My rants Tammie are all true and have a modicum of humor
Yours are lies, witless, boring, and obvious and you think they are news and enlightenment
Because you are a moron
Besides being a Phelps family pink face minstrel show spoof of a faggot
Nobody could be as big an airheaded sissy as you pretend to be princess poopie pole
I have my surveyor's symbol on you
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Tommy News <tommysnews@gmail.com> wrote:
Lil Keithie Keith-
So you are saying that vulgar vile personal attacks such as this rant
fom Bruce are welcome in this pathetic group?
Our American queers are a hardier breed sis" (From Bruce Above)
"Tommy you sure are thin skinned for a faggot
Must be because in Canada people get arrested for telling you to
pucker up and suck their butt hole
That is acceptable here?
If so, this is indeed a far Right Extremest Wingnut group filled with
hate, smears, lies, personal attacks, fear mongering, bullies, and
vulgar profanity as I have seem over and over and over again here.
Yes, it is.
RE: Libertarian LibbyTards: This sums it up: "Libery, and Justice For Some"!
Libertarians are similar to Conservatives in that they both point to
the problems, and offer no solutions. The entire concept of
Libertarianism is a complete falure.
Go here and read each link:
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
And read this in its entirety, the best points are at the end:
A General Criticism of Libertarianism
The social atomism of the Libertarian is a false description of both
individual and social human nature.
If Margaret Thatcher truly believes that "there is no such thing as
society," one must wonder what this former British Prime Minister must
make of Lord Nelson's charge to his officers at the Battle of
Trafalgar: "England expects that every man will do his duty." And
for what did the magnificent aviators in the Battle of Britain
sacrifice their lives? For England? But "England" is an alleged
"society," and according to Baroness Thatcher, there is "no such
thing." Thus we encounter a curious evolution in Tory philosophy,
from Churchill's "there will always be an England," to Thatcher's
"there is no such thing as England."
In fact, as every sociologist, psychologist and anthropologist well
knows, human existence, including human consciousness, thought,
evaluation, history, and culture - including property and markets - is
inconceivable without society. A human infant is not like a sea
turtle or a mackerel, wholly independent and autonomous upon
"hatching." All uniquely human life, thought and culture has its
origin and sustenance in the uniquely human mode of communication:
articulate language, which can only be acquired in social life. We
define ourselves, and are in turn defined, first by the society and
culture in which we find ourselves as we mature, and possibly later on
by the societies and cultures that we seek out and adopt, or in the
case of geniuses, transform. "The self," writes the economist Herman
Daly, "is in reality not an isolated atom, but is constituted by its
relations in community with others - the very identity of the self is
social rather than atomistic." (Daly, 172). (See "How is Morality
Possible?" . Conscience of a Progressive).
Furthermore, as many moral philosophers have argued (with significant
support from "game theory"), morality can only be understood, and
moral problems cogently solved, from the perspective of a hypothetical
observer of the human interaction - the so-called "moral point of
view." From this perspective, the group of interacting individuals
is the irreducible unit of moral deliberation. Moral problems can no
more be analyzed from the point of view of the individual, than
strategy and rules of a team sport such as hockey can be analyzed from
the point of view of a single player, or a chess game successfully
played in disregard of the opposing player. Finally, as the history
of warfare repeatedly affirms, the best means of achieving the selfish
end of personal survival on the battlefield is to subordinate one's
concern for personal survival to a shared willingness to sacrifice
one's life in behalf of others. Thus morality, at its foundations, is
paradoxical: it is often in one's best interest not to seek above all
one's self interest. This paradox can only be resolved from "the
moral point of view" - from the perspective of the ideally informed
and disinterested observer of human interaction. (See "Good for Each,
Bad for All, and The Moral Point of View, Conscience of a Progressive,
this site).
To the libertarian, morality is founded in individual rights and
"society" (a Thatcherite delusion) is a mere summation of these
rights. In contradistinction the liberal, while acknowledging
individual rights, goes further. The liberal, by adopting "the moral
point of view," also recognizes "social goods" such as economic
justice, domestic tranquility, and communal loyalty, all of which
flourish under a system of laws, regulations, and enumerated welfare
rights, which are best enacted, executed and protected by the
institution of popular government – "of, by, and for the people." It
is the concept and role of government, minimal vs. expansive, that
most dramatically distinguishes the libertarian from the liberal.
Libertarians regard the morally well-ordered society as a free gift,
to which nothing is owed for its maintenance.
Thus libertarians argue against the liberals that redistribution of
wealth, care for the weak and unfortunate, support of education, the
arts and the environment, the promotion of civic pride -- none of
these are required of the citizen.. True, private donations to
charities and private organizations that aid these unfortunates and
support these amenities are morally praiseworthy, but they cannot
legitimately be supported by required tax assessments. To do so, the
libertarians argue, would constitute involuntary appropriation of
private property – in a word, "theft."
In reply, the liberal cites an additional concept in John Locke's
political writings, conveniently overlooked by libertarian theorists:
this is the concept of the social contract. Contract theorists such
as Locke, and the contemporary liberal moral philosopher, John Rawls,
would point out that secure possession of the rights of life, liberty
and property, and the orderly functioning of the free market, are only
possible in what Rawls calls a "well ordered society." Such a society
exists he writes,
when it is not only designed to advance the good of its members but
when it is also effectively regulated by a public conception of
justice. That is, it is a society in which (1) everyone accepts and
knows that the others accept the same principles of justice, and (2)
the basic social institutions generally satisfy and are generally
known to satisfy these principles... Among individuals with disparate
aims and purposes a shared conception of justice establishes the bonds
of civic friendship..." (Rawls, 1971, 4-5. See also pp. 453-462).
Such a society is not the libertarian's mere aggregate of "social
atoms" -- of private individuals, seeking merely to maximize their
own self-interest. Rather, the liberal contends, it is a well-knit
community of citizens, with loyalties to the community, and with an
active understanding that rights must correlate with duties. (For
example, no citizen can consistently claim his right to a jury trial
and deny his duty to serve on a jury). In a well ordered society,
every citizen, without exception and whatever his accomplishment,
bears an enormous burden of moral debt to both predecessors and
contemporaries. The liberal insists that in a democratic society, the
appropriate institution for the management and payment of that debt is
the government. The British sociologist, L. T. Hobhouse, made the
point supremely well, when he wrote:
The organizer of industry who thinks he has 'made' himself and his
business has found a whole social system ready to his hand in skilled
workers, machinery, a market, peace and order -- a vast apparatus and
a pervasive atmosphere, the joint creation of millions of men and
scores of generations. Take away the whole social factor, and we have
not Robinson Crusoe with his salvage from the wreck and his acquired
knowledge, but the native savage living on roots, berries and vermin.
(Hobhouse, 1974)
To appreciate the scope of this "debt," imagine an American
libertarian entrepreneur, characteristically "fed up with big
government interference," who calls his travel agent to book a flight
to a business meeting in Europe. That simple transaction would have
been impossible without the "interference" (in part) of the National
Weather Service, the Air Traffic Control system, the Federal
Communications Commission, the Federal Reserve System, and countless
additional "government bureaucracies." Because these agencies oversee
the public "commons" and serve as referees of private commerce, they
can not be privatized -- any more than courts can be privatized. (See
my "Mr. DeLay Goes to Washington")
Equally significant as these public agencies is the "moral tone" of
the "well ordered society;" the sense of safety and well-being which
accompanies the implicit and widespread expectation among the
citizenry of fair-play, trustworthiness, and empathy -- a condition
founded upon the general acknowledgment that all citizens "have a
stake in" the existing politico-economic order. It is not a mere
accident of good fortune that the United States and other stable
nation-states are not Northern Ireland, or Bosnia. It is not without
reason that the citizens of these peaceful countries enjoy, by
contrast with those failed states, the benefits of what Rawls calls
"civic friendship." These benefits have been and must forever be
purchased, in part, through the citizens' support of public
institutions that maintain education, culture, popular government, and
publicly owned natural areas – all familiar items in the liberal
agenda.. Probably no pre-supposition of libertarianism, concludes the
liberal, is more misguided and more dangerous than the assumption of
the "free gift of the well-ordered society."
The Libertarian "minimalist state," designed to protect fundamental
rights of "life, liberty and property," may not be all that
'minimalist.'
To the libertarians, the only legitimate function of government is to
protect life, liberty and property -- which is to say, the only
legitimate public institutions are the military, the police, and the
courts. But the boundaries of even these functions are not clearly
defined, nor do the full implications of these "rights" end where the
libertarians might expect. Arguably, the maintenance of "civic
friendship" and the "well ordered society," promoted by such liberal
contractarian theorists as John Rawls, falls under the libertarian
criteria. For it may be the case that "life, liberty and property,"
can be secured only if society is "well-ordered," and "civic
friendship" obtains; that is, when the critical mass of citizens
recognize their common stake in a "shared fate," when, in a word, they
have a well-founded loyalty to their contract-state. But such a
society must be a community as described by liberal theory, and not
the aggregate of "utility maximizing egoists" envisioned by the
free-market libertarians. Again, we ask, how secure are "life,
liberty and property" in the failed communities of Bosnia and Ulster?
Wealth can be acquired and maintained only in a system wherein the
most and the least advantaged share a communal loyalty in the social
system under which that wealth was acquired. Such a system would
presumably contain "social safety nets" to ensure a minimal amount of
support and care for the least fortunate. In addition, the system
might be expected to support education, art and culture, so that all
citizens might acquire a shared loyalty to community values.
Otherwise, the least advantaged may no longer feel that they have a
stake in the system, whereupon the wealth of the advantaged may become
vulnerable to revolution. Thus, "through the back door" of
enlightened self interest, returns the "welfare state" that the
libertarians believed they had evicted through the front door. In
short, it is not at all clear that the "minimal state" required to
secure the libertarian rights to life, liberty and property is all
that "minimal." In fact, the liberal would insist, his activist
government agenda must be adopted if these libertarian rights are to
be secure.
Libertarianism is a Nietzschean "Master Morality."
One of the books of the libertarian economist and Nobel Prize winner,
Milton Friedman, is titled "Free to Choose." (M. Friedman) That title
reflects the libertarian conviction that the ideal state is one that
enshrines the conviction that the individual is the best judge of his
own welfare, and that the welfare of all will be best realize through
an exchange of personal and private "preferences" in the free market
and through the assured security of one's life, liberty and property.
The system sounds just fine for those with a super-abundance of wealth
and power. But what of all the others in society? Not to worry, say
the libertarians. Citing Adam Smith, the libertarian assures us that
the enterprising entrepreneur who "intends only his own gain" will, in
the course of maximizing his satisfactions, be "led by an invisible
hand to promote... the public interest." (A. Smith, 423). "The
invisible hand" metaphor has familiar variants, such as "the rising
tide that lifts all boats" and "the trickle down effect". (As noted
above, those who celebrate the "trickling down" of wealth from the
most to the least advantaged, seem disinclined to notice that wealth
also "percolates up" from the labor of the less advantaged, and from
public adherence to a "well ordered" system of justice). By invoking,
through "the invisible hand" and "the rising tide," the advantage to
all which accrues from the self-motivated search for private wealth by
each, the libertarian conveniently (if temporarily and inconsistently)
puts aside his "social atomism" in favor of an ad hoc theory of an
integrated system of society.
In response to Milton Friedman's celebration of the "freedom to
choose," one is immediately led to ask: "freedom of whom to 'choose'
-- and at whose expense?" Given the libertarian's uncompromising
fidelity to property rights and his faith in the free market, those
with property and with the wealth to enter the market have the
"freedom to choose," in direct proportion to their wealth. And at
whose expense? Presumably, those without the tickets (i.e., cash) to
enter the marketplace or to own property. This would include the very
young, the very poor, other species, ecosystems, and future
generations.. Thus it would appear that the libertarian morality
embraces the cynic's version of "the golden rule:" "Those with the
gold, get to rule."
To the philosophically educated, libertarianism is reminiscent of
Friedrich Nietzsche's "master morality," which he thus characterizes
in Beyond Good and Evil: "the noble type of man regards himself as a
determiner of values; he does not require to be approved of; he passes
the judgment: 'What is injurious to me is injurious in itself;' he
knows that it is he himself only who confers honor on things; he is a
creator of values. He honors whatever he recognizes in himself: such
morality is self-glorification. " Clearly, according to this
formulation libertarianism is a "master morality."
III – The Problem of the Irreducible Commons.
In his classical 1968 essay, "The Tragedy of the Commons," Garrett
Hardin describes an overstocked pasture used by several herdsmen, but
owned by no one in particular (i.e., "in common"). The addition of
one sheep to the commons enriches its owner at the expense of all the
other herdsmen. So long as there is no collective regulation on the
use of the commons, no initiative by an individual will save the
commons as each herdsman "rationally" chooses to "get what he can,
while he can." The result is inexorable: "ruin is the destination
toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a
society that believes in the freedom of the commons." (Hardin, 1244)
The strength of Hardin's essay resides in its enormous scope of
application. "The tragedy of the commons" explains the depletion of
the Atlantic Grand Banks fisheries east of Canada and the United
States. It also explains the pollution of common waterways and
airsheds, the loss of biodiversity, and uncontrolled population
growth. In all these cases and many more, a common resource is
exploited and diminished as benefit to each individual exacts costs on
unconsenting others.
The tragedy of the commons extends to cases far removed from resource
use and ecology. Two timely examples come to mind: in China and India
a rise in female feticide and infanticide has been reported as each
family is eager to produce a male heir to carry on the family name.
Because of the resulting reduction in female cohorts, all families
have a reduced opportunity to carry on the family name. In the second
case, the widespread use of antibiotics has caused a medical crisis,
due to the consequent survival by "selection" of resistant strains.
Accordingly, advantages to each patient are gained at the cost of
disadvantages to all patients.
The converse rule, "good for all and bad for each," is exemplified by
the payment of taxes for the support of social and governmental
services. The libertarian, in disregard of this rule, regards
taxation as "theft." The liberal, on the other hand, agrees with
Justice Holmes: "taxation is the price we pay for civilization."
(See my "Good for Each, Bad for All" ).
The tragedy of the commons strikes at the very heart of
libertarianism. It is the polar opposite of the cheerful optimism of
"the invisible hand," whereby the self-serving "utility maximization"
of each leads to advantages to all. In contrast, the tragedy of the
commons is "the back of the invisible hand" -- the falling tide that
grounds all boats -- whereby advantages sought by each systematically
and inexorably work to the disadvantage of all. And as the above
cases clearly indicate, the tragedy is unquestionably widespread and
endemic to modern society. Gone is the Thatcherite social atomism.
And gone with it is the impermeable boundary, essential to libertarian
theory, between "my business" and "your business."
The Privatization Ploy. Hardin endorses the Liberal's remedy: "mutual
coercion, mutually agreed upon" - which means, primarily, regulation
and control by a legitimate democratic government. However, as we
have seen, government interference is anathema to the libertarians.
Instead, they propose privatization and legal compensation for
damages. We will consider the latter remedy, "courts and torts,"
shortly. How plausible, then, is the privatization remedy?
In many cases, privatization is clearly the ideal remedy for the
commons problem. When, in the American West, the common "open range"
was fenced and privatized, the costs of over-exploitation fell upon
the owners. (In the technical language of economics, the previous
"externalities" were "internalized"). Clearly it then became
economically prudent for the owners to protect their "land capital" to
assure sustainable income. Recent Russian history confirms this
conclusion: as the Soviet era came to a close, the peasants' private
lots were consistently far more productive than were the collective
farms.
The libertarian's error resides in their proposal that privatization,
which is clearly the correct solution for some commons problems, is to
be prescribed for all commons problems. Like Maslow's carpenter,
libertarians believe that all commons problems can be fixed with the
"hammer" of privatization. Accordingly, they propose the abolition of
all national parks, and the privatization of all public lands and
utilities, including roads and airports -- everything, that is, except
the military, the police and the courts. Presumably, this means that
such universal "commonses" as the atmosphere and the oceans are to be
carved up and sold to the highest bidder. Not even wildlife is to be
allowed to remain free and unowned. Is this an unfair caricature of
the libertarian position? Consider the argument of Robert J. Smith
who suggests that the absence of privatization explains "why the
buffalo nearly vanished, but not the Hereford; ... why the common
salmon fisheries of the United States are overfished, but not the
private salmon streams of Europe." (32) His solution? "We should
explore the possibilities of extending ownership of native game
animals and wildlife to property owners." (47).
Critics of libertarianism find no end of amusement pointing out the
inadequacies of the libertarians' "hammer." How, for example, are
we to "privatize" the whaling industry? Are we to "brand" the whales,
to validate the ownership of each? And what if "my whale" feeds on
"your krill," which you purchased (from whom?) to feed "your whales"?
What courts must we set up to assess damages? What agency will be set
up to collect the facts germane to the case, and how is it to be
financed? Furthermore, the privatization of oceanic resources suggests
that "territories" of ocean will have to be established, which means
the end of the centuries-old convention of non-sovereignty of the
seas. What country will be the first to claim the North Atlantic,
along with the Gulf Stream? If the United States, will Great Britain
and Scandinavia then have to pay the US for the use of the Gulf
Stream's climatic services? Will the nations of the world accede to
this "sea grab" without protest? The military implications are
awesome.
If we privatize wildlife, then will the owner of the wild insects that
pollinate my orchard be entitled to charge me for this service? If
someone's flock of migrating birds soils my clothing or pollutes my
swimming pool, how am I to locate the responsible owner? The mind
boggles.
There is worse to come: can we conceivably "privatize" the atmosphere,
and with it the hydrological cycle? If so, then who is liable for El
Nino or Hurricane Katrina? If I own a "piece" of the atmosphere, is
this a defined space, or is it the migrating clouds and molecules
within. How is the "owner" to make his claim?
Total privatization of the earth is a fantasy -- a reductio ad
absurdum, charitably supplied to the critics by the libertarians
themselves. The atmosphere, the seas, wildlife, and innumerable
ecological services both known and undiscovered, are now and will
forever be the "common property" of mankind, not to mention the other
species of the earth. And since "privatization" of land and resources
can never be the total and final solution to the commons problem,
there remains the libertarians' alternative proposal: legal
compensation for invasion of property. If that is found to fail, then
governmental regulation, endorsed by the liberals and detested by the
libertarians, may be the only remaining solution to "the tragedy of
the commons."
IV -- The Torts and Courts Solution.
Martin Anderson, a former Reagan administration official writes that
"just as one does not have the right to drop a bag of garbage on his
neighbor's lawn, so does one not have the right to place any garbage
in the air or the water or the earth, if it in any way violates the
property rights of others." (Anderson) Accordingly, the libertarians
contend, "all" problems of environmental pollution and can be
controlled through the injured citizens' recourse to the courts.
Unfortunately, there is overwhelming evidence that this remedy,
however appealing in theory, will not succeed in practice. Experience
has shown, time and again, that the unfortunate victims of
environmental pollution are simply unable to make their case, however
just.
Contributory Assault
My home and primary work place is in the San Bernardino mountains,
east of Los Angeles. While the air quality here is much better than
most other places in Southern California, the westerly winds regularly
bring Los Angeles air through my property and into my lungs. (Until
the state and federal governments enforced regulations, the air
quality in Los Angeles was the worst in the United States). Another
autobiographical fact that will soon prove relevant to this
discussion: thirty-five years ago I threw out my pipes and tobacco and
never smoked again.
Suppose, in another five years, I am diagnosed with lung cancer. The
doctors then tell me that after thirty-five years without a draw on my
pipe or a drag on a cigarette, my former smoking habit is an unlikely
cause. More likely, I have been victimized by southern California air
-- in particular, the exhaust fumes from some twenty-million
automobiles.
According to the libertarians, my property and person have been
illegally assaulted, and I am entitled to compensation for my injury.
Moreover, they assure us, comparable rights of compensation of all
citizens, combined with a system of civil courts, will suffice to put
an end to all environmental pollution.
If the courts are to be my remedy, then which one of the twenty
million automobile owners am I to sue for the damage to my health from
air pollution? Which molecule from which car was "the last straw"
that mutated the fatal cell? Finally, how can we be sure "beyond a
reasonable doubt" that my pipe smoking was not the cause? Because
these questions are unanswerable, it appears that there is no hope
that I will be compensated.
Perhaps I should sue all the drivers – after all, my compensation
award divided by twenty million will not amount to a hardship to any
of these drivers. But I am not the only victim, so that assessment
will have to be multiplied by the number of authenticated
"plaintiffs."
So here's a suggestion: require each driver to pay an "insurance
premium" with his driver's license, the proceeds of which will be used
to treat and compensate victims of air pollution, just as mandatory
auto insurance is used to compensate vehicle accident victims.
Unfortunately, unlike accident victims, those who are injured by air
pollution can not assign cause to any particular defendants.
Accordingly, the "premiums" will have to be collected and the payments
disbursed by an independent and impartial agency - the government, of
course. Finally, a small semantic correction: call those "premiums"
by their right name - "taxes." Voila! The liberal solution,
disparaged by libertarians and "conservatives" as "socialized
medicine!"
The Statistical Casualty
In the 1950s and early 1960s, the US Atomic Energy Commission
conducted atmospheric atomic tests in the western state of Nevada,
resulting in significant radioactive fallout in the southern part of
the adjacent state of Utah. Two decades later, there was an alarming
increase in lung and thyroid cancers among the residents of southern
Utah - primarily ranchers and farmers, whose Mormon religion forbids
the use of tobacco. (Udall, Chapter 11).
Repeated suits against the United States government failed, due to the
following problem of "the statistical casualty." While
epidemiological studies determined beyond reasonable doubt that there
was a known percentage rise in the incidence of cancer, and thus a
known number of excess cases, no particular cancer patient could be
known to be a victim of the fallout. Even non-smokers contract lung
cancer, albeit rarely, from natural background radiation and other
sources. Thus, while it was virtually certain that there were
hundreds of victims of the fallout, no particular individual victim
could be identified. And that degree of doubt sufficed to free the
government of liability. As we shall see, the same legal strategy has
prevented all citizen-plaintiffs from winning a single compensation
suit against the tobacco industry, though the US government has
estimated that up to a half million individuals die each year from
smoking related diseases.
The Burden of Proof:
Because of these considerations and others (e.g., synergisms,
threshold effects, time-lag effects, etc.), painfully real injuries,
diseases, and premature deaths are routinely generated by causes, the
evidence for which falls far short of the legal burden of proof. Nor
can this problem be remedied simply by lowering the threshold of the
burden of proof, for this would open the floodgates of frivolous and
meritless suits, undermining, among other rights, the libertarians'
cherished right of property.
The history of the tobacco industry in the United States offers an
instructive lesson as to the efficacy of libertarians' private lawsuit
("torts") response to a public health menace.
In 1962, the US Surgeon General, Dr. Luther Terry, released the first
report from his office on smoking and health. In the intervening
decades, as an enormous body of evidence has accumulated, there has
been little doubt among the scientific community about the validity of
the warnings of Dr. Terry and of all his successors. Millions of
American citizens have had their lives cut short by tobacco-induced
diseases, while the industry, exercising its free market privileges,
has invested millions more in advertising and promotion to
successfully lure still more victims.
During these decades, hundreds of victims of the tobacco industry have
sued for compensation. And as we have noted, not a single individual
plaintiff has won a case against the industry. Finally, after more
than three decades of complete failure, the libertarian individual
tort remedy was discarded and the problem of the statistical casualty
sidestepped, as a consortium of state Attorneys General, led by
Mississippi's Michael Moore, achieved a multi-billion dollar
settlement from the tobacco companies. The plaintiffs in these cases
were not individual smokers, but rather the states which had to pay
increased medical costs to the "class" of smokers.
Similarly, the air that I breathe at my southern California mountain
home is significantly cleaner now than it was a generation ago, and
not because of successful law suits by citizens and property owners
against the polluters. Instead, the liberal's remedy has been applied
as air quality has been improved through the laws and regulations
issuing from the state of California's Air Quality Management
District, and the federal Environmental Protection Agency: in short,
through Garrett Hardin's "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon."
Aside from a few uncompromising libertarians of my acquaintance, I
know of no fellow Californians who would have it any other way.
An unequal and hence unfair apportionment of risks.
A risk that might be acceptable to an entrepreneur can put an innocent
and unconsenting public at unacceptable and unjust risk.
Suppose, for example, that a developer correctly calculated that by
building a dam, he had a 95% chance of becoming enormously wealthy -
so long as the dam did not fail. However, there was a 5% chance that
the dam would fail, which would provoke law suits that would surely
bankrupt him, and possibly earn him a prison sentence. Many
venturesome capitalists would find this to be a quite acceptable risk.
However, that same venture would put the lives and property of
thousands of downstream citizens in peril, with no appreciable
advantage accruing to them if the dam were built. Clearly, it would
be unjust for the developer to proceed with his project. But what is
to prevent him from doing so? The threat of suit? As we have seen,
he has already considered this and found it to be an insufficient
deterrent. In the libertarian state, with government regulation
abolished, there remains no further deterrent to this threat against
the innocent and unconsenting citizens.
The case is more than hypothetical, for it precisely describes
innumerable historic cases. Lifeboats for the full ship's complement
of the Titanic were regarded by the White Star line as an unwarranted
expense, given the unlikelihood that ship would sink. The result of
this disproportion of risk to investors and to passengers is known to
all. Prior to the crash of 1929, the risk of bank failure to the
stockholders was not proportional to the risk of the depositors. So
too the risks to sellers and to buyers, of selling tainted food and
untested drugs. Once again, the liberal brings forth a proven remedy
for these disproportionate risks: inspection and regulation by a
disinterested third party, namely the government, backed up by the
force of law and the prospect of fine and imprisonment.
A Reactive rather than a Proactive strategy.
The disproportionate burdens of risk, just discussed, have led to the
establishment of pure food and drug laws, of traffic safety
regulations, of inspection and regulation by bank and insurance
commissions, of building and constructions codes. All these and
innumerable additional examples of "big government interference"
exemplify yet another essential advantage of the liberal program of
government regulation over the libertarian alternative of private
suits for damages: the private libertarian solution is reactive, while
the liberal public approach is proactive. Private interests lack both
the resources and the inclination to anticipate disasters and hazards
before they occur. Again, the case of the tobacco industry is
instructive. Federal investigations of company documents leaked by
"whistleblowers" have confirmed what critics have long suspected:
tobacco industry "research" has acted more to hide and obscure than to
reveal the health consequences of smoking.
As children, we have all been taught that "an ounce of prevention is
worth a pound of cure." Even so, it is difficult to assess the value
of proactive policies, since it is difficult to acquire statistics on
accidents that do not happen, and persons not killed or injured, due
to effective preventive policies. Difficult, but not impossible. The
contrast in public health and safety, and in environmental quality,
before and after the introduction of government regulation further
validates the liberal agenda, while it offers strong refutation to the
libertarian's assurance that "the free market," the enforcement of
property rights and the threat of civil law suits are the best means
of protecting the public and the natural environment.
The enforcement of the "torts approach" to pollution control would
require the "big government" endorsed by the liberals and detested by
the Libertarians.
In place of "government" (which John Hospers describes as "the most
dangerous institution known to man"), the libertarians would delegate
the task of protecting property rights to the courts. But is this a
distinction with a difference? Aren't "the courts" an arm of the
government? And what assurance do we have that courts of law won't be
as tyrannical as "the government" that is so distrusted by
libertarians?
Whether more or less tyrannical, these courts are not likely to be
significantly less extensive, intrusive and bureaucratic than the
government agencies that they will presumably replace. To illustrate
this point, consider again my home in the southern California
mountains.
Suppose a noxious cloud passes through my property, killing the
ponderosa pines in my back yard. How am I to find the culprit
responsible, so that I may be compensated for these damages?
Presumably, I must hire a forest botanist and a chemist and numerous
additional experts to validate my claim. And if some upwind industry
becomes the prime suspect, it will, no doubt, collect a committee of
its own "experts." (My financial resources and those of the firm
will be hopelessly mismatched - but let that pass). How is this clash
of experts to be adjudicated, unless some agency has previously set up
independent standards that can be applied to this court case, and
others like it?
Similarly, suppose that I have decided to heat my house with a wood
stove. How am I to know beforehand that I will be safe from a
pollution suit by my neighbors -- since, by hypothesis, our
libertarian government has abolished all those "dictatorial" clean air
standards? Clearly "the courts" will have to define, in detail,
acceptable and non-acceptable effluent standards based on extensive
scientific research. And all this will all have to be done in advance
of any suit against me. Otherwise, the suit would be ex post facto,
and thus legally invalid. Similar questions arise with claims of
damages due to food poisoning, unsafe drugs, vehicle malfunction, etc.
The implication is clear: the libertarian reformers, having disbanded
the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institutes of
Health, and other "big government" regulatory and research agencies,
will have to re-establish them if the courts are to function under the
enormously expanded burden of responsibility handed to them by the
libertarians. In point of fact, the libertarian scheme of "pollution
control through the tort laws" does not eliminate government, since it
requires a reliable government to codify and defend personal and
property rights.
No one can doubt that many governments have proven to be "dangerous"
and tyrannical. But libertarians would have us believe that all
governments, per se, are not to be trusted - that "the best government
is no government." That claim requires an argument. American history
teaches us that because the founders of our government were very
suspicious of the powers and abuses of the state, they first
attempted, under the Articles of Confederation, the sort of minimalist
government that the libertarians might endorse – a government that
failed. Following that they tried again, this time with a system of
"checks and balances" that separated the powers of government, and
then they completed their task with a "Bill of Rights" that explicitly
stated limits on the powers of the government over its citizens.
Ultimately, the sovereignty over that government resides in the voting
public (or at least did so until Bush v. Gore on December 12, 2000)..
If we don't like the way we are being governed, we can replace our
leaders at the ballot box. Unfortunately, if we don't like the way
the telephone company or the public utilities treat us, we can not
vote their management out of office - unless, of course, we are
wealthy enough to own significant amounts of stock in these companies.
Yet these private interests control our lives, without restraint -
unless, of course, in accord with liberal policy and contrary to the
advice of the libertarians, we have been wise and fortunate enough to
enable our collective surrogate, the government, to regulate these
private interests in our behalf.
Clearly, all governments, being institutions designed by imperfect
human beings, are imperfect to some degree. But no one has
effectively demonstrated that anarchy is to be preferred. Every
civilized human being lives under some system of government, for
better or worse. Perhaps there is some compelling reason for this.
Absolute rights against property invasion would shut down industrial
civilization.
The libertarian remedy for environmental pollution, however attractive
in the abstract, would accomplish too much if put into practice.
Consider, for example, Tibor Machan's statement of this remedy: "if
operations of [private] firms would be impossible without pollution
[beyond their boundaries] - that is, without causing emissions that
are harmful to others who have not consented to suffer such harm - the
operations would have to be shut down." (Machan, 100) Can anyone
doubt that the clear implication of this rule must be the abolition of
the internal combustion engine? Thus these champions of individual
liberty, in order to spare our property and our selves from the
assault of pollution, would deprive us all of the freedom of movement
afforded by our automobiles. And there is worse ahead: "non-point"
water pollution comes from agricultural run-off. Must we abolish the
use of chemical fertilizers and fossil fuels in agriculture? Radical
environmentalists have urged as much. But now that horse pastures
have long-since been converted into shopping malls and subdivisions,
the clear consequence of the de-mechanization of agriculture must be
mass starvation. (See "The Oil Trap," this site.) And finally, air
pollution also comes from electric power plants. Do we shut off the
electricity? What then of the loss of freedom to communicate? In
fact, the air that I exhale contains carbon dioxide, an air pollutant.
And try as I might, I can't seem to keep it all contained on my
property. The implication, as Jeffrey Friedman spells it out, is as
clear as it is absurd:
Libertarianism seeks to make every human being the ruler of his or her
own domain, as delimited by his or her property rights... Since the
atmosphere cannot be divided into parcels of private property as land
can, strict libertarianism would require that each person possess his
or her own atmosphere, unpolluted by the activities of anyone else.
The libertarian ideal is in short, so sensitive to environmental
externalities that it is incompatible with human coexistence. Short
of the ultimate in atomistic individualism - a planet for every person
- any pollution, and hence any human activity, is, in the libertarian
view, a crime. (J. Friedman, 431-2).
V --"Disparate Comparison" and the Lessons of History
Admitted failings of government regulation or of environmental
management by public agencies does not necessarily entail that the
free marked and torts approach is better.
Libertarians routinely trot out horror stories about government waste,
fraud, and abuse, and compare these sorry anecdotes with an
unrealizable ideal of a "perfectly functioning market." However, as
Mark Sagoff correctly points out, this argument "commits the fallacy
of disparate comparison. It compares what the perfect market would do
in theory with what imperfect governmental agencies, at their worst,
have done in fact." (Sagoff, 1993, p 224) No thoughtful defender of
public regulation of the environment in liberal democracies will
pretend that this approach is perfect. In fact, as everyone knows,
regulatory agencies are under constant assault and their public
service is constantly compromised, usually by the very free market
forces and private interests that are celebrated by the libertarians.
But if the libertarians have a better alternative, then it must be
shown to be preferable in practice, rather than in ideal theory.
However, as we have suggested above, the unconstrained free market,
privatization and the absence of "government interference" gave us
opium in cough medicine, spoiled meat, child labor, mine disasters and
black lung, and no lifeboat seats for 1,500 passengers on the Titanic.
More recently, the Enron Corporation, having successfully lobbied the
government to ease the company's regulatory burden, then proceeded to
direct funds to a few fortunate executives, at the cost of destroying
the retirement savings of thousands of its employees and stockholders.
History is not reassuring.
The rise and persistence of government regulation of the environment
is no accident; it is an invention born of necessity. No industrial
society is without government, and constraints upon legitimate
governmental powers can open opportunities for private exploitation.
The threat of suits after the fact did not prevent the contamination
of food or the abundance of unsafe and ineffective drugs prior to the
establishment of the Food and Drug Administration. Moreover, even
private interests recognize the necessity of impartial "referees."
Thus, for example, United States history discloses that many of the
regulatory agencies of the Federal Government were established by
petition from private industry; notably, the Federal Communications
Commission, which was created in 1934 to oversee "traffic control" of
the electro-magnetic spectrum, without which the industry could not
function. (No one who has attempted to drive across Manhattan during
a power outage is inclined to believe that traffic signals are an
unwarranted governmental intrusion upon their personal freedom).
Even "the free market," that cornerstone of libertarian theory, cannot
survive without a governmental referee, for the unconstrained and
unregulated "free market" contains the seeds of its own destruction.
Though free market theorists are reluctant to admit it, capitalists
are not fond of free markets, since open and fair competition forces
them to invest in product development while they cut their prices.
Monopoly and the destruction of competition is the ideal condition for
the entrepreneur, and he will strive to achieve it unless restrained
not by conscience but by an outside agency enforcing "anti-trust"
laws. That agency, necessary for the maintenance of the free market
is, of course, the "government," so despised by the libertarians.
Evidence? Look to history. Then it was John D. Rockefeller, now it
is Bill Gates. (See my "The New Alchemy", this site).
Of course there is a sad history of governmental exploitation (usually
on behalf of the powerful); but the remedy is better government, not
no government. How many of us who travel abroad would prefer that
international air traffic be operated by private for-profit firms,
rather than national and international government agencies? Who would
we rather have safeguarding our environmental health; state agencies
such as the US Environmental Protection Agency, or private industry?
Once again, look to history for the answer.
In Summary
When, during a football game, a referee makes a call against the home
team, the fans are often heard to shout: "Kill the Ref!" --
forgetting, for that moment, that without referees, the game could not
continue.
Similarly, "abolish government" is another cry that issues from
frustration. Without a doubt, governments can be damned nuisances.
They require us to pay taxes, often for services that do not benefit
us or for benefits which we take for granted. Governments tell us
that we can't build homes and factories on public lands, that we can't
throw junk into the air and rivers, that we can't drive at any speed
we wish, and that we can't sell medicines without first testing their
safety and efficacy. All this curtails the freedom and the wealth of
some. But at the same time, such "government interference" promotes
the welfare of the others: of consumers, travelers, ordinary citizens
and, yes, property owners. Interestingly, among the liberal
democracies, the constraints of "big government" tend to burden the
wealthy and powerful, while those same constraints protect the poor
and the weak, all of whom, in a just polity, are equal citizens before
the law.
Thus libertarianism does not qualify as a just system for all members
of society. On the contrary, as we noted above, it is a Nietzschean
"master morality," reflecting the preferences and protecting the
interests of the wealthy and powerful. Complaints against "big
government" and "over-regulation," though often justified, also issue
from the privileged who are frustrated at finding that their quest for
still greater privileges at the expense of their community are
curtailed by a government which, ideally, represents that community.
Pure food and drug laws curtail profits and mandate tests as they
protect the general public. And environmental protection regulations
"internalize" the costs of pollution, thus properly burdening the
corporations and their investors as a direct result of these
regulations relieving the unconsenting public of the previously
externalized costs.
The libertarian trust in "the wisdom of the free market" is likewise
attractive to the wealthy and powerful, since one's involvement with
markets -- the libertarians' preferred instrument of social adaptation
and change -- is proportional to one's access to cash. The Golden
Rule - "those with the gold get to rule" - is one of the first
principles of both "the master morality" and of libertarianism.
If libertarian doctrine is a "master morality," reflecting and serving
the interests of the wealthy and powerful elites, how does one explain
its attractiveness to those less well served by this ideology? In the
first place, the foundational principles of libertarianism - the
rights to life, liberty, and property - are, in the abstract,
compellingly attractive. So much so that the liberal critics of
libertarianism rarely dispute this triad of principles - in the
abstract. But the libertarians embrace another principle, "the like
liberty principle," that proves to be the undoing of their ideology.
For the exercise of the "right to property" can threaten the life and
liberty of others, as in the case of the segregation laws in the
American south, prior to the enactment of the "liberal" public
accommodation laws. In general, the powerful and wealthy individual's
"freedom to choose" is routinely found to constrain the same freedom
in others. Then, as one attempts to comprehend this tangle of
inconsistent and competing rights and claims, one discovers what most
students of human society, psychology and history already know and
that defenders of political liberalism affirm: that human beings are
not merely isolated bundles of "preferences," but rather are
fundamentally social creatures. Accordingly, one also discovers that
successful human communities are characterized, not simply by
competition and market exchanges, but also by shared ideals and the
paradoxical achievement of individual self-fulfillment through
self-sacrifice and other-directed concern.
In short, libertarianism fails, not because it is wrong, but because
it is insufficiently and over-simplistically right. It correctly
celebrates the rights of life, liberty and property, and then fails to
examine the conflicts and paradoxes that issue from these rights.
Moreover, the libertarian fails to appreciate that a just system of
adjudication of these rights and claims of presumably equal citizens
would necessarily restore much of the very governmental structure that
the libertarians would abolish and that the liberals defend.
If the libertarian scheme of free markets, absolute property rights
and torts will not suffice to protect the rights of all citizens and
the integrity of the natural environment, then what will?
Here's a modest, if familiar, proposal. Let the public in general
establish an agent to act in its behalf, and as the guarantor of the
commonly held values and aspirations of the polity. And then let that
agent first determine and then enforce rules for the optimum
sustainable use of the necessarily "common resources" (e.g. the
atmosphere, the hydrological cycle, migrating wildlife, etc.). And if
the public is not satisfied with how that agent is acting in its
behalf, it then has the right to replace that agent with another.
Such a system is in fact in place: the "agent" is called "government,"
the rules are called "environmental law and regulation," and the
system of checks against the abuse of power is called "democracy." In
the US Constitution, as well as the supreme law of numerous other
liberal democracies, the freedom and integrity of the individual
(i.e., one's rights to life, liberty and property) are protected, even
from "the tyranny of the majority." But these assurances by the
government will not suffice for the libertarians. They assume a
priori that "government," even popularly elected and under the rule of
law, simply must behave as if it were an occupying foreign power.
This, they tell us, is the source of all our problems.
In conclusion, we have found that in numerous cases the libertarian
doctrines of social atomism, unfettered free markets, and unconfined
personal liberty, bear morally atrocious and practically unmanageable
implications. In contrast, these implications are avoided by the
liberal assumptions: (a) that human beings are essentially social
creatures, (b) that morality and justice are independent of, and
indeed the foundations of, ideal market mechanisms, (c) that in
readily identifiable instances, advantages to each result in ruin for
all, (d) that, conversely, advantages to all exact sacrifices (e.g.
taxes) upon each, and finally (e) that, accordingly, optimal social
policies are assessed from "the moral point of view" – from the
perspective of the "ideal disinterested spectator." (John Rawls's
"Original Position"). Accordingly, the liberal concludes, human
excellence, social harmony and, yes, personal liberty for all, can
best be accomplished through the agency of a government answerable to
the people, and through the rule of law, applied impartially and
equally to all.
Admittedly, the liberal democracy and regulated capitalism that I
would recommend is not perfect -- nor is any human institution under
the sun. But an anecdotal inventory of the shortcomings of public
regulation does not, by itself, constitute a repudiation of the
existing system.. What is required is a clear and persuasive
presentation of a better alternative. This the libertarians have not
offered us. Nor can they, so long as anyone pays more than casual
attention to human psychology, ecological necessities, and the lessons
of history.
More:
http://gadfly.igc.org/papers/liberty.htm
FAQs and reference documents.
An index to sites about logic, propaganda, historical documents,
liberalism, and other information relevant to libertarian arguments.
Very high quality!
Criticisms of Robert Nozick and "Anarchy, State, and Utopia".
The foremost philosophy of libertarianism has been thoroughly discredited.
Criticisms of Objectivism (or Ayn Rand).
Ayn Rand was a truculent, domineering cult-leader, whose Objectivist
pseudo-philosophy attempts to ensnare adolescents with heroic fiction
about righteous capitalists.
Philosophical Criticisms Of Libertarianism
Libertarians make many claims about how wonderful their philosophy is,
but many philosophers think differently.
Reviews Of Books Related To Libertarianism.
An index to reviews that show libertarianism in an unfavorable light.
Humor, Satire, and Quotations.
These make an otherwise dry subject more palatable.
Liberal Criticisms.
Liberals understand that government has a useful track record.
Conservative Criticisms.
Few conservatives seem to feel much need to bash libertarianism:
liberals are much bigger enemies.
Left-Libertarian and Anarchist Criticism.
A resounding clash of ideologies!
Objectivist Critiques Of Libertarianism.
While Objectivism is a type of libertarianism, there is a great deal
of conflict between the two groups, sometimes resulting in some good
criticisms.
Libertarians Criticizing Each Other.
Libertarians are by no means unified in their positions, and some of
their strongest criticisms are aimed at each other.
The Liberal Alternative.
Some excellent liberal sources that contrast strongly with libertarianism.
Criticisms of the Cato Institute.
A libertarian quasi-academic think-tank which acts as a mouthpiece for
the globalism, corporatism, and neoliberalism of its corporate and
conservative funders.
Criticisms of George Mason U. Economics (and Mercatus)
An academic and think-tank duo which acts as a propaganda mill and
training center for its corporate and libertarian funders, the
billionaire Koch brothers.
Milton Friedman.
The most notable libertarian: a brilliant economic theoretician,
policy advisor, popularizer, and propagandist.
David Friedman.
An anarcho-capitalist libertarian whose ideas undermine most
libertarian's philosophy. His writings and criticisms of them.
Testimonials by former libertarians and objectivists.
Let's see what we can learn from some of the many who have left libertarianism.
Criticisms of the Libertarian Party.
There's lots to laugh at, behind the veil of propaganda.
Make Or Break Views Of Libertarianism.
Positions so absolute and extreme as to border on self-ridicule.
The "World's Smallest Political Quiz".
What's wrong with this prime propaganda.
Liberty And Government.
Most libertarians view government as a destroyer of liberty. But the
fact is that government is essential to create liberty.
Government And Economics.
Libertarians tend to consider government a drain on the economy, when
in actuality it is an active player in creating a more vigorous
economy.
Austrian Economics.
A fringe academic view which is greatly preferred by many libertarians
on ideological grounds.
Criticisms of Neoliberalism, Capitalism, and Free Markets.
Libertarians are unabashed promoters of capitalism and free markets,
and generally can see no wrong with them, either historically,
philosophically, or economically. The rest of the world can though.
Libertarian Economic Experiments.
Chile and New Zealand are often cited by libertarians as sites of
successful libertarian economic reform. They tend to cite a few
"benefits", but there are many downsides....
Freedom Through Technology.
Cypherpunks, high-tech libertarians, and various others mistakenly
think technology will eliminate the need for government (if not
outright eliminate government.)
The Constitution, Laws, and Libertarians.
Libertarians frequently parrot bizarre pseudolegal formulas or
selective histories to justify militias, common law courts, sovereign
citizenship, immunity from taxes, etc. They also adopt many right wing
criticisms of modern court interpretations of the Constitution.
Libertarian Revisionist History
Ideologies often require revision of inconvenient history, and
identification of famous historical figures as fellow believers.
Libertarians have their own ludicrous literature and claims.
Society Versus Individuals Versus Markets.
Most libertarians myopically focus on individuals: indeed, they often
deny that society exists at all. The problem is that individuals
reside in an environment called society.
Environmentalism.
Libertarians are often grotesquely anti-environmental in terms of
regulation. (Though some do like market-oriented pollution rights.)
They frequently repeat anti-environmental propaganda.
Gun Control.
Libertarians tend to be strongly anti-gun-control, more so even than
the NRA leadership, since ideology knows no bounds.
Privatization and Deregulation.
Libertarians are generally unabashedly in favor of privatization and
deregulation, with only minor limits in the case of minarchists. It's
not that simple.
Medical Care, Insurance, and Socialized Medicine
Libertarians, with their ideological demands of minimal government,
see no role for government in medicine or medical insurance. However,
the market failures are so severe, the incentives so perverted, that
the mostly private US system has bottom-ranked health care outcomes.
Drug Regulation
Libertarians see no role for government at all in regulating or
prohibiting drugs of any sort, for recreation or for treatment, to any
age. Ridiculous.
Social Security.
Social Security is one of the biggest libertarian bugaboos. It's
obvious success clashes harshly with the sink-or-swim ideology of most
libertarians.
Transferring Power To The States.
Libertarians frequently prefer to decentralize government power by
moving it to the states. Sometimes that's not good planning.
Public Schools, Education, and Vouchers.
Libertarians generally adopt anti-public school rhetoric, and
recommend vouchers as a first step towards elimination of public
schools.
Taxation.
Most libertarians are opposed to taxes, and make various arguments why
they should be "equal" and not progressive.
Free Trade.
Free trade is arguable, except among libertarians where it is a basic
of the ideology. What is not arguable though is the audacity of the
false claims made for free trade.
Limited Property: Zoning and Takings.
Most libertarians are in favor of absolute property rights, in
contradiction to essentially all traditions of property ownership.
Limited Property: Property Taxes.
Most libertarians are opposed to property taxes. The Georgists have an
answer that libertarians are unable to rebut.
Reciprocal Links and other Resources Of Interest.
Go Here:
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
>> >>>>> athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
On 1/19/11, Keith In Köln <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lil' Tommie,
>
> You need to study a little bit more, get your facts straight, and quit
> reading the vicious hate sites where you are getting your info, before you
> start slinging out examples of government, world affairs, and in general,
> political ideologies. Somalia is not an example of
> Libertarianism......Somalia is an example of an autocratic government that
> is now in anarchy.....A big distinction between libertarianism, (A Good
> Thing Lil' Tommie!) and Somalia!
>
> I guess we need to apply a little "Pavlov's Dawg" here, and tell you what is
> good, versus what is bad.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:49 AM, Tommy News <tommysnews@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yep, Libbieloon is truly devastating. There's just no way to way to
>> respond to such a persuasive logical polemic. I think it may be almost
>> as ruinous as the dreaded "You're a big poopiehead!" How can one
>> formulate any kind of cogent response to such a pithy statement of
>> principle?
>>
>> I've tried: "So's yer mother!", but it simply can't stand up to: "
>> Reich Wingnut!" and "LibbieLoon!"
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/18/11, Tommy News <tommysnews@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Brucie girl-
>> >
>> > Your vile vicious potty mouth gets more pathetic with each venemos
>> > pile of crap it pukes out.
>> >
>> > Libertarian bashing is deserved, and long overdue. They need it!
>> > Please accept the fact that we aren't going to ever become a
>> > libertarian paradise like Somalia, and move on.
>> >
>> > But first, lets call them what they really are: LibbieLoon-atics!
>> >
>> > Losertarian" is getting pretty stale and I'm getting a bit burned out
>> > on "libtard." LibbieLoon seems a welcome addition to the invectives
>> > being tossed about by folks obviously incapable of reason like Brucie
>> > Girl, LibbieLoon!
>> >
>> >
>> > On 1/14/11, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> If only he lived within punching distance. I have always wanted gay
>> bash
>> >> someone.
>> >>
>> >> I have a liberal (with slight liberaltarian tendencies) Obama
>> >> supporting
>> >> gay
>> >> friend on FaceBook who lives close enough that some satisfying hate sex
>> >> might be possible. I imagine binding him and slapping him around
>> >> before
>> >> sticking it in him. But he is moderately attractive and far more
>> >> intelligent than Tommy (he admits for instance that saying Palin is
>> >> responsible for Loughner is stupid).
>> >>
>> >> Tommy's dead old love chute will just have to remain full of dust like
>> >> his
>> >> skull.
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Mark <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Be very careful Bruce... You may be accused of "cyber-bullying".
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Bruce Majors
>> >>> <majors.bruce@gmail.com>wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> maybe Tommy wrote that so when he goes out an molests kids this
>> >>>> afternoon
>> >>>> he can blame it on the heated rhetoric here
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Jonathan Ashley <
>> >>>> jonathanashleyii@lavabit.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Now you've gone off the deep end, Tommy. "Yes, this group, just
>> >>>>> like
>> >>>>> Sarah Palin, and Rush Limbaugh, is responsible for the massacre.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On 1/14/2011 5:49 AM, Tommy News wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Childish name calling directed at me is far from "constructive
>> >>>>> criticism".
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The group claims to be "fair and balanced", but the members here
>> >>>>> personally, childishly, and viciously attack anyone who disagrees
>> with
>> >>>>> their own far Reich wing extremist views. These people are the
>> >>>>> extremists who embody and spread the hatred like that which caused
>> the
>> >>>>> massacre in Tucson. Yes, this group, just like Sarah Palin, and Rush
>> >>>>> Limbaugh, is responsible for the massacre.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Defending myself from those vicious personal insults and attacks is
>> my
>> >>>>> right.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On 1/13/11, frankg <frankg2@gmail.com> <frankg2@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Tommy, you really should learn to accept a little constructive
>> >>>>> criticism. Honestly, you can't come here posting nothing but extreme
>> >>>>> left wing rhetoric, use childish name calling, not post anything
>> >>>>> that
>> >>>>> could be considered original and relevant and then expect people to
>> >>>>> not be critical of you. If you could point me to just ONE post of
>> >>>>> yours where you are not using hateful rhetoric, mean or childish
>> >>>>> name
>> >>>>> calling, etc., I'd love to see it. And I don't mean those posts of
>> >>>>> yours where you copy/paste the words of others, although even then
>> you
>> >>>>> seem compelled to preface things with more of the same. You should
>> >>>>> heed President Obama's call for civil discourse.. you might find
>> >>>>> your
>> >>>>> time here a tab more pleasant. Just a thought...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Jan 13, 9:40 pm, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com>
>> >>>>> <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Keith, you should really change the name of this group from
>> >>>>> "Political
>> >>>>> Forum" to "Right Wing Nuts"! You are worse than Glenn Dreck and
>> >>>>> Rush Fatblob combined.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On 1/13/11, Keith In Köln <keithinta...@gmail.com>
>> >>>>> <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Tommy,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I told you when you joined this group several months ago, that
>> >>>>> this
>> >>>>> was
>> >>>>> not
>> >>>>> a forum where one could come in and post far left extremist spin,
>> >>>>> and
>> >>>>> not
>> >>>>> expect to be challenged on his or her talking points. That for the
>> >>>>> most
>> >>>>> part, the members of this forum are well thought, considerate and
>> well
>> >>>>> read
>> >>>>> individuals, no matter what their political persuasion, which
>> includes
>> >>>>> members with both left of center and right of center viewpoints. We
>> >>>>> also
>> >>>>> have regular contributors who hold political viewpoints that could
>> not
>> >>>>> be
>> >>>>> considered either "left" or "right"; but hold either extremely
>> >>>>> libertarian,
>> >>>>> or damn near anarchist ideologies. I doubt very seriously if you
>> >>>>> are
>> >>>>> even
>> >>>>> aware of this important fact, or that you even realize that you have
>> >>>>> managed
>> >>>>> to pretty much piss everyone in this forum off.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> You have in fact managed to insult everyone. Never once posting
>> >>>>> anything of
>> >>>>> substance or thought, you continue to post ridiculous, childish,
>> >>>>> usually
>> >>>>> pro-homosexual rants without any substance or foundation.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> This thread is an excellent example. Although you didn't
>> >>>>> necessarily
>> >>>>> plagerize an article and claim that you wrote it, (which you have
>> done
>> >>>>> on
>> >>>>> numerous occasions here in Political Forum) you did in fact post a
>> >>>>> missive
>> >>>>> that suggests we are all to be civil, yet you then immediately went
>> on
>> >>>>> to
>> >>>>> childishly sling out nasty hateful barbs, and a quick review of your
>> >>>>> posts
>> >>>>> of just today, January 13, 2011, is a great demonstration of how all
>> >>>>> you
>> >>>>> do
>> >>>>> is post talking points that you pick up from the most far left
>> >>>>> extremist
>> >>>>> hate sites on the web, without ever substantiating any thought,
>> >>>>> theory,
>> >>>>> rationale, or ever attempting to explain why you support such
>> beliefs.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> At one point in time, I found you amusing, as you are a great
>> >>>>> example
>> >>>>> of
>> >>>>> a
>> >>>>> Moonbat who doesn't have a clue about how or why you support any
>> issue
>> >>>>> or
>> >>>>> policy. You are a prime example of most of the idiots who hold far
>> >>>>> left
>> >>>>> extremist points of view; you are ill informed, and not really all
>> >>>>> that
>> >>>>> quick witted, (e.g.; you damn sure are not funny!) with your
>> hateful
>> >>>>> barbs.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Tommy, either have a nice, cold, refreshing cup of shut the hell
>> >>>>> up
>> >>>>> with
>> >>>>> your bitching of the membership of Political Forum, or be gone! Do
>> not
>> >>>>> expect any sympathy from me!
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> KeithInKöln
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>> >>>>> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> * Visit our other community
>> >>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.>> >>>>> http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
>> >>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
>> >>>>> Have a great day,
>> >>>>> Tommy
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>> >>>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> * Visit our other community at
>> >>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.>> >>>>> Jurisdictionary<http://www.jurisdictionary.com?refercode=CG0004<http://www.jurisdictionary.com/?refercode=CG0004>
>> >>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> *This is my life. I make the rules.*
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> *"It is incredible how as soon as a people becomes subject, it
>> >>>>> promptly
>> >>>>> falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom that it can
>> >>>>> hardly
>> >>>>> be
>> >>>>> roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and so
>> >>>>> willingly
>> >>>>> that
>> >>>>> one is led to say, on beholding such a situation, that this people
>> has
>> >>>>> not
>> >>>>> so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement."
>> >>>>> - Étienne de la Boétie*
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> *Far too many good people rely on stupid ideas offered by amateurs
>> who
>> >>>>> send out emails or hold weekend seminars!
>> >was>> >>>>> http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
>> >>>>> created by a lawyer with a quarter-century of experience winning
>> >>>>> lawsuits by controlling judges and lawyers!*
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> *I Refuse To Comply With The Unconstitutional Demands Of The Federal
>> >>>>> Government*
>> >>>>> *Read the US
>> >>>>> Constitution<
>> http://amgona.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=7#Amends
>> >
>> >>>>> *
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>> >>>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> * Visit our other community at
>> >>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.>> >>>> http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
>> >>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>> >>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * Visit our other community at
>> >>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.>> >>> http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
>> >>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Mark M. Kahle H.
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>> >>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>> >>>
>> >>> * Visit our other community at
>> >>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.>> >> http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
>> >>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>> >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>> >>
>> >> * Visit our other community at
>> >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.>> http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
>> >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
>> > Have a great day,
>> > Tommy
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
>> Have a great day,
>> Tommy
>>
>> --
>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>
>> * Visit our other community at
>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment