Categories
antifeminism bad boys crackpottery evil women misogyny patriarchy precious bodily fluids reactionary bullshit sex shaming tactics sluts thug-lovers

100% Mathmatically Accurate! Manosphere blogger Dalrock on slut-shaming

"Kids Love it!" Another claim that is not 100% accurate.

The director of the first Human Centipede film – the one about a psychopathic doctor who sews three unwilling and unwitting captives together mouth-to-anus to make a sort of “centipede” — proudly declared that his film was “100% medically accurate.” That is, he found a  doctor who was willing to say that if one were indeed to create such a centipede, the second and third segments (i.e., people) would be able to survive, provided that you supplemented their rather dismal diet with IV drips to give them the nutrition they were lacking.

This dubious claim to 100% accuracy came to mind today as I perused a post by the blogger who calls himself Dalrock, a manospherian nitwit with a penchant for pseudoscientific defenses of old-fashioned misogyny. In a post with the whimsical title “We are trapped on Slut Island and Traditional Conservatives are our Gilligan,” Dalrock argues that the best “solution” to out-of-wedlock births is some good old-fashioned slut shaming.

Here’s how he breaks down the (imaginary) numbers in a post that is “100% mathematically accurate” – which is to say, not accurate at all:

Assume we are starting off with 100 sluts and 30 alphas/players.  The sluts are happily riding on the alpha carousel.  Now we introduce slut shaming.  It isn’t fully effective of course, but it manages to convince 15 of the would be sluts not to be sluts after all.  This means an additional 15 women are again potentially suitable for marriage.  This directly translates into fewer fatherless children.  This also makes the next round of slut shaming easier.  Instead of having 99 peers eagerly cheering her on her ride, each slut now has 15 happily married women shaming her and only 84 other sluts encouraging her.  After the next round this becomes 30 happily married women shaming the sluts, and only 69 other sluts cheering them on, and so on.  This process continues until all but the most die hard sluts are off the carousel.  You will never discourage them all, but you can do a world better than we are doing today.

Why not shame the fathers as well, while we’re at it? Dalrock explains that this just doesn’t make good mathematical sense:

Start with the same base assumption of 100 sluts and 30 players.  Now apply shame to the players.  Unfortunately shame is less effective on players than it is on sluts, so instead of discouraging 15% of them (4.5) in the first round, it only discourages three of them.  No problem!, says the Gilligan [the social conservative], at least there are now three fewer sluts now that three of the evil alphas have been shamed away, and all without creating any unhappy sluts!  But unfortunately it doesn’t work that way.  The remaining 27 players are more than happy to service the extra sluts.  They are quite maddeningly actually delighted with the new situation.  Even worse, the next round of player shaming is even less effective than the first.  This time only 2 players are discouraged, and one of the other 3 realizes that his player peers are picking up the slack anyway and reopens for business.  This means in net there are still 26 players, more than enough to handle all of the sluts you can throw at them.

Well, there’s no arguing with that!

Seriously, there’s no arguing with that, because it is an imaginary construct with only the most tenuous connection with how things work in the real world. “But … MATH!” doesn’t really work as an argument here, since human beings don’t actually behave according to simplistic mathematical formulas.

Film critic note: While the first Human Centipede film offered little more than a workmanlike treatment of a fantastical idea, the recently released sequel, which details the attempts of a deranged Human Centipede superfan to take human-centipeding to the next level, is actually sort of brilliant. If you like that sort of thing.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

1.3K Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kyrie
Kyrie
9 years ago

Nobody knows what Ron Paul could or could not accomplish if he was elected President! It cannot even be intelligently speculated upon, because he, and we, are all in uncharted terrritory! […] Nobody knows the answers to the above questions. Nobody can even guess.


You would vote for someone you don’t have a clue whether or not he’s fit for the job? It’s not even intelligent to wonder about it? 0_o
If so, why not just picking a name in the phone-book, the odds are as good…

zhinxy
9 years ago

Meller, you’re casting Ron Paul as the hero in a fictional, conspiracist “end of the empire” scenario. There’s no way to respond except to tell you that’s an excellent story, and I’d like to see the movie too.

zhinxy
9 years ago

Okay, to the extent your comments are reality based, I will just say that, charitably, even if Ron Paul is completely serious and honest about “restoring constitutional government” and would create a version of minarchy I would find basically acceptable as a libertarian society (And again, I’m not a constitutionalist Libertarian, and I think we should work towards a future of anarchy, not a return to 1776, but whatever.)

“obody has ever turned a degenerate crooked, and vicious kleptocracy/fascism/ corporate State; itself with no real analog to previous polities (although several very smart people have looked at parallels with ancient Rome c. 330-450 AD)–into a prosperous, soundly free market, private property based politically free Consitutional republic with firm safeguards at both the Federal and State level for personal and economic liberty!”

And when it comes to trying to turn back state power, history DOES show us it doesn’t work very well. See –

I agree with Stephan Molyneux here that it’s not going to be feasible, that even if he was incredibly successful in real world terms, it wouldn’t get us far along, and he’s likely to hurt the libertarian movement by his inefficacy OR conversely “efficacy.”

Will the repeated bailouts, subsidies, “loan guarantees” and other privileges granted the elites, while tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of us are going bankrupt and homeless, FINALLY convince the majority of us idiot SHEEPLE that the government, and its primary institutions ARE NOT accountable to us, are not our “representatives”, that this is no more a “democracy”–still less a Constitutional Republic–then were the Third Reich or the USSR Bolshevik regime, and that any loyalty to, or compliance with, those criminal elites is NOT patriotism, it is suicideal folly on our part!

Okay (And did you really use Sheeple?) – You must realize that many, VERY MANY a libertarian believes that using the electoral system to effect “change,” even by electing THE GREATEST LIBERTARIAN EVER is folly, and grants the very system legitimacy. Also, Ron Paul and his supporters is still not a big group you can speak for.

Also, if by some strange miracle he wins the republican nomination I might “support” him over Obama, should I feel the need to vote defensively. But as a libertarian, I should feel NO obligation to support ANYONE in the REPUBLICAN primary. (Or anyone in any election.).

And again, I think the situation is “bad,” but there is no NEW WORLD ORDER.

I have no faith in “top down” solutions for libertarians, regardless. To the extent I might throw support behind paul, it would only be a “lesser of two evils” situation – Not because Paul himself is “evil” but because in real world terms, this is not the way we should proceed.

zhinxy
9 years ago

Can the support given him, and his Presidency, continue even if the NWO criminals–who have everything to lose, murder him (and perhaps as many of his influential supporters as they can get their hands on)? Can such assasination conspiracies be forestalled or prevented effectively without destroying what remains of our civil liberties?

Can enough of us keep our heads, and keep planning and organizing for ourselves and our communities, even when Obama and the criminal class in DC and Wall St. “never let a good crisis go to waste” in former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s infamous words?
…………………………………………….

-Insofar as you are recommending planning and organizing and resisting, regardless of the “dead president”- I agree. WE NEED TO GO FOR IT. It’s our shot at building a libertarian society. And so why bother electing “an anointed president” at all? Nobody has to get shot, nobody has to fight washington, and we get to do action that has a chance! Let’s put that support behind a free society, not a man who will bring it to us by using electoral politics. Then, even if there IS a NEW WORLD ORDER CONSPIRACY, they don’t have a figurehead to shoot! Just the endless tentacles of the freedom octopus! Sound good?

darksidecat
9 years ago

I want to note that Vladimir Lenin died in January of 1924 and hence was not actually getting up to a lot of lawmaking in the 1930s. Meller, how many times do I have to inform you that Lenin and Stalin were different people?

zhinxy
9 years ago

“Will the repeated bailouts, subsidies, “loan guarantees” and other privileges granted the elites, while tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of us are going bankrupt and homeless, FINALLY convince the majority of us idiot SHEEPLE that the government, and its primary institutions ARE NOT accountable to us, are not our “representatives”, that this is no more a “democracy”–still less a Constitutional Republic–then were the Third Reich or the USSR Bolshevik regime, and that any loyalty to, or compliance with, those criminal elites is NOT patriotism, it is suicideal folly on our part!”

Since this might have been a bit unclear – I basically agree, less histrionically, and I think this also applies to using electoral politics to try and get “our man” in – Even if he’s great, the system is too broken, and many a libertarian finds voting immoral, for that matter.

And going off Molyneux – If Ron Paul comes up, actually TRIES to implement his libertarian vision, and it’s a mess – Then hey, for at least a few generations, it’s even more “LIBERTARIANISM DOESN’T WORK” only this time it’s “REMEMBER WHEN RON PAUL TRIED?” – We don’t need that around our necks, now do we?

zhinxy
9 years ago

I want to note that Vladimir Lenin died in January of 1924 and hence was not actually getting up to a lot of lawmaking in the 1930s. Meller, how many times do I have to inform you that Lenin and Stalin were different people?”

DSC – ROTFL, i actually missed that. Well, they did come off the same clone batch, didn’t they? Or were they polyps?

Sharculese
9 years ago

Okay, to the extent your comments are reality based, I will just say that, charitably, even if Ron Paul is completely serious and honest about “restoring constitutional government” and would create a version of minarchy I would find basically acceptable as a libertarian society (And again, I’m not a constitutionalist Libertarian, and I think we should work towards a future of anarchy, not a return to 1776, but whatever.)

Whether ron paul is serious about ‘restoring constitutional government’ is kind of irrelevant, because ron paul is NOT an authority on the constitution, and his constitutional ‘scholarship’ is wildly inaccurate and full of really basic errors of history and analysis. it would also be impossible to implement because it involves overturning marshall court decisions that are pretty much the bedrock of how our government operates.

there are plenty of ways to interpret the constitution, but libertarian originalism isnt one that can be taken seriously. its not analysis so much as a wish-list of libertarian goals transported back to the founding. as my con law professor used to say ‘it’s fascinating how when randy barnett became a libertarian he discovered all the founding fathers agreed with him completely’. the ahistoricality of their vision is exemplified by the ironically named cato institute. cato (probably the pseudonym of influential new york governor george clinton) was a staunch anti-federalist who opposed the ratification of the constitution because he though it would effectively obliterate the states through the creation of an all powerful federal government. if you told him that 250 years later people would use his name to argue that the constitution established a minarchist paradise you would have been laughed out of the room.

if libertarians want to advance a view of the constitution that restricts federal power, i think there are frameworks that support that and i’m all for novel constitutional arguments. but attributing those arguments to the framers isnt analysis, its chicanery. the anti-federalists lost at the Convention, they lost again at the state conventions, and they don’t get to rewrite history to evade that. to quote hamilton from federalist 33:

But SUSPICION may ask, Why then was it [the Neccessary and Proper Clause] introduced? The answer is, that it could only have been done for greater caution, and to guard against all cavilling refinements in those who might hereafter feel a disposition to curtail and evade the legitimate authorities of the Union. The Convention probably foresaw, what it has been a principal aim of these papers to inculcate, that the danger which most threatens our political welfare is that the State governments will finally sap the foundations of the Union; and might therefore think it necessary, in so cardinal a point, to leave nothing to construction.

zhinxy
9 years ago

there are plenty of ways to interpret the constitution, but libertarian originalism isnt one that can be taken seriously. its not analysis so much as a wish-list of libertarian goals transported back to the founding. as my con law professor used to say ‘it’s fascinating how when randy barnett became a libertarian he discovered all the founding fathers agreed with him completely’. ”

Yeah, I agree. “restoring constitutional government” is a libertarian pipe dream that doesn’t even make sense AS a libertarian pipe dream.

zhinxy
9 years ago

And I personally think that even if it DID establish a libertarian minarchist paradise, it didn’t really do so in a particularly libertarian WAY,…

http://radgeek.com/gt/2005/09/17/international_ignore/

“The Constitution, in its origins, was an act of naked usurpation: the imposition of a government on millions of sovereign individuals and all of their descendents. Many of those who were asked did not consent to it, and the vast majority of the population of the Americas at the time (who were by turns unpropertied, Black, Indian, and/or female) never were asked whether they wanted it or not. Certainly you have not, 218 years on, and neither do I. If I got together with a group of my buddies at the coffee-shop, wrote We are your Grand High Poo-bahs, and you must do as we say on a napkin, signed it at the bottom, and then (just to be sure you understood) scrawled This is a Constitution for the United States across the top, you would consider me a lunatic if I went around insisting that the napkin I was holding obligated you to do as I say. Yet in what relevant respect are the obligations imposed on us by the U. S. Constitution any different? Did a self-selected gang of ambitious delegates somehow gain the prerogative to impose a novel, centralized, invasive government on other people against their will—the same prerogative you would think I was crazy for asserting? If so, how did they get it? If they had some kind of right, under natural law, to impose a new order of government when they saw fit, then why don’t I have the authority to do the same, for myself, whenever I decide I don’t like what they set up? (Is it because they wore powdered wigs?) If neither they nor I have the right, under natural law, to impose a new order of government, then why do their written commands have any authority than the orders of a mafioso (which may be quite consistently enforced, but which few would consider themselves morally bound to obey)? If they did have the right to do so but only with the consent of the governed, then what obligation has the Constitution ever had over those who voted against ratification, or those who never were asked for their consent? (Which, today, means everybody.)”

zhinxy
9 years ago

but yeah, anyway, constitutionalist libertarianism and electoral politics not my bag, baby. XD

Sharculese
9 years ago

yeah, i know you’re not one of those, i just couldnt stop myself from taking up that rant. It really pisses me off when paul’s supporters go on about how only he takes the constitution seriously, because if you look at it objectively he doesnt really take it very seriously at all. constitutional analysis is hard work, and paul’s take on it is incredibly lazy.

zhinxy
9 years ago

Oh, yeah, no problem. XD It’s definitely a rant that needs to be a-ranted!

Sharculese
9 years ago

And I personally think that even if it DID establish a libertarian minarchist paradise, it didn’t really do so in a particularly libertarian WAY,…

yeah, i mean i don’t think anybody would disagree with that.

that post is… very angry. i think the author makes some great points about all the groups excluded from the process (and some points where all i could think was ‘im a dworkinian. im just never gonna agree with you there) but i was frustrated by how blithely zie treated the ratification process. im gonna guess the type of person who writes a radical libertarian blog is not the kind of person who geeks out about constitutional history, but the description was so vague as to basically be useless.

zhinxy
9 years ago

Well, he is oddly fond of ANDREA Dworkin… 😉

Yeah, I see what you’re saying. And I think he’s got a number of posts that are probably way better on that front, but I’m lazy and not gonna dig for them. 😉 But again, yeah, radical left libertarian anarchist blog. Kinda what it says on the tin.

darksidecat
9 years ago

The Constitution, in its origins, was an act of naked usurpation: the imposition of a government on millions of sovereign individuals and all of their descendents.

That’s a rather odd claim, considering that these areas already had governments and in many cases had, even if you limit government being considerd solely to colonialist powers (which I wouldn’t…) for centuries. I’ve read eminent domain cases from the early 1800s that were settled soley on state law in state courts, states were anything but non-governed in the early US. There were governers and charters and state constitutions and courts and legislatures and tax collectors…I don’t really understand this notion that state governments are somehow automatically less oppressive and that the US was ungoverned prior to the Federal Constitution.

Sharculese
9 years ago

i think that bit was only meant to modify the part immediately following it, in which case the author is correct, but given the over-the-top nature of the post im not sure.

but if that bothers you, definitely dont click through to the part that conflates the constitution with individual SCOTUS decisions.

zhinxy
9 years ago

“i think that bit was only meant to modify the part immediately following it,” That’s how I read it. If it means it the way you read it, DSC, I renounce. re-NOOOOUNCE my quoting !

I quoted the paragraph cause it was fun polemic, and linked to the rest of the post cause it wasn’t MY fun polemic.

zhinxy
9 years ago

DSC, in your opinion do “pansexual” and “agender” count as queer identities, and why specifically does asexual not count,? And is it primarily or all about “shared oppression” rather than “non-het or-cis sexuality” I’m not trying to be defensive, but trying to sort out the reasoning.

zhinxy
9 years ago

WRONG THREAD!

zhinxy
9 years ago

I quoted the paragraph cause it was fun polemic, and linked to the rest of the post cause it wasn’t MY fun polemic.

– And adding, radgeek is definitely one of my favorite bloggers, and I’m not entirely with him on the conflation and some of the other reasoning there, but did love the paragraph I quoted – My own reasoning on the constitutional/scotus history is somewhat different, though does boil down at the end of the day to “And why is this what we’re talking about because ANARKEY!”

Though I think what he’s going for with the conflation is spooneresque “either it gives us the government we have now, or it was powerless to stop it” reasoning – The powers that be read it this way anyway, so what’s the guarantee, and how good can it be, etc. His interesting (and I tend to agree, but need to think on it, specifically) arguments for exactly why it’s impossible to consent to nation-states factor in to his reasoning there, too, I’d say.
See:
http://radgeek.com/gt/2009/01/08/can_anybody/

David K. Meller
David K. Meller
9 years ago

The one question that is not raised, much less answered, is why are the stooges and empty suits of the establishment so afraid of Ron Paul–and before him, some Libertarian Party candidates, such as Harry Browne (1996 and 2000), and the far more moderate and compromising Ed Clark in 1980? For that matter, we saw the same “blackout” of news of the Ron Paul candidacy when he ran for President on the LP in 1988. Devoid of the internet and the “social network media”, there was no way that they could even challenge the blockade, much less break through to public controversy and visibility?

There would be no need to suppress such challenges if they were in fact completely helpless to change policies, even some of them, in a more or less “freedomward” direction. Why the hysterical efforts at calling Ron Paul (or Ralph Nader or Chuck Baldwin), to name a few examples, as somehow “unelectable” as if clowns like Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich (UGH!!) are surefire slam dunks into the oval office in 2012? Why the endless ad nauseum attacks on Ron Paul as an “extremist” or a “lunatic” and his followers in similar terms? Is there anything that one can say about Ron Paul that one cannot say far more truthfully and pointedly against any one of Ron Paul’s moronic opponents, and, for that matter, about President O’bomber himself?

The people behind the campaigns of Romney, Perry, Cain, Obama, Bachmann, know far more about politics–REAL politics, rats, cockroaches,lice, and all–than any of us do from out copies of the Federalist Papers, No Treason-Constitution of No Authority, and For a New LIberty! They are CHAMPIONS of that particular game, where it counts, and if they are afraid of Ron Paul because of his being “unbought and unbossed”, it may be given their expertise in politics and politicking, wheeling, dealing, and stealing, that they know Ron Paul won’t play ball, and that is the reason why he–and we–are being marginalized. Otherewise there would be no point in suppressing third party and independent support, the Kennedy and KIng assasinations would make no sense and be just ordinary senseless murders, Ron Paul’s electoral victory would be no more disruptive to the status quo than O’bomber’s victory over King George the Stupid in 2008, prompting a number of congratulatory statements and worshipful press releases, and not much else. Instead, every impression by the political and media classes corrupting our society says that a second term for the banksterpuppet in the Oval Office, or his replacement with a Romney, Perry, Gingrich, or the anti-Paul of the month is entirely “rasonable” and that the Presidency for Ron Paul, to these people, is as unthinkable as Revelation’s apocolypse! Do they know something that we are overlooking,, or is Ron Paul’s run for the Presidency more significant than we can appreciate now? Say what you will, they may know nothing about managing an economy or society, rule by law, or even ordinary decency, but they are all poltical experts–experts who are to their understanding the exercise of despotic power–where Gary Kasparov or Bobby Fischer, at their tops, were to chess, where Babe Ruth was to baseball, Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey, or Mohammed Ali were to boxing, or Tiger Woods was to golf. They are GRANDMASTER CHAMPIONS, and their fear or hatred of Ron Paul, and the growing prospects of his Presidency, must relate to something!

zhinxy
9 years ago

Again, to the degree that what you said makes sense, I actually agree there’s a “conservative/msm media blackout” of Ron Paul . I don’t think they’re scared of a genuine loss, however.

Basically, I agree with Jon Stewart here –

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecision-2012—corn-polled-edition—ron-paul—the-top-tier?xrs=playershare_fb

zhinxy
9 years ago

No, I don’t think they are political grandmasters. I think it’s just politics as usual. They have no great evil wisdom. They’re in the shit, but they aren’t ascended shit masters. They do find paul annoying and want him “silenced,” but it’s not that they’re quaking in their boots. They aren’t particularly frightened of Paul, it’s just that any voice leaning too far towards a third party platform is treated this way – That we DO see so much of Paul is more tribute to how he dovetails with elements in the Republican Party, I would say.

As for other libertarians, yes, of course our attention from the mainstream media is woeful and often error ridden and dismissive when it does happens – Far more so than republican Paul, I would say. And the same is true for any political alternative. So I would say what we should do, in so far as electoral politics works, is to give up the national, and focus on the local. Any “third party” not just us. Build a base, build a party, stop going for the Presidential Ring. Stop wasting all the money and energy. I’d ask if you were a porcupine, but I think we’d all rather you skipped the free state project…

Sharculese
9 years ago

if anything ron paul receives attention disproportionally larger than his electoral/political success deserves. he’s a republican back bencher with a couple of vanity runs for president.

also

from out copies of the Federalist Papers

dkm, if you had actually read the federalist, there is absolutely no way you would spout the utter lies about the constitution that you do. the oldest trick in the book is to insist the federalist has to support your position (i wrote a paper that addresses john roberts use of this device) but it doesnt work on people who actually care about american history.

Sharculese
9 years ago

as for libertarian candidates for president- if they don’t get media attention its not because of a conspiracy, its because nobody cares enough for them to get it. the media is a business, they run what sells, and the libertarian party is a product nobody is buying.

zhinxy
9 years ago

-Nor should they, the party sucks and free is overpriced!

Sharculese
9 years ago

basically.

but even why i was a high school libertarian i recognized that people were aware of the libertarian party and they still didnt care, and i didnt blame it on anything except the failure of the party to get their message out. they behave like they have a right to be taken seriously because they claim they can trace the lineage of their ideas back through a bunch of old writers, but as a movement they havent personally done anything to earn anyone’s respect.

politics is still politics, even if you think youre fighting a holy war.

David K. Meller
David K. Meller
9 years ago

As far as overturning the “Marshall rulings” on the Constiution, and overturning the “bedrock foundation of how our government operates”, wouldn’t that be an important priority for exactly that reason? “Our” government is a patholgical, corruption-ridden, maniacally violent, and utterly insolvent monster whose operational foundation MUST be overturned as quickly as peaceably as possible, consistant with the future growth of liberty and private propery.

I have no idea, and neither does anyone else, if, upon doing this, the result will be a real constitution, a revival of the articles of confederation, a collection of “anarchies” around the North American continent more or less in trade and cooperation with each other, or–most likely of all– something we can’t even imagine now–replacing a discredited and bankrupt empire under a “constitutional” cover that we once knew a “the United States of America”. .

David K. Meller
David K. Meller
9 years ago

Well, Sherculese, you, your fellow sheeple, and over 100,000,000 people like you, keep “buying” what the Demoblican politicians have to sell you. The outcome won’t change whether the LP wins any races or not, whether the noisemedia pays attention to them or not, and for that matter, even if the LP folds up shop altogether

.If you keep doing what you’ve always done, you’ll keep getting what you always got!

We still have the problem of crawlling out alive from under the rubble. How will your successful and media hyped cretins, crackpots, and clowns–given all the attention they can buy–help us there?My guess is that we will be worse off in many waysfollowing the authoritarian leaders of the empire, than we would be if people recognise liberty, property, and self-responsibility as an alternative, but I’m only a libertarian, so what do I know?

Next case!!

Sharculese
9 years ago

No, for a couple of reasons. First, the rulings that paul most frequently assails, are clearly correct, and paul doesnt ever give a good reason why they wouldnt be. like i said, i’ve read his constitutional ‘scholarship,’ its mostly lazy and unserious, and his knowledge of history could charitably be called ‘patchy’. Further, when talking about the constitution, even non-originalists view the interpretations of those close to the founding as indicative of how the constitution was intended to work, and marshall is up there among the most authoritative. that doesnt mean you cant make arguments about original meaning that contradict marshall (he got some things wrong, definitely) but just kind of saying the court got it wrong isn’t good enough.

as to wanting to pull apart the foundations of our government, that’s not a constitutional argument, that’s an argument about outcomes. like i said, i think there are viable constitutional theories that would produce a lot of the results you want. i disagree with them, but i think theyre viable. but heralding this line of thinking as a ‘return to constitutionalism’ is dishonest. its just another way of looking at the constitution, because you dont like the one people are currently using, and its certainly not a return to how the framers viewed the constitution.

Sharculese
9 years ago

yeah, i dont vote libertarian so i must identify as a democrat or a republican. that is some high quality thinking going on right there.

darksidecat
9 years ago

Paul is not running as a third party in this election, he’s vying for the Repubican ticket. As a member of a rather small third party myself, who has done volunteer work with other small third party campaigns, I have a fair understanding of how much ridiculous shit that involves. But Ron Paul is running on the Republican ticket and contending for such at a national level, that’s patently not marginalized third party politics issues right there.

The federalist papers don’t always say what right wingers think they do, and, often, the actual actions of federalist administrations were contradictory to those early statements, even of federalists who were directly involved in the writing of the federalist papers (one of the federalist papers, for example, lays out a case in favor of judicial review, but Madison suddenly hated the very thought of it when he became president and controlled the executive branch and the court did things he didn’t like).

Meller, the articles of confederation didn’t work. They were unsustainable, which is why they were extremely short lived in practice and ineffective. There is a reason why Washington is generally counted as the first president even though there had been ones under the articles. Not to mention that the Articles of Confederation where in no way shape or form establishing a “collection of anarchies”. State governments had their own significant powers and establishments (as I pointed out earlier on this thread). In fact, though the Constitution strengthened federal powers, it greatly, greatly diminished the powers of state governments. Hence the debates about “state sovereinty”. The idea that the states had sovereign powers before the Constitution and maintained some of them afterwards was considered largely a truism at the time, the debates were over which powers and how much were surrendered. This is an extremely basic concept in federalism, so this makes your statements about the federalist papers seems even more silly.

Look, Meller, you can be a constitutionalist and not think the current one is perfect or the best (I, in fact, feel that way), but your historical claims are continuously total and absolute nonsense.*

*This message brought to you by the ghost of Vladimir Lenin (if he could legislate a decade after his death, there’s no reason he can’t sponsor thread posts almost a century later) XD

zhinxy
9 years ago

“like i said, i think there are viable constitutional theories that would produce a lot of the results you want. i disagree with them, but i think theyre viable. but heralding this line of thinking as a ‘return to constitutionalism’ is dishonest.

Agreed.

“as to wanting to pull apart the foundations of our government, that’s not a constitutional argument, that’s an argument about outcomes.”

Precisely. I “want” this, but I’m an anarchist, and I’m not claiming constitutional reasons or rationales for it.

There’s a lot of have it both ways when it comes to this issue. To put it mildly.

zhinxy
9 years ago

yeah, i dont vote libertarian so i must identify as a democrat or a republican. that is some high quality thinking going on right there.

-But it’s TRUE!

I heard there was this other party called the greens once, but Greens don’t exist, and are REDS, which are republicans, for just one example! Don’t you know there’s only three slots!

zhinxy
9 years ago

Paul is not running as a third party in this election, he’s vying for the Repubican ticket. As a member of a rather small third party myself, who has done volunteer work with other small third party campaigns, I have a fair understanding of how much ridiculous shit that involves. But Ron Paul is running on the Republican ticket and contending for such at a national level, that’s patently not marginalized third party politics issues right there. – YES!

Sorry if I didn’t make that clear enough.

zhinxy
9 years ago

We still have the problem of crawlling out alive from under the rubble. – Which is what the whole “build the new society in the shell of the old” thing is about. Although that’s work, hard work, and takes a lot of allies, and you can’t be all prophet of doom…

zhinxy
9 years ago

*This message brought to you by the ghost of Vladimir Lenin (if he could legislate a decade after his death, there’s no reason he can’t sponsor thread posts almost a century later) XD – He’s gonna come back, why do you think they preserved the body so well?

Sharculese
9 years ago

@dsc

one of the reasons i love that passage from no 33 i quoted above so much is that its a direct slam on strict constructionism, and roberts relied on language from the same essay defending his ‘textualist’ interpretation of the treaty clause in medellin v. texas without noticing that passage or the fact that 33 addresses the supremacy clause as a whole, not the treaty clause. wingers- they dont get more honest just cuz you put them in black robes.

David K. Meller
David K. Meller
9 years ago

One of the unpleasant features of electoral democrazy, is that only actual results are recorded. If you don’t vote for–and support and promote–libertarian candidates, and Demoblican racketeers win, your support for that outcome can be inferred, not because you, in fact did, but simply because voters and vote recorders and reporters aren’t mindreaders, and the results cited are the only ones that they have to work with.

It is in some ways even worse than you are suggesting. If your don’t vote (and campaign) for an alternative, everyone records you as being a voter for, and supporter of, a thoroughly defective status quo. This is rendered even worse by the fact that elections, no matter how rigged and dishonest, are themselves important guarantors of the legitimacy of this system, rotten as it is!

I don’t know what the answer is, but it would involve knowing that support for Ron Paul (or someone like him) campaigning for him, and promoting a real opposition politics to the extent that you could safely do so, is the FIRST step toward a freer economy and society. Even after a Libertarian (or Ron Paul) victory, the really hard work would just be beginning!

David K. Meller
David K. Meller
9 years ago

I never said that Ron Paul was running as a “third party” candidate, nor to I suggest that he do so! I used the third party simply as an example to get away from the major party–the Demoblicans!

Sharculese
9 years ago

One of the unpleasant features of electoral democrazy, is that only actual results are recorded. If you don’t vote for–and support and promote–libertarian candidates, and Demoblican racketeers win, your support for that outcome can be inferred, not because you, in fact did, but simply because voters and vote recorders and reporters aren’t mindreaders, and the results cited are the only ones that they have to work with.

or i could be voting for a third party other than the libertarian party. seriously, did you not think that through at all?

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

Ron Paul’s electoral victory would be no more disruptive to the status quo than O’bomber’s victory over King George the Stupid in 2008

Sigh.

Just sigh.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Meller: Nobody knows what Ron Paul could or could not accomplish if he was elected President! It cannot even be intelligently speculated upon, because he, and we, are all in uncharted terrritory!

Which means there is no good reason to vote for him.

Seriously.

If there is no way to even speculate on the things which will happen should someone be elected there is every reason to not vote for them.

But you are wrong when you argue there is no way to speculate, because we have examples of what happens when someone who is opposed by the leglislative arm of a government is elected to the excutive office. That result is pretty much that they are stymied at introducing any significant change; and often stymied at getting things which are run of the mill business accomplished.

There is no good reason to suppose that Paul has the ability to persuade either party to do things which are against their general interest, esp. when it is a minority opinion in the electorate.

That Paul has been unwilling to run as a Libertarian; when he has had the strong support of his disctrict speaks against his being able to navigate that sort of political arena: he was unwilling to work to create the idea of a Libertarian plurality. That speaks to a lack of actual political savvy, implying he is more demagogue, in tune with the zeitgeist of his district, and dressing it up as a higher political purpose to cover those of his personal idiosyncracies which are at odds with the party in which he is serving.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Meller: Is the Military prepared to defend the Constitution, or are they (both enlistees and officers) going to “just follow orders” in the wake of impending, or ongoing, bankruptcy of the United States? If there is a split, how many will be wise enough, and patriotic enough to see Ron Paul as our only hope?

What

The

Fuck,

Dude?

Did you, mister, “I’ve never served because anything but the immediate defense of US territorial borders is immoral”, just advocate for a military coup to install a libertarian by force of arms?

Yes, yes you did.

David K. Meller
David K. Meller
9 years ago

No I didn’t! I simply was offering (one more) hypothetical scenario when civil government breaks down–as an inevitable outcome of Federal overrerach, “emergency powers, bureaucratic incompetence, currency collapse, and ordinary incompetence–how the military might respond, with or without Ron Paul.

We are afflicted with a criminal political/financial/bureaucratic elite that cannot govern the country, or what is left of it, even in relatively ordinary times. How the military will be affected when lines of authority and chains of command break down is an entirely reasonable question to ask. just as it is a reasonable question to ask what they will think of–and do about–the civilian ‘authorities” whose misconduct and shortsighted greed and stupidity brought what was once the greatest country in the world down to third-world levels.

Sharculese
9 years ago

dkm, why, in the event that the military had the opportunity to install a leader, would they choose ron paul, rather than someone less critical of the military industrial complex? and i say this as someone who thinks that ron paul’s criticism of the military industrial complex is perhaps his only good point.

seriously, does that not strike you as nothing more than wishful thinking?

Pecunium
9 years ago

Meller: The one question that is not raised, much less answered, is why are the stooges and empty suits of the establishment so afraid of Ron Paul–and before him, some Libertarian Party candidates, such as Harry Browne (1996 and 2000), and the far more moderate and compromising Ed Clark in 1980? For that matter, we saw the same “blackout” of news of the Ron Paul candidacy when he ran for President on the LP in 1988. Devoid of the internet and the “social network media”, there was no way that they could even challenge the blockade, much less break through to public controversy and visibility?

Because a president with no power is as dangerous as one with all the power.

When you add that third party candidates are more often cannibalising from the party they are most like they end up being spoilers (from Hamilton’s disquiet about Adams second term; which allowed Jefferson to be elected: futher compromised by the convolute methods and motives of Aaron Burr, to Stephen Douglas giving a win to Lincoln, to the possibility that Perot and Nader weren’t running for the office, so much as they were running against [Perot to see Bush lose and Nader to see his son win]), and there is very good reason to oppose them.

Paul, from the Republican POV, increases the odds they will lose to Obama.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
9 years ago

Here’s the thing – civil government is not breaking down in the US, nor is public order. I know that it probably feels that way to someone who thinks that our entire social order is insufficiently old-school, but in fact the government and public order are both doing just fine.

Just because you feel like the sky is falling doesn’t mean that it actually is. Much like the issue with the dolls, the fact that you are upset that things are not the way you wish they were is not actually a crisis for anyone except you.

David K. Meller
David K. Meller
9 years ago

For now…