Tweet
Please consider this to be a continuation of the thread “NY STATE-YOU HAVE NO GUTS!!!” In that thread, I made some criticisms of MarkDel, and he was good enough to respond. My response to him below is quite lengthy, and I put it in a separate thread so that you could easily identify it and pass it by. Due to its length, I considered making my response by private e-mail rather than taking up so much space here, but just in case there are a very small number of you who genuinely would like to see the continuation of our exchange, I decided to post it publicly. Again, everyone else is definitely excused from wading through this whole thing. Thank you.
Mark:
Thank you for your comments. They were certainly more restrained and courteous than I would have expected. I appreciate that. And I apologize if anything I said crossed the line into incivility. I wished only to express an honest and frank reaction to some things you said that I found highly objectionable. I hope that in the process of doing so I was not unfair or insulting toward you.
At the risk of violating Ronbet’s declared cease fire, I would like to give you the courtesy of a response to the points you made in your most recent posts, as well as to add some additional related comments of my own.
“1. Why is it OK for David173 to imply Ron's a racist, yet not OK for me to trash him for doing so?”
I actually never said anything pro or con about David173. The fact that I took issue with some of your remarks does not imply that I agree with everyone I did not criticize.
For the record, I believe Ronbets was out of line with his insult of Mrs. Clinton. I suspect he knows he got a little emotional there. Similarly, David173 probably shouldn’t have made the Rocker reference. Ronbet’s post could be construed as sexist I suppose, but not racist.
In any case, I didn’t feel particularly compelled to comment on their little exchange. They made some off the cuff remarks in some brief posts that really didn’t amount to much. I did not feel that either of them said anything comparable in offensiveness to your series of deliberate and extensive paranoid rants stereotyping and demonizing many of the groups routinely singled out by bullies of the right. (I’m referring not just to this thread, but to several threads here and at at least one other website where you have made numerous political posts in the last couple weeks that I happen to have come across.)
Why is it not OK for you to trash David173 if he was in the wrong? It depends on how you “trash” him. He made the point—-pretty sensible in my opinion—-that there is nothing per se unwise or objectionable about the people of a state choosing a newcomer to represent them if they happen to believe the person fits what they’re looking for in a candidate better than their opponent does, and he noted that the phenomenon is not unheard of in American politics, citing examples of Kennedys and Rockefellers who held elective offices in places other than their state of origin. You responded by addressing him like he was a blithering idiot and raising irrelevant nit-picks about who owned property where, and who was a current versus a former senator.
Worse yet, you didn’t just trash him. You used the occasion as an opportunity to trash numerous groups of people with insulting stereotypes and threats of violence. What all that has to do with David173 and his post is beyond me. Apparently you see the world in black and white terms, where your enemies are a vast amorphous blob of evil—-liberals, Democrats, environmentalists, people who believe in animal rights, political protestors, the government, the “cultural elite,” the media, anyone who sees any merit in the Gore position in the current electoral controversies, hippies, intellectuals, etc.—-all basically interchangeable parts of this malevolent force eager to strip you of your freedom and your pistol. (It is true that you did not specifically mention the other “usual suspects,” like Jews, blacks, **********s, etc., but certainly the overwhelming majority of people who are capable of a rant like that routinely extend their attacks to those groups as well, at least when they feel they can express themselves freely without any of the “wrong” people around to overhear them. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are one of the minority who are not conventionally bigoted in this way.) David173 raised your ire, ipso facto, he must be one of Them, and must be beaten down immediately.
“2. I'm sure you understand that the last part of my post here was a joke,”
It’s still disturbing. I try not to be oversensitive to such things, because I will make ironic remarks sometimes, satirizing buffoonish and bigoted attitudes that I decidedly do not share and that I believe deserve to be ridiculed, and I certainly don’t like it when some busybody upbraids me about it, failing to see that I intended my remarks as humor, not to be taken literally.
I don’t think that’s what’s going on here, though. It’s a little too easy to say outrageous and offensive things, and then to try to wish it all away with “Oh, I was just kidding. Where’s your sense of humor?”
What’s funny about stereotyping unpopular groups and talking about killing them? What next, jokes about rape? Child abuse? The Holocaust? Lynchings? After all, obviously one doesn’t really want to kill those apelike lazy welfare cheats driving their Cadillacs and listening to their rap music. We’re all just kidding around here!
“if I was serious about threats, I wouldn't be posting them here. Just so you understand, people who actually utilize violence don't sit around contemplating and posturing, they just do it.”
Oversimplified, but not totally false. Still, plenty of people talk about it and do it, talk about it and don’t do it, don’t talk about it and do it, or don’t talk about it and don’t do it.
Besides, even if you yourself would never engage in such violent behavior, your words are hurtful and demeaning to those you stereotype, and they add to a general climate of hatred and incivility that increases the likelihood of less stable folks who share your political views acting in accordance with your rhetoric, regardless of how non-literal you intend it.
“3. How would you feel if the government put you in jail for gambling? For looking at porno? How about for expressing your opinion, no matter how unpopular, on the internet? That's what I'm fighting against and you are too just by being here and gambling on the net, you just don't realize the full ramifications of your acts.”
I don’t deny that our views overlap in some areas, perhaps in many areas. For the most part, I would consider myself a libertarian [lower case ‘l’]. I favor legalizing at least most so-called “victimless” crimes. Unlike, I suppose, most readers of a forum like this, I do not necessarily see all such issues as obvious and one-sided however. I believe that many forms of gambling that are now illegal or in a legal gray area should be legalized, but I don’t believe that all who disagree with me on this are stupid or hypocritical or ill-motivated (though I don’t deny that some are). I think there is much that is troubling about legalizing an activity that so many people engage in irresponsibly and harmfully, but on balance, I believe that allowing such freedom is justified.
I’ve always been a strong proponent of freedom of expression, a First Amendment extremist. Though the First Amendment really only applies directly to governmental restrictions on expression, I would love to see a much greater respect for free speech and the full airing of even unpopular opinions beyond the context of law and government. I lament the fact that the knee-jerk reaction of almost all people to expression they disagree with is to immediately try to silence it.
I agree with Mill that in the long run, it does more harm than good to coercively prevent people from engaging in behavior that is objectionable in one way or another but that does not constitute a direct harm to others. However, the devil, as usual, is in the details, as they say. What counts as a “harm”? How direct must the harm be to count as “direct harm”? What counts as “coercion”? Are there non-coercive things that society or the state may do to encourage or discourage certain behaviors? I’ve found that many libertarians simply wish away these philosophical complexities and act as if it is all quite self-evident where to draw the lines.
I suspect that where I would disagree with you most is in the economic sphere. I do not think that private property rights are absolute, not by a long shot. A system of private property has only instrumental value; any such property “rights” are derivative and prima facie only. My “right” to dispose of “my” property any way I see fit can never trump the right of another person to a life of freedom, opportunity, and dignity, including a right to the minimum material requirements for such rights to be fulfilled. Property is a convention, to be judged according to its consequences. The extreme of eliminating all property, or of trying to hold it all collectively, seems difficult or impossible to achieve, and societies that have sought such a communist goal (or really, societies that have been led by gangsters pretending to seek such a goal) have invariably been hell on earth. The opposite extreme of thoroughly unbridled capitalism—-closer to the Libertarian ideal-—seems to have different but similarly horrific consequences. Something in between the extremes is presumably the least of the available evils.
(This response is overlong already, but I’ll add that to tell you the truth, technically I’m more than a libertarian; I’m an anarchist. I try in my life as best I can to live by a Gandhian philosophy of truth and nonviolence, believing that my moral duty is to forsake any and all impure means, regardless of how noble my ends.
What does this have to do with anarchism? Well, I believe, as did Gandhi, that if I am morally prohibited from raising a hand of violence in anger against my brother, or from achieving my ends through lies and duplicity, then that does not suddenly end when I don a policeman or soldier’s uniform, or when someone elects me a legislator or appoints me a judge. When the state uses threats and guns and bombs and propaganda and prison cells and the like to get its way, that is actual flesh and blood human beings coercing other actual flesh and blood human beings through violence and deception, not some philosophically peculiar abstract entity that is somehow free of moral restraints, or allowed to play by different rules.
I recognize, however, that realistically no more than a tiny, tiny fraction of people will ever join me in my quixotic quest to live as nonviolent a life as I can. Almost all of you will continue to settle your disputes and defend your rights in the familiar and seemingly self-evidently justified violent ways that people have always resorted to, and that have created this lovely world we live so precariously in today. And so, while I try not to participate violently on either side, there is no question that I root for and have much greater respect for some sides and some individuals over others. Though my principles preclude my endorsing all of the methods they felt were necessary to achieve some good in the world, and though I recognize that they all are or were highly flawed as we all are, I certainly respect the heroism and noble intentions of FDR, Eugene Debs, Nelson Mandela, Bobby Kennedy, Malcolm X, Ralph Nader, the environmentalist movement, the feminist movement, and dozens of other individuals and groups I could cite that would be considered conventionally to be at least somewhat of the “left.” I’m sorry if such figures to you are anti-freedom villains, but as I said, I’m sure we agree in our worldviews about some things and disagree about some.)
“4. Do not categorize me as "right wing" that term should be reserved for religious zealots, bigots, facists, neo-nazis, etc...I am none of these things and if you check ALL of my posts, you will see no evidence of that. What you detect is a hatred of those who subtly attempt to control your life. You see, the religious zealots, bigots, etc..all the anti-freedom forces on the right, you can see them coming a mile away which is why they don't frighten me. But the similar forces on the left, they're much smarter and more clever in their attempt to limit your freedoms, which is why I reserve my most bitter comments for them.”
Allow me to explain my use of the term “right wing.” It was not intended as just some vague gratuitous insult.
There are different kinds of libertarians. ACLU-type civil libertarians are quite different beasts from Ayn Randian libertarians who exalt private property rights above all others and who seemingly regard any obstacles to the super-rich amassing a still greater proportion of the earth’s wealth to be unacceptable violations of absolute rights. The former style libertarian—-of whose views I am obviously in greater sympathy—-can at least vaguely be considered of the “left,” and politically tends most often to end up in an uneasy alliance with the Democrats. The latter style libertarian I would label as being more of the “right,” and politically tends most often to end up in an uneasy alliance with the Republicans. From your posts, I took you to be the latter type of libertarian.
Furthermore, just in a more general sense of “right wing,” I didn’t see much if anything in your posts in the various threads that could not easily have been posted by Rush Limbaugh, David Duke, or any number of other figures that would, I think, uncontroversially be regarded as “right wing.” Your posts are littered with countless degrading stereotypes and buzzwords of the right (though thankfully I believe one of the few you’ve missed is the horrific “femi-nazi”), and you invariably attribute complete unscrupulousness and malevolent motives to the Democrats and indeed seemingly to anyone to the left of Attila the Hun. I think of that as “right wing.”
Insofar as the term carries specific connotations of racism, Nazism, etc., you are right that you have not posted anything that warrants such a label. These hateful philosophies overlap to a considerable extent with the more “respectable” political right, but that obviously does not make them identical.
Many people of the libertarian right opposed most or all of the landmark civil rights legislation and judicial decisions that finally afforded African Americans and other minorities in this country some modicum of equality and dignity after centuries of slavery and near-slavery. Does that mean they were all racists and fascists? No, I have no doubt that a certain percentage of people on the political right back then—perhaps 2% or 3%--who led the fight against civil rights were principled people of good will who sincerely believed in certain principles of freedom of association and private property rights and such that they believed to be incompatible with such legislation. This happened to align them temporarily with some pretty nasty folks, but that can happen. It’s certainly happened to me. They may well have been not racist at all and have lamented that they were on the anti-civil rights side of the debate, but have felt that this was the lesser of the evils and that there were better ways to end discrimination.
Similarly, just because your rhetoric sounds to me exactly like what one might hear from Rush Limbaugh or from a right wing militia meeting, I do not claim to know what is in your heart or whether you are “right wing” in the sense that has the negative connotations you object to. Indeed, I prefer to believe that you are not. I apologize if I sometimes choose my words poorly and imply otherwise.
“5. You may not realize it, but they've done a nice job on you too. Notice your use of the buzz word "right wing" even though all of my posts point to a total libertarian slant. The media, your college professors and other members of the intellecual left have been so successful at demonizing anyone that stands for freedom, that the mere expression of the word and the rhetoric promoting prompts you to call me "right wing" which has all kinds of negative, pre-conceived implications (racist, etc...) that go with it and thus label me with baggage that I did not earn.”
Your intellectual arrogance shows when you patronizingly accuse me of either being brainwashed by the evil left, or secretly agreeing with you without realizing it. But that’s a sin I can’t be too judgmental about, because I have been guilty of it far too much myself in my life.
In any case, I’m having trouble understanding how my maverick political and philosophical views—-influenced by such diverse and unconventional figures as Gandhi, Immanuel Kant, Bertrand Russell, and Noam Chomsky—-were instilled in me for nefarious purposes by the likes of Rupert Murdoch, G.E., Disney, and the other billionaires and multi-national corporations of the “liberal” media allegedly so intent on abolishing capitalism, or for that matter by the American public school and university system. I did indeed have some gifted and inspiring professors when I was in college. Perhaps they are to blame in some indirect way. (I say indirect, because I’m pretty sure none of them had a worldview all that similar to where I ended up.) If so, I am grateful to them.
As far as demonizing you with a term like “right wing,” I have addressed that above. Even if I inadvertently crossed a line with that term, are you really going to say that that is even remotely comparable in terms of being hateful and insulting and having “all kinds of negative, pre-conceived implications” as “birkenstock wearing, latte drinking, animal loving, vegetarian, wannabe hippie” and the like?
“6. What politics of mine do you specifically find abhorrent?”
Some of this I’ve already addressed.
“My belief in personal responsibility?”
Depends. Sometimes this is a political buzzword that is used in ways I do indeed object to. Appeals to “personal responsibility” can sometimes be little more than “blaming the victim,” or implying that people invariably deserve their lot in life.
I believe that everything we are, everything we do, everything that happens to us, is a complex product of countless factors, some of which we are personally responsible for and some of which we are not.
I believe in forgiveness, second chances, and helping those in need more than many of the people who most insistently use the phrase “personal responsibility” seem to.
“My belief in the freedom of any individual to do anything they want provided it doesn't cause overt harm to anyone else?”
No, in the abstract I’d say we’re in agreement on this one, though I suspect we’d flesh it out vastly differently. I, for instance, would think that this implies a strong environmentalism. What could be more harmful and abusive of the rights of others than to gradually poison the earth and render it unlivable for future generations because your short term greed overrides your concern for the well-being and the very lives of others? Yet I haven’t seen a whole lot of libertarians of the right leading the charge against the polluters. They’re seemingly too busy denouncing the “tree huggers” for having the audacity to suggest that anything be allowed to limit the free flow of capital and accumulation of wealth.
“Perhaps my desire to fight for your rights even if you aren't willing or capable to fight for your own?”
No, I’m glad you believe strongly in your rights and the rights of others. Being a Gandhian, I suspect our ways of standing up for ourselves differ, but I respect your desire to fight for what you believe in.
“My belief in the principles of the US Constitution?”
Like the Bible, people tend to pick and choose what they like in the Constitution and to interpret it in whatever way fits what they would like it to mean.
But in general, while I don’t think the Constitution is flawless by any means, I believe it to be an impressive and inspiring document that has been one of many elements that has provided us with a more stable and slightly less unjust society than most peoples at most times around the world have had to suffer with.
“The First Amendement?”
No, as I said, I’m a strong proponent of free speech, freedom of (and certainly from) religion, etc.
“Second Amendment? Which is it Zippy, all of the above?”
Possibly. If the Second Amendment is interpreted to mean that the government has no right to in any way restrict weaponry held in private hands, regardless of technological advances, etc., then I’ll have to part ways with you on this one. I do not object to at least some forms of gun control.
7. The truth is you don't disagree with me on any of those issues, you just disagree with my tone, not my politics.
It may well be that I object to more about the tone of your remarks than the substance, but I would not say it is all one or all the other.
In your posts-—not all in this thread—-you did such things as question whether Democrats “have the right to call themselves Americans,” and cast yourself as the embattled underdog that your “politically correct” enemies are trying to silence. These have been gutter rhetorical tactics of the political right for decades, and yes, I do disagree with them.
“And to a large extent, you are correct, my tone is abhorrent, but I'm sick and tired of sitting back and playing by rules which do not apply to the people who create them and you should be too.”
Yes, I understand your frustration. I too have always chafed under the rules of others
As a good Kantian, however, I recognize that obligations of respect and civility are not externally imposed, not created and imposed by man. They are rules that each individual is capable of discovering and imposing on himself when he comes to recognize his status as a rational being amongst other rational beings of equal intrinsic value and dignity. When I fall short of moral perfection and act toward others with an inappropriate and disrespectful attitude, I am disappointing myself and violating my own standards, not breaking someone else’s rules.
“1. You are dead on target, this political stuff has no place here now that I've given it some thought.
2. "I" am not the one who started this thread which was not about gambling, and "I" was not the one who compared Ronbets to John Rocker because he doesn't like Hillary. For right or wrong, this forum does occasionally enter into politics or other subjects only marginally (at best) related to gambling, but hey, it's not like I'm the only one doing it! And I've got the courage to post here under my real name, which most people don't for obvious reasons, and I stand to lose a lot here because I make my living off the sports gambling business and I'm probably costing myself a lot of would-be customers like yourself with my political views. But don't blame me exclusively for something that is done by dozens, if not hundreds, of people in this forum and the other site's as well.”
I really don’t want to police what people say and discourage anyone from posting on a non-sportsbetting topic. It actually can provide an interesting change of pace to read someone’s views on current events or to vicariously enjoy Reno’s sexcapades. I should not have worded my post in such a way as to imply that this forum should keep its focus as narrowly on sportsbetting as possible, because on reflection, that is not in fact my position.
Also, again, my remarks were a cumulative response to numerous recent posts I’ve read of yours in different threads. I was not accusing you of starting this thread and taking things in a political direction.
I certainly acknowledge that you are by no means the only person who makes non-sportsbetting posts in this forum. Yours, however, seemed to me more numerous, lengthy, and deliberate, and indeed, venomous, and I felt like you had crossed a line. (I should clarify that when I say more “venomous,” I have certainly come across many ignorant and hateful posts on this and similar sites. However, your obvious intellect and sincerity made the “venomousness” stand out more and disturb me more. I sensed that someone of your abilities was capable of much better.)
I just felt like, on the whole, you were using the forum to propagandize for a particular political agenda, and that the more people either failed to respond or egged you on, the more cocky and insulting you got toward the groups that you hold in disdain. I thought it was time I go on record to say that there was at least one reader who was offended by some of your remarks.
I really haven’t responded to most of your specific remarks about the recent election and its aftermath, as I’ve chosen instead to focus on your recent posts that were addressed to me. Suffice to say that I agree with some of what you say (in both substance and tone) and disagree with some of what you say (in both substance and tone). I think you articulate several good points, and its quite clear that you have a good mind, and that you’ve done your homework.
In closing, let me just say that I hope you will take any criticisms of your posts contained herein in the constructive way in which they are intended. I hope that we will agree more often than not, and that when we do not, we will disagree with civility and mutual respect.
Now, let’s get back to picking winners and making money (you right wing kook you)!
Mark:
Thank you for your comments. They were certainly more restrained and courteous than I would have expected. I appreciate that. And I apologize if anything I said crossed the line into incivility. I wished only to express an honest and frank reaction to some things you said that I found highly objectionable. I hope that in the process of doing so I was not unfair or insulting toward you.
At the risk of violating Ronbet’s declared cease fire, I would like to give you the courtesy of a response to the points you made in your most recent posts, as well as to add some additional related comments of my own.
“1. Why is it OK for David173 to imply Ron's a racist, yet not OK for me to trash him for doing so?”
I actually never said anything pro or con about David173. The fact that I took issue with some of your remarks does not imply that I agree with everyone I did not criticize.
For the record, I believe Ronbets was out of line with his insult of Mrs. Clinton. I suspect he knows he got a little emotional there. Similarly, David173 probably shouldn’t have made the Rocker reference. Ronbet’s post could be construed as sexist I suppose, but not racist.
In any case, I didn’t feel particularly compelled to comment on their little exchange. They made some off the cuff remarks in some brief posts that really didn’t amount to much. I did not feel that either of them said anything comparable in offensiveness to your series of deliberate and extensive paranoid rants stereotyping and demonizing many of the groups routinely singled out by bullies of the right. (I’m referring not just to this thread, but to several threads here and at at least one other website where you have made numerous political posts in the last couple weeks that I happen to have come across.)
Why is it not OK for you to trash David173 if he was in the wrong? It depends on how you “trash” him. He made the point—-pretty sensible in my opinion—-that there is nothing per se unwise or objectionable about the people of a state choosing a newcomer to represent them if they happen to believe the person fits what they’re looking for in a candidate better than their opponent does, and he noted that the phenomenon is not unheard of in American politics, citing examples of Kennedys and Rockefellers who held elective offices in places other than their state of origin. You responded by addressing him like he was a blithering idiot and raising irrelevant nit-picks about who owned property where, and who was a current versus a former senator.
Worse yet, you didn’t just trash him. You used the occasion as an opportunity to trash numerous groups of people with insulting stereotypes and threats of violence. What all that has to do with David173 and his post is beyond me. Apparently you see the world in black and white terms, where your enemies are a vast amorphous blob of evil—-liberals, Democrats, environmentalists, people who believe in animal rights, political protestors, the government, the “cultural elite,” the media, anyone who sees any merit in the Gore position in the current electoral controversies, hippies, intellectuals, etc.—-all basically interchangeable parts of this malevolent force eager to strip you of your freedom and your pistol. (It is true that you did not specifically mention the other “usual suspects,” like Jews, blacks, **********s, etc., but certainly the overwhelming majority of people who are capable of a rant like that routinely extend their attacks to those groups as well, at least when they feel they can express themselves freely without any of the “wrong” people around to overhear them. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are one of the minority who are not conventionally bigoted in this way.) David173 raised your ire, ipso facto, he must be one of Them, and must be beaten down immediately.
“2. I'm sure you understand that the last part of my post here was a joke,”
It’s still disturbing. I try not to be oversensitive to such things, because I will make ironic remarks sometimes, satirizing buffoonish and bigoted attitudes that I decidedly do not share and that I believe deserve to be ridiculed, and I certainly don’t like it when some busybody upbraids me about it, failing to see that I intended my remarks as humor, not to be taken literally.
I don’t think that’s what’s going on here, though. It’s a little too easy to say outrageous and offensive things, and then to try to wish it all away with “Oh, I was just kidding. Where’s your sense of humor?”
What’s funny about stereotyping unpopular groups and talking about killing them? What next, jokes about rape? Child abuse? The Holocaust? Lynchings? After all, obviously one doesn’t really want to kill those apelike lazy welfare cheats driving their Cadillacs and listening to their rap music. We’re all just kidding around here!
“if I was serious about threats, I wouldn't be posting them here. Just so you understand, people who actually utilize violence don't sit around contemplating and posturing, they just do it.”
Oversimplified, but not totally false. Still, plenty of people talk about it and do it, talk about it and don’t do it, don’t talk about it and do it, or don’t talk about it and don’t do it.
Besides, even if you yourself would never engage in such violent behavior, your words are hurtful and demeaning to those you stereotype, and they add to a general climate of hatred and incivility that increases the likelihood of less stable folks who share your political views acting in accordance with your rhetoric, regardless of how non-literal you intend it.
“3. How would you feel if the government put you in jail for gambling? For looking at porno? How about for expressing your opinion, no matter how unpopular, on the internet? That's what I'm fighting against and you are too just by being here and gambling on the net, you just don't realize the full ramifications of your acts.”
I don’t deny that our views overlap in some areas, perhaps in many areas. For the most part, I would consider myself a libertarian [lower case ‘l’]. I favor legalizing at least most so-called “victimless” crimes. Unlike, I suppose, most readers of a forum like this, I do not necessarily see all such issues as obvious and one-sided however. I believe that many forms of gambling that are now illegal or in a legal gray area should be legalized, but I don’t believe that all who disagree with me on this are stupid or hypocritical or ill-motivated (though I don’t deny that some are). I think there is much that is troubling about legalizing an activity that so many people engage in irresponsibly and harmfully, but on balance, I believe that allowing such freedom is justified.
I’ve always been a strong proponent of freedom of expression, a First Amendment extremist. Though the First Amendment really only applies directly to governmental restrictions on expression, I would love to see a much greater respect for free speech and the full airing of even unpopular opinions beyond the context of law and government. I lament the fact that the knee-jerk reaction of almost all people to expression they disagree with is to immediately try to silence it.
I agree with Mill that in the long run, it does more harm than good to coercively prevent people from engaging in behavior that is objectionable in one way or another but that does not constitute a direct harm to others. However, the devil, as usual, is in the details, as they say. What counts as a “harm”? How direct must the harm be to count as “direct harm”? What counts as “coercion”? Are there non-coercive things that society or the state may do to encourage or discourage certain behaviors? I’ve found that many libertarians simply wish away these philosophical complexities and act as if it is all quite self-evident where to draw the lines.
I suspect that where I would disagree with you most is in the economic sphere. I do not think that private property rights are absolute, not by a long shot. A system of private property has only instrumental value; any such property “rights” are derivative and prima facie only. My “right” to dispose of “my” property any way I see fit can never trump the right of another person to a life of freedom, opportunity, and dignity, including a right to the minimum material requirements for such rights to be fulfilled. Property is a convention, to be judged according to its consequences. The extreme of eliminating all property, or of trying to hold it all collectively, seems difficult or impossible to achieve, and societies that have sought such a communist goal (or really, societies that have been led by gangsters pretending to seek such a goal) have invariably been hell on earth. The opposite extreme of thoroughly unbridled capitalism—-closer to the Libertarian ideal-—seems to have different but similarly horrific consequences. Something in between the extremes is presumably the least of the available evils.
(This response is overlong already, but I’ll add that to tell you the truth, technically I’m more than a libertarian; I’m an anarchist. I try in my life as best I can to live by a Gandhian philosophy of truth and nonviolence, believing that my moral duty is to forsake any and all impure means, regardless of how noble my ends.
What does this have to do with anarchism? Well, I believe, as did Gandhi, that if I am morally prohibited from raising a hand of violence in anger against my brother, or from achieving my ends through lies and duplicity, then that does not suddenly end when I don a policeman or soldier’s uniform, or when someone elects me a legislator or appoints me a judge. When the state uses threats and guns and bombs and propaganda and prison cells and the like to get its way, that is actual flesh and blood human beings coercing other actual flesh and blood human beings through violence and deception, not some philosophically peculiar abstract entity that is somehow free of moral restraints, or allowed to play by different rules.
I recognize, however, that realistically no more than a tiny, tiny fraction of people will ever join me in my quixotic quest to live as nonviolent a life as I can. Almost all of you will continue to settle your disputes and defend your rights in the familiar and seemingly self-evidently justified violent ways that people have always resorted to, and that have created this lovely world we live so precariously in today. And so, while I try not to participate violently on either side, there is no question that I root for and have much greater respect for some sides and some individuals over others. Though my principles preclude my endorsing all of the methods they felt were necessary to achieve some good in the world, and though I recognize that they all are or were highly flawed as we all are, I certainly respect the heroism and noble intentions of FDR, Eugene Debs, Nelson Mandela, Bobby Kennedy, Malcolm X, Ralph Nader, the environmentalist movement, the feminist movement, and dozens of other individuals and groups I could cite that would be considered conventionally to be at least somewhat of the “left.” I’m sorry if such figures to you are anti-freedom villains, but as I said, I’m sure we agree in our worldviews about some things and disagree about some.)
“4. Do not categorize me as "right wing" that term should be reserved for religious zealots, bigots, facists, neo-nazis, etc...I am none of these things and if you check ALL of my posts, you will see no evidence of that. What you detect is a hatred of those who subtly attempt to control your life. You see, the religious zealots, bigots, etc..all the anti-freedom forces on the right, you can see them coming a mile away which is why they don't frighten me. But the similar forces on the left, they're much smarter and more clever in their attempt to limit your freedoms, which is why I reserve my most bitter comments for them.”
Allow me to explain my use of the term “right wing.” It was not intended as just some vague gratuitous insult.
There are different kinds of libertarians. ACLU-type civil libertarians are quite different beasts from Ayn Randian libertarians who exalt private property rights above all others and who seemingly regard any obstacles to the super-rich amassing a still greater proportion of the earth’s wealth to be unacceptable violations of absolute rights. The former style libertarian—-of whose views I am obviously in greater sympathy—-can at least vaguely be considered of the “left,” and politically tends most often to end up in an uneasy alliance with the Democrats. The latter style libertarian I would label as being more of the “right,” and politically tends most often to end up in an uneasy alliance with the Republicans. From your posts, I took you to be the latter type of libertarian.
Furthermore, just in a more general sense of “right wing,” I didn’t see much if anything in your posts in the various threads that could not easily have been posted by Rush Limbaugh, David Duke, or any number of other figures that would, I think, uncontroversially be regarded as “right wing.” Your posts are littered with countless degrading stereotypes and buzzwords of the right (though thankfully I believe one of the few you’ve missed is the horrific “femi-nazi”), and you invariably attribute complete unscrupulousness and malevolent motives to the Democrats and indeed seemingly to anyone to the left of Attila the Hun. I think of that as “right wing.”
Insofar as the term carries specific connotations of racism, Nazism, etc., you are right that you have not posted anything that warrants such a label. These hateful philosophies overlap to a considerable extent with the more “respectable” political right, but that obviously does not make them identical.
Many people of the libertarian right opposed most or all of the landmark civil rights legislation and judicial decisions that finally afforded African Americans and other minorities in this country some modicum of equality and dignity after centuries of slavery and near-slavery. Does that mean they were all racists and fascists? No, I have no doubt that a certain percentage of people on the political right back then—perhaps 2% or 3%--who led the fight against civil rights were principled people of good will who sincerely believed in certain principles of freedom of association and private property rights and such that they believed to be incompatible with such legislation. This happened to align them temporarily with some pretty nasty folks, but that can happen. It’s certainly happened to me. They may well have been not racist at all and have lamented that they were on the anti-civil rights side of the debate, but have felt that this was the lesser of the evils and that there were better ways to end discrimination.
Similarly, just because your rhetoric sounds to me exactly like what one might hear from Rush Limbaugh or from a right wing militia meeting, I do not claim to know what is in your heart or whether you are “right wing” in the sense that has the negative connotations you object to. Indeed, I prefer to believe that you are not. I apologize if I sometimes choose my words poorly and imply otherwise.
“5. You may not realize it, but they've done a nice job on you too. Notice your use of the buzz word "right wing" even though all of my posts point to a total libertarian slant. The media, your college professors and other members of the intellecual left have been so successful at demonizing anyone that stands for freedom, that the mere expression of the word and the rhetoric promoting prompts you to call me "right wing" which has all kinds of negative, pre-conceived implications (racist, etc...) that go with it and thus label me with baggage that I did not earn.”
Your intellectual arrogance shows when you patronizingly accuse me of either being brainwashed by the evil left, or secretly agreeing with you without realizing it. But that’s a sin I can’t be too judgmental about, because I have been guilty of it far too much myself in my life.
In any case, I’m having trouble understanding how my maverick political and philosophical views—-influenced by such diverse and unconventional figures as Gandhi, Immanuel Kant, Bertrand Russell, and Noam Chomsky—-were instilled in me for nefarious purposes by the likes of Rupert Murdoch, G.E., Disney, and the other billionaires and multi-national corporations of the “liberal” media allegedly so intent on abolishing capitalism, or for that matter by the American public school and university system. I did indeed have some gifted and inspiring professors when I was in college. Perhaps they are to blame in some indirect way. (I say indirect, because I’m pretty sure none of them had a worldview all that similar to where I ended up.) If so, I am grateful to them.
As far as demonizing you with a term like “right wing,” I have addressed that above. Even if I inadvertently crossed a line with that term, are you really going to say that that is even remotely comparable in terms of being hateful and insulting and having “all kinds of negative, pre-conceived implications” as “birkenstock wearing, latte drinking, animal loving, vegetarian, wannabe hippie” and the like?
“6. What politics of mine do you specifically find abhorrent?”
Some of this I’ve already addressed.
“My belief in personal responsibility?”
Depends. Sometimes this is a political buzzword that is used in ways I do indeed object to. Appeals to “personal responsibility” can sometimes be little more than “blaming the victim,” or implying that people invariably deserve their lot in life.
I believe that everything we are, everything we do, everything that happens to us, is a complex product of countless factors, some of which we are personally responsible for and some of which we are not.
I believe in forgiveness, second chances, and helping those in need more than many of the people who most insistently use the phrase “personal responsibility” seem to.
“My belief in the freedom of any individual to do anything they want provided it doesn't cause overt harm to anyone else?”
No, in the abstract I’d say we’re in agreement on this one, though I suspect we’d flesh it out vastly differently. I, for instance, would think that this implies a strong environmentalism. What could be more harmful and abusive of the rights of others than to gradually poison the earth and render it unlivable for future generations because your short term greed overrides your concern for the well-being and the very lives of others? Yet I haven’t seen a whole lot of libertarians of the right leading the charge against the polluters. They’re seemingly too busy denouncing the “tree huggers” for having the audacity to suggest that anything be allowed to limit the free flow of capital and accumulation of wealth.
“Perhaps my desire to fight for your rights even if you aren't willing or capable to fight for your own?”
No, I’m glad you believe strongly in your rights and the rights of others. Being a Gandhian, I suspect our ways of standing up for ourselves differ, but I respect your desire to fight for what you believe in.
“My belief in the principles of the US Constitution?”
Like the Bible, people tend to pick and choose what they like in the Constitution and to interpret it in whatever way fits what they would like it to mean.
But in general, while I don’t think the Constitution is flawless by any means, I believe it to be an impressive and inspiring document that has been one of many elements that has provided us with a more stable and slightly less unjust society than most peoples at most times around the world have had to suffer with.
“The First Amendement?”
No, as I said, I’m a strong proponent of free speech, freedom of (and certainly from) religion, etc.
“Second Amendment? Which is it Zippy, all of the above?”
Possibly. If the Second Amendment is interpreted to mean that the government has no right to in any way restrict weaponry held in private hands, regardless of technological advances, etc., then I’ll have to part ways with you on this one. I do not object to at least some forms of gun control.
7. The truth is you don't disagree with me on any of those issues, you just disagree with my tone, not my politics.
It may well be that I object to more about the tone of your remarks than the substance, but I would not say it is all one or all the other.
In your posts-—not all in this thread—-you did such things as question whether Democrats “have the right to call themselves Americans,” and cast yourself as the embattled underdog that your “politically correct” enemies are trying to silence. These have been gutter rhetorical tactics of the political right for decades, and yes, I do disagree with them.
“And to a large extent, you are correct, my tone is abhorrent, but I'm sick and tired of sitting back and playing by rules which do not apply to the people who create them and you should be too.”
Yes, I understand your frustration. I too have always chafed under the rules of others
As a good Kantian, however, I recognize that obligations of respect and civility are not externally imposed, not created and imposed by man. They are rules that each individual is capable of discovering and imposing on himself when he comes to recognize his status as a rational being amongst other rational beings of equal intrinsic value and dignity. When I fall short of moral perfection and act toward others with an inappropriate and disrespectful attitude, I am disappointing myself and violating my own standards, not breaking someone else’s rules.
“1. You are dead on target, this political stuff has no place here now that I've given it some thought.
2. "I" am not the one who started this thread which was not about gambling, and "I" was not the one who compared Ronbets to John Rocker because he doesn't like Hillary. For right or wrong, this forum does occasionally enter into politics or other subjects only marginally (at best) related to gambling, but hey, it's not like I'm the only one doing it! And I've got the courage to post here under my real name, which most people don't for obvious reasons, and I stand to lose a lot here because I make my living off the sports gambling business and I'm probably costing myself a lot of would-be customers like yourself with my political views. But don't blame me exclusively for something that is done by dozens, if not hundreds, of people in this forum and the other site's as well.”
I really don’t want to police what people say and discourage anyone from posting on a non-sportsbetting topic. It actually can provide an interesting change of pace to read someone’s views on current events or to vicariously enjoy Reno’s sexcapades. I should not have worded my post in such a way as to imply that this forum should keep its focus as narrowly on sportsbetting as possible, because on reflection, that is not in fact my position.
Also, again, my remarks were a cumulative response to numerous recent posts I’ve read of yours in different threads. I was not accusing you of starting this thread and taking things in a political direction.
I certainly acknowledge that you are by no means the only person who makes non-sportsbetting posts in this forum. Yours, however, seemed to me more numerous, lengthy, and deliberate, and indeed, venomous, and I felt like you had crossed a line. (I should clarify that when I say more “venomous,” I have certainly come across many ignorant and hateful posts on this and similar sites. However, your obvious intellect and sincerity made the “venomousness” stand out more and disturb me more. I sensed that someone of your abilities was capable of much better.)
I just felt like, on the whole, you were using the forum to propagandize for a particular political agenda, and that the more people either failed to respond or egged you on, the more cocky and insulting you got toward the groups that you hold in disdain. I thought it was time I go on record to say that there was at least one reader who was offended by some of your remarks.
I really haven’t responded to most of your specific remarks about the recent election and its aftermath, as I’ve chosen instead to focus on your recent posts that were addressed to me. Suffice to say that I agree with some of what you say (in both substance and tone) and disagree with some of what you say (in both substance and tone). I think you articulate several good points, and its quite clear that you have a good mind, and that you’ve done your homework.
In closing, let me just say that I hope you will take any criticisms of your posts contained herein in the constructive way in which they are intended. I hope that we will agree more often than not, and that when we do not, we will disagree with civility and mutual respect.
Now, let’s get back to picking winners and making money (you right wing kook you)!
Comment