"What about a voter who wants to grapple with the world as it is? I think he or she ought to conclude that libertarians hold very little power in this country (as Beam points out), that a Congressional majority that would implement their least mainstream ideas – returning to the gold standard, for example – is utterly implausible, and that electing more libertarians like Ron Paul is far more likely to advance the most popular libertarian policies, like an end to marijuana prohibition, smart cuts to the Pentagon budget, and rolling back the nanny state. Instead, non-libertarian pundits delight in focusing on the least likely libertarian ideas to be implemented, and pointing out real flaws in theoretical libertarianism – the Civil Rights Act dustup, for example – that have little bearing on actual political questions that face America. In this sense, it is non-libertarians who are making the ideal the enemy of the practical, and I wish they'd stop it"Much to my shock, I found my head nodding in agreement all the way through this piece. It is why I read those that i generally disagree with. Every now and then I get a new perspective.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Conor Friedersdorf is 100% correct in this case
The Trouble With Non-Libertarians - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You've made an ill-considered, sweeping generalization about what I am like as a writer generally, all based upon your faulty understanding of what I wrote in a single instance. In general, you'll guarantee that no one will engage your arguments if you behave so uncharitably toward them.
ReplyDeleteI do note that you are an incredibly thin-skinned individual. For some reason that amuses me.
ReplyDeleteConor, you got caught being dishonest in an argument by someone that you clearly see as your inferior. Get over it and move on. You really shouldn't be this easy to bait.