Of the 2 dozen +/- pieces I've written for Lew's web site, each has generated a smattering of comments and generally appreciative emails. Because Lew's stable of writers and posters include some of the giant intellects in the Freedom and Liberty effort, I tend to wrap my scribblings in something resembling "humor" while still attempting to advance a thought, an idea, a concept worthy of consideration. (I'm not about to cross philosophical swords with the likes of Walter Williams, Tom Woods, Gerald Celente, et al)
Still, I am fascinated at those who are so tightly wrapped, they can't resist firing off written evidence of their cluelessness.
Here the exchange:
From: richard burnett
Sent: May 13, 2011 11:58 AM
You sound like Bill Handel when you wrote about the pro-public education advocates—“It’s for the Children” and all that.
You do, sometimes, make the mistake of false choices—giving only two, when several are there.Take guns—just because you can’t park an armored fighting vehicle(tank) in your front yard doesn’t mean that you can’t or shouldn’t own a handgun—technology has far outstripped anything the Framer’s saw or envisioned—and, what’s worse, there are all too many weapons besides merely guns—barbed wire and sarin gas, anyone? I wouldn’t like to live next to an aggressive libertarian who owns a machinegun and will insist on getting his own way—with that MD in the background—besides, the cost of owning and maintaining one of those crew served weapons is not cheap. That’s one end of the spectrum—the other is no guns at all—the false choices—only those two. The “but” may be an attempt by the anti-gunners to eliminate all weapons “It’s for the children”-and it also may be an attempt., on the reverse, to allow you to own, license free, that Abrams M1 tank.Same with the education argument—not all private schools or homeschooling is to be preferred-there are bad ones-and some of us did graduate from the nasty state’s schools without much brain damage. And yet, the either/or persists—if you are not for me, then you are against me—all things are of high principle—the drill sergeant’s inability to note that shined shoes doesn’t make for a good soldier—and that those shined shoes are irrelevant in most cases. No broad strokes—case by case. Not everything is of high principle—the assertion of high principle is the mark of the activist and is not reasonable. Having said that—there are some, a few, high principles—the making of everything in one’s thoughtbank into high principle is the mark of unreason.
Apparently you fancy yourself a teacher of sorts. Maybe even the "government school" variety?
Usually that's where to find the intense myopia you've displayed.
At least you've progressed to admitting being a victim of the Government Training Camps - altho I wouldn't be too sure about that "without much brain damage" part. They certainly did a number on your Prehensile Objective Analysis synapses.
No matter. Even if I've guessed incorrectly, it is always sad to discover yet another individual on the planet void of a sense of humor.
Just for clarification:
"...technology has far outstripped anything the Framer’s saw or envisioned"
So you believe the Constitution is a "Living Document".
But you may be thrilled to learn the Founding Dads actually provided for such "technology" by incorporating a novel "Amendment" process. That way, if the People determined the ODWG (Old Dead White Guys) Constitutional principles were insufficiently inclusive to preserve Freedom and protect Citizens rights, the Rules could be changed!
Is that great or what?!!
Of course, Class III weapons are legal to own (even by those Constitutionally vacuous) provided one submits to that nasty Application Process and pays those exorbitant fees! Personally, I never thought I'd get through it!
But when exactly did "barbed wire" become a "weapon"??? I'm sure PETA and the cows would love to know this new classification! Or is it only a "weapon" when mixed with sarin gas?
"I wouldn’t like to live next to an aggressive libertarian who owns a machinegun and will insist on getting his own way..".
Memo to Dick: In a Free Society, you don't have to.
However, an "aggressive libertarian" by definition is someone who has pledged to not violate the rights of others except in self-defense.
OTOH, judging from your text and tone, anyone unfortunate to have you as a neighbor might seriously consider owning Class III weapons.
"...besides, the cost of owning and maintaining one of those crew served weapons is not cheap."
No to be redundant but in a Free Society, what possible business is it of yours what someone else's cost of indulgence might be?
Or are you just terribly condescending in displaying your In-Depth Knowledge of "Tank Economics"?
(Personally, if you are as aggressively ignorant in person as you are in print, I'm beginning to think few people would enjoy a next-door status with you)
And, in a Free Society, when you see that Bradley bristling in your neighbor's driveway, you are free to choose to move! It's a lot better than violating his 2nd Amendment rights.
" Not everything is of high principle—the assertion of high principle is the mark of the activist and is not reasonable. Having said that—there are some, a few, high principles—the making of everything in one’s thoughtbank into high principle is the mark of unreason."
Well!! Aren't YOU just the All Inclusive Arbiter of Everything!!
According to you, then, the Founding Dads were "unreasonable activists"? Whoa!
(My feeble scribblings excepted; Lew just posts them for the mild amusement you so thoroughly missed)
Such a public display and access to the wanton avocation for Freedom and Liberty must test your tolerance to the max!
But it's Saturday afternoon and, surely, I have better things to do....
I'll leave you with a quote from someone truly intelligent, insightful, analytical and of immense talent: Tom Sowell:
(I'm sure you wouldn't like him)