Comments on: Dear Mr. Weisberg, Please STFU

By: Neener

Neener — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 01:51:25 +0000

Libertarians change their definition of libertarianism to fit their argument. I have found that in almost every argument I have with them, there comes a time where I somehow, 28 years after I first learned about libertarianism in the 1980 election, that I "don't know what libertarians believe." Actually, Libertarians pretty much use their minor league groupthink theology as nothing greater than devil's advocacy. They argue that things would be better under their system, but refuse to be pinned down on what that is and regularly argue against historical straw men like communism. Chris, at 10:07 above just points the finger elsewhere, asking other people to define his beliefs he doesn't understand himself. "The government that governs best, governs least" was proven wrong in 08. Keynes wins, Austria loses. Don't be a crybaby about it.

By: Washington City Paper: City Desk - Weisberg Redux

Washington City Paper: City Desk - Weisberg Redux — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 19:03:56 +0000

[...] David Quinn had a few problems with my response to David Weisberg, and I thought I’d address his points [...]

By: MN

MN — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:16:57 +0000

Obviously the national democratic party cannot be as liberal as many of it's individual voters are. They are focused on getting elected, which is not much of a problem for Libertarians (and Green Party, etc). Looking at the platform and record of the party in more democratic states (California, say) reflects a bit better where they stand. And the fact that the gov is a republican just better proves that one cannot simply run on the extreme positions of one's party. Most democrats aren't big fans of wars (be they drug or Iraq), and so we vote for the party that is MORE LIKELY to at least not expand them. The world isn't perfect, but hey, you've always got Canada, right? I'll conceed that the democrats caved on the Iraq war, but that's about it.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 02:07:34 +0000

"Nowhere in the article do you ever address the fact that libertarian economic policy (i.e., deregulation) is responsible for the current financial crisis." Oh, it's a fact? Facts can be proven. So prove it. Prove, while you're at it, that libertarianism (unregulation) is the same thing as the instance of "deregulation" in a regulated market. Or maybe even merely prove that "libertarian economic policy" isn't an oxymoron.

By: Sara P.

Sara P. — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 01:06:27 +0000

I'd like to strap Riggs on sometime. Will it be rough? You betcha. Imagine the shrieks.

By: McCain

McCain — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 00:46:15 +0000

Right you are, my friend. Who needs a toilet when Riggs is around.

By: Plumber Joe

Plumber Joe — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 00:22:36 +0000

Ernest has a point. Riggs stinks like a toilet would. I think I'll switch to Krauthammer.

By: Mike Riggs

Mike Riggs — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:37:48 +0000

Rough day, Ernest?

By: Ernest

Ernest — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:35:46 +0000

One must have the patience of an angel, or at least a Gandhi to put up with Riggs' puerile crap.

Riggs, read the original article carefully. I stress 'carefully' because I fear your brains may dribble out of his [donkey]. Secondly, you seem to be laboring under misconception that the number of citizens who give a flying [kitten whisker] about your beliefs, opinions, lifestyle and haircuts is greater than [1 million]. [keep going].

By: Mike Riggs

Mike Riggs — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:41:54 +0000

Adam L: Thanks for pointing that out--typed too fast and didn't check.

David: If you'll check back tonight or tomorrow, I'll have a good (polite) response for you.

By: Adam L

Adam L — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:08:37 +0000

His name is Brink Lindsey, just so you know.

By: David Quinn

David Quinn — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:40:26 +0000

Your blog has worked a fury within me. How does "I just think that capitalism is better than socialism" add up to a "well reasoned response"? I think socialism is better than capitalism and just said it; does that count as well-reasoned too, or do you think it's asinine because it doesn't support your insane beliefs? Point is, you can say all these things are well-reasoned until your face is blue, but that doesn't make it so. Nowhere in the article do you ever address the fact that libertarian economic policy (i.e., deregulation) is responsible for the current financial crisis. Changing the subject to talk about social policy still ignores the failures of libertarian economic policy (which is a fairly major part of libertarianism, otherwise you idiots would just be normal lefties). Also, you get on Weisberg for "smearing" libertarians (I don't really understand how stating your moronic ideology is a smear, but whatever), but you're smearing liberals just as much by conflating all liberals with the Democratic Party, which is far from the case. Maybe instead of acting all hurt and offended by Weisberg's "downright shameful" attacks on your bullshit philosophy and invoking some "well reasoned" responses by libertarian assholes, you should try and move beyond minor league pissant self-referential blogging and actually try and explain why deregulation didn't cause the financial crisis and why libertarianism isn't a philosophy for the sociopathic, the too-wealthy, and the disembrained. Actually, on second thought, I won't ask you to do the impossible.