Comments on: disloyalty: namu amida butsu

By: Danny O'Brien

Danny O'Brien — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 05:49:42 +0000

Even better, there seems to have been *two* Arizona Libertarian parties, duking it out between them over the name.

I suspect you are right about the series of patches to get a workable libertarianism, thus bleeding it of any appealing simplicity it might once of had. But I fully intend to enjoy having that journey.

By: Shannon Lee

Shannon Lee — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 20:04:41 +0000

See, the thing about Libertarianism is, by the time you’ve tweaked it in all the places that it just doesn’t make any sense, you’re either a Democrat or a Republican (depending on which set of bits didn’t make sense).

Also, L. Neil Smith used to be the perennial Libertarian candidate for president from the Arizona Libertarian party (which didn’t talk to the other Libertarian parties). And he’s completely fun to read, especially when the characters drop unexpectedly into Idio-Speak (as when the villain, in the throws of Final Defeat, shouts, “You may have defeated me, but you still haven’t solved the Free Rider problem! Hahahahahahah!”).

By: Danny O'Brien

Danny O'Brien — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 16:48:49 +0000

Wait until I get onto emacs…

By: Lee Maguire

Lee Maguire — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:53:36 +0000

What are you doing, O’Brien? You set up a new blog system, enable comments, then keep mentioning Americans and firearms. Surely that’s like testing fire-retardant baby clothing in situ?

By: Zero

Zero — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:23:56 +0000

I think the thing about libertarians is that we want to be all inclusive like Amida Buddha. We also expect and trust that people will behave responsibly with their freedom. I may not like my neighbor having guns but I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to use an even bigger weapon of government regulation to prevent him from having them. I also expect my neighbor to behave responsibly with his guns or I will use my bigger guns, friends with guns or the government, to stop him. Note that the feeling of threat is not the same as being actually in danger. If you believe feeling threatened is justification for the subjugation of the rights of another then you should fully support the war in Iraq. The original justification for attacking Iraq was the threat of Iraq having “weapons of mass destruction”.

By: Liz

Liz — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 07:20:00 +0000

I’ve read that Robert Anton Wilson piece before, and it gives me the impulse never to say you-know-what though it’s too late because I think it’s supposed to work even if you only say it in your mind. Damn!