Hagelian Dialectics

By -
I'm starting to think this Hagel-nomination business could be pretty important: read Scott McConnell as to why.

Seriously, when mentioning that one is an American, not an Israeli, senator supposedly disqualifies one from higher office, I think it is time to push back.

Comments

  1. Josiah Neeley4:03 PM

    After the election I saw someone on twitter write that "The election results aren't just bad for America, they are bad for ISRAEL!" Which was an odd thing for an American to say, I thought.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ken B11:27 AM

      Why is that an odd thing for an American to say? I've heard people decry an election result they don't like as bad for the Palestinians.

      I think the election of FDR in 1940 was a good thing for America. It was also good for Britain and France. And many Americans expressed that opinion at the time.

      Delete
  2. Josiah Neeley2:33 PM

    I've heard people decry an election result they don't like as bad for the Palestinians.

    Have you? Were they Palestinian?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ken B7:05 PM

      They were American.

      Delete
    2. Ken B7:10 PM



      Seriously, when mentioning that one is gay supposedly disqualifies one from higher office, I think it is time to push back.
      http://freebeacon.com/hagel-retracts-anti-gay-comments/

      Delete
    3. gcallah8:54 PM

      Well, sure, and Hagel has retracted those remarks, so that's that, and we have no need for pushback anymore, right?

      Unless, of course, you think ever having said anything you deem incorrect forever disqualifies said speaker from all future office?

      Delete
    4. Ken B10:27 PM

      Sincere repentance is always good. It's not usually associated with last minute maneuvering in confirmation hearings.

      Delete
    5. gcallah11:08 PM

      Yeah, Ken, like you actually think Hagel only abandoned that position five minutes ago!

      Delete
  3. Ken B2:57 AM

    Exactly as much as I believe America is dominated by Netanyahuites

    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