dan2100

I'm all for books attacking Ayn Rand. Unless your name is Fatty Arbuckle, no publicity is bad publicity.

--Brant

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

Martin,

I will try once again, this time real slowly.

Some of the people the FBI was investigating back in the 60's and 70's--ones who were preaching death camps for die-hard capitalists--are the same people who are now next to Obama.

They are the government.

Beck's whole narrative is that they have done this by stealth since they found out that paramilitary organizations don't work for taking over the USA government. That's one of the reasons the left-wing always tries to portray the Tea Party people as paramilitary. They know it doesn't work.

The Man used to be Nixon & Co. and they were the radicals. They are now the Man and they need some radicals to point to while they try to consolidate their power.

So it might be a good idea for us to keep an eye on them right now.

Michael

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.)

Dan,

But you did make a claim (or very strong insinuation) that Beck meant anarcho-capitalists with his grouping of anarchists with Mao, etc.--and you made an extra point of calling it mindless.

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.)

And that was flat-out wrong.

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.)

Regardless of what you now say, that's what you did.

I know I am not the only one to wonder where that came from.

(And I do get tired of watching "mindless" bashing that borders on snooty mockery. Bash Beck if you want to, but at least do it on correct information.)

If you can judge a person on speculation, so can I. You judged Beck. I judged you.

Michael

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?

I wanted the title to be "Benjamin Wiker's new book attacks Rand's magnum opus."

Anyhow, I've started listening to the audiobook version of it. The full title is 10 Books Every Conservative Must Read: Plus Four Not to Miss and One Impostor. The "Impostor" is Atlas Shrugged, of course.

One thing about the book so far: he's very clear to draw a bright line between classical liberals and conservatives.

When Aristotelians speak of "man qua man," they mean human beings considered in terms of their essential characteristics.

Our genome is our essential characteristic. Without it we are not humans. With it we are.

Yes, other species don't have genomes.

--Brant

I thought he meant the particular human genome, but even this is a bit of a construct too -- based on views of what is and isn't a gene now and current science.

Also, even within current understanding, a dead skin cell contains the genome, so is it a human? And any number of things might go wrong in development to churn out something that most wouldn't call human by looking at it. (This isn't to deny genetics or genomics, but I wouldn't quickly run to genetic or genomic reductionism.)

As for my impact on the mainstream, that's not an issue here. Nor do I think everyone who wants to have some positive impact on the culture should be measured by audience size. I'm sure you've heard the old saw about making a difference in one child's life being enough...

Dan,

Obviously audience size is not the ONLY criterion to use in judging the worth of a message. But a reasonable person will not dismiss the messenger (and call him mindless) because the messenger's audience is large.

That's making the same conceptual error as liking a work only because it is popular, no?

If you preach free choice on the open market, expect people to use it. And celebrate it, for God's sake. That's a good thing.

When large numbers of people use their own free will and like something enough to purchase it, that is not an infallible indication that what they like is low quality or that they are all stupid. But I believe that prejudice is one of the reasons there is so much uninformed Beck bashing.

The irony is that the bashers are so convinced of their innate intellectual superiority, they don't have to be bothered with mere details like looking stuff up for verification when they bash it. Thus they call another person stupid at the very moment they do a really stupid thing.

Quick response. I never made the argument that large audience size was a reason for dismissing the messenger. Rather, you hinted, in your statement "I certainly don't see your influence (or that of anyone else who over-intellectualizes) on the mainstream." that, perhaps, small audience size was a reason for dismissing the messenger.

Also, nowhere did I claim I wanted to prohibit Beck from airing his views. And while I support "free choice," I see nothing that goes against such support in criticizing the messages or saying some choices are wrong, stupid, or bad. In other words, supporting freedom does not mean suddenly giving up good judgment or shutting up. (Your statement here sadly sounds to me like what I often here: people support free expression, but they actually mean certain types of expression and tend to exclude criticism as a form of expression -- at least, criticism of the expression they favor.)

And regarding context here, these were not long treatises where some statement taken out of context might be blown up to seem something they were not. Instead they were TV segments where I imagine for not a few viewers the segment is the whole context. (I'm talking about both cases I've raised here. His bashing of atheists and Godlessness and his lumping seeming all anarchists (and I mean "all" because he's generic here) in with the Weathermen and other terrorist groups.)

Finally, I make no claims to "innate intellectual superiority" over Beck or most other people, including people I disagree with or believe to be seriously wrong about some issue or other. If I ever do here, please point this out to me. That said, yes, some of Beck's critics -- no doubt, of critics of just about anyone -- do believe he's intellectual inferior and somehow they are his better. I think that's beside the point. I'm only pointing out what I believe are errors -- and this speaks nothing to intellectual superiority. (What is meant here is even geniuses can make errors and even fools can spot them. Making or spotting an error is not the best test of intellectual value.)

For the record, too, I'm unaware of the Nazi-anarchist link. Care to share that one?

Dan,

Come on. You're over-intellectualizing what it takes to spread a message. My support of Beck is not on hair-splitting. There are things I disagree with him over. It's about him getting the ideas out so people can think through them with their own minds.

Your approach of over-intellectualizing doesn't seem to be working in that respect. I certainly don't see your influence (or that of anyone else who over-intellectualizes) on the mainstream.

Try fitting substance, entertainment to grow an audience, a mobilizing effort to get people to read history, and commercials all within a 60 minute block. I'm serious. Try it. See how easy it is...

Now about the Nazi anarchist thing--let's get the obvious out of the way. On a simple Google search, I came up with this right up near the top: Anarchist activity in Nazi Germany.

There's oodles more. Just Google it.

But that's not even the point. If you were more familiar with Beck, you would be familiar with the theory of history he is teaching people.

Basically, he sees hatred of capitalism fueling both anarchists and left-wing statists (say for the last couple of centuries). But here's the difference. The anarchists are not squeamish about immediately making blood run in the streets while the statists are more focused on getting in power. One group uses the other, thinking that once capitalism--and whatever group is in power at the time--is defeated, they will deal with the other. The anarchists always lose because they are disorganized.

That's the theory Beck presents and any steady viewer of Beck knows he means that when he's talking about anarchists.

On accuracy, Beck has stated that all of his facts and sources are checked multiple times over. Since he is wildly popular and controversial, if he presents wrong stuff, Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes will have him off the air. They would have to because potential lawsuits would damage the entire firm.

Michael

I hope you're right -- especially about the ultimate outcome here. My fear is that the lumping -- not just of anarchists, mind you, but earlier of atheists -- will have more ill effect than you obviously believe.

As for my impact on the mainstream, that's not an issue here. Nor do I think everyone who wants to have some positive impact on the culture should be measured by audience size. I'm sure you've heard the old saw about making a difference in one child's life being enough...

Dan,

You and I probably have a different perspective on things like cops and bandits because of life experience. I don't know your past, but I used to be on the bandit side. I don't like cops (unless they can be paid them off) and it's visceral.

I gave up the dark side, but the bad vibes still stay with me.

That goes for people who blow things up, too. I see them with very practical eyes and I take them very seriously, especially when they get their hands on explosives. I used to play with people who play--and play dirty--with guns for real.

This doesn't really speak to the matter of the accuracy of the FBI agent's report. I'm not questioning whether "people who blow things up" exist, but whether the specific statement is true. I doubt you, Beck, or I know whether it is. Don't misinterpret me here. I'm not saying the Weather Underground were nice people or even harmless people. I'm questioning whether the specific claims -- about genocide and camps -- is accurate.

So, for as interesting as a mind-experiment is about the Weather Underground infiltrating the Federal Reserve, etc., etc., etc., I'm not really worried about that. I worry more about evil deranged people blowing things up, causing chaos, taking over governments, making detention centers and other similar things I have seen exist.

This misses my earlier point. I was actually thinking back to the Red Scare. If you're worried about them taking over statist organizations and using them against us -- and this is what they'd have to do to run things like detention camps -- then an easy way to avoid this is to make the statist organizations less powerful (and, therefore, less palatable as targets for takeover) or eliminate such organizations (thereby, leaving nothing to take over).

If the cops are the ones to take them out, I'm OK with that. I don't like cops very much, but OK.

My fear here would not be cops taking out the bad guys -- even if you believe cops are the bad guys. This would be little different than the gang of thugs fighting the gang of killers and the former winning. I might not love the thugs, but I might be happy to see the murders being taken down. I'd be more afraid of the FBI, etc. making up stuff -- something they might have a very big incentive to do. Certainly, a national or international conspiracy sounds much better to keep up budgets and increase powers than, "Oh, we infiltrated the local chess club -- the one with other those Russian emigres -- and found out they're even more boring than the local ladies knitting society."

As to Beck not caring for the accuracy of his statements, I suggest you watch him instead of taking one statement out of context. Every time he has spoken of anarchists, it has been in terms of people like Bakunin, etc., and in terms of Nazis, communists, etc. In other words, the precursors of modern collectivist dictatorships. No one I know among his fans would ever take that statement of his above to mean libertarian anarchists. (But a libertarian anarchist with thin skin might... Too bad he would be the only one... )

I'm not much of a friend of PC language. If I say I want my coffee black around an African American, that does not mean I am referring to his race. I believe the same applies to Beck.

Michael

It's not a matter of PC language at all here. It's a matter of lumping people and viewpoints together. Beck has done this a few times and some here don't seem to mind. I'm not saying that it's the worst thing ever either, but it's not a good thing and should at least be called out when it's done. (You took a similar tack with his attacks on atheists and Godlessness.)

And it would be very easy for him to make the distinctions or, in this case, to just not use blanket terms.

For the record, too, I'm unaware of the Nazi-anarchist link. Care to share that one?

Add to this, he uses other broad categories, especially "revolutionaries" that don't necessarily identify or overlap with the others. Yes, I know, amongst his audience, these words will have a certain resonance; they'll likely associate "anarchists" and "revolutionaries" with bad and dangerous people. Don't you agree that "revolutionaries" is too broad a category to have much meaning? But why use such a generic term here when other terms are available?

All Beck is trying to do is move people in his direction. He can't do that by laying out concrete details of his philosophy because his audience will not understand. I mean most of them (including Beck, in some cases) are on the drug of collectivism, so they're neither interested in nor capable of understanding the concretes of capitalism or reason or individualism, or most of what Beck wants them to understand. His audience is just learning about remainders. Eventually they'll learn about decimals.

I'll admit that Beck does some good work -- especially getting Hayek back into the public mind (though, unlike some, that libertarians never did much in this direction; they only did their best to keep Hayek's works in print and the discussion of him going all these decades; that's not meaningless; we don't all have radio shows with huge national audiences) -- but I don't think this is a minor point. This is similar to his ranting against Godlessness and atheism. You might believe these are side issues, but, in the end, you're going to have people who don't bother ever to "learn about decimals" conflating atheists and anarchists with whatever bad things they can think of. You don't get off the "drug of collectivism" by taking it now and then, when it feels good.

And, in fact, re-reading the transcrip, it seems like Beck just felt good venting against anarchists and such -- not caring about the accuracy of his statements. (Of course, no one here but me seems to think this is a "cheap out-of-context tactic" on his part or that he's "agenda-pushing." Of course, only people criticizing him do that -- never him.)

Anarcho-capitalists or market anarchists are hardly the only non-collectivist anarchists...

I just did a quick scan through Wikipedia and I can't come up with any (albeit some are close). What others exist?

I believe individualist anarchists and mutualists would probably fit the bill. But, even so, collectivist anarchist per se are not genocidal or even revolutionary. Lumping all anarchists or even all non-market anarchists together with statists like Beck did should raise some eyebrows -- not lead everyone to his defense to explain away such an obvious error.

Let me go on record by saying that I don't mind the FBI infiltrating groups who are planning on setting up death camps in America.

That's what they are supposed to do.

My guess, though, is the FBI infiltrates groups and then tries to provoke them to doing things that result in arrests. In this case, you only have the word of an FBI infiltrator on what happened -- not independent evidence -- so you, Beck, and me don't know whether anything was planned or what the likelihood was of this happening.

It's not as if the Weather Underground was an innocent organization that had not practiced terrorist violence and the FBI was infiltrating an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting.

While true, the problem of the accuracy of the agent's report or interpretation remains.

But, hey...

Maybe that's just me...

I don't mind using common sense with bullies who are planning my own enslavement...

In fact, I don't mind paying trained professionals to deal with them. I think the professionals will do a better job than I will.

Michael

This misses my point about government. My point was that if people are supposedly planning to infilitrate some powerful part of the government, then one should question why that powerful part of the government exists in the first place.

Let me try an analogy. Imagine the Weather Underground was going to infiltrate the Federal Reserve System to devalue the currency (let's leave alone that this already seems to be the policy), thereby, destroying the economy and readying all of us for forced labor camps in the Southwest. One thing one might do is give the Fed ever more power, have the FBI do extensive monitoring of anyone who speaks ill of the Fed, and maybe loosening all the restraints on police powers.

But wouldn't the better policy be to dismantle the Fed in the first place? Under that policy, the Fed's power would be reduced and, eventually, eliminated. This would take away the main pillar of this hypothetical plan to undermine the economy. And it would do without violating anyone's rights or giving more power to the government or its police.

Other than busting BP's chops, what has Obama really in assistance to stopping the damage? Does anyone know?

It's not about stopping the damage to the Gulf, but getting people to vote for his party this year and him again next year, don't you think? He definitely didn't want to make the mistake Bush made with regard to Katrina. (I'm not supporting Obama or attacking Bush here -- just being cynical.)

It will be a wonderful day when people stop buying oil. When that happens, people in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq will go back to crawling on their stomachs, eating worms and bugs to survive.

They weren't "crawling on their stomachs, eating worms and bugs to survive" just before oil was discovered there, so why would they now? Add to this, these nations seem to suffer from a resource curse. Yeah, sure some have gotten fantastically wealthy from mineral wealth, but most of the money from this goes to a small class and at best only trickles down to the rest in the form of buying their passivity when it's not paying for secret police to watch over them. (Of course, with Iraq now, this isn't exactly the case. But for now, it's basically a puppet state of the US. I'm thinking of before the invasion took place. Saddam wasn't handing out cash to the poor. He was building presidential palaces, buying weapons, and paying for an elaborate secret police force.)

Also, this disaster wasn't caused by "people in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq" -- as far as I know.

Blind regulation is never the answer. This afternoon, Judge Napolitano explained how federal regulation pushed the limits of offshore drilling out far enough so that BP had to drill in 5,000 ft of water as opposed to 500 ft. And neither BP nor the federal government know how to contain a spill at that depth. But the government won't be held liable for contributing to the disaster, just for muscling the big corporation to "pay" for it's transgresses. Once this disaster is passed, the company, it's industry, and people will be in for some (more) regulatory punishment. But in the hope of this never happening again, it's justified... right?

I believe you're mostly right here, but I don't think this is good regulation vs. bad or blind regulation -- as if there were a such thing as good regulation.

And just to be clear on pricing, speculation drives the price, not hard-commodity supply/demand.

This is drivel. Most forward, futures, and option contracts are acquired by hedgers, not speculators. Also, there is much supply and demand for future delivery, not simply in the spot market (for immediate delivery).

Speculators are usually attacked. I recall when I was in college a friend of mine who seemed to be a free market type and like to buy silver coins railing about speculators driving wild swings in the silver market. He was verging on calling for banning speculation outright -- as if that were somehow compatible with free markets and could practically be done anyhow.

And for whom he's attacking he's right to do so. Those are not anarcho-capitalists he's referring to but all the rest, which are all decidedly collectivist.

Anarcho-capitalists or market anarchists are hardly the only non-collectivist anarchists, but there are also many types of non-capitalist or non-market anarchists who would never go along with things Beck is raving about.

Add to this, he uses other broad categories, especially "revolutionaries" that don't necessarily identify or overlap with the others. Yes, I know, amongst his audience, these words will have a certain resonance; they'll likely associate "anarchists" and "revolutionaries" with bad and dangerous people. Don't you agree that "revolutionaries" is too broad a category to have much meaning? But why use such a generic term here when other terms are available?

And some of the statements made should be questionable. Why would those who call themselves anarchists want to "take over the government"? Wouldn't that make you question whether these folks were anarchists in the first place. If Michael wants to maintain I'm dropping context here -- funny, if that's what I wanted to do, why did I provide the link? -- then why did Beck lump these broad categories together? Why not just say "Weather Underground" or "those associated with the Weather Underground"? Maybe because it lacks the emotional power, but then he's painting with a very broad brush.

This is not to even bring up whether the allegetations made by an FBI agent are true or meant much. Believe you me, I don't mind Beck attacking Obama's associates. But I don't want to see people lumped in who are completely innocent and also I don't think the "any stick used to beat an enemy is a good stick" tactic is good. I can just see, after this, trying to explain to an otherwise uninformed Beck listener, reader, or viewer why anarchism doesn't mean taking over the government, putting people in camps, or genocide.

Finally, the best tactic to prevent someone from taking over parts of or the whole government and using it against the nation is to get rid of those parts of the government. Imagine, for instance, some "agenda-pushing politicians" wanted to take over public education to make revolutionary changes in society of the sort you wouldn't like. Well, the statist way to handle is, I guess, get the FBI involved to infilitrate various groups, start monitoring more people, and the like. The libertarian solution to this problem is easy: get rid of public education.

Well, I believe in "American exceptionalism" where it exists. Not all of it's positive. I could say the same about many other countries.

--Brant

What do you mean by the term? And isn't the idea that it wouldn't apply to other nations -- that American exceptionalism means non-American unexceptionalism? (Or did you just mean that other nations have their bad points too -- even if they're also unexceptional?)

I think the sense that "exceptionalism" was used by MR earlier is that a certain group or nation applies one set of standards and expectancy to themselves, and another to everyone else.

Moreso, that one's own group gets a 'free ride' that they will not allow anyone else.

If I'm right, this indicates double standards, or even, 'relativism', doesn't it?

Even Objectivists have been known to do it, but far more rarely than other 'groups', imo.

Tony

That's how it's usually used. E.g., it was used to argue for preventative war -- as those who wanted such wars perhaps sincerely believed that they or US leaders would know when it was right to carry out one and would have the moral right to do so, whereas foreigners, obviously, would either not have such wisdom or would be suffer from having bad motives.

This makes me think of the many crime movies where the "good cop" doesn't follow due process and the like and gets results. He's obviously good and knows how to fight crime, so such rules only get in the way and help the bad guys.

I meant to add "mindlessly" in the header.

Well, I believe in "American exceptionalism" where it exists. Not all of it's positive. I could say the same about many other countries.

--Brant

What do you mean by the term? And isn't the idea that it wouldn't apply to other nations -- that American exceptionalism means non-American unexceptionalism? (Or did you just mean that other nations have their bad points too -- even if they're also unexceptional?)

Dan,

Could it be that you post links, and then ask for comments without putting yours forth first?

~ Shane

let me try another: Do you believe I would not want to see him freed?

See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/books/review/Shulevitz-t.html

I've read his other book, Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors. I'm nearing the middle of this one. Good popular level introduction to some of the views of evolutionary psychology on religion. This doesn't mean it's flawless.

Of the 6.2 billion humans on earth, how many fit the MQM category?

Ba'al Chatzaf

All of them fit into that category, in virtue of the fact that they are all human beings.

Man qua man is an abstraction. It is simply another way of talking about human nature, i.e., those characteristics that humans have in common, sometimes with an emphasis on their most essential characteristics, such as reason.

It is because we have common characteristics that we can speak of human beings in general, rather than needing to refer in every case to Tom, Dick, or Harry.

Does this topic really merit a separate thread?

Ghs

If he truly meant "MQM" as "man qua man," perhaps he was looking for a way to rationalize his genocidal fantasies.