Reply With Quote
Why don't you just post the relevant passages yourself? Or just tick off which essays you mean?
More side-stepping and homework assignments. Thematic.
Why don't you just post the relevant passages yourself? Or just tick off which essays you mean?
Otherwise, who's to say you don't have a paper asshole too?
Yawn. See the world as it is, instead of what fits your childish theories. That you think your position is advanced or elegant is amusing. I guess if you have come across Hayek, Friedman, Bastiat, et al recently, it may seem so. I recall feeling that way in my teens.
How Randian - the is/ought to be problem doesn't exist.
Can't you understand that simply saying "it's the world as it is" doesn't make it wrong to say "this is a tyranny" or "this is a tyranical point of view"? I'm not sure if this is possible to be explained in more simple terms.
Mr. Buchanan sustains and defends an anti-liberty, anti-US political tradition, pro-tyrannical position. Simply saying "yeah, but the "national interest" rationale is often used to sustain tyrannical positions" doesn't make it less so.
Oh, and yes, I've read all those guys and many others - most of them with different views. No problems with reading books over here.
Buchanan supports tyranny because he is tyrannical. How 2nd grade of you.
Yes, you are quite in the Rand tradition.
I've already explained why is Buchanan defending a liberticide position, it's not because of a tautology. Not surprised that Bryant seems to think it is though - how can you understand what destruction of liberty is if you don't know what liberty is?
And LOL at the childish attempts to link to me to Rand. Oh, the irony.
Well said. well done.
liberty with a catch.
funny stuff.
Soon enough, the mobastiatos of the world will be praising the Chinese state for ordering its economy appropriately, while the backwards United States continues to cling to the notion of equal rights before the law, even if that means the commons must fight a Wal-Mart or Goldman Sachs on the same turf for political favors.
Pseudo intellectual suckers like mohayeko are why the individual has been demoted in the American cons utional system in favor of a managed economy which favors large business interests, all done under the fraudulent veil of free enterprise. We have nothing of the sort in this country. The Randian vision of a society ordered to promote the strong at the expense of the weak has come true. mofriedmano is here to ensure we sing its praises.
Kid, you're aware that the guy urging the government to struck down the natural right of individuals in the name of the interests of the Chinese government and its commercial partners (especially the big companies that sell/buy in/to China) is Buchanan, right? And that I'm writing in opposition to his view.
When you get mad at being exposed you apparently lose the ability to express yourself properly.
And it's rather amusing that you deign to talk down to me. You are an intellectual fraud in possession of an empty mind and a functioning modem. Such is a fundamental flaw in the internets.
Yawn. The "natural right" of Wal-Mart and General Electric. Your true concern shines through.the natural right of individuals in the name of the interests of the Chinese government and its commercial partners (especially the big companies that sell/buy in/to China) is Buchanan, right? And that I'm writing in opposition to his view.
It's amazing this guy's inability to comprehend simple stuff.
Buchanan - "Hey, we can't afford our big companies to lose the Chinese market, let's appease their government at all costs! If it means government interference into private commerce, be it!".
Bryant - "Yes Sir! Long Live the All-Mighty State who gives us Rights!"
Now you're so flustered you have become incoherent.
What an odd question. Have you actually read Buchanan's text? The right to trade, obviously. Maybe you should read a very interesting text called A Summary View of the Rights of British America.
(no, Marcus Bryant, it wasn't written by Buchanan, Hayek, Bastiat, Rawls, Arendt or any of those guys whose name you've seen mentioned once or twice in AmConMag).
Keep on spinning.
Are you talking about the OP, or some other thing by Buchanan?
For the life of me I can't figure out what Buchanan suggesting that US Marines be pulled out of Japan and Korea has to do with free trade (or any abrogation thereof), or the state's raison d'etre. It still seems like a non-sequitur. Maybe you could sketch out the connections you have failed to supply in the thread. Obscurity for its own sake, allusiveness and indirectness may be valued in the academy as curlicued refinement, but outside of it, it just seems like horse . Most of the time it is. You need to quit reasoning by fiat and fill in the lacunae -- there are many.
Thanks for the recommendation.
I'll read it for the mere pleasure of disagreeing with someone so disagreeable as yourself.
The OP.
Not surprised.
Re-read the OP.
As I've said multiple times, Buchanan is urging the US government to stop one's natural right to engage in commerce (in this case with Taiwan) in the name of the national interest (which is, in itself, a metaphor for "the business interests of myself and my friends).
Considering your political positions, I believe that you'll find the author even more disagreeable.
Relationship with China? Strategic priority or no?As I've said multiple times, Buchanan is urging the US government to stop one's natural right to engage in commerce (in this case with Taiwan) in the name of the national interest (which is, in itself, a metaphor for "the business interests of myself and my friends).
Upholding traditional American foreign policy vis-a-vis Taiwan? Is it important?
If not, why not?
Ho ho. Trying to out###### me now. Throws out TJ as a tackling dummy.
Like you know anything about me. Or living in America.
Funny that you think you can lecture us all about it.
HYPOCRITE, n. One who, professing virtues that he does not respect, secures the advantage of seeming to be what he despises.
As I've said multiple times, in my view natural rights are not subject to the "national interest".
Is this really that difficult to understand?
Oh, and it's about time you stop with the childish name-calling. Your obsession is becoming creepy and sad at the same time. I'm asking you to end with that crap right now, please. Thanks.
No. I was unaware of the other times. Please overlook my inattention to your previous remarks.
Whenever you stop, I'll stop.Oh, and it's about time you stop with the childish name-calling. Your obsession is becoming creepy and sad at the same time. I'm asking you to end with that crap right now, please. Thanks.
I doubt you can.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
