Uncategorized

Those of us who’ve rejected the idea of a coercive state are frequently told that we need to be realistic and support government. Others tell us that we need to support “limited” government or “small” government. But what they never realize — and what we don’t point out often enough — is that they’re the starry-eyed idealists, not us.

I came across a concise and excellent quote from Brad Spangler that we should all learn to say when statists tell us to be realists. Spangler is the director of the Center for a Stateless Society. Save the graphic here and make it into posters if you want. (Click on it for a larger size.)

“Anarchists are the hard-nosed realists. People who have this fixation on some ideal government, which isn’t fundamentally just a criminal gang with flags, are the starry-eyed dreamers without a firm grasp on reality.”

Keep Reading

I make lots of random notes. Some turn into articles, but some are too short or never make it. I’m cleaning out the notebook of a few of those brief items.

I can’t bring myself to watch presidential speeches anymore, so I didn’t see Barack Obama’s State of the Union address last night. (It has nothing to do with who the president is. They’re all just as nauseating.)

Obama’s pitch seems to be for Progressive Lite, but the GOP already has that position covered, don’t they?

What about you? Did you watch it? Did you throw things at the TV? Did you like what he had to say? Or were you — like me — ignoring the whole thing?

I sometimes feel as though I should institute a “Missing-the-Entire-Point Award,” but I’ve realized that I’d have to give it out so frequently that it wouldn’t have any novelty or value. Do you ever feel as though people respond — in online discussions or in real life — without bothering to even understand what they’re responding to? I feel that way most days lately.

On a related note, I’d like to know why so (relatively) few people can see outside of their own existing narratives. For instance, a lot of people who call themselves conservatives have framed the political world as being about the “liberal media” working to hurt conservatives, so they can’t see past that frame and see that other things are sometimes going on.

Keep Reading

Like a child who wants to play by his own set of rules, Newt Gingrich is threatening to withdraw from future debates if audiences aren’t allowed to be actors in the play he’s staging. I wish the networks would call his bluff by using no audience at all.

Modern political “debates” aren’t debates at all. They’ve become some kind of weird mishmash that’s halfway a free-for-all and halfway a joint news conference.

Since Gingrich’s entire strategy is based on running against the news media, he counts on the audience to roar with approval when he attacks — in order to influence the audience at home, just like a laugh track in a sitcom. In a very real way, he is staging a show, not debating ideas.

In Monday night’s debate, NBC News insisted that the audience stay out of the contest and just let the candidates answer questions. Now Gingrich is mad that he can’t have his way, so he’s threatening to pull out. If you ever had any doubts about the insufferable narcissism of the man, this should make it very clear.

Watch his interview with Fox News and see if you can’t imagine a spoiled little boy threatening to take his ball and go home when the other kids won’t let him make up his own rules.