http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5UdPWnDXZo&feature=related
Sort of. The end lyric goes “no I won’t sit down and be quiet” to paraphrase ( :
A defiant sounding woman!
]]>Well, you know the old saying about the relative values of late and never…
]]>This is the ‘Libertarian’ Party?
Utterly revolting. The enthusiasm for ‘control’ no less than the anti-immigration stance.
One wonders what the Authoritarian Party will have to say in order to sufficiently distinguish their position.
More Ferguson: “America’s doctors, hospitals and health care professionals – the best in the world – should then take the lead on eradicating the virus where it already exists.”
LOL. ‘The best in the world’?
I have a chronic illness. I couldn’t find a doctor in the U.S. who would treat (or even identify) my condition competently and seriously through 8 years of trying, partially because it was automatically written off as a result of transsexuality. The New Zealand health system found something to help in the first month after I sought treatment, and I’m now on increased dosage of a second drug. I’m doing things now which haven’t been possible for me in a decade. Needless to say this has significantly improved my quality of life.
The U.S. was once ‘best in the world’ in quite a number of categories, but those who easily say the same today are primarily proclaiming their indifference to and ignorance of comparative political reality.
]]>Matt,
The LP is on the road to becoming the party of the minutemen…
For more Libertarian head scratching:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/schiff/schiff19.html
I am surprised to read this on Lewrockwell. I always thought they were pretty in tune with Rothbard’s corporate state analysis. I expected orthodox Objectivists to paint Wall Street as the completely innocent victim of government credit excess, but this article seems one sided. Obama is bringing in foreign capitalists to invest in the stagnant enterprise. The United Auto Workers is going to own 55 percent of the downsized enterprise, but they are taking a hit on wages/benefits. Obama is turning out to be an economic conservative who believes in government bailouts/welfareism. It astounded me to see a Moveon.org sign in the subway reading “Help Obama end the Iraq War”. “Our” national delusions continue unabated ) :
]]>Saturday was the one year anniversary of the passing of Deborah Jeane Palfrey (aka the DC Madam), who hung herself at her mother’s home following the conclusion of a highly public and humiliating trial. There’s a tribute site to her. Anyway, a friend of mine blogged about it and I forwarded her message to the “Agora!” and “Sexual Freedom” groups on Bureaucrash Social.
Speaking of people that actually should die:
“The Libertarian Party Platform is clear, Libertarians support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property,” said Donny Ferguson, Libertarian National Committee Communications Director . . .
“That is typical of the irresponsibility of the Obama White House,” said Ferguson. “While doctors and hospitals should be focused on mitigating the virus here, as Secretary Napolitano stated, Barack Obama also has a responsibility to ensure infected people don’t flee into the United States and spread the virus here.”
“There is no reason to allow possibly infected people to cross the border. They can wait until they are cleared as healthy,” said Ferguson.
And it gets worse . . .
Former U.S. Congressman Bob Barr, the 2008 Libertarian Party presidential nominee, also urged federal officials to more closely monitor the border and keep out infected individuals who could further spread the disease in the United States.
“We can and should take steps to ensure neither a swine flu nor any other disease epidemic crosses into our territory by having our government commit to monitoring and restricting border crossings from Mexico,” Barr wrote in a column Wednesday for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
It’s times like these that I wonder when that Satanic curse I put on him is gonna finally kick in.
Read the whole thing if you dare. Thanks to Darian Worden for pointing it out to me.
]]>You’re right. I was thinking of what the destruction of animal species can do to upset the ecosystem we inhabit — falls into Aster’s category of intrapersonal aggression.
What I meant was that I can’t see a coherent principled objectively valid argument that could be consistently applied — to test its objectivity.
What I meant is the justification for the non-intitation of force is its interference/cramping of a free mind.
]]>I responded to this same comment in another thread, so I’ll repost it here.
Apart from what the complete disappearance of animal species can do to human well being as part of the environment
That would be a consequentialist argument, not one that animals have “rights” independently of their usefulness to us. “Rights” advocates find the very idea of reducing animals to commodities repugnant on principal.
Animal rights and deep ecology both share a common hatred for anything that reeks of anthropocentrism, and many environmentalists at least have that sentiment, even if they’re not deep ecologists. Then again, it’s hard to separate that from the standard garden-variety altruism that pollutes most “social justice” positions; it’s meta-selfish to care about our biological category more than others (because apparently when a wolf kills a rabbit it has the entire biosphere in mind, not just its own hunger).
I tend to agree with Will that the consistent application of this kind of thinking logically requires anarcho-primitivism. Reject any part of it and you might as well reject biology as a basis for anything, in which case we shouldn’t shrink from actively using whatever biological superiority we have to transcend inconvenient biological limitations like mortality, limited memory, unwanted sexual dimorphism and substandard sense organs (I mean, we can’t even see most of the electro-magnetic spectrum. What’s up with that?!) however “essential” they might seem to the biologically reductionist definition of what it means to be human.
I don’t think there any rational consistent way to grant non-human animals the same legal standing as animals.
Would it be inconsistent, or just impractical to realize given the majority of people’s preferences? I think pacifism is consistent, but also ridiculously naive and unrealistic. Refuse to fight and you will be eaten.
To abstract the principle of non-intitation of force away from a distinctly human consciousness is to render it meaningless.
To animal rights advocates, “suffering” is the important metaphysical, not consciousness. Plants don’t have central nervous systems; animals do.
Morally shunning the guy who beats his dog may be a wise thing, but it doesn’t justify locking him up. To be consistent: you’d have to make killing an animal for food murder.
I recently encountered a militant vegan who compared killing chickens to the Holocaust.
]]>