Defending Liberalism
A recent post mocked socialisms use of barbaric methods to oppress liberal protesters. For reason beyond me Darwin responds with:
More deaths than Kent State… I guess that means we’re better?
Dan has an equally asinine response:
Injury of protesters by police is hardly exclusive to socialist countries.
So it’s unclear as to what your point is? That our government is no better than Venezuela’s? Neither of you could be that naive. The most charitable interpretation of your position is that masked men shooting at anti-Chavez protesters reveals nothing about socialism.
This seems to be a strange argument for two reasons.
First many socialisms have started with this kind of barbarism. Arguably it’s a requirement since socialism raises the ire of those that embrace classic liberal values. For socialism to become the prevailing political/economic power structure it must first oppress classic liberals.
The second reason is that if you consider the broader political context of Venezuela you can easily see that this incident fits nicely into the progressive push Chavez has been on to turn his country into a socialism. The Kent state massacre can not be understood in the context of the Nixon administration attempting to install a socialism in America.
This is much more analysis then necessary. This post was simply intended to point out how Chavez’s attempt to fully socialize Venezuela is slipping into a tyranny. Instead of arguing against this obvious observation why not join me in mocking what it means? On some level one can’t help but think you are sympathetic to Chavez’s action given your antagonism of my derision towards the use of power to oppress classic liberal virtues.
Once and for all settle this ambiguity. Do you support classic liberal values or socialistic values?
I suspect you both support classic liberal values so why not defend liberalism rather than socialism?
November 8th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
“The Kent state massacre can not be understood in the context of the Nixon administration attempting to install a socialism in America.”
So it’s okay to gun civilians down, as long as you are doing it in the name of an unpopular war. Gotcha.
“This is much more analysis then necessary.”
Yeah, analysis is for “experts”, and other fools who believe in the cult of empiricism.
“First many socialisms have started with this kind of barbarism. Arguably it’s a requirement since socialism raises the ire of those that embrace classic liberal values. For socialism to become the prevailing political/economic power structure it must first oppress classic liberals.”
I don’t see how this helps you. No change in government will make everyone happy. Heck, a friend of mine’s ancestors had been living in what would become the USA, but fled after the American revolution because they were in favor of the British crown.
“Do you support classic liberal values or socialistic values?”
An individual can support classical liberal values while also supporting compelling rather than silly arguments made in favor of them.
November 9th, 2007 at 2:58 am
Steve, I’m more attacking your common usage of cherry-picked anecdotal evidence than your specific claims about Venezuela’s government. You claim here that this is obviously a pat of a larger picture of Venezuela’s slipping into tyranny, but I’m not aware of the other signs and you haven’t mentioned them, and so I feel free to mock the structure ofyour argument until it has been more strongly dilineated.
Additionally, like my response following the ‘Birth of a Nation’ post, this was also a jab at your attempts to judge all of Middle-eastern culture as ‘bad’ or ‘evil’ because certain specific bad thing shappen within it.
November 9th, 2007 at 9:28 am
How are you unaware of Venezuela descent into the darkness of socialism? Its not like it’s been ignored by the press.
I realize you are mocking the nature of my argument. Thats what prompted my response. However, it’s not like you are always going to argue against any person who uses this kind of argument on any topic. You will be selective in application of this counter argument. So why do you select an instance that defends the tyrannical maneuvering of some soon to be dictator that is transforming a fairly liberal country into a shit hole socialism. Why not pass on the meta criticism of my argument and indulge in the mockery of this turn of events in Venezuela?
Your second point makes no sense.
November 9th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
I’ve heard people say the same thing about Bush. But I guess if we mock all the nonsense we learn from ‘experts’ - such as ‘analysis’, ‘facts’, and ‘history’, politics basically degenerates into pure namecalling anyway.
Wanker.
November 9th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
I guess you need expert analysis to figure out that Venezuela is headed to the shit hole. I don’t. But then again your not sure if on the whole its bad to kill innocent people and I do.
November 9th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
“I don’t.”
I find the claim that experts were uninvolved in your assessment of the situation in Venezuela unconvincing at best. How many times have you visited Venezuela recently? If the number is low, you’re relying on someone else to tell you what is happening - most likely this is either some mainstream media outlet, an academic, or big government, in which case your argument is incompetent.
If your counterargument is that you use sources that are less accountable and established than the ones I mentioned, and that this is somehow supposed to make you better, then your argument is -really- incompetent.
November 9th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Nobody would call the journalist assigned to cover Venezuela an expert on Venezuela which is what you originally meant by expert. Don’t be disingenuous it just make arguing with you unrewarding.
November 10th, 2007 at 2:23 am
“an expert on Venezuela which is what you originally meant by expert”
I assume you are referring to: “But I guess if we mock all the nonsense we learn from ‘experts’ - such as ‘analysis’, ‘facts’, and ‘history’…”
I’m sorry, but you are mistaken with regard to my original intent in the use of the word expert. I thought it was clear that I was being sarcastic in my use of the word expert. I apologize if my sarcasm went undetected, so I will attempt to elucidate what I meant in a non-sarcastic format. Perhaps it will clear things up for you if I propose a provisional terminology system wherein ‘expert’ (with inverted commas) is different from expert (without inverted commas). ‘Expert’ is a term I sarcastically used to describe groups you mock or deride, specifically when this mockery or derision relates to their attempts to provide analysis, facts, or history to a general audience. It is my estimation that MSM journalists fall into this category. I apologize for the omission of the inverted commas in my second post, this was an unfortunate oversight on my part and probably contributed to my sarcasm going undetected.
As for the definition of expert, “(a)n expert is someone widely recognized as a reliable source” -wikipedia (actually, there’s some overlap, but that’s trivial)
November 10th, 2007 at 2:34 am
“But I guess if we mock all the nonsense we learn from ‘experts’ - such as ‘analysis’, ‘facts’, and ‘history’…”
No doubt, due to Steve’s overwhelmingly superior sense of sarcasm that he was bragging about earlier today, if he missed an instance of it, that means that all the other readers of the blog must have also been unaware that I was being sarcastic. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how I could reformat future instances of sarcasm to be perceptible?
November 10th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Thats the ‘expert’ i was referring to in what you wrote. As for the rest of your subsequent posts, i have no idea what you are talking about.
November 10th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
“what you originally meant by expert”
Later, you quote a non-original use of the word expert and say -that’s- what you were referring to in the quote above? No, I’m afraid it doesn’t work that way.
Why would you have used the word ‘originally’ if you were referring to the post I had just made - rather than, say, the post (among this topic) in which I _originally_ used it? More to the point, why would you have spent an entire post attacking me for using the word expert in a sense different from my original meaning if you were never even making reference to that original use? The interpretation you are now proposing would make your earlier attack in which you accused me of being disingenuous even less apt, so now you are in effect accusing me of being excessively charitable to your jumbled reasoning.
But by all means, be disingenuous - I find it amusing.