Sehr geehrte Frau Merkel!
I am writing to you as a concerned citizen of the Union. I am somewhat puzzled by your actions and I would like to understand your motivations and the reasoning behind them.
Europe and its Union is in its gravest crisis of its existence. You are still not out of the financial one which seems trivial next to the one you created by inviting in possibly millions of ……. well, you don’t even know who. Continue reading →
This is an interesting conversation raising some interesting questions.
While I always appreciated Stefan’s work, I had some problems with what I considered ‘extreme’ in his positions, his doctrinaire advocacy of Anarcho-Capitalism, his rejection of using political means to advance the cause of freedom.
It seems that in this latest phase of his evolution, Stefan discovered the importance of culture in a way that some libertarians, including some of his followers, may consider a turn toward conservatism. Continue reading →
A book review
I bought this book based on the rave review of Bill Whittle and the exhaustive presentations of Stefan Molyneux. Having listened to four hours of talk about it, by the time I received the book I had a pretty solid understanding of the idea, the theory and the scientific evidence behind it. Continue reading →
Lately, I only listen to radio when I am driving alone. A short drive yesterday (January 29th 2016) gave me two news items: Continue reading →
We went to visit our rich friends. Another typical libertarian ground-hog-day experience. You must know the kind. You are asked to offer a libertarian solution to a particular socialist concern. You give an answer, they listen to it nodding their heads then the next time you meet them, they ask the same question and offer the same arguments with the same objections as if the previous conversation had never taken place. Continue reading →
As I was gearing up to comment on a libertarian debate about the police, I realized that the post that started it is a perfect example of what we could call a “Hypothetical Debate Syndrome” a particularly vicious libertarian affliction.
I will use this opportunity to respond to this blog post which is commenting on a FB discussion of this meme:
At the last Libertarian Party convention, we were approached by a few guys making a documentary about fringe parties. They want to find out what motivates people to fight for apparently hopeless causes. They interviewed a few of us during the convention and revisited some of us before, and after the federal election with some questions.
During the last follow-up sometimes in late November they did a ‘rapid fire questions’ session with me where I was supposed to complete sentences such as “I am a libertarian because…..”; “I love politics because……” Continue reading →
As it is the case most of the time, the article subtitled: “The Republican candidates’ tax proposals are exorbitant” is more about The Economist, than the economy. It exposes, yet again, its alarmingly socialist bias. Continue reading →
I have mixed feelings about this year. My attention got hijacked by the believers. Immigration, terrorism, law-fare was the subject of half of the posts I wrote in 2015. I left them for the end of this list.
I got some excellent questions from a friend about my previous post that I thought would be best to answer here:
Whether we like it or not, acknowledge it or not, Islam is at war with us and it is winning. Continue reading →
I keep telling people that there is no better way to understand Islam than reading the original sources and through listening to their opinion leaders, yet I have the feeling that not many do. I will try to make it a little easier for them with a collection of quotes.
Just a day after I posted my thoughts on the failure of politics, I came across a most perfect illustration of the point I was trying to make in it.
I suffered through the full two hours and forty-three minutes of a US Senate hearing on climate science chaired by Senator Ted Cruz.
1520s, “science of government,” from politic (adj.), modeled on Aristotle’s ta politika “affairs of state,” the name of his book on governing and governments […] Politics is the science of good sense, applied to public affairs [….] Politicks is not a science so properly as a business. [Fisher Ames (1758-1808)]
Even before I started writing it, I changed the title of this post several times. I knew exactly what I wanted to say and talk about, I just had a problem putting a label on it. What are we failing at? Courage? Cultural confidence? Determination? Communication? Honesty? Understanding?
I couldn’t think of the word politics because I was looking for a positive word, and politics is not one of them, but then I realized that I should let go of my own prejudices. Politics means the management of our shared affairs. It means making decisions about our shared affairs and as an extension, having honest discussions about them. Politics should not be the dirty word it is today.