Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2008 April
2008 January
2007 June
2007 February
2006 September
2006 May
2005 December
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
My Links
Cato Institute
Foundation for Economic Education
International Society for Individual Liberty
Independent Institute
Heartland Institute
Institute for Liberal Values
Institute for Economic Affairs
Tom Palmer Blog
Rational Review
Reason Magazine
Wendy McElroy
Future of Freedom Foundation
Freedom Summit
Dynamist (Virginia Postrel)
Free Speech Coalition
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
|
| Good question |
| 06.20.05 (3:25 am) [edit] |
he following came in as a comment:
Monday 06.20.05 - 5:04 am
It seems a strange sort of logic that allows you to remain anonymous while taking pot shots at others by name. Why criticize by name in the first place? Wouldn't it be sufficient, even better, to focus on the "wrong" (from your point of view) ideas they promote instead?
That’s a fair question. Why criticize by name? Well imagine if I posted the remarks without any names? The Paleos would line up taking pot-shots at me for not naming names. How does one show that the people today who are saving us from counter-culturalists WERE the counter-culturalists without naming names? But I did put in one policy. I mention names where things are public knowldege and documented. Where it wasn’t necessarily widely known or public knowledge I didn’t mention names. I don’t think anything is gained by knowing who in particulary was a prostitute or doing drugs. And it is not my intention to embarass these people at all just to call them on their revision of the facts.
Also as I said already the main reason for even posting this was to pre-empt the attack I’d get that I’m one of these “left libertarians” that the Paleos have created to be “the enemy” (a good motivational tactic on their part but not necessarily factual). And I will be focusing more on ideas but if I don’t document who said them or spread them then I’ll be accussed of not substantiating my facts.
I hope to take a few of days off so that I can work on one such piece. And now is as good a time as any --- better in fact. The city can be a zoo around this time of the year. I don’t mind the influx and the crowds at all but don’t enjoy it as much as I used to and would like to get out before Sunday. And I want a little more sun. So I thought I’d head south in the next day or two and visit some friends. I’ve got someone to monitor the site and hopefully when I get back I’ll have the first article dealing with the main thrust of the site--the ideas that need discussing and the movement toward an intolerant, authoritarian libertarianism.
|
|
|
| |
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 06.20.05 (3:46 am)
HI! Love this blog. Have you ever looked at No Treason? They have some good posts on the pointyheads at LewRockwell:
http://www.no-treason.com/
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 06.20.05 (5:02 am)
Well, thanks for the quick reply. I'd prefer to be saved from the "counter-culturalists" by discussing their ideas rather than their inconsistencies or history. But for those who see value in getting the history of the movement "right", I guess you'll provide one version of that history.
But from my narrow point of view, what's needed in the libertarian movement is not a "correct" history or more ways to differentiate between the players, but rather a unification of the already too numerous factions.
To have someone with your apparent lengthy background in the movement and your ability to write spend time on dividing instead of uniting seems to me to provide the ideal demonstration of why the movement has trouble getting out of its own way... :(
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 06.24.05 (8:36 pm)
You said before that someone called you a "left-libertarian." Oh yeah? Who? And under what circumstances?
|
|
