Why I'm Not A (Capital-L) Libertarian
I posted something at Hit & Run about why those of us who are uneasy about the Bush administration's prisoner detention policy shouldn't be thrilled about the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court.
Commenter Jennifer made a point that's worth repeating:
So the guy has no problem with folks being sentenced to death without a trial. But you're forgetting the IMPORTANT libertarian issue: will he raise our taxes?And later:
I think some folks here would be willing to bring back internment camps and legal segregation, if it meant an extra fifty bucks in their pockets each week.It's bad for the soul to be part of any movement, even one that purports to be all about individuality.
posted by Finnegan @ 2:44 PM
8 comments
8 Comments:
I feel for you Finnegan. What you just expressed is my own reason for hesitating at the Libertarian door, despite my pro-individual stance on many issues. There are too many Libertarians who see the be-all and the end-all of the movement in terms of taxation, which for me always smacks not of individualism, but of selfishness. It also doesn't help that I've never met a Libertarian who makes less than $100,000 a year, though I know there are many out there... Just not that many in Connecticut I'm guessing.
Can I just ask: What is the purpose of naming this blog after a James Joyce novel?
Dan- I though this was a fine, mediocre post until the last sentence. I'm sure it didn't take much, but you said it right. (dope)
Anonymous- what's the purpose of your question? to "find out"...glorious.
Owen Wilson- What exactly happened to your nose? And why don't you tell that story on talk shows? What was it like working with Deniro, twice!?! I have followups so write back soon, ciao.
anyone in new york have (and want to play) Mario Kart this weekend? we won't, but it would've been Fucking Hilarious!
liam - what's the purpose of your purposive purposiveness, by which i mean the purpose to which you seek a purposive explanation for the apparent purposiveness without a purpose that you purposely exposed?
and thank you for being so manly. where would our world be without manly men like you to be manly in your mannerisms (ha ha!) and crack manly jokes that expose the weakness and unmanliness of the majority of the unmanly, un-masculine men.
i suppose the question was rhetorical, wasn't it? yes? huh? you, asshole? the implication being: is there any substance to the title of this blog (and, implicitly, its content), or is it just an excuse to reference a notoriously difficult book for no reason other than hubris--as if having read 'finnegans wake' automatically qualifies you as an intellectual?
I am a dumbfuck who lists Fight Club, The Big Lebowski, and The Royal Tenenbaums on my Friendster profile. Represent! Let's play Mario Kart, dudes.
anonymous-- you continue to amaze and disapoint...fabulous, absolutely. Just who are you? This morning I woke up with charlie horse.
I do not purport purposes or purposiveness...i do so 'on purpose' of course, but thats because its underfoot like dead people or sidewalks.
as for the dissapointing anonymous:
1. don't suppose--i recommend you check out Karl Rove's old blog @ mylifeissointeresting.blogspot.com for comments on the dangers inherent in that process.
3. Don't explicate your implications...it's either excrement or masturbation.
2. hubris ain't a reason for naming a blog, its a greek word and a weak word because its often seen, rarely heard...you should work on pronunciation, then learn basic colors, but since the sea is wine-dark you'll prolly drown round here.
7.The intellectual qualifiers were two weeks ago and surprisingly the only criterion was having read Finnegan's Wake...I haven't read it either Homeboy, so I'm preparing for foot working on my epi-pen skills, Dan, who has read the book, is working up to the epistemi-finals
Post a Comment
<< Home