Your Patriotic Duty

I hoped it wouldn't come to this, but in light of recent events, I think it's time:

1. Choose a politician who has made transparently idiotic promises to create jobs.
2. On one side of a piece of paper, print Bastiat's Parable of the Broken Window. On the other side, reproduce documentation of the politician's commission of this fallacy.
3. Tie this piece of paper to a brick and throw it through the politician's window.

Share this

4. Go directly to jail - do

4. Go directly to jail - do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

Great plan. Just do it at

Great plan. Just do it at night when no-one's watching.

But seriously...

If the window is private property, congratulations, you've just violated your own ethics.

If the window is public property, gee thanks, you've just given government another reason to raise taxes/inflate the dollar.

Warning: Agent provocateur!

If I didn't know better, I'd say that Brandon was a secret leftist, encouraging good libertarians to protest the broken window fallacy by actually committing the broken window fallacy. Indeed, I'd have thought that advancing one's own political agenda by wasting someone else's money was one of the things to which libertarians generally objected.

Further proof of my hypothesis: in consecutive posts, Brandon has managed rank hypocrisy and bald sexism. If he could but have worked in one of his patented There's no Such Thing as Racism posts, we'd have managed the libertarian caricature trifecta.

I think it's a nefarious plan to make us all look like dolts.

Sometimes the truth hurts

I would change your label of "There's no such thing as racism" to "Racism is overblown as an explanation for many things." That's a belief Brandon holds, as do I. So given that we hold this view, what do we do? We argue our points. If that leads to leftists caricature, so be it. There's not much we can do. Similarly, if leftists caricature any of us as "radical free market supporters", there's not much we can do. It's the truth.

If you want to argue that it's not what you say that makes all the difference but rather how you say it-- sure. Be nice, stay civil, etc. Other than the most recent tongue-in-cheek post on Hera's scorn, none of the other posts you linked seem to defy this approach. Far worse can be found on other libertarian websites.

Seriously? Making fun of

Seriously? Making fun of feminists is "bald sexism?" That's supposed to be something you put in the mouth of a caricature, not an actual argument.

Don't worry, you're not even

Don't worry, you're not even close to be truly offensive, but with hard work and motivation you can get there!

Really?

You genuinely don't think that lumping all feminists into a single category and then effectively dismissing all feminist arguments as irrational man-hatred is bald sexism? Some of us call that stereotyping and think one generally ought refrain from such things. Or, if that sounds too charged, we could call it the fallacy of hasty generalization and say that it's a crappy argument.

I do wonder, though: if you don't think that ridiculing a strawman stereotype of feminism is sexist, what sort of thing do you think might actually count? It's one thing to resist political correctness; I don't think it necessary to refuse to make true claims simply because they might offend someone. It's another to be flatly dismissive of all feminists. And it's still another to accuse them all of irrationality. Indeed, given the origins of the term "hysteria," one is, at best, tone deaf in making such charges. It's pretty hard to see how it doesn't count as sexist.

I wouldn't call it

I wouldn't call it irrational man-hatred; it's really more paranoia combined with closed-mindedness. If you read any of the major left-feminist blogs for long, and especially if you comment on them in ways that challenge their dogmata, you'll see the pattern that I'm talking about. There are exceptions, of course, but the sort of behavior I'm describing is surprisingly common.

This doesn't apply to libertarian feminists like McElroy, but to be honest I don't really consider them feminists. They specialize in writing about gender issues, but in terms of actual policy preferences and goals, they really don't differ all that much from libertarians who don't call themselves feminists. The reason for this is that most of the legitimate goals of feminism have been achieved. Supporting equal legal rights for men and women and the right of women to live independently is just part of being a decent person, not a distinguishing characteristic of feminists.

if you don't think that ridiculing a strawman stereotype of feminism is sexist, what sort of thing do you think might actually count?

Ridiculing a strawman stereotype of women. Or making unwarranted assumptions about a woman based solely on the fact that she's a woman.

Hera is a stereotype

Hera is a stereotype of women, surely. Feminism resembles Hera. Therefore feminism resembles a stereotype of women.

To put it another way. The trouble with feminists? They're women.

Really?

I wouldn't call it irrational man-hatred; it's really more paranoia combined with closed-mindedness. If you read any of the major left-feminist blogs for long, and especially if you comment on them in ways that challenge their dogmata, you'll see the pattern that I'm talking about. There are exceptions, of course, but the sort of behavior I'm describing is surprisingly common.

If you read any of the major Ron Paul blogs for long, and especially if you comment on them in ways that challenge their dogmata, you'll find paranoia combined with closed-mindedness. There are exceptions, of course, but the sort of behavior I'm describing is surprisingly common. Therefore, I suppose we can both agree to ridicule and dismiss all the ideas of all libertarians without ever bothering to entertain the hypothesis that some of them might have merit.

In fact, this turns out to be a really awesome technique. Turns out, I can substitute "conservative" for "Ron Paul" and the statement is equally true! "Liberal" works too! Or "Patriots fan." "SEC supporter." "'Han shot first' purists." It's amazing how many views I can with this simple method.

Wait, on second thought...maybe that's simply evidence that, I dunno, the Internet is full of dickheads who proudly display their dickheaded tendencies. So perhaps instead of dismissing entire schools of thought based on how dickheaded their loudest Internet representatives happen to be, we could try, you know, actually engaging with ideas.

Not accusing all feminists everywhere of being the embodiment one of the nastiest stereotypes leveled against women might be a decent place to start.

Some men are pussies

Some men, you scratch them, they're women. Maybe it's a hormone imbalance. And maybe there are a lot of them online. Women can't shut up. So it makes sense that male pussies also can't shut up and therefore are over-represented online. Real men (that is, men without a hormone imbalance) tend to clam up and so they may have a reduced presence. You'll notice that the manly men who started this blog have just let weeks or months go by without posting much of anything while us girls in the comments have been chattering away.

And it's quite a nefarious

And it's quite a nefarious plan to make us look like advocates of regulation who follow the statist cult of political correctness.

Apologies

The tone of my initial comment was far less civil than Brandon deserved. My apologies, Brandon.