May 29, 2010

Oh for Heaven's Sake

One thing the nomination of Rand Paul has definitely achieved — it’s showing Americans just how far out of mainstream thought libertarians are. Libertarians like Rand Paul and his father Ron are absolutists, and any form of political absolutism is profoundly anti-human. That’s why Rand Paul can say “accidents happen” about the BP disaster — because he has no empathy at all for the millions of people whose lives will be affected by it. It’s the same reason why he is an anti-abortion fanatic, despite his lip service to libertarianism — because he has no empathy for human beings. His ideology rules his world view, and human beings play a very small part in it.
(Boldface mine.) The cluelessness on autopilot that many libertarians have about human relations is no surprise to this small-el libertarian. See: Ayn Rand. See: the Libertarian Party (after Harry Browne, not one penny more, not ever!).

But here's what really takes the cake, from one of the most active commenters at LGF:
Except for the eminent domain part (it should be limited, of course, but society could never get by without it), those are all eminently liberal policies. Well, maybe not the tax part, either, but then taxes are a red herring issue.

A lot of them are up to the states, though.

So why the insistence on replacing the second "al" in "liberalism" with "tarian"?

Could it be a dogwhistle? Sounds kinda like "Aryan", after all.
Taxes are a red herring? Liberal policies favor limiting government? The standard suffix "-arian" is a racist dog whistle? (Note the affirmative votes in favor.)

The tone inoculates the writer against a rational response.

A rational position is here.

No comments: