The Smallest Minority

Well, yes. But an "underpinning of principle" is not the sine qua non of argument.

My problem is that I prefer to have a foundation of principle, coupled with a healthy dose of historical perspective ("So: how did that work out, then, the last time it was tried?") and, yes, pragmatism ("Given what we know of human nature, what are the odds of success, failure or disaster?").

It's easy to argue from "pure" principle: like mathematics, it's a self-defined universe.

And, for the umpteenth time, let me say that I think there's a valid need for people of strong principle, because they can act as our conscience.

But that's where it ends. To be governed by these people (or according to their unalterable principles) would be horrible. Feel free to browse history for the many examples thereof.

The Europeans are about to be rudely awakened as TAO is about as unprincipled as anyone they have ever met. On the other hand they may feel a great comfort.

There's something incredibly postmodern about that statement by the French, similar to the way that underpinning of principle is so satisfying.

"To be governed by these people (or according to their unalterable principles) would be horrible."

I completely agree. That is why the last eight years have been, in fact, horrible.

I would think governing without principles is equally destructive. Look at our banking system. Keep in mind this is the second depression, in a 100yrs...... Maybe i'm all wrong.I quess you can say greed is a principle.

"I completely agree. That is why the last eight years have been, in fact, horrible."

horrible: adj. 1. arousing or tending to arouse horror; dreadful 2. very unpleasant; disagreeable

Right on cue, teacher boy. You agree, therefore your opinion is fact. Still haven't learned anything, have you?

Again, I'm speaking of natural principles. Water is wet. Gravity is the law.

No philosophy can be given credence unless it acknowledges empiricism. This is where Kim DuToit's appreciation of history comes in.

Principles are foundational. Without them, our knowledge of how things work, our predictions, are no better than guesses in the dark.

Principles of individual rights flow from recognition of what is empirically best for individuals, and the limitations of one's rights in regards to other people. Basic right to self defense, basic right to express yourself freely in the exercise of your conscience in regards to matters of faith and politics. Equal treatment under the law for individuals, rather than categories of people.

The modern definition of principles being what one believes in, dedication to pure emotion, is not what would classically be defined as principles.

It is clear that self interest and social bonding are both integral parts of the human psyche, not possible or desirable to eradicate. Thus any seriously principled stand takes these attributes into account.

Economics is not an exact science. I can't measure units of utility, but the basic principles of economics do not change from generation to generation.

One can't derive the perfect answer to a scenario simply by defining a code of honour- that leads down the road to the horrors Kim decries, things like honour killings and other lose/lose scenarios, but any decision reached without considering honour tends to poison the results down the line. Another principle.

Principles of individual rights flow from recognition of what is empirically best for individuals...

That much is beyond argument. The problem is, a lot of people don't care what's best for individuals. If you hold the collective to be more important than the individual, then you'll have an entirely different set of principles flowing from that.

In other words, crappy premise => crappy principles. Is that preferable to no principles?

Principles of individual rights flow from recognition of what is empirically best for individuals...

Actually, I'll argue that point. Principles of individual rights flow from recognition of what is necessary to protect the individual from coercion.

It is not, however, clear that freedom from coercion is necessarily "empirically best for individuals."

It's close enough most of the time, mind you; and much preferred to tyranny most of the time. But we're finding that without a sense of meaning, people's lives are empty and purposeless, and they spend their time unconsciously seeking for something to fill the void. And what they find, and then inflict on the rest of us, is often incompatible with individual rights.

The jury is still out, I think. It would be presumptuous to claim that the inherent superiority of a rights-based framework has been "empirically proven."

But it's still close enough for most, not all, practical purposes.

I completely agree. That is why the last eight years have been, in fact, horrible.

Completely clueless and right on cue.

Markadelphia doesn't even realize that Bush was the proverbial pig-in-a-poke that the Republicans bought in 2000, solely for the sake of gaining power. One has to wonder if you would recognize a principle if you stubbed your toe upon it.

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."
Sir Winston Churchill

Change "truth" to "principle" and it fits Markadelphia just fine.

Fits him just fine without modification too.

"Actually, I'll argue that point. Principles of individual rights flow from recognition of what is necessary to protect the individual from coercion."

This might be a better way of putting it, yes.

"The jury is still out, I think. It would be presumptuous to claim that the inherent superiority of a rights-based framework has been "empirically proven."

I disagree. All of Western Civilization has been based on rights to some degree, and is indisputably the most prosperous in the world, with prosperity within the west closely corresponding to the degree to which individual rights hjave been respected. The extent of decline in propserity is closely mirrored with the loss of individual rights.

Going along with your first point, the shorter decision loop inherent in individual autonomy has been proven to be more beneficial than central planning, at least over the average.

"Well, yes. But an "underpinning of principle" is not the sine qua non of argument.

My problem is that I prefer to have a foundation of principle, coupled with a healthy dose of historical perspective ("So: how did that work out, then, the last time it was tried?") and, yes, pragmatism ("Given what we know of human nature, what are the odds of success, failure or disaster?").

It's easy to argue from "pure" principle: like mathematics, it's a self-defined universe."

Here's the thing: there are underlying principles that govern actions and reactions, or actions and results. Whether we understand those principles or not, they are there, governing the whole sequence.

We can guess, and get the results we want occasionally. We can guess and get the wrong answer/result just as likely.

But repeatable results come from understanding principle and correct process. To consistently get what we want requires understanding and compliance with the laws of nature.

Human principles are not as absolute as physical laws of nature, but nearly so. Self interest, social bonding, economics (this last more closely related to natural laws than people realize, even plants and creatures with no conscious will respond to incentives), these things matter.

So an argument without understanding of the underlying principle is specious, you're still just guessing. This goes for human endeavours as well as physical engineering. If you can't frame a discussion of human policy in terms of philosophical principles with a basis in truth, then you haven't studied the question well enough to be taken seriously in your opinions.

"To be governed by these people (or according to their unalterable principles) would be horrible."

"I completely agree. That is why the last eight years have been, in fact, horrible."

The light dawns. You're saying your big problem with W. is that *he had principles*, right Mark? What those principles ARE is completely beside the point. Anything less than total opportunism is BAD.

Thank you Mark. That explains much. For a start, it explains why you like Obama so much.

"One can't derive the perfect answer to a scenario simply by defining a code of honour- that leads down the road to the horrors Kim decries, things like honour killings and other lose/lose scenarios, but any decision reached without considering honour tends to poison the results down the line. Another principle."

While I can't argue with the above, I feel the need to point out that "honor killings" do not in fact have anything to do with honor.
Honor is personal. Your honor is your own, no one else's. No one can take it from you if you do what you feel necessary to keep it. If you do not and lose your honor thereby, no one else can regain it for you either. More to the point, your standards of honor DO NOT APPLY TO ANYONE EXCEPT YOU.
Therefore killing someone because they don't meet *your* standards of honor is no different from killing someone because they are Jewish and you aren't. Or killing your neighbor for buying your son a Christmas present of which you disapprove.

I don't see a personal standard of honor to be a problem causer, myself. What I DO see as a problem causer is the tendency in humans to demand that the whole rest of the universe conform to their PERSONAL standard of honor. That's simply irrational, it's like a drunk being pissed because the coffee table didn't move out of his way.

thebastidge,

I disagree. All of Western Civilization has been based on rights to some degree, and is indisputably the most prosperous in the world, with prosperity within the west closely corresponding to the degree to which individual rights have been respected. The extent of decline in propserity is closely mirrored with the loss of individual rights.

Going along with your first point, the shorter decision loop inherent in individual autonomy has been proven to be more beneficial than central planning, at least over the average.

I should clarify. I think that the format of protecting something, such as free speech, as a right is inferior to protecting free speech as an obligation on others to respect free speech.

Obligations can be fulfilled, and then no one can have any further claim on you. But my rights can impose an infinite obligation on those around me to accommodate them.

In practice, of course, rights are not permitted to be unlimited, even without a principled reason to limit them. This would indicate that there is a weakness to the format.

Further, when two rights conflict, you have no way to reconcile them. (For example, the conflict between privacy and security.) Obligations, however, can be placed in a principled hierarchy so that conflicts can be dealt with.

Finally, it is difficult to imagine a "right" to teach others proper civics, while an obligation to learn civics is another matter entirely, and would be much healthier than the current system where you have no obligation to learn much of anything.

Completely agree on the advantage of autonomous action over central planning, but that wasn't what was being discussed.

The difference between Obama and Bush is that, while they both have principles, Obama's are alterable. Our world is in a state of constant change. To adhere to a specific principle, regardless of geopolitical instability, is pure folly. And quite dangerous as we have seen.

Bush's approach to policy in the Middle East completely failed to take into account a multitude of factors. This was due to his unalterable principle or definition of "evildoers." This is exactly what Ben Busch was talking about when he said a "child like view" of the region.

By his picks for the various cabinet positions, PE Obama has already shown that he values diversity of opinion. He wants people who are going to challenge his opinion and perhaps alter his principles and maybe even evolve them.

Du Toit: "My problem is that I prefer to have a foundation of principle, coupled with a healthy dose of historical perspective ('So: how did that work out, then, the last time it was tried?') and, yes, pragmatism ('Given what we know of human nature, what are the odds of success, failure or disaster?').

It's easy to argue from 'pure' principle: like mathematics, it's a self-defined universe."

Ladies and gentlemen, you can read that as an indictment of principle. Reading this man for as long as I have, I am convinced that that is exactly what he has in mind. If you think about it, however, you will find that all he's talking about is refining principles, and you can discern the principles that he uses to do it.

What you have here is a stolen concept fallacy: he would love to condemn principles, but he has to use principles in order to do it. That's why it never quite works.

"But that's where it ends. To be governed by these people..."

"These people" can speak for themselves. You know goddamned good and well, du Toit, that that has never in my life entered my mind. You know it.

And I will never be governed by the likes you. Never.

Mr. Beck, are you seriously claiming that Kim du Toit has no principles?

I see no indictment of principles per se, just an acknowledgement that the real world is messy. You seem not to have picked up on that little complicating factor.

"Mr. Beck, are you seriously claiming that Kim du Toit has no principles?"

Absolutely not. Exactly the opposite. And for all his complaining about principles, that just makes him a cynic.

And finally: they are not American.

"I see no indictment of principles per se, just an acknowledgement that the real world is messy. You seem not to have picked up on that little complicating factor."

Please stop it. For many years, I have watched him parade his inability to think through this stuff, always copping that plea.

I "picked up on" it a long time ago.

"And I will never be governed by the likes [of] you. Never." -- Beck

You already are. Our government, much as it may pain you, is more like me than it is like you.

So... what are you going to do about it? (Other than whine and moan on the Internet, that is?)

Mark:

Not that it surprises me that you're suddenly backing Obama as he breaks promise after commitment, and does the exact opposite of what you'd assumed, and assured us he'd do.
You do have a track record of flat out lying, you know.

Bush's approach to policy in the Middle East completely ...

SUCCEEDED.

It "failed" according to you, yet it was a stunning success, doing what he said he'd do, how he said he would do it. Amazingly, you still are calling that a failure. This reflects on your ignorance, not Bush's "child like perception".
Speaking of "flexible principles", your principles are so flexible they've kinked.

"You already are."

That's what you think.

"So... what are you going to do about it? (Other than whine and moan on the Internet, that is?)"

See that, kids? This is the part where someone gets to explain to me how a man can take that kind of pride in wielding power over his fellows, and can himself an "American". Let me give you a hint: I would never, ever do that to him.

du Toit: "Our government, much as it may pain you, is more like me than it is like you."

I'm glad you put that in the record. I don't know if that would have occurred to me before you pointed it out.

Hey, U-J, what do you call a principle that can be changed, superceded, or ignored as needed?

But everyone has principles; the pragmatist's is just one based on devotion to a common, greater, or personal good. What makes this so dangerous is the fact that he will, when pressured, sacrifice anyone or anything to support it. This means the pragmatist can only be at best a fairweather supporter of the concept of individual rights. Raise the stakes high enough and you lose your rights, all for the greater good.

It seems to me that this sentiment is the origin of phrases like "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." Of course it is; if the government is able to circumvent the document that constrains it for any reason, what's the point of having it?

It should always be borne in mind that the constitution was a counter-Revolutionary act.

Revolution has no intrinsic value. That said, no, I'm not 100% satisfied with the one we have. On the other hand I am absolutely in support of -a- constitution that places explicit limits on government and I demand that the government respect those limits.

And the government pointedly ignores your demands.

So now what?

You change the government, through the letter box, the soap box, the ballot box or (in the last extreme) the cartridge box.

Really, Kevin...

Cut him some slack, Kim. He's been working long hours lately.

"To adhere to a specific principle, regardless of geopolitical instability, is pure folly. And quite dangerous as we have seen."

Mark, do you realize exactly how stupid you sound with this drivel?

But everyone has principles; the pragmatist's is just one based on devotion to a common, greater, or personal good. What makes this so dangerous is the fact that he will, when pressured, sacrifice anyone or anything to support it. This means the pragmatist can only be at best a fairweather supporter of the concept of individual rights. Raise the stakes high enough and you lose your rights, all for the greater good.

This is not entirely true. In abstract, I am a strong supporter of individual rights. What makes one a pragmatist is understanding, or at least thinking about, how your abstract principles work when put into practice, or how to put them into practice given the realities of society.

We are (or at least I am not) a collectivist in the sense that I philosophically believe people should surrender their individual liberties for some greater good. But we have to live with other people who have an equal right to representation in our government. At some point perhaps two people can no longer reconcile their differences, and part ways. We have examples in history of that happening. But that's a can of worms too.

The difference between a pragmatist and a ideologue is not necessarily on abstract principle, but rather on whether or not principles have to be balanced against the realities of human nature, and greater society.

The Markadelphia money quote:
"The difference between Obama and Bush is that, while they both have principles, Obama's are alterable."

This is a desirable trait?

Revolution has no intrinsic value. That said, no, I'm not 100% satisfied with the one we have. On the other hand I am absolutely in support of -a- constitution that places explicit limits on government and I demand that the government respect those limits.

I support that too, but what happens when people elect a government that doesn't respect those limits? What happens when the people don't force them to respect those limits? What if we can't even agree on what those limits are?

A mix of that is our problem now. I agree you need a written constitution that limits government, but I think people need to agree with the philosophical underpinnings of the document. No limits will long stand if the people don't think they are important.

We are a constitutional republic, rather than a Democracy, but all that means is it takes a longer, takes more consensus, and takes more work to fundamentally alter the structure of the government. Can you see folks arguing today about whether Congress can establish a national bank? Over whether the federal government can purchase land? These are settled issues now, and the federalists won. Our understanding of the constitution changed.

Note, I am not arguing for a living constitution. In principle I believe in originalism. But popular sovereignty as a source of government legitimacy presents a serious challenge for attempts to limit government absolutely. Some thinkers have, for this reason, rejected popular sovereignty as a source of legitimacy. You can make those kinds of academic arguments, but at the end of the day, I think they are just that. At some point you have to come to terms with the fact that the people are ultimately in the drivers seat over the long term. So the task before us is to continue the same squabbling over the meaning of The Constitution that's been happening over the past 232 years of this nation's history.

If you believe in popular sovereignty, I don't think there can be any right of revolution that's not supported (or acquiesced to) at least a majority of the people provided you have an elected government. And if you have an elected government, the majority can always change it through voting. So where does that leave revolution?

At least not with any concept of an organic revolution of the whole. Peoples can part ways, either through peaceful means (India) or through violent means (USA), but before that can happen, you need to create a "people" that share some kind of geographical area you could speak of as a new nation. Outside of that, I don't think revolution has much of a role to play in a situation where republican institutions are still functioning.

"This is a desirable trait?"

It is if one serves as an apologist for Obama.

Yannow ... this kinda angel/pinhead argumentation was why I ran screaming from the LP, and from my old position as OLP chair, and became a Republican.

We all agree that hypocrisy is bad, that tyranny is bad, and that we should all have our basic human rights respected.

We, maybe we should be discussing a HOWTO for maintaining basic human rights in the presence of the State ... and not yowling at each other?

"Really, Kevin..."

Really, Kevin. If you can't get through this with a bromide in hand, then you're not much use to the rank & file.

Markadelphia opined, "The difference between Obama and Bush is that, while they both have principles, Obama's are alterable."

And how, pray tell, may one discern the difference between someone with 'alterable principles' and someone with NO principles?

irritablearchitect,

"Mark, do you realize exactly how stupid you sound with this drivel?"

Nope. He's a genuine naif. It's part of his charm.

Oh, and he votes! :)

"And how, pray tell, may one discern the difference between someone with 'alterable principles' and someone with NO principles?:

You read his books. ;)

"It's part of his charm."

Methinks thou hast suffered a surplus of recoil.

GrumpyOldFart:

" I feel the need to point out that "honor killings" do not in fact have anything to do with honor.
Honor is personal. Your honor is your own, no one else's. No one can take it from you if you do what you feel necessary to keep it. If you do not and lose your honor thereby, no one else can regain it for you either. More to the point, your standards of honor DO NOT APPLY TO ANYONE EXCEPT YOU.
"

Indeed, good points. I have made the same in other places, and I left my thought here incomplete. But this does flow naturally from an individualist perspective.

Mastiff:


"I think that the format of protecting something, such as free speech, as a right is inferior to protecting free speech as an obligation on others to respect free speech.

Obligations can be fulfilled, and then no one can have any further claim on you. But my rights can impose an infinite obligation on those around me to accommodate them."

With respect, I think you hresponsibilities, and more on that in a second.

However, I have no obligation to respect your free speech, I simply have no right to curtail it. There is no way that obligations are workable as a higher standard than rights. Having an obligation in the first place is an imposition on the individual.

Now with rights do come responsibility. The first responsibility is to and for oneself. That is, one cannot support individualistic rights without recognizing that one becomes responsible for self. Because my rights DO NOT impose obligations on others. When one becomes responsible for oneself, there's a self-motivated interest in supporting society, because no man is an island, and we can only be so prosperous in isolation. Later on, obligations are voluntarily entered into by mutual consent.

"In practice, of course, rights are not permitted to be unlimited, even without a principled reason to limit them. This would indicate that there is a weakness to the format."

There is no reason rights have to be unlimited. This is not a flaw, it's a fundamental principle- rights only apply to individuals. They're circumscribed by the demesne of the individual.

"Further, when two rights conflict, you have no way to reconcile them. (For example, the conflict between privacy and security.) Obligations, however, can be placed in a principled hierarchy so that conflicts can be dealt with."

When you put rights into the individual context, it is clear that there are far fewer fundamental 'rights'. There are also limits to all rights. Take privacy. I don't deny that you have a right to privacy, and I think that government pressure (i.e. the force of arms of the mass of people) should not be applied to you without due process. However, your right to privacy is circumscribed by the limit of the individual. You have no 'right' to prevent me from asking questions, you simply have the right to safeguard your information and refuse to answer. You have the right to protect your privacy to the extent that you are physically and financially capable of doing so, just as you have the right to live the way you are physically and financially capable of doing. Nobody owes you more than you can make for yourself. When you provide your information to a third party, you have the right to contract the best terms you can get. One of these terms should be safeguarding your privacy. If you fail to contract for privacy, then you get what you asked for.


"Finally, it is difficult to imagine a "right" to teach others proper civics, while an obligation to learn civics is another matter entirely, and would be much healthier than the current system where you have no obligation to learn much of anything.
"

And you're correct: there is no right to force your views on another person. The responsibility to learn civics comes from the obligation to oneself (and while they're young, your children.) The responsibility is there in the current system whether it is acknowledged or not.

"Completely agree on the advantage of autonomous action over central planning, but that wasn't what was being discussed."

It's all part and parcel. The reason behind autonomous action is that it flows from individual rights and responsibilities. If rights are individualistic, then it follows that autonomous action is required. If obligations are the basis of the hierarchy, then others can require things of you over your objections, thus negating the individual as the basic unit of society in favour of collectives.

Whoops, above shourld read:

With respect, I think you have it precisely backwards. Rights do come with attendant responsibilities, and more on that in a second.

Rights are not talismans. They don't exist like some sort of magic shield. The idea that rights are "endowed by our Creator" is a nice meme, but it didn't do 6 millions Jews any good when they were stuffed into gas chambers.

Rights are those things we call rights and have agreed that we have a social compact to protect and defend them... but the part that is often missing is the reciprocal nature of rights. If someone demonstrates that they are incapable of exercising their rights with discretion and diligence, are not respectful of the rights of others, or unwilling to perform their duties and obligations as citizens, "we" get to strip them from someone:

"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease."
--Thomas Jefferson, 1816

"Society [has] a right to erase from the roll of its members any one who rendered his own existence inconsistent with theirs; to withdraw from him the protection of their laws, and to remove him from among them by exile, or even by death if necessary."
--Thomas Jefferson, 1815

The use of "endowed by our Creator" is simply to differentiate rights from privileges, not to classify them as existing without effort, reciprocation, or recognition.

With all rights there is a reasonableness test and qualification. With something like searches, you have a right against unreasonable searches, not ALL searches. With something like guns, there is a restriction against ownership by anyone who has demonstrated they are incapacitated (either a felon, the insane, or non adults).

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."
--Thomas Jefferson, 1819.

As the Heller documents described, "reasonable" restrictions were allowed and common. Where you could store arms in your home was stipulated in the law in Boston... and these were laws made during the time of the Founders. Most of these have to do with issues of competing rights... that your right to keep a gun could trump on another's right for reasonable safety measures taken to prevent fires. It wasn't a "universal" restriction against keeping firearms in your home, which would have been unConstitutional, but where they could be stored in your home. Your "universal" right cannot be infringed, but laws that are "reasonable" and address competing rights issues are perfectly acceptable. We're quibbling about details most of the time--of what defines reasonable. In some cases, such as in DC, the restrictions were universal, and therefore, UNreasonable.

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."
--Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776

The fundamental (and paramount) right recognized by the Founders is/was the right to form a government OF OUR CHOOSING. Individuals retain all their rights, but our society (ie, We The People) have delegated rights to the general government, and have the right to establish rules and procedures to determine who may remain or join us:

"It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States, that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors; that there are certain portions of right not necessary to enable them to carry on an effective government, and which experience has nevertheless proved they will be constantly encroaching on, if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious against wrong, and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion; of the second, trial by jury, habeas corpus laws, free presses."
--Thomas Jefferson, 1790

Our articulated right to a Free Press was not universal. People are not "Free" to publish liable (or other falsehoods). That, too, is a reasonable restriction on an accepted and articulated right.

"It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all."
--Thomas Jefferson, 1795

Regarding the whole mess of what method of securing and protecting rights is best, I think Jefferson made that QUITE clear:

"The ground of liberty is to be gained by inches, [and] we must be contented to secure what we can get from time to time and eternally press forward for what is yet to get. It takes time to persuade men to do even what is for their own good."
--Thomas Jefferson, 1790

[i]"The difference between Obama and Bush is that, while they both have principles, Obama's are alterable. Our world is in a state of constant change. To adhere to a specific principle, regardless of geopolitical instability, is pure folly. And quite dangerous as we have seen."[/i]

Yes, our world is in a state of constant change. And yes, to adhere to a principle that is no longer tenable is folly.
But it occurs to me that if your principles are well thought out, in other words if you used good judgment in formulating them, they should accurately reflect reality and therefore it should take a lot of convincing for you to change them.
Contrast this with our current President-elect, who has stood solidly on every issue [b]until the moment it became politically inconvenient for him,[/b] and then bailed. Jeremiah Wright said nothing in 2008 that he hadn't been saying for 20 years. Yet Obama staunchly supported him until he became politically inconvenient, then pitched him under the bus without a qualm and tried to claim that Wright's attitude was something new. Bullshit. Wright's attitude wasn't new, nor was Obama's support of it. The only thing new was the general public KNOWING what a racist bigot Wright is.
Alterable indeed.

I could respect a man who had been anti-war from the beginning, who after the surge worked, came out and said that while he still disagreed with the premise of the war, he had to admit he'd blown it on the effectiveness of the surge. That's principles that can be altered by changing circumstances. I might question the judgment of such a person, but not his honesty.
That is NOT the same as Obama being pro-free trade or anti-free trade, depending on his audience of the moment. That is NOT the same as Obama being pro-abortion or anti-abortion, depending on his audience of the moment. That is NOT the same as Obama being pro-gun rights or anti-gun rights, depending on his audience of the moment.
From now on, I feel like I can safely choose what candidate I support in any election just by looking at which candidate you support and voting against them. You see, my support of McCain wasn't because I agreed with all that he said, far from it. My support of McCain was because, even where I disagreed with him, I could believe he'd *actually attempt to accomplish what he said he would*. For me, that's even more important than whether I agree with him.
You have just said in so many words that you count the ability to trust a candidate to mean what he says as a negative, and a severe one at that. Personally, I don't think a combination of personal caprice and political opportunism is a good ethical basis from which to govern. Apparently, your mileage varies.

"Yannow ... this kinda angel/pinhead argumentation was why I ran screaming from the LP, and from my old position as OLP chair, and became a Republican." -- Kristopher

KB,
I think the actual date of your defection came right after you decided that despite the terms of the Second Amendment, individuals do NOT have the right to own nuclear missiles -- in contrast to the beliefs of Raving Loony Beck Wing of the LP.

That Woman: "The idea that rights are 'endowed by our Creator' is a nice meme, but it didn't do 6 millions Jews any good when they were stuffed into gas chambers."

Fine, then. She can afford to just shrug them off: there is no reason to morally outraged over the destruction of the Jews because everything that happened to them is just one of those things.

You are completely disgusting, Connie. You always have been.

Thank you for playing, Mr. Beck. That will be all. - Ed.

"Raving Loony Beck Wing of the LP.

There is no such thing, you fucking moron. Never once in my whole life have I ever had anything to do with the Libertarian Party. Shut the fuck up.

Beck,

You, of all people I've on the planet are the most vile and disgusting boors I've ever encountered on the Internet. So you get that degree of attention from me, but no more. You are incapable of keeping your focus on the arguments, rather than personal and libelous attacks so you get the same, in kind, from me: Fuck off.

Your statement to me was totally disingenuous and ascribed an intent not in my statement at all... and if you were CAPABLE of being a gentleman and not reading impaired, you'd see that. You attack me personally, rather than my arguments, or ascribe malicious intent in attempt to defame my character. Typical of you.

This is not an effort to engage you, because my only hope for you is that you spontaneously combust.

Leave me alone and do NOT libel me or my intent. I will continue to ignore you and avoid places where your sort is allowed to spew his bullshit and libel and defame others.

Wow, makes me sorry I agreed with him even in that limited amount.

"...my only hope for you is that you spontaneously combust."

That's not going to happen. Forget it and deal with reality.

"Leave me alone and do NOT libel me or my intent."

Call your lawyer, you stupid broad.

The Mrs: "Your statement to me was totally disingenuous and ascribed an intent not in my statement at all..."

Quiet. You have no earthly idea what you said means.

The Cringing Mrs.: Leave me alone.."

Fuck you. When you presume to step into the public light and remark on these matters, you are as fair a game as me or anyone else.

And if you don't like that element of facing responsibility for the things that you say, then you can haul your worthless ass into the kitchen and make me a cup of coffee.

You'd better pray to Kevin. He's the only thing in the whole world that can stop this now.

You change the government, through the letter box, the soap box, the ballot box or (in the last extreme) the cartridge box.

Really, Kevin...
Kim du Toit

So... You're one of us threepers now?

Somewhere, Kevin and I had an exchange where he asked me for "the plan".

I replied:

1) We're screwed

2) There's gonna be a fight

3) Let's win

My definition of "win" is pretty simple: leave me alone.

Not being satisfied with taking more than 50% of my earnings each year, the American government in a few short weeks will likely propose legislation to criminalize and then remove my firearms of military utility, along with their accoutrements.

There's a very low probability of defeating such legislation, which may include neither a sunset clause a la AWB I nor any grandfathering of existing weapons or accessories.

I and a whole lot of other folks will not comply.

At that point, the government will face a choice -- lose credibility by doing nothing, or begin the raids that will open a terribly bloody new chapter of our history.

A whole lot of folks are preparing for just that eventuality -- and are simply waiting for the government to make the first move.

When they kill Vanderboegh or other prominent folks...when the rolling roadblocks commence...when there's an obligatory "refinancing" of people's retirement funds into "government-backed retirement accounts"....when the alternative media are being squashed....when the homeschoolers are being raided "for the children"...a whole lot of folks will roll off their fail-safe points and go hot.

And it will be a bloody, tragic mess.

For those who believe that the pure political route is still fruitful, God bless ya. Keep bashing away.

As Codrea says, "CUM ULLA SELLA IN PUGNO TABERNA."

Any chair in a bar fight.

A lot of people at the failsafe point are still making those calls, writing those letters, and marking those ballots, too.

But those same folks also have plans for when the political process irretrievably fails -- even more than it has already.

And there is literally nothing that anyone can do about those plans.

Any attempt at preemption by the state security forces will only light the fuse that much sooner.

And the funny thing is -- those folks just want to be left alone. They don't want to govern a soul.

We're beyond a fix in the near-term. The best possible outcome would be for the new administration to govern from a limited-government, strict construction Constitutional basis.

Anybody want to calculate the odds on that?

I own me. I own my output. I have an unalienable right to defend myself, by whatever means necessary, against predators and looters.

And I am damned tired of my servants in government acting otherwise.

Stay low. Keep moving. Good luck.

CA -- +1

You change the government, through the letter box, the soap box, the ballot box or (in the last extreme) the cartridge box.

One of those four things (letter, soap box, ballot, cartridge) is not the same as the others--and it's not the cartridge.

I think I've lost track of who hates whom in this whole mess. At first I thought it was a healthy airing of grievances; I'm not so sure any more.

"At first I thought it was a healthy airing of grievances; I'm not so sure any more."

Some of it is.

At first I thought it was a healthy airing of grievances; I'm not so sure any more.

Are you kidding? This is the biggest white-knuckle panty-pissing sissy slap fight I've seen in ages, and it's hilarious

Don't get me wrong: both sides have important, valuable points and contributions to make. The RKBA movement will fail if either group is eliminated, tempting as it is to spout otherwise. There's also a lot of grievances that shouldn't be kept bottled up, and faced with the (hopefully only) political battle we're likely facing over the next 4+ years, it's better to have it out now than later.

At the same time, there seems to be some serious burning of bridges going on. Is there any chance some sort of truce could be called for a few days to chill out and re-assess things? The blogosphere's not going anywhere; if people want to tear into each other again on Monday absolutely nothing's holding them back. There's still a month or two before we're going to have to find a way to work together again, even if we're holding our noses.

So that's my proposal: for the next three days, hold off in posts and comboxes from all this flaming. I'm sure there's a round two that needs to be fought, but I have the sinking feeling that round one has been going on too long and we're ultimately weakening our cause through this bitterness, rather than instructing and learning from our allies who have different views.

Wolfwood, I think you will find that Mr. Beck is quite convinced he has absolutely nothing to learn from the du Toits, and that suggesting he do so is tantamount to abandoning one or another principle he considers morally fundamental.

I'm not sure why you think RKBA will fall if one point of view or another gets yelled at too much. I don't see how it depends on that at all.

Rollory, the du Toit - Beck feud is just one part of what's been going on throughout the various gun blogs. The "prags" think the "3%ers" are going to go all Timothy McVeigh and the 3%ers think the prags are going to sell them out so as to let America die slower. There needs to be overall de-escalation led by the more respected voices on both sides because this is going to have consequences beyond bloggers being pissed at each other.

No one has to like each other, but the outright antagonism could stand to stop for a little while to let everyone clear their heads for a moment. A wedge, even if a tiny one in this little part of the blogosphere, is being driven into the RKBA movement. We've already got enough work to do with trying to get the hunters fully on board without further splintering ourselves. In the face of a socialist presidency, a nearly veto-proof Democrat Congress, and a Supreme Court one vote away from catastrophe this is the worst time to be turning on each other like this.

We've got smart people all around who are throwing hissy fits, being baited into idiocy, and burning bridges all over the place. I've done plenty of it myself. How moronic are we to fragment in a time like this, when it may matter most?

I intend to put my own impetuous ego aside for a while. It hasn't helped at all, and I'm not even close to being a major voice but I certainly haven't helped.

Whatever. If we're willing to throw away the tenuous power we have over a pissing match then perhaps we're not really mature enough to be trusted with the power of life and death that comes with responsible firearm use. We may not be pulling guns on each other, but we look like exactly the type of people the Left claim us to be when we act like this.

Wolfwood,

When the arguments of the "prags," (or, more bluntly, the Magic Hemp Roll Worshipers) are exactly the same as those of the Loyalists against the Revolutionaries, what else can you expect?

Characters like the DuToits are always going to be good Commonwealth subjects of the Queen, never American citizens at their spiritual and philosophical core, precisely because they denounce the very principles of individual self-ownership and classical liberalism that make this country distinctive. Human liberty doesn't come from a document -or- the barrel of a gun (although it has to be defended by intelligent action, up to and including force, the parodic notion of objective rights as self-enforcing is one telling mark of "prags"), it comes from our nature as rational beings.

(and I know that SA politically left the Commonwealth in '61, characters like the DT's will always pledge loyalty to the rule or the tribe over a principled and philosophically well-thought out defense of freedom, Kim even revels in it)

"ruler"

Wolfwood: I see this "thrashing about" as potentially useful, if it can be turned into a learning experience.

I do not know a single serious person who has not in the past spent time, money and effort pushing all of the appropriate Civics 101 buttons in the political process.

Many folks still are. I know I am.

I also know what happened when I repeatedly called and wrote -- per Codrea's blog request, BTW -- my Senators re Mike Sullivan, the acting Director of BATFE.

Nothing.

Not even the courtesy of a reply.

Ditto re my repeated calls/letters to both Senators and my Congressman in opposition re the October "No Banker Left Behind" Revolution.

Ditto re my current repeated calls and letters re the December "You Don't Buy Our Crappy Cars, We'll Take Your Money Anyway" Revolution.

I fully expect the same come AWB2 and the rest of the high-speed hosing coming soon from the Bolsheviks.

I'll write, I'll call, I'll agitate...and I'll lose.

I meant what I said above -- I wish nothing but success for the people who still see utility in the political process. In Georgia, we were able to obtain a significant improvement in the state's concealed carry laws this year, over strong opposition and a very reluctant Governor.

So it's not always futile.

But I have accepted, based on my personal experience and the objective record of freedom's defeats over my lifetime, that people who believe in individual freedom, political liberty, the rule of law, and very limited government are a despised minority and are, for all intents and purposes, politically irrelevant on the Federal stage for at least the next two years.

And the next two years bode very ill indeed.

Having accepted those facts, I have done the internal searching and found that it is inconsistent with my personal values to either surrender to or collaborate with the statist coup under way by both political parties for at least the last decade.

Thus: leave me alone. Don't raise my taxes, don't touch my personal property, don't harm my friends, and don't harm any of my fellow citizens exercising their inherent and unalienable rights of speech, assembly, worship, and arms-bearing.

"Shall not be infringed" means just that -- and I don't give a rat's ass what Nino Scalia wrote to get the all-important 5th vote.

The lesson? Work Plan A as long as there is an objectively-reasonable chance of success.

But have the tools, skills, and, most importantly, will to create, practice and execute Plan B when Plan A fails.

And yes, Kevin -- when, not if.

The bad guys hold the high ground. Just look around, as uncomfortable as that makes one.

Good luck all.

"I'll write, I'll call, I'll agitate...and I'll lose."

Yeah, that's pretty likely. A near certainty, as the time line on it is open ended.
Nonetheless, going to Plan B is a choice I think NONE of us are stupid enough to make casually. It's like shooting your dog. Yeah, the chances of him living through what has him down may be vanishingly small... but once you put a bullet in his brain, his chances of bouncing back from it drop to ZERO. Not "negligible". Not "only in fantasy land". Zip, zero, nada, squat, goose egg, swabo. ZILCH-POINT-SHIT.
I dunno about any of you, but I love my dogs. If I take a gun out for one of them, things are looking BAD. Fine and good, but you have to remember the two places where the parallel doesn't fit:
1) I am *solely* responsible for my dog. He lives because I make sure he's able to, and if he dies before his time, it's because *I decided he would.* I have that authority in civilized society over my dog. But neither I nor anyone else have the authority in civilized society to just start choosing targets. Whether it's the correct action or not, whether it's necessary or not, whether it's my duty or not, once I start choosing my targets and pulling the trigger, civilized American society is over. The dog is DEAD.

2) In my parallel, we're talkin about a dog. Granted I love my dog, but considering shooting him is not the same as contemplating the deaths of several millions. And yeah, I think it's fairly safe to say that once it starts it'll be MILLIONS.
I think we'd be well advised to take a deep breath and think this through a little bit.

"The RKBA movement will fail if either group is eliminated, tempting as it is to spout otherwise."

This makes sense to me, and here's why:

The 3%ers are needed because when the time comes for Plan B (as sooner or later it almost certainly will), there will need to be those standing by to implement it who *will not hesitate*.

BUT...

When that day comes, we all need to KNOW that we did *everything* we could to solve it WITHOUT choosing targets and pulling triggers. Not nearly everything. Not until we got too frustrated to give a damn anymore. EVERYTHING.
*That's* what the "prags" are for.

Once it starts, no one will be able to stop it, nor control it. It will kill millions, the vast majority of whom will be innocent, average people just trying to get on with their lives. And every single one of those millions will have someone to whom they are just as important as your parents, your spouse and your children are to you.
Given that, which is worse? To wait too late, or start too soon? Whatever your personal answer may be, I hope we can agree that such a question is way too important to allow our anger and frustration to be the deciding factors, huh?

/soapbox

GOF:

That's why the discussion is important.

That's also why thinking things through NOW is better than once things start getting really exciting.

cabinboy

I agree, and that's why I'm trying to get some kind of ceasefire going. We're not really "thinking through" things any more but trying to "win." That's not a discussion, that's an argument. Before we do things we'll really regret, let's take a step back and assess exactly where we've come so far in this airing of grievances and where we need to go next.

Exactly. What an ex-girlfiend of mine is fond of calling 'hallway sex' ("Fuck you!" "Yeah? Fuck YOU!!!) can be fun for a few minutes, but is ultimately non-productive. Worse, it turns allies into enemies.

I can't help being reminded of a line immortalized by Peter Sellers in "Dr. Strangelove":

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is a War Room."

GOF, Wolfwood, cabinboy - my interpretation of what Mike Vanderboegh says would put you guys and him squarely in the same camp.

Maybe I can illuminate what I, and perhaps Mike will concur, mean when we talk about "pragmatists."

We mean people who will turn in their guns. We mean people who will call those who refuse to do so "criminals, loons, survivalist racist Christian Dominionists" or whatever. We mean the people who think it's great that Fincher and Olofson are in jail, because they "broke the law" even though they were fully within their rights to break such unjust laws.

We especially mean those who say "you don't need an AK-47 for deer hunting."

Most of the people debating the "prag" side of the issue on this site fall into the class of people who were happy or at least unconcerned when Fincher or Olofson was railroaded. The sort that are more irritated at them for "making us look bad" than the bastards who ruined their lives for no good reason.

That's what I mean, at least. I don't mean people who want to vote or think the storm clouds are far off - I might disagree with them but I don't consider them to be enemies. However, the pragmatists - by the definition I gave - are the sort of quislings who guarantee our descent into tyranny.

"We especially mean those who say 'you don't need an AK-47 for deer hunting'".

What about an SKS for deer hunting?

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1140/960599571_15edac308d.jpg?v=0

Or a .223 for Zebra hunting (just for KdT)?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3100/2806218377_072704bd30_m.jpg

Not bad for a "poodleshooter at over 300 but then I shoot every day instead of just write about it..."

I'm going back over to KdT's former home he ran away from skeerd in March, cholera be damned, gonna see how .220 Swifts work on zebra brain shots at range.

Hope his kid learnt to shoot that pistol I chipped in on. He was showing promise.

Cheers,
Tom

Tom,

You're making an ass of yourself. The man offered to pay you back, you refused it; the matter's not up for trying to score points. As for South Africa, there's no shame in abandoning a place like that, especially if one's coming to America.

He abandoned being Afrikkans to be "English" as it was easier, then he abandoned his homeland. Then he couldn't shoot a gift rifle at an Appleseed that everybody else could while telling people like me on his gun boards that actually shoot 200+ rounds a day we were idiots.

My family fought alongside the SADF in the brush fires and Angola, some as US Rangers, some in Rhodesia because they thought that it was their home and weren't giving it up, and many are still there, both black and white. I have nothing to be ashamed of.

Matter of public record.

You can stick your nose up anybody's arse but mine because I won't accept that anymore than KdT's money back.

I have no feelings for you as you have addressed me. You have stated in your case, perhaps inadvertently, as to why I have no feelings for people such as yourself.

Are you going to send your big brothers to come shut me up?

Regards,

Tom, you're making an ass of yourself.

There, I said it too.

GOF said: "When that day comes, we all need to KNOW that we did *everything* we could to solve it WITHOUT choosing targets and pulling triggers. Not nearly everything. Not until we got too frustrated to give a damn anymore. EVERYTHING."

But what happens when several someones who count themselves among the 3% (or who have never even heard of them) decide to go Carl Drega and Marvin Heemeyer BEFORE that point is reached?

That's the problem with amateurs, you can't predict what they'll do.

John H. wrote: Most of the people debating the "prag" side of the issue on this site fall into the class of people who were happy or at least unconcerned when Fincher or Olofson was railroaded. The sort that are more irritated at them for "making us look bad" than the bastards who ruined their lives for no good reason.

John, Olofson was railroaded. (Apparently he helped a little bit, but in a country with a "Justice" system, he'd be a free man.) Fincher wasn't railroaded. He decided to make a political statement, he practiced civil disobedience - by himself - and he's sitting in prison today because of his deliberate, willful actions. There wasn't a chance in hell that it would have turned out any other way.

Unless 10,000 other people joined him.

That's a lot less than 3% of 80 million gun owners. So far, Fincher's the only volunteer.

Kevin. You've been making an ass of yourself for years on the innertubes . Who are you to criticize?

Nobody?

Going to ban me too because the only reason I showed up here was to watch the fight and laugh at KdT once more?

You aren't on my favorite pundit or philosopher list, I'm just watching your truck crashing off the mountainside.

This is just getting weird. It's like that drunk guy who just wants to fight.

But what happens when several someones who count themselves among the 3% (or who have never even heard of them) decide to go Carl Drega and Marvin Heemeyer BEFORE that point is reached?

Depends. Possibly that marks *where* that point is reached. Do you think you should be the one to make the decision when that point is, knowing it will result in the deaths of certainly thousands, likely millions?
To me, the time to start killing is when you have no other options. Granted, my willingness to wait that long may get me killed. Oh well, everybody dies. Not everybody goes to their grave feeling like the pebble that started the avalanche. I don't get to choose who that pebble is, nor what action marks their fall that starts the avalanche. But I *do* get to choose NOT to have that pebble be me.

"This is just getting weird. It's like that drunk guy who just wants to fight."

Yeah ain't it? This is why I don't go to bars.

"He abandoned being Afrikkans to be "English" as it was easier"

Sounds like you're saying his loyalty to his tribe (identity politics) should trump all?

SA, by all accounts is a shit hole. And structurally, is set up to stay that way for a long time. No shame in opting out. I disagree with the DuToits occasionally, but it's always reasoned discourse: they are civil when people are civil to them.

As far as I'm concerned, if a system that purports to protect your rights then imprisons you specifically for practicing them, you've been railroaded. However, point conceded.

What I said still stands. There are people who are mad at Fincher and Olofson rather than the ATF or other alphabet agencies.

Those are the people that I consider myself opposed to, morally. I may have practical opposition to those who refuse to fight when it's apparent that it's the best course based on truckloads of history, but I can at least consider them good people. The people who'd rather see good men destroyed than their precious government told to shove it, those are bad people.

The people who are so "patriotic" that they forget what it means to be an American - it's not about loyalty to the government at all, in any way, period. It's about loyalty to liberty and the rights of the individual. The people who would compromise those rights in the name of expediency. Those are the "pragmatists" which I decry.

In short, it isn't so much the people who want to debate the means of the Three Percenters who are the enemy in this case, as it is those who want to debate the ends of the Three Percenters.

In short, it isn't so much the people who want to debate the means of the Three Percenters who are the enemy in this case, as it is those who want to debate the ends of the Three Percenters.

Unfortunately, John, a lot of people think the stated means of the Three-Percenters won't achieve the desired ends. All it will achieve is chaos, and after the chaos, as Bierce put it, would come an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment. What it would NOT do is restore the Constitution.

Kevin pretty much nailed it. And it is possible to be both angry at Fincher/Olofson, and the ATF for its malfeasance in the Olofson case, _and_ the laws that put both men in jail.

But what I'm not going to do is suggest it's time to shoot it out with the feds. Both Fincher/Olofson understood, or should have understood, what happens when you poke the bear.

As I said before, don't light yourself on fire and then call me an asshole because I won't help you put it out.

"It's about loyalty to liberty and the rights of the individual. - John H.

Respectfully, I disagree, and I think Locke would, too. As important as liberty is, even Locke recognized that there are things the government must be allowed to do for the sake of preserving the society governed by the social contract (in this case, that would be America). For instance, he recognized that Eminent Domain was a legitimate power of government, with certain restrictions. If I had to guess, I'd say that he (like most Classical Liberals) probably approved of the death penalty and incarceration for certain crimes...meaning that we've hit the "life, liberty, property" trifecta of things that can conceivably be restricted right there.

We live in a republic (which is transliterated as "commonwealth"), not a confederation. As part of this, we have ceded certain rights and responsibilities to our government, with the maintenance of some degree of public safety being among them. Restrictions on weapon ownership that contradict even the Second Amendment can be justified if there is a compelling state interest and the statute is narrowly-tailored. Semi-automatic weapons will almost never fall afoul of this, and even automatic weapons probably shouldn't, but there are weapons that the government may restrict without offending the Constitution.

Those who argue that individual liberty is properly the paramount and all-determining purpose of our government do not understand our Constitution and system of government. Like it or not, there is a certain degree of minimum social welfare required by our system.

I'll leave the moral arguments for another day.