Skip to main content

Gandhi, the Daily Kos, and Libertarians

At Delawareliberal (the really old version of the site) they used to have up the following quotation from Gandhi:

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.


Which is intriguing in light of the fact that some diarists at The Daily Kos are now spending almost as much time discussing [debunking, from their perspective] Libertarianism and the idea of a serious Libertarian third party as they spend trashing social conservatism and Sarah Palin: here, here, and here.

As a rough measure it is becoming more and more clear that libertarian ideas--unfettered by the overtly moralistic and often theocratic overtones of the extreme social conservatives--are seen by progressives and liberals to be their major intellectual and political opposition.

Which would be a lot of fun if Libertarians could ever find a way to organize themselves.

Ah, well....

Comments

ka1igu1a said…
My response...

http://freedomdemocrats.org/node/3406
Bowly said…
What fools at Kos.

The Citzen's Dilemma post: "The only solution, it seems to me, is for the group to establish firm rules with known consequences. If the group is empowered to enforce cooperation, the equation changes for the individual rational actors--the benefits of betraying the group trust disappear."

Could not have been said better by Chairman Mao himself.

One commenter: "As technology advances, individuals have progressively more power--which makes unchecked power in the hands of individuals progressively more damaging to those who lack it."

Yet they fail to see the problems of putting that same technology into government's hands.

I couldn't read any more. It made me want to scream.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...