Monday, July 8, 2019

Tucker Carlson Attacks Koch Brothers For Being Too Libertarian

Tucker, you have no idea.

I only wish it was true. The Kochs are the leading funders of beltarians.

   

 -RW

31 comments:

  1. This parallels to my thoughts on Judge Nap. His recent way of thinking doesn't match what I remember of his previous jurisprudence or logic. Same here, I think Tucker is less ignorant of libertarianism, and it's figureheads, than he's putting on. What's the best explanation but money?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello, Sherlock!
      ---"Judge Nap['s][...]recent way of thinking doesn't match what I remember of his previous jurisprudence or logic."---

      You can't remember what you haven't witnessed. I watched most of Judge Napolitano's Feedom Watch shows when they were aired on FBN way back in 2010 and followed up his commentary whenever ot was available, after his show was cancelled, either on FNC or other venues. I have several of his books about history and about government. I can tell you: he's being totally consistent with his principled defense of constitutional law. You want to believe otherwise because you like Trump, that's all.

      Delete
    2. OM,

      You seem to take the most ungracious readings of what your interlocutors say. I have never insulted you,and hopefully never taken you out of context. I comment on this site because I honestly would like to be convinced back into AnCap libertarianism, if it can be shown to be in line with practically and my religion. I want to have a better debate than what has been going on. I don't want to one-up you or anyone else.

      I didn't vote for Trump. I may in 2020. I'd like to think I'm a more nuanced thinker than what you imply (that I just like Trump, so all other arguments be damned).

      As for credentials, like what you described of yourself just now, I don't like doing so because it would be an argument from authority, not evidence. You can be assured I do have graduate education and experience in multiple social science fields, legal and psychological.

      I say all this just to point to you that I am a human, with complex background (like all others) that shouldn't be reduced to a stereotype. I hope to not do the same to you.

      Let's have a better discussion. I'll be transparent: my thinking is influenced by Calvinism and Vox Day. Vox made a good argument about mobility of labor; he also demonstrated the Ricardo is likely wrong. It's fun stuff.

      If you're simply trolling, and continue with derision, that's fine; but, you seem like someone that isn't here just to insult.

      Thanks.

      Delete
    3. Here's a good one:

      Is Calvinism Biblical?
      What the Bible Really Teaches

      http://www.catholic-saints.net/john-calvin-and-calvinism/

      Delete
    4. Hello, Sherlock!

      Before anything else, let's get something clear: I'm not in the business of convincing anyone to accept what should be evident to reasonable people. If you can't convince yourself of the moral virtue inherent in voluntarysm (call it AnCap if you want), then I can't help you.

      You decided to slander the judge by questioning his commitment to his principles, instead of merely expressing your disagreement with his conclusion that orange peel man is a criminal. I didn't take that out of context, you were unequivocal about it, so stop playing the victim card. I'm not insulting you, I'm merely pointing out a fact based on an assumption that is the most benign to you: that you are unfamiliar with his writings and commentary and that you like the president.

      Delete
    5. Thank you Mister Spock. I'm familiar with those debates. Very good stuff. I'm also a big James White fan, to no ones surprise. I may be converted away from Calvinism one day! You never know.

      I didn't know you had a blog, OM!

      Delete
    6. OM,

      We lost a couple comments in this thread. Rest assured I retorted to your retort; and it was devastating.

      Oh well, next time then.

      Delete
    7. Hello, Sherlock!

      Yes, it's a shame most of your scenes ended up in the edit room. Shame.

      Speaking of what inspires us, I am not inspired by Calvinism or anything of the sort. I'm instead inspired by reason and humanity.

      Delete
    8. @Sherlock - OT but I was influenced by Calvinism too. How did you get there and how did it influence you?

      Delete
    9. Thanks for asking. I was influenced by James White and R.C. Sproul, whose audio and writings I stumbled upon. I was impressed by just how seriously they took Scripture. That's not to say others don't take it seriously, but these guys put Scripture above all else. I'm not saying it right, but I never heard anyone speak about the Bible quite like they. Moreover, their consistency and logic impressed me. For example, they described a God that saves completely, not one that "sets the conditions" and hope the person would save themselves, if only their would belive. I also liked their powerful argument that Arminianism, when taken to its logical end, requires open theism (something I think is indefensible). There's more to it all than that, but was like a second conversation within my Christianity. From there, I learned Calvinism/Reformed theology is more than just predestination, it is also a hermeneutical method. It laid out, in no uncertain terms, who/what God is and who/what Man is. For the topic of libertarianism, God's sovereignty as well as His documented use of government for His purposes screamed at me. Jesus and the Apostles also took a stance on government's existence, and none of their recorded sayings or writings even hinted at resistance to or dissolution of government. Quite the opposite. God ordained government with the ideal to punish evil and reward good. I don't like governments, but I've been told to submit (until commanded to sin), and trust God's sovereignty over all matters.

      I may not like it, but that's a problem with me, not Scripture or God.

      That's an incomplete quick and dirty, but that's all I can put in this forum using a glitchy cell phone.

      Thanks Wenzel, for publishing. I know it's off topic.

      Delete
    10. OM,

      "I am not inspired by Calvinism or anything of the sort. I'm instead inspired by reason and humanity."

      There you go again! :)

      Delete
  2. I am most interested in Tucker's attack on libertarianism than the way he misrepresents the Koch's libertarianism, Robert. Tucker is not only a douche, he's laying out clearly his commitment to, let's just say it, Fascism. This is no exaggeration: his recent attacks on capitalism, the off-hand manner in which he dismissed those who advocate for free markets, and so on. This one is just his most recent example and should not be taken lightly.

    ReplyDelete
  3. While Tucker might be correct about which policies the Kochs are for and against (I don't spend much time looking into this), like the vast majority of non-libertarians, he has an inch-deep understanding of the philosophy. This is neatly illustrated by his use of the phrase "libertarian ideologue" as a pejorative. Libertarians should be the last target of anyone's derision, since we simply believe that no one should initiate force against peaceful people. I doubt that anyone has pointed out to him that his derision suggests that he's for the initiation of force against such folks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't you know? Libertarian idealogues just want to horde all their treasure and suck the blood of the less fortunate while recording "free speech" snuff videos. They have to be stopped!

      Delete
    2. Hello, NAPster!
      ---"This is neatly illustrated by his use of the phrase 'libertarian ideologue' as a pejorative"---

      It shouldn't be surprising that Tucker would use such a perojative after he out-and-out insinuated (during a conversation with CATO's Alex Nowasteh) that those of us who defend markets do so out of religious conviction. Clearly for Tucker there are far greater goals to be achieved than merely living as free individuals pursuing our petty interests and yucky greed--oh, c'est horrible! How can commerce and making money compare with Nation? Borders? Whiteness?

      Delete
  4. Bob - Why was my comment in this thread removed?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sherlock,
    I find that anarchism is in complete harmony with Christ, to the point where if asked if I am an anarchist, I can say yes, I am a Christian. I am pretty knowledgeable on Calvinism, although I disagree with some of his teachings. Just the same with Catholicism. But as far as Anarchism, I haven’t found anything that contradicts Christ’s teaching, or the theme of the Bible in general, to the point where I personally think an anarchist Christian is the closest to being the way Christ wants us to be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joshua,

      Aside from Christianity ending in Monarchy, I agree. Christians can live in an anarchist society, with some caveats; mainly that the society be full of like-minded Christians.

      I can imagine it very easily (it's why I used to be an an-cap). But I'm afraid that is all I would be doing: imagining. A society that would have the fundamental philosophical framework is impossible, given history, and the very prophecies of the Bible. Humankind will never be a homogeneous society until the End. The reality of anthropology that the Bible describes makes Anarchy an impossibility. It can exist only in a sort of Platonic Ideal.

      Delete
    2. I don’t know if a society will raise up that will be the voluntarism type society most of us here wish to see.
      But, that wasn’t the message Christ brought.
      He wants us as individuals to be the anarchist. Individualism is what he taught, “go and sin no more”. Blessed are the peacemakers, not the peaceful society. Individuals helping the poor, widows and giving justice (mercy) to the fatherless. To me, although I would rather see it, it doesn’t matter what society does. I choose to live my life according to the convictions most of us here believe in. That’s all we are called to do anyway.

      Delete
    3. He taught how we are act as individuals, but He and the apostles also talked about the legitimacy of political office, its purpose (punish evil, reward good), and how we are to react to it (submission so long as we are not forced to sin). Scripture also teaches us anthropology, what humans are, and about our hearts. What is said about us seems to demonstrate we are incapable of self-rule without a Law and leaders. I say I am influenced by Calvinism, not just for the TULIP part, which is only a part of the whole of the theology. Reformed theology also demands we take the whole of Scripture, and interpret it in light of itself. Whenever I disagree with Scripture, it's a problem with me, not the Word.

      I'm sure you disagree with at least the top half of what I said. I going to keep reading and debating about the legitimacy of government in light of the Bible.

      And for the non-Christians, bear with me/us.

      Delete
    4. Sherlock, on the matter of whether Scripture legitimizes the state and requires submission to the state's dictates, have you read Chapter 7 of Gerard Casey's terrific book, "Freedom's Progress?"?

      Delete
    5. I haven't! I'll give it a go.

      Delete
    6. Sherlock, I do disagree with your first assertion. But, my response would be probably too long to go in to on someone else’s blog where I am merely a guest.
      But I will say, I never understood that an anarchist society would be completely devoid of “law”. We aren’t animals as you know. Rulers, not so
      much. People that are looked up to? That’s a natural human action as far as I see. Elders of a village or community for example.
      The hardest part for people to understand what a free society would look like is they see everything with the blurred reality of the State.
      I do not see where the Bible, Romans for instance, legitimizes the State at all. Romans 13 for example can’t contradict what the rest of scripture teaches. Paul, I believe, was being specific for a specific reason.

      Delete
    7. NAPster: I read chapter 7 and 8 of Freedoms Progress. Gerard Casey seems to take a very post-Enlightenment view of Scripture, which greatly affects his hermeneutical method. I agree with Augustine and the Reformers about the interpretation of the passages controversial to libertarian sensibilities. I agreed with many of his points, too. Thanks for pointing him out.

      Joshua: Gerard Casey pointed out that Scripture is often critical of secular government, especially in the OT. I agree with this fact, it is; however, this does not mean the institution itself is not ordained by God, sometimes as a judgement of people, sometimes as grace. This assertion also seems to have Scriptural basis. God's sovereignty means it's ALL under his control; there isn't a single Maverick molecule.

      We should probably leave the topic. Bionic Mosquito covers a lot of this stuff, and even he is hesitant to delve into theology. I'm sure Bob would prefer we not.

      Thanks again.

      Delete
  6. As far as Tucker, I like him for his anti-war stance, but the rest of what he says, I pretty much think like OM.
    I don’t know a conservative who is against Medicaid, among other things, and if you tell them it’s a socialist program, they look at you in horror.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Conservatives don't conserve a darn thing!

      Delete
  7. He's terrible, a complete waste of space, not even slightly better than a Democrat, his face makes me cringe. I cannot stand someone that loves wearing chains and making the rest of us do so also.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Tucker is right. Libertarians are whining because his analysis hits too close to home.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In what sense came "too close to home", unknown?

      Delete
    2. Huh? Libertarians aren’t conservatives? We sure the heck don’t whine about that.

      Delete
    3. IMO, most libertarians have devolved into outright cheerleaders for the neoliberal status quo with Trump in charge.

      They don't care that America is turning into a Chinese colony as long as they get cheap slave-made consumer goods.

      They don't care about stopping mass immigration because corporate profits are more important than having safe communities and national sovereignty.

      Lots of this has to do with the influence of the Koch Bros, which is why Tucker is 100 percent correct to hammer them and their influence.

      Delete