I Told You This Would Happen...

By -
'Well, yesterday was interesting. My Hispanic cleaning lady told me that "she would like to be for Obama, but he's a dangerous Muslim." She was sure of it and had heard it on the radio many times. . .'

From Andrew Sullivan.

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy9:53 PM

    Actually Gene, I think you told us that Obama didn't stand a chance because of his name, not that a few morons would say stuff to a guy who then relayed it to Andrew Sullivan.

    I haven't checked recently, but a few weeks ago Intrade listed Obama as the most likely next president. If that happens, will you finally admit you were wrong?

    (I am being anal on this since we know how concerned you are for consistent blogging about elections, a la your frequent posts concerning LRC.

    Also for casual onlookers, Gene and I are friends. I am not this much of a jerk to strangers.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah4:02 AM

    Yes, we are friends.

    My original comments were a bit tongue-in-cheek, but the serious portion was that his name would be a problem. And I think it will be -- but I hope not so significant a problem that he can't beat Hillary.

    ReplyDelete
  3. John Goes10:48 AM

    When I was in Iowa going door to door, one Hillary supporter told me that she "doesn't like that Obama is ashamed to say what he really is. We all know he's really a Muslim, right?"

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous8:58 AM

    "Everybody knows Trotsky is behind everything." --Stalin (sort of)

    Either of you have an optimal course out the country when Hillary gets sworn in? Jesus H. there's probably going to be a crackdown on 'right wing hate speech' which will just be leftist codewords for dissent of any kind. Of course it'll be for everyone's own good!

    ReplyDelete
  5. John Goes2:38 PM

    I've got a Brazilian passport if I need to bolt. Maybe can survive the coming of Hillary, though.

    ReplyDelete
  6. gcallah8:38 PM

    We've lived through Dubya -- Hillary will be an improvement.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

St. Paul and I Agree...

By -
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
Read more

Libertarianism and Violence, II

By -
I decided to move some discussion from this post up to the top level here. Specifically, Watoosh wrote: "Well, if violence is defined as initiation of force (which, of course, presupposes certain property rights), then I think Rockwell is correct..." Well, if we define cats as elephants, then many people keep elephants in their house. More seriously, firstly, violence is not usually defined that way. It's defined as, you know, violence, so that, say, someone may respond violently or non-violently to someone who aggresses against them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance, "He punched me, but I did not stoop to violence in response." And, secondly, the libertarian usage of "initiation of force" is very offbeat. If I wander onto someone's meadow, most people would not say I had "initiated force" -- I mean, sure, I used "force" against the earth to push off walking, but that's not force directed against...
Read more