[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

Eric Rudolph has made his statement. Read it carefully; understand what lies behind it. Look past the claim that he's only upset about abortion. He asserts that he only kills government agents because they defend abortion; recognize that a few paragraphs later he's talking about his plans to kill government agents investigating the bombing of a gay club. Take note of his hatred for the Olympics. Consider his xenophobia.

Most people who say things like "Practiced by consenting adults within the confines of their own private lives, homosexuality is not a threat to society" are not going to go out and bomb nightclubs. But that kind of language provides easy cover for the fanatics who do. Or, more commonly, for the fanatics who beat people up for wearing buttons with a pink triangle on them. Most people who say things like "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior" aren't going to go out and plot a murder. However, that kind of language provides cover -- and encouragement -- for people who do want judges dead.

Rudolph has a point; most countries, including own own, do arise from revolution of one form or another. Sometimes it's necessary. The proof of the pudding is in the causes for which the revolutionary fights.

Comments

[chris-goodwin.livejournal.com]

Any possible point the guy may have had is invalidated by the simple fact that he claims to be a "pro-lifer" while killing people. I thought that pro-life meant that you were against, y'know, killing.

[eyelessgame.livejournal.com]

well, that's fun demagoguery (and I agree with the underlying sentiment) but that's no more valid logic than the inverse claim -- that pro-choice people shouldn't object when someone chooses to blow up a family planning clinic. Labels are chosen for political reasons, not honest ones (cf. 'clear skies', 'social security personalization', 'the 2000 presidential election').

[eyelessgame.livejournal.com]

Not all free speech is equally reasonable, because words have consequences, and some consequences are bad.

Would there be some libertarians who would find that this concept, when phrased this way (and it's a short step from you to me) provides cover for those who want to restrict speech? I'm playing with reductio ad absurdum here, not applying any agendas or advocacy, but I'm curious how we (because you and I think the same way, pretty much, on this) would draw the line.

But it ought to be clear that not all free societies are equally desirable -- because the choices people make have consequences.

[bryant]

True that.

[bryant]

Welp, I'm not a libertarian per se, but as a minarchist? Yeah, I'd absolutely agree with that. It's the difference between saying "he has the right to do that" and "I think it would be good if he did that." That difference is the ideological shoal on which a lot of minarchism founders.

And, I mean, it's tough. "The judge has the right to rule that way," but "the judge should not rule that way."

I think you can often recognize the dangerous version of the assertion by looking for people who are unwilling to either a) respect established procedures or b) suggest new procedures.