be either unwise or premature.) And, once more, you're relying on an FBI agent for this information. He's making the claim that they planned these deeds. What other evidence is there to support his claim of planned exterminations -- and that this was actually a serious threat? (I grant, Ayers discounting it might not carry much weight with me. This is one part of the government accusing another part. Doesn't mean either one is right.)

I maintain it is still mindless to lump the vague "anarchists" together with the others and then blame the supposed plans for a specific group -- the Weathermen -- on all anarchists -- even on non-anarcho-capitalists. (In fact, I took pains to point out that anarcho-capitalists aren't the only anarchists who would not fit the bill here. But that's probably "over-intellectualizing" in your book.) What's wrong from my view is using blanket terms to condemn huge swathes of people or points of view. Not all anarchists, even (again) including non-anarcho-capitalists support terrorism. And consistent anarchist would be very unlikely to advocate taking over the government. Let me be clear here too. He did this on national TV. There were no footnotes. And, yes, his sympathizers might say he had a more nuanced meaning here -- of course, that's not "over-intellectualizing" to at least one of them -- but this is little different than if someone attacked Islamic terrorists by saying the problem is "anarchists, Marxists, communists, revolutionaries, Maoists, Islamofascists, and Arabs." And then later on, when someone questioned why "Arabs" was in that list, his supporters tell this person, "Well, anyone knowing more about him would know he meant only a subset of Arabs." Again, it appears to me, Beck got carried away with his own rhetoric. (And, again, I'm not saying he does not good or is some kind of monster. Even here, my guess is this was a mindless slip -- not some sort of planned out mass tarnishing.) Fair enough, though the only thing I'm doing here is answering you back -- not advocating anyone be silenced. And if you're going to live by your standard, please tell me where the speculation came from that I would advocate such. I've actually provide places where Beck bashed anarchists as such and atheists as such. Where have I provided even a speculative basis for advocating silencing Beck or anyone else? Furthermore, I think you're shifting ground. I called Beck's lumping mindless not because of his large audience. Why did you even bring that up earlier?