Monday, January 24, 2011

From RR
International:
American:
  • Tea Partiers: budget cuts should include the military and foreign policy. Yes!
  • Spending Cuts 101.
  • Pro-lifers for mass murder. LRC’s Laurence Vance lets them have it.
  • The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do .... And that is to destroy the black family. Standard conservative rhetoric but true.
  • Still exporting torture. Three years ago I knew he was no different from the then-administration because by then I was paying attention. So I voted for Ron Paul in the primary and stayed home in November.
  • Man, they are still on that shooting.
  • Larken Rose goes there: Suppose Tucson were part of a coup. It wouldn’t work. I’m not as radical as him, more palæo/trad, Burkean and minarchist. God and man are best served by liberty – I’m more a classical liberal than a political trad – but I believe in original sin and that rightly based authority comes from God as part of handling it. (Catholicism is truths and principles backed by authority, the infallible church.) The French and Russian revolutions weren’t the answer. But yes, like electing the opposition party in our Punch-and-Judy system, murdering a congresswoman wouldn’t strike the root of the problem.
  • Is nullification viable?
  • ‘The ’60s.’ I don’t buy the parallel. A seemingly big minority because of the baby boom, a bunch of spoiled kids looking for a good time on your dime accomplished next to nothing (the civil-rights movement, arguably unconstitutional but well-intended in trying to restore individual liberty to those denied it because of race, like the exciting but costly government stunt of putting a man on the moon was a work of the cultural ’50s) and destroyed much (the culture that trads and classical liberals built). (Some of the back-to-nature stuff had a point... arguably ‘Enlightenment’ error made the culture self-destruct.) One mistake – trying to fight a long war and have a peacetime economy – is being repeated now.
  • Why discriminate?
  • ‘Marriage equality.’ But it’s not the state’s place to (re)define marriage either. The so-cons want to use the state against you. I don’t. But I defend their rights too.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Leave comment