If [Mike Thompson] wants to leave the good ol' US of A, he can agitate all he wants. There should be a place where racist, xenophobic, bigoted, crazies can congregate and create a 13th century utopia, where such things as Democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom to live one's life absent government interference need not apply.My emphasis.
*eyes narrow*
This man supported Howard Dean during the primaries and then supported John Kerry during the election. Both of these Democrats endorsed and desired government interference (often at an increased level) in our lives in the form of:
But most importantly, any endorsement of government - in whatever form - is an endorsement of removing some of the "freedom to live one's life absent government interference." The sphere of power a state operates in is a sphere of limited liberty. At it's most very basic, even the minarchist ideal "night watchman state" must have a monopoly on the initiation of force in order to impose its laws, its court system, and its national defense apparatus. The form of that state and how it earns its legitimacy are also irrelevant. Democracy is a synonym for the outcome and process of Billy Beck's ethics test
Let's say that you woke up one morning and, looking out your front window, you observed a crowd of people at the end of your driveway. Let's say that you went out there to say "hi" and find out what's going on. On your arrival, you discover that this crowd of individuals was getting ready to hold a referendum on whether they should enter your house and take your things, to be put to their use.
And don't think I consider the other side of the aisle to be much better. It isn't. But don't think you can just spout off nonsense about wanting to be free from government interference when the entire reason so many people know who you are and visit your websites is because you want more of that interference.
UPDATE 11/16/2004 8:40am
Welcome, Catallarchy visitors!
I forgot to add something. A while back, this supposed fighter for freedom had this to say:
I prefer to look beyond November. To be blunt, I want what the Republicans have -- the trifecta. I want the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court. I want as many state houses and legislatures as we can get. I want complete dominance.
UPDATE 1/18/2005 9:40am
Kos continues to amaze me.
UPDATED 4/19/2005 10:24am
The Democratic Party: The Party of Personal Liberty?, Fiscal Responsibility?, Meteor Blades Needs Economics, Economic Ignorance, For the Privatization of Freedom, Sacred Cows and Kossack Hypocrisy, and Kos Strikes Again
UPDATED 6/7/2006 6:08pm
The Myth of the Libertarian Democrat
ATTENTION: Comments are closed. You are viewing my old blog, archived for search engine purposes.
To view the new blog, please go to the homepage. To find the current version of this entry, search here.
That isn't hypocrisy. Saying, in essence, that he likes the fact that minimal government infringement on personal liberty is a traditional American value does not contradict supporting a candidate who supports *some* taxation, or *some* "government interference."
When he said "freedom to live one's life absent government interference", he clearly was not advocating a stateless nation. His wording was a mistake in that it was overly broad, but knowing he is a moderate liberal who supports the idea of the State, he was clearly referring to social freedoms (the context makes this very clear). This isn't really hypocrisy, it's more like a misleading use of language.
Posted by: Jason on November 16, 2004 01:16 AMJason, either he meant what he said or he didn't. If he didn't, he certainly did not qualify his remarks to keep his meaning clear. If he did, he's a grand hypocrite for the reasons I mentioned or a liar. Simple as that.
Mr. Zúniga's stand on the political spectrum is obvious to me and anyone who scans his writing. The only freedom he advocates people have is of a limited personal and economic variety. A moderate he is not. He reached out in the past to libertarians (http://www.drizzten.com/blargchives/000337.html ) and I explained exactly why such an alliance would fail: he either cannot or will not see the fundamental point that all liberties - social or economic - are merely extensions of individual liberty and it is to that individual liberty's defense we should rise.
I stand by my remarks.