what's your point?

And bead counting... (?!)

he forgot to mention tradition-that keeps people on the straight and narrow too

EXACTLY! perhaps you see this from my perspective to a degree and get my point? ;-)

He's talking about libertarians and how they believe that everybody should act as they choose...religion is the enemy to a lot of libertarians..... "I'm not going to rely on you and you're not going to rely on me..the Ayn Rand philosophy..that we'll all be better off...there's only one problem, that philosophy has never really been applied in real life because human beings don't act that way. When human beings are suffering they look to somebody else for help...and people usually do try to help them but through a mechanism of government. If you really want a more freedom loving libertarianism then you need to foster social institutions that prevents that sort of suffering in the first place. That's not an argument for big government...the gov is really terrible at that, but I think Libertarians should be in favor of the growth of religious institutions because they are what keep people on the straight and narrow for the most part when it comes to social morality and without that what you get is a large amount of people harming themselves physically, mentally, spiritually acting as if there are no consequences for the things they do and only later they find out there are consequences and they ask for people to lean back on..." I did not like that part of what he had to say.

again, i don't believe there is even such a thing as "conservatives" or "liberals". they don't exist. they can't exist. no one wants ALL things to change or remain the same. what we're struggling with are false political dichotomies, about which the deception runs so deep, that i guess it's perhaps pointless for me to even make such statements, or i risk playing the fool.

Yes. That's why I said "emergency repairs" or "emergency medical". You wouldn't have to go near guns or battlefield-like conditions if you didn't want to. The service could be brief and mostly served near home. The idea would be that bad stuff happens on rare occasion, and we need people to be prepared to take action. I like the cohesiveness / tolerance aspect of it, and giving individuals skills to handle things outside a command hierarchy, but what I really like is dismantling the military industrial complex. Having a huge standing army and a whole sector of the economy dedicated to armaments is the biggest problem. I really think the Founders were on to something with their notion of a well-regulated well-armed militia instead of a large standing army.

What....I'm a stenographer now? I have a baby! I'll try to steno it for you in a bit. :)

what did he say? I can't get it to reload for me right now

In the last 2 minutes of this he butchers Rand's philosophy a bit. :(

as long as it's voluntary. There are many who don't want to learn those skills and they shouldn't have to. As much as I admire those who go into the armed forces, I did not want to commit four years to it. To National Guard either. I do think Germany has an interesting albeit compulsory system. Both men and women have to train for a year in the military. But what I thought was interesting was that "time served" also allowed you to work in health services-I think geriatric care in nursing homes, tht kind of thing. Kinda interesting. I have had several daughters and sons through the Rotary Exchange program over the years and all of them -even if they groused going in_ said they felt they benefited from doing the year.
every neighborhood needs vigilant dads. ;)

I agreed with him on that point, where he started off saying you're politicizing a tragedy involving kids. When my first baby was born, I became bizarrely protective of all kids. If I weren't thinking carefully I'd be ready to ban every activity and device on earth and live in a padded room with my kids. Gun control advocates really do manipulate this emotion for political reasons.

If they were just after reducing gun deaths, they would not focus on mass shootings. The vast majority of people who die in shootings involve one or two victims. Limiting the number of bullets and how fast they come out is a drop in the bucket b/c those are a tiny fraction of shootings.

My formula for gun death reduction would be to decriminalize drugs and form a national militia where young people of all walks of life come together and learn guns/combat, emergency medicine, or emergency repair skills. They could take their guns and tools home and be ready to assemble if a foreign enemy ever threatened us. These two measures would help get people who are on the fringes of society back to having the option of being productive members with skills and no criminal record. If they choose to be criminals instead, they need to remember most people have guns and training how to use them.

This is how things were when they founded the country, and we should move at least a little bit back in that direction.

I'm good. I am in retail so we are gearing up for the holidays. Should get crazy pretty soon.

Well, thanks. And you?

Thanks Wonk. How you been?

The liberty movement not supporting gun control but refusing to see policies such as "stop and frisk" or the Patriot Act or NSA spying as threats to their liberty. The same foundational principles applied to 2nd Amendment freedoms should apply to these other government policies. Watching the mostly "conservative" show "The Five" you would be amazed that all the conservatives support to some degree all of these policies. It was actually the progressive host Bob Beckel who questioned NSA policy and "stop and Frisk" programs.

@ CircuitGuy is spot on — "The left/right polarity premise is the *biggest* impediment to reducing the size and intrusiveness of the gov't."

most all of the political debates are framed around a false paradigm of a so called "liberal VS conservative" dichotomy. these terms have been deliberately hijacked from their original and specific meanings.

the battle is truly between two diametrically opposed philosophies: Collectivism VS Individualism. unfortunately, even the majority of those who are seeking to advance LIBERTY do not even understand this, and therefore, the liberty movement suffers greatly.

how can this perhaps be better presented to the liberty movement first, then to the masses who are not already too deceived by the false paradigm?

It is eerie how often you post things shortly after I've read them... He talks a bit more on the subject here: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/20...

I have the book "Bullies: How the Left's Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences Americans" on my reading list.

You can really see Andrew Breitbart's influence on him.

They are talking to him. He's rising through the ranks.

I think if you are debating in sound bite and 140 characters land, the tactics are good ones. after all, most of the media plays up one side by vilifying the other openly. Stopping that tidal wave is refreshing. then come in with a few choice points and leave your audience thinking. there is nothing whatsoever wrong with turning the tables on the same old leftist strawman tactics in a quick discussion. In discussions where participants are settling in for a decent and friendly debate, you can start with foundations and make clear that regardless of the issue or circumstances, the foundations will be the same. but there has to be a way to stop the first accusation of "don't you care? You want them all to die? how can you be so (insert ad hominem here).

He exemplifies what I think he is wrong with American discourse.

He starts with the premise that there's a two-sided polarization to all policy.

Then the Rules:
Rule #1 is to make it like a boxing match. Rule #2 is to "frame" the other person as evil. (It cuts off at this point, but presumably he's saying your main argument should be ad hominem and poisoning the well.)

I've heard this approach from George Lakoff. It's not people don't vote Democrat b/c of the ideas, Lakoff says, they're just not *framed* properly where the Republicans are the bad guy. His ideas were popular among Democrats in 2004 and may be the normal reaction to not getting the girl (i.e. losing elections).

The left/right polarity premise is the *biggest* impediment to reducing the size and intrusiveness of the gov't.

This formula may be good for earning money writing about politics, but it's no good for getting stuff done.