Comments on: The limits of legalism, and Statist just-so stories http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/11/limits-legalism-statist-just-stories/ Free Markets and Social Justice Fri, 19 Jan 2018 19:02:00 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.2 By: Peter from Oz http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/11/limits-legalism-statist-just-stories/#comment-83347 Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:06:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=12090#comment-83347 Strap line: The best revenge is to live well.
But don’t you get the feeling that the “wordsmiths”who are so hysterical about Trumps M.O. are in truth scared witless that their belief system is wrong?

]]>
By: Peter from Oz http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/11/limits-legalism-statist-just-stories/#comment-83066 Thu, 07 Dec 2017 04:54:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=12090#comment-83066 ” if Trump merely knew how to mouth the words “diversity is our strength”
and “we’re a nation of immigrants”, he could deport Mexicans by the
bushel with hardly anyone noticing, much less complaining.”
Only Nixon could go to China.

]]>
By: Rob Gressis http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/11/limits-legalism-statist-just-stories/#comment-83033 Sun, 03 Dec 2017 00:04:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=12090#comment-83033 Sorry about not responding to the meddling. I’d probably be mad (so it’s natural) but I’m not sure it’s rightful. I have to think about it more. I suspect it is rightful, but now I’m trying to figure out why.

]]>
By: Rob Gressis http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/11/limits-legalism-statist-just-stories/#comment-83032 Sun, 03 Dec 2017 00:03:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=12090#comment-83032 I think his speech disavowing Jeremiah Wright was also good. As for his skills as an orator, I agree that I’ve rarely liked his speechifying, but I figure he’s like John Cena. John Cena is an OK wrestler and a good talker, but it’s just unclear to me why he’s the only non-part-timer in professional wrestling who moves the needle as far as affecting viewing numbers.

Also, re: your response below: I don’t think skin color is the sine qua non. I think all 4 of them together are. Take away 4, and he’s just another black radical. Take away 3, and he’s just Cory Booker. I also should have added: 5 not obviously corrupt.

It’s like racial profiling. No one ever looks for a black guy. They look for a (1) black (2) male (3) with tattoos (4) who is young and (5) was in the area of the crime while (6) having a known gripe with the victim.

]]>
By: Rob Gressis http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/11/limits-legalism-statist-just-stories/#comment-83031 Sat, 02 Dec 2017 23:58:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=12090#comment-83031 Two things:
(1) If Trump had been leading the whole way, but then shockingly lost on election day, and if you learned that the Chinese meddled in the US election with the intent to defeat Trump (but such that it wasn’t clear how much the Chinese meddling had to do with Trump’s loss), would you be furious at the Chinese? Be honest. From my perspective, I don’t think I would be. In fact, I can imagine raising a glass of champagne to them.

(2) I was just reading a NYT piece about the Flynn development in the Russia thing (“Michael Flynn’s Guilty Plea: 10 Key Takeaways”), and here was the nut graf: “The charge Mr. Flynn is pleading guilty to is a stunning one. … He is admitting that last December, before Mr. Trump’s inauguration, he asked the Russian ambassador at the time, Sergey Kislyak, to refrain from reacting aggressively to sanctions that the Obama administration had imposed on Russia. Russia reportedly agreed and Mr. Kislyak told Mr. Flynn later that it had chosen to moderate its response to the sanctions to make nice with the Trump team.”

I don’t understand why this is a big deal. Can you explain it to me? I figure I must be misunderstanding it. Here’s how I understood it:

1. The Obama administration imposed sanctions on Russia.
2. Kislyak wanted to react aggressively.
3. Before the Trump administration was in power, Flynn told Kislyak not to.
4. So, Kislyak didn’t react aggressively.

Isn’t 4 a really good thing? Is this impeachable because it means Flynn (with Trump’s knowledge) tried to do foreign policy before having the remit?

Consider the following parallel case:
1′. The Obama administration shoots a missile at Russia.
2′. Russia wants to shoot a missile back at us.
3′. Before the Trump administration was in power, Flynn tells Russia not to.
4′. So, Russia doesn’t.

4′ seems like a really good thing. Would that still be impeachable too?

I’m so confused here!

]]>
By: Sean II http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/11/limits-legalism-statist-just-stories/#comment-83030 Sat, 02 Dec 2017 23:57:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=12090#comment-83030 I went back and watched that 2004 speech. It was pretty damn good. Much better than anything he did later. I wonder why that is.

]]>
By: Sean II http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/11/limits-legalism-statist-just-stories/#comment-83026 Sat, 02 Dec 2017 14:13:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=12090#comment-83026 “A ‘good speech maker’ is one that moves a lot of people with their speech.”

He moved a lot of people, just not with the power of his speech. What mattered was the power of his identity.

One way you can tell is by looking at the content of those speeches, or rather the lack of content. He did a lot of “I sincerely believe…that there is no problem we can’t solve…if we solve it together [hand clasp gesture]. And that is why…”

It’s the sort of empty drivel people don’t really buy anymore. But they did buy it from him. Because of who he was.

The role he stepped into was already scripted. The “cool black president” had been a trope of American movies and television for about a decade going back. That tells you how badly everyone wanted to believe in someone like Obama, before Obama came along. Frankly, all he had to do was not fuck it up.

And he didn’t. To his credit, he let the pre-written story play out with minimal interference from his own thoughts, beliefs, personality, etc. But of course that entailed being intentionally boring, trudging through speeches carefully crafted to say nothing. Which he did rather well.

But that’s not usually what people have in mind when they say someone is a good speaker.

]]>
By: Sean II http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/11/limits-legalism-statist-just-stories/#comment-83021 Sat, 02 Dec 2017 03:53:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=12090#comment-83021 Twitter is what I had in mind. Tracey’s account is basically an exclamation point removal service, where he takes the Russia news of the day, strips it of the manufactured sensationalism, renders it back into the words journalists would use if not shaken by Trump derangement, in order to reveal the banality of whatever kernel of truth there is to the story.

]]>
By: King Goat http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/11/limits-legalism-statist-just-stories/#comment-83020 Sat, 02 Dec 2017 03:04:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=12090#comment-83020 You say ‘we,’ aren’t you Australian? No offense, since I like many things Australian, but you’re not we, friend.

My government isn’t perfect, by any means. But in theory if it’s the result of the choice of all the mes in this society it will better look out for all of those mes, more so than some government that has no accountability to the mes. To the extent that second government is involved, it’s a bad thing.

]]>
By: King Goat http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/11/limits-legalism-statist-just-stories/#comment-83019 Sat, 02 Dec 2017 02:58:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=12090#comment-83019 “Assuming the Israeli charge was true: Do you think what Obama did was immoral?”

I think any good Israeli should be incensed at it…Think of it this way: you and your wife make a lot of decisions together about the best thing for your marriage and your family. One issue you two have to decide involves a boundary with your neighbor…You find out that your neighbor has been meeting with your wife, and heavily trying to influence her in regards to you and your judgement (not specifically about the boundary issue let’s say, though we don’t know that’s apt here, I’m being generous).

Now, maybe your view of the boundary issue, or others involving the neighbor, are objectively wrong in some sense. And the neighbor’s view is correct.

Aren’t you still mad about her meddling? Isn’t it *natural*? And *rightfully* so?

Now let’s say your wife thought the meddling was ineffective, would you say you’re not mad about it therefore?

]]>