“Patrick Henry was a Borderer”

It’s more accurate to call him “Scotch-Irish” than a Borderer. His father was from Aberdeenshire, well north of the border, and his mother was mostly from Cavalier stock with a bit of Welsh thrown in. Fair to say his political style and dissenting faith make him resemble the Borderer type, though.

Also, “Cracker Culture” is a good read that tries to solve that problem of tracking them using surname analysis.

What the hell is this? The author should be ashamed. He never says why “serious blows” to the Putin regime are necessary, or what they are supposed to accomplish, it’s just assumed that something happened, therefore we have to respond in kind.

Supporting what little resistance exists in Crimea is just a surefire way to exacerbate ethnic tensions and implicate the United States, likewise with military aid. What happens when Right Sektor gets a stinger missile and shoots down their own airliner?

Polling shows Americans rejecting escalation in both Iraq and Ukraine; they don’t want to escalate wars we helped precipitate. Yes, even in Ukraine, which we destabilized with all kinds of Arab Spring-like subversion (Victoria Nuland cops to it on a video you can find on YouTube). Escalating even more may serve the interests of defense contractors, but it doesn’t serve the interests of, say, Virginians.

Alright, alright, you triggered me so I’ll engage. I think it’s a bit funny that a founder of this site asked me at a party recently, “how’s it feel to work for a fascist?” which says a lot about the accuracy with which left-libertarians represent their opponents.

The old definition of right-libertarianism was just “libertarianism,” which includes a defense of natural privilege. Mullahs like Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner aside, the actual coalescence of a libertarian idea was around opposition to the New Deal. It was against something, not for it. You’ve got liberals like John T. Flynn, or Garet Garrett, etc. We’re not talking about some gauzy cornucopian future of endless growth and cool machines, we’re talking about people whose way of life was under assault. I’d go so far as to say this is the main thing that distinguishes today’s libertarian movement from the old one, optimism vs. pessimism.

The new definition of right-libertarianism I’d say would involve an acceptance of natural hierarchies and the reality of power in the world. Also maybe an appreciation for certain group affinities; secession movements like the Hawaiian Kingdom, Jefferson, or California; ones that point toward an alternative to the progressive order under which most of the developed world lives. Also, if you’re a libertarian that cares about the future of humanity, as I do, your chief political engineering problem for this century is how do we create more Hong Kongs. This is incompatible with an anticolonialist worldview many left-libertarians are trying to incorporate into libertarianism. A left-libertarian should have no problem expropriating a charter city, especially one in the third world started by rich white Europeans.

Also the protestant work ethic dig is pretty funny, given the predominantly Catholic cast of the Mises Institute.

Excuse me I have a question http://jarthurbloom.tumblr.com/post/80890970139/secession-and-the-paradox-of-rule

Anonymous Internet personality says shaming isn’t useful, cites public shaming campaign that got noted bigot fired.

Shame and criticism are very useful things.

The price of social inclusion is having to live with the norms of the society you’re included in. “Coercion,” as you’ve defined it, is almost any proactive thing. Which is what Davila thinks too: “Liberty is, in fact, alienated from itself in the same gesture in which it is assumed, because free action possesses a coherent structure, an internal organization, a regular proliferation of sequelae.”

This is why the “liberty-as-absence-of-coercion” deontological view is contradictory and, ultimately, untenable. Since it’s untenable, the only recourse is the know-nothing-ism of this piece, that universal moral norms couldn’t ever exist and you can’t judge other people.

The problem with this is social opprobrium is less a softer version of state coercion than, in many cases, an alternative to it. To use an undeniably polarizing example, perhaps shaming the urban poor into not having children out of wedlock would have been better than subsidizing, and thus encouraging, such behavior.

It’s not so much that there’s a right to judge you, it’s that you have no right to be shielded from judgment.

With slut-shaming, the big issue is the expectations being different for each gender. If there weren’t different expectations, I’m not sure I’d really have a problem with it. It might even be good.

Not to go all conservative on you, but a free society really does depend on virtuous people.

No true Scotsman could ever be pro-sex!

Here’s a thought: I’ve noticed a lot of libertarians seem to think that “tolerance” means never holding any views about how sexual behavior might impact society at large, for better or for worse. Conservatives aren’t afraid to talk about those things, though I suppose you’re right that their claims are often hard to justify. Even on this site, the responses to those who say, for example, that maybe the hookup culture isn’t actually empowering to women, are basically “shut up yes it is because I like it! How dare you suggest something within a range of possible behaviors could not be good!”

I’ll just leave this bit from Walter Russell Mead here: “Reform cannot and should not be understood simply as an assault on state and local government workers — although these workers cannot be insulated from the general consequences of a major failure of our political system. The problem is not that teachers and firefighters earn “too much” money; the problem is that we have developed a dysfunctional social system which cannot pay its bills. The public economy needs to be rationalized and restructured, but the most important job is to revitalize and energize the private sector.”

Look, y’all, I don’t mean to demonize the man. I just think deifying him is silly and in Lowry’s case, serves as a stand-in for favoring centralized government and war.

@Jack Shifflet

Yes, you’re right. But Rosenberg’s post was about pacifism, so I stuck with that.

@cka2nd see this tweet

@Red

Look, I’m very sympathetic to the traditionalist arguments about what gay marriage means for the culture. But there’s a big difference between making them in a civil way and doing it in such a way that reeks of attention-seeking. I don’t think for a second that Jackson is a stupid man, he knows the impact of comparing the Democratic party to the KKK in the media, and he knows it’s electorally self-destructive, especially in Virginia. Many of his statements are crazy and unhinged, and they seem to indicate he cares more about raising the profile of himself and his ministry than keeping control of the statehouse.

TomB,
You’re right that she’s most famous for fighting witholding, not the tax itself, and I think I was pretty clear about that. But I’m pretty sure she was opposed to both.

TomB
I appreciate your comment. I think you’re wrong in this instance, but you have a keen sense of smell, as it were, and I hope you continue to keep me honest. Retiring from NAS in protest is not the same as blackballing.

I’m with Fran.

Also, I’m going to try to find more stories like this. It seems like it strikes a lot of TAC commenters’ chords.

Clearly you’re not a fan of the Presidents of the United States of America, Leo.

I’m no fan of the executive branch, myself, but they can write a catchy tune.

@Andrew

It’s ridiculous because it’s an unrealistic fear. China’s rising seapower is vastly overstated by many. Though he’s right about the test, they’re years away from any kind of operational effectiveness.

The Wet One:
It’s at least relevant and similar enough that Sabo ought to have disclosed it. Whether it should have disqualified him I couldn’t say, that’s up to the publication, but it’s clear they didn’t know.

cka2nd:
The fact that he was a teacher is not just an “aggravating factor.”

Icarusr:

Of course legislative idiocy is a bipartisan phenomenon. But I’d still say that in Virginia this sort of nannyish stuff is more likely to come from the northern part of the state, which is both more liberal and more densely populated. Also usually represented by Democrats. And while I don’t have any statistics on this, I’ll bet there are more bike riders too. That’s why it’s predictable.

R.J. —

IP rights ≠ property rights, that’s why so many “web libertarians” favor it. If Sailer doesn’t want to acknowledge the difference between a house or a car and a string of data that can be infinitely reproduced at no cost without depriving someone of anything, that’s fine. Or, in patents, the difference between a house or a car and the government intervening to keep people from making similar houses and cars.

Cracking down on piracy and maintaining a reasonable copyright policy are two separate but related things. It’s possible to support copyright reforms without supporting the abolishment of the institution. The latter is politically dead anyway because copyright is a legitimate power under the Constitution. Still, fair use provisions should be bolstered, terms should be shortened, and registration should probably be required.

The reason why it’s so important to separate the two is because the extension of the copyright regime over the last 40 years, and especially over the past 25, has been the story of a dying industry using regulations to try to maintain its former position in the marketplace. When people can buy singles on iTunes, the record company that’s made a habit of filling the rest of its albums with complete trash and expecting people to pay $18 at Barnes & Noble for it anyway is in trouble. Deservedly so. And piracy doesn’t explain it all.

The $8 million payout isn’t coming from FreedomWorks itself.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/05/why-dick-armey-resigned-from-his-tea-party-organization/