At TZP, I comment on Gottlieb dubiously “honoring” Aaron.
After you’ve had a look at that post, be sure to go back to the main TZP page. There’s really a ton going on, with recent posts from Nicki, Sheila, and our newest scholarly rabble-rouser Y.B. ben Avraham. AND we’ve now been joined by — ta da! — Ilana Mercer, the very well-known paleolibertarian/classical liberal writer.
Ilana and I (and you) may disagree on a fair number of issues, but she’s a great addition to TZP, whose writers already have a variety of styles and perspectives.
Beatification… …Jew… [grin]
At least no one can accuse Aaron of being a collaborator (to avoid moderation, I’ll not link, but those wondering what I’m talking about can web search Pope John Paul II).
Ilana once called me an “intellectual pygmy and shock jock“, which makes me suspect she can’t stomach actual liberty. But, I’ll read what she has to say and evaluate it on its own merits.
Well, Kent, I lana is bright, articulate, and often makes some good points, but I’ve noticed that humor is not her forte. I hadn’t run across that post of hers before. I guess she had delusions of Ayn Randhood, where she gets to declare what is proper libertarianism.
Or maybe she just had a bad day.
If she was determined to take your “light-hearted look” seriously, you might consider re-posting your cannibalism piece, replacing “cannibalism” with “organ donation” and “eating” with “harvesting”. Maybe you were too subtle for her.
Yikes, Kent! OTOH, I suppose it’s a sort of backhanded honor to be called something like that. All things considered, it’s a damnfine insult. I’ve never rated one that good.
Ilana has a lot of qualities that could make her a great Zelman Partisan, so thanks for being willing to consider her posts on their own merits, even after getting whomped with that!
It wasn’t a popular subject. That was the same column that inspired Elias’ wrath over at TMM forum and made me decide to walk away from that place, too. So it wasn’t just Ilana.
Claire and Kent,
This is slightly off subject but I am referring to the article/discussion on anarchy which Kent referred to.
I believe that anarchists generally confuse “without Kings” to “without Laws”. “Mala prohibita” should certainly be outlawed by anarchists/libertarians but “Mala in se” is a required staple of a civilized, peaceful and libertarian society.
Just had to get this thought off my brain.
Tahn, I don’t use the word “anarchist” or “libertarian” anymore, simply because they have too many meanings and too many misunderstandings such as you indicate. But, whatever else they call themselves, those who advocate individual sovereignty are well known to understand mala in se. It’s otherwise known as aggression, obviously, and is never acceptable in a peaceful society.
The difference is that each individual, in voluntary association with others, is responsible for defending themselves and their dependents from that wrong. Anarchists generally object to the appointment of any over riding “authority” to deal with that. If that last is what you mean by “outlawing” something, then I do object. 🙂
Not no rules… no rulers and no slaves.
I re-read your post, Tahn, and see I misread it the first time.
In any case, I’ve not seen many “anarchists” who don’t understand clearly the difference between mala in se and prohibitions that do not involve any victims. The acceptable rule is non-aggression, which leaves little ambiguity for most of us.
Can’t speak for any “libertarians,” however. Many of them seem to have wandered off into very strange myths, far as I’m concerned. 🙂
MamaLiberty,
Thanks for the clarification. I cannot imagine not agreeing with you or Claire on principles.
“There are laws that enslave man (mala prohibita) and laws that set him free (mala in se).”
I agree. “The acceptable rule is non-aggression, which leaves little ambiguity for most of us.”
I have started calling prohibita, the Laws of the Ayatollah. Everyone agrees that Ayatollah laws are wrong. Bad name 🙂