Contributors

Friday, December 03, 2010

The Blindness of Rage

A friend of mine put this quote up as his Facebook status the other day.

“It is easier to find people fit to govern themselves than people fit to govern others.” Lord Acton


This friend of mine is of the right leaning bend and I asked him if he knew anything about Lord Acton, in particular, his letter to General Lee at the end of the Civil War. He did not but just liked the quote because he, like many conservatives/libertarians, get their jollies out of using the government as a punching bag.

Lord Acton was a forefather of the libertarian movement in the 19th century. A British politician, historian and writer, he wrote to Lee after the South surrendered, commenting that Lee was "fighting battles for our liberty, our progress, and our civilization." My friend had no answer to this question. Let's see if any of you do.

Do states rights over a "tyrannical" government trump the actual, physical rights of human beings?

The problem we get into here is that people who think like Lord Acton (see: several of my commenters) think that only the laws they like apply to them. The ones they don't like are a product of "tyranny." This is usually the point where the Constitution comes out as baseball bat to beat people over the head. Kindly ignore the myriad of points in our nation's history where things that weren't in the Constitution (and should've been) were made into laws or put in later because THEY MADE SENSE.

One thing that I have really notice lately is the arrogance of the comments of my libertarian/conservative/whatever readers. Their anaphylactic reaction to someone who humbly suggests "It is in your best interest to _____" is nauseating.

But that's what adolescent power fantasies perpetuated by the the likes of Lord Acton, Ayn Rand, and the Cato Institute will get you...the blindness of rage. Because the simple fact is that everyone wants to govern themselves. Sorry, you don't get to...:(

From Reagan's nine scary words to Palin's death panels, a great number of incredibly moronic people now believe that the gubmint is a comin' to gin 'em...with the actual culprits laughing all the way to the bank.

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

My God, the hubris you have.

Is it really THAT hard to believe that many people would resent a 'humble suggestion' that your way is the way I should conduct my life?

In YOUR world, everyone wants to govern themselves but cannot. In my world, everyone has the ability to govern themselves - and some don't do it very well.

Nobody can govern themselves in your world, so another [better, smarter, faster, etc...] person needs to govern them. Preferably someone who thinks like you do, right?

Perhaps you should start very small, and find out if you can govern yourself. I just read that you don't believe it to be possible, but maybe you'll be surprised.

I assure you that it can be done, I do it every day.

As for whatever else you were saying, Palin.... gubmint, blah blah blah, everyone except me is a moron, blah blah.... I didn't finish that part.

dw

oojc said...

This is the part, Mark, where dw (and others) fault you for their own ignorance-willful or otherwise. Mark has "tremendous hubris" because ideologues refuse to accept things they don't like. What a pathetic joke.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps you can enlighten us oojc. Exactly which part of my comments did you find ignorant? What did I 'refuse to accept'? Did you read anything I wrote, or is my writing so incomprehensible that you somehow got the impression that I was an ignorant ideologue?

What is the pathetic joke? That a person can be self-governing?

Please continue your train of thought. I'd hate to spend the rest of the day wondering if I was an ignorant ideologue.

dw

Damn Teabaggers said...

The problem we get into here is that people who think like Lord Acton (see: several of my commenters) think that only the laws they like apply to them.

Like immigration laws that don't apply to "Mexican-looking" people?
Like tax laws that don't apply to the Secretary of the Treasury?
Like equal opportunity guidelines that don't apply to a Supreme Court Justice?
Like bankruptcy laws that don't apply to unions?
Like healthcare regulations that don't apply to the people who demanded them for everyone else?
Like "Pay As You Go" rules that don't apply to the party that demanded them?
That's just the ones I can think of off the top of my head, you understand.

Kettle, meet pot.

Oh, and as a side note...

From Reagan's nine scary words to Palin's death panels...

The AP reports that Obama's own deficit commission now reports that Obamacare is unsustainable without... some variation on the theme of a "death panel".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101202/ap_on_bi_ge/us_deficits_health_care

Apparently Sarah Palin is too dumb to be swayed by your arguments... and yet somehow not so dumb that she can't do basic math, which Nancy Pelosi seems to be incapable of.

Go figure.

stonesfreak said...

Hey mark, long time listener, first time caller.

Maybe we can look at this another way. I earn my living through the music business. I have many friends who do so as well, not just in music, but in film and television. How many of you illegally download music, films or tv shows? I would suspect a few or more.

Every time you do this, you take away money from people like me. By ignoring this law, because it suits you, you affect my life as well as many of the people I know and care about. Basically, it's money out of my pocket and this would be an example of a rule that I want strictly enforced by the federal government. It's a rule that some of you may not like so you don't follow it. There's your hubris and it's not with Mark. People who enforce these laws know more about how to govern the rest of us because of little details like this. Anyone of ever think of that?

Anonymous said...

"People who enforce these laws know more about how to govern the rest of us because of little details like this."

No, I hadn't thought of that. In fact, I don't think I understand the point you are trying to make.

We need people that are smarter than us to govern us?

Perhaps that's not at all what you mean. I apologize for not understanding.

dw

Damn Teabaggers said...

Every time you do this, you take away money from people like me. By ignoring this law, because it suits you, you affect my life as well as many of the people I know and care about. Basically, it's money out of my pocket and this would be an example of a rule that I want strictly enforced by the federal government. It's a rule that some of you may not like so you don't follow it. There's your hubris and it's not with Mark.

It's not solely with Mark. In fact I'd guess it's probably the rule rather than the exception. That's humanity being what it is, and there's no sense in not getting over that. That's not where the disturbingly consistent difference between Democrats and everyone else comes in.

From what I understand, Tom DeLay may be facing prison time for money laundering.

Do you hear the screams of "lynching" and "injustice" and "unfairness" and "hate mongering" and "rage and fear" on this subject from the right wing blogosphere?

Me neither.

Compare and contrast with how the left wing blogosphere and the entire left wing political structure treats mere investigation of the corruption and criminal activity of its members, much less actual punishment. Compare and contrast with how the left treats its members who proudly admit their crimes (in the strictly legal sense, regardless of your feelings about the justice of it) and how they avoided the consequences of them, and are lionized and made millionaires for it.

People on the right know that most people are gonna do what they can get away with, at least until they're caught. People on the left know that too. But once caught, it's a reasonable bet people on the right will send one of their own to jail on principle. And once caught, it's a reasonable bet people on the left will not only help their own evade the law, but make him/her a cultural icon... also apparently on principle.

People who enforce these laws know more about how to govern the rest of us because of little details like this.

Precisely. And those who show a pattern of refusing to enforce the law do not.

-just dave said...

Geeeeze, a bit petty today are we? Me thinks you’re reaching for something to complain about today, Mark.
I love quotes. I love reading them online or sitting at Runyons enjoying the best wings in the world w/ a nice ale and reading the strange quotes from celebrities all over the walls. And I frequently plagiarize them. So, can’t someone just quote someone for the sake of a good quote without having to know each and every position they held and agree with those positions? What’s next, people shouldn’t listen to music unless they hold the same political orientation…Jiminy Cricket, I’d have to live a music free life.

Mark Ward said...

stonesfan, welcome. I hope you stick around despite the baloney.

Great example with the entertainment piracy. I'm sort of a stickler about that myself. Being a big Brit rock fan, it's hard for me to get the tunes I like. Sometimes I only get can it on vinyl but I still pay for it because the money should go to the artists. Your example is an excellent one and it demonstrates how there are plenty of people that are fit to govern others because they think of details like this...a law, originating from the federal government, made for the greater good of an industry in the private sector...I'm sure there's a problem with government overreach in it somewhere, though:) Or is that those illegal downloaders just don't like the laws as written?:)

I guess I'm wondering how illegally downloading films and music applies to those who champion the free market. How would it affect the market?

"And once caught, it's a reasonable bet people on the left will not only help their own evade the law, but make him/her a cultural icon"

I have three words for you...actually, a letter and two words.

G. Gordon Liddy

I can go on if you like.

Dave, you and I disagree on many things but I have to say that I wholeheartedly support your use of "Jiminy Cricket" as a point of exclamation. It's right up there with "Great Scott!" and other various 40s phrases. Well done, sir!

Damn Teabaggers said...

I have three words for you...actually, a letter and two words.

G. Gordon Liddy

I can go on if you like.


Please do, cos that one's a clean miss. Liddy did prison time, and nobody bitched. Certainly nobody helped him evade it. Unlike the defense of

Clinton
Waters
Pelosi
Schumer
Dodd
Frank
Rangel
Murtha

And that's just the ones from the last 2 years. I can go on if you like.

juris imprudent said...

One thing that I have really notice lately is the arrogance of the comments of my libertarian/conservative/whatever readers. Their anaphylactic reaction to someone who humbly suggests "It is in your best interest to _____" is nauseating.

The arrogance? Indeed - the arrogance of people - who DON'T EVEN KNOW ME - who have the unmitigated gall to tell me what is in my best interests.

This time, if you were in my reach, I wouldn't bitch-slap you. I would bust a 2x4 across that impossibly dense fucking skull of yours.

You are in EVERY aspect the same as a two-bit whore evangelical preacher talking to me about MY sins.

Fuck you! is the least I can say to you and your bloated, festering ego.

jeff c. said...

Uh...juris...when was the last time you had a really good blow job? I don't think Mark has ever said anything like that to anyone. And you accuse him of the things that you do? Are you drunk? Or do you need some therapy for your control and anger issues? Sheesh, dude.

Damn Teabaggers said...

I don't think Mark has ever said anything like that to anyone.

You do get that the part at the top in italics is a quote, right?

juris imprudent said...

I don't think Mark has ever said anything like that to anyone.

He had an entire post dedicated to it before jeff. He has sprinkled it through many threads in countless comments. His entire post HERE is about how we are "arrogant" for rejecting such humbly offered pronouncements, given with only the best intents to correct our blind foolishness of course.

He is only getting from me the same response any thundering preacher would - shut the fuck up and leave me alone. The one major difference between busy-body lefties and that kind of preacher - the preacher isn't trying to use the govt to make me change my 'sinful' ways. You pricks won't be satisfied until a cop can stick a gun in my face and imprison me for not following your fucking agenda.

As for blowjobs - get 'em fairly regularly. But if you're offering me a "really good one", I'll take it under consideration.

last in line said...

Jeffy, you told me you weren't going to address anyone else but me. If you are handing out bjs, I would have thought I would be first in line.

GuardDuck said...

Don't do it guys. It's a BJ ponzi, he'll pay off the first takers using the resources of the follow on 'investors'.

Mark Ward said...

Wow, juris. I have to say that even I am shocked. I do admit I was wrong, though. Anaphylactic reaction is too light of an explanation after that mouth foaming spew. Hyper steroid induced anaphylactic reaction, maybe?

I think your comments speak to a very real fear of not being in control. Guess what? None of us are and it's not the government pulling the strings.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps you'd better explain yourself Mark. You say that none of us are in control of ourself?

Here's your chance to convince me that your way of thinking is better than my own personal opinion.

I say that each of us is under their own control. Depending on your level of self-control, your mileage out of life may vary.

Show me where I am wrong.

dw

juris imprudent said...

I think your comments speak to a very real fear of not being in control.

Well I think YOUR comments speak to a lunatic desire to control.

You can't stand that other people don't see things your way and you have no objection to the means used to make them better (in your view). After all, the Constitution doesn't really impede any govt action.

So while you kvetch about banks making us "essentially slaves" - you would actually enslave using the power of the govt those who don't agree (e.g. shutting down Clear Channel communications).

You do NOT know what is best for anyone but yourself, and the same is true for me. Otherwise, I have just as much right to dictate YOUR behavior as you would impose on me.

Anonymous said...

"kvetch"

nicely played.

dw

last in line said...

Guardduck, maybe he's a fluffer?

Damn Teabaggers said...

I have three words for you...actually, a letter and two words.

G. Gordon Liddy


It's actually very illustrative that you chose him.

G. Gordon Liddy did time in the DC jail over one, count 'em, one, FBI file.

The Clintons had over 600. This prompted the scathing response of "So what?" from Henry Waxman.

One of Liddy's contemporaries (and one of our current President's mentors), Bill Ayers, conspired to commit mass murder. He got off on a technicality, and in his own words was "guilty as sin, free as a bird". Not only is this not considered a disqualifier for his political associates, apparently it's not even considered heavy baggage.

You were saying?

Anonymous said...

#10 The "Brave Sir Robin" response. When the monsters get too close, he disappears for a few days, only to reappear and treat everyone as if they didn't see the monsters.

Let's go talk about a cartoon Jesus instead, shall we?

Civil War Re-enactors said...

Or take it a step further...

Name me the direct political descendant of Liddy who could try to gain cred as a "work across the aisle, 'Maverick' type" and not be laughed off the political stage.

And yet...

"Privately, Mr. Obama has described himself, at times, as essentially a Blue Dog Democrat, referring to the shrinking caucus of fiscally conservative members of the party." (emphasis mine)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/01/us/politics/01bai.html?_r=3&ref=politics

Mark Ward said...

Yeah, Blue Dog...that's right. So what does it mean to you?

Did I just see a "Brave Sir Robin" remark from an ANONYMOUS poster? Hmm...

DT-Ayers, again, huh. That one is never going to die. Just like the Great New Black Panther Cover Up. Sheesh...

How about Oliver North? He's a hero to the right. He's got his own show on Fox. How long do you suppose it will be until Tom Delay gets his own show?

GuardDuck said...

Did....

Wait....

Did you just dismiss the Ayers issue?

Way to prove DT's point mark.

Damn Teabaggers said...

How about Oliver North? He's a hero to the right. He's got his own show on Fox. How long do you suppose it will be until Tom Delay gets his own show?

And there you have it. I never said no Republicans are ever lionized after being convicted of a crime. I said there's a good chance (probably better than even money) a Republican will end up having to fess up and take his lumps, and nobody will gripe about it. And that likewise, there's a good chance (again, probably better than even money) that a Democrat will be allowed to pass the buck, that his party will shriek that it's unfair to punish him at all, and that he will be lionized for his avoidance of the consequences of his actions.

You answer by breaking out the only 2 big guns you have, Liddy and North, and "a hypothetical", DeLay.

Did you happen to notice that I had half a dozen...

Waters
Pelosi
Schumer
Dodd
Frank
Rangel
Murtha

...just from the last 2 years, without breaking out the "big guns" of Clinton, Ayers, Fonda, Kerry...

Wait....

Did you just dismiss the Ayers issue?

Way to prove DT's point mark.


Yep, that's what he did.

Damn Teabaggers said...

DT-Ayers, again, huh. That one is never going to die.

Feel like explaining why you think the Ayers issue should die... and yet the Liddy issue, from just as long ago and involving a much more minor crime, which the guy already did his jail time for, and which crime has been shown worthy of a "so what?" when a Democrat does it (over 600 counts of it), shouldn't?