Unuseful Idiots

Radley Balko is someone that I’ve had lots of disagreements with, but there was nothing tasteless about his notice of Pat Tillman’s death. The commenters who decided to vulture in, on the other hand, are thoroughly contemptible and vile.

Football player gives up millions per year to get shot dead in Afghanistan. As far as I’m concerned, this just proves the perfection of natural selection.

. . .

Wait, wait. He died protecting me from the invading Afghani army.

Man, I just jizzed all over my keyboard from feelings of State euphoria. Thank you Jebus and thank you gubmint.

It is shit like this that makes me wonder about being in bed with the Libertarian Party. I know that gloating over the deaths of American solders is not the party line, but the idea that I am associated with these disgusting cocksuckers revolts me.

It is distasteful enough for me to know that there are a lot of libertarians who take the, “screw those Iraqis, freedom is an American right, not a human one” stance that says that the war in Iraq was morally wrong, but this goes far beyond that. I need to go to the National Convention so I can find one of these bastards and kick the shit out of him and convince him to move all the way to the loony left.

(I want to stress that those were commenters, and not Balko. Balko is someone I frequently get annoyed with, but I haven’t seen anything that begins to rise to this level of depravity from him, and I don’t want this to reflect poorly on him.)

7 Comments

  1. MattG says:

    You’ll notice that some of the more rational libertarians on Balko’s site reined in the less-respectful ones. I hope you won’t just pick the worst comments on a blog and claim that it’s representative of libertarians in general.

  2. Phelps says:

    I understand that. What irks me is that for someone who is on the fence about libertarianism, these are exactly the kind of nut-bags that some authoritarian collectivist is going to point to and say, “these guys aren’t what they say they are, they are just liberines in free-market clothing.” It pisses me off that I am supposed to be indeologically aligned with someone that twisted in the head.

  3. Mexigogue says:

    That last line sounds like the cue for me to jump right in like Lenny and Squiggy and say “hello!” But I’m not making fun of the situation y’all are talking about so it wouldn’t be right.

  4. Francis W. Porretto says:

    I make this point rather a lot, and others who call themselves libertarians have begun to become annoyed with me, but here goes anyway:

    Libertarianism’s domain of applicability does not include war or foreign policy.

    Every attractive and useful idea will be over-applied by someone, of course. The Balko commenters you’ve cited have done so in a particularly ugly way. We who cherish freedom have a duty to refute them, and to cast them out of our circles until they’ve mended their ways.

  5. It’s not so much that we don’t think Iraqis have a right to freedom as we don’t see why that means we have an obligation to secure that right for them. Particularly when they seem thoroughly disinterested in lifting a finger to assist us in the effort.

    They want to just sit there passively and do nothing, expecting us to hand them a free society on a silver platter. The problem is that a free society can’t be built that way.

    Freedom isn’t something that can be given. It must be taken.

  6. Phelps says:

    I haven’t seen much of the independant media (letters from soldiers, blogs, etc) saying that they the Iraqis “sit there passively and do nothing, expecting us to hand them a society on a silver platter”. We like to talk about how America is becoming a police state without taking into account that real bona fide police states exist — like North Korea and Baathist Iraq. That police state isn’t officially in power anymore, but the mechanisms and channels are still there. Simply not supporting the totalitarians is doing something.

    The biggest thing the Iraqis did to help us was to “sit there passively” during the invasion. The invasion was a sweeping success because the Iraqi People (big P) decided not to support Saddam. Look at the American Revolution: the vast majority of the people did not participate. Only a very few were willing to put their names behind it, and those who did risked everything — more than thier lives, they risked thier posterity — and many, many were given just those losses. That doesn’t make the fight illegitimate. It took four years before the Articles of Confederation were ratified after they were passed. Six years later, they decided to throw them out for a new constitution. The Iraqis are already to the point of making a new Constitution after only a year and a half.

    No one just decides to make a free state, and poof, it happens. Freedom is hard, which is why so few people choose it. The Iraqi people are chosing it, and by God, I’m going to do what I can to give them that chance.

  7. >I haven’t seen much of the independant media
    >(letters from soldiers, blogs, etc) saying that
    >they the Iraqis “sit there passively and do
    >nothing, expecting us to hand them a society on
    >a silver platter”.

    For a start, try:

    http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_3.html

    I’d quote more, but I’m sure you know how to use google too.

    >We like to talk about how America is becoming a
    >police state without taking into account that
    >real bona fide police states exist — like North
    >Korea and Baathist Iraq.

    No one is denying that Iraq was a police state, or that we weren’t justified in eliminating Saddam’s regime. But we’ve accomplished that. The question now is why it’s our responsiblity to turn Iraqi into happy democracy fun land

    >Simply not supporting the totalitarians is doing
    >something.

    Okay, then why do we have to fix Iraqi? If doing nothing is enough, why not just go home and simply not support bad regimes?

    >The biggest thing the Iraqis did to help us was
    >to “sit there passively” during the invasion.
    >The invasion was a sweeping success because the
    >Iraqi People (big P) decided not to support
    >Saddam.

    The invasion is over now, and simply staying down isn’t what needs to happen anymore. They allow the militants to hide amongst them, turning a blind eye as they seek to destroy the very democracy you claim they want so much. If you knew of people planning to assassinate the mayor, would you just ignore it? If you knew were a seditionist group was stockpiling weapons would you turn a blind eye? If someone was running down your street randomly shooting people would you just hide until they leave and then stonewall any attempts to catch them?

    The Iraqis by and large are not on our side. They simply don’t care either way. They’ll just stay blissfully out of it until the ultimate winner come out on top.

    >It took four years before the Articles of
    >Confederation were ratified after they were
    >passed. Six years later, they decided to throw
    >them out for a new constitution. The Iraqis are
    >already to the point of making a new
    >Constitution after only a year and a half.

    No, the Iraqis aren’t close to making a new constitution. The TAL is dead, becuase nobody but us likes it.

    >No one just decides to make a free state, and
    >poof, it happens.

    My point exactly. But that seems to be what the Iraqi’s expect. Just let the Americans handle it and poof, democracy happens. And if not, eh, not their loss.

    >Freedom is hard, which is why so few people
    >choose it. The Iraqi people are chosing it,

    No, they aren’t choosing it. They’re just keeping their heads down until they see who comes out on top. They certainly aren’t choosing a side, let alone doing anything to assist one side or the other.

    >and by God, I’m going to do what I can to give
    >them that chance.

    We’ve more than given them the chance to make a choice. They don’t care. Why should we be wasting gold, sweat, and most importantly blood trying to convince them they want to be free?