Eric Alterman has a fine essay in the upcoming Nation, speaking of the Libya PR disaster (I know there have been so many, its so hard to keep track):”…Romney later pulled the rug out from under his ardent defenders. Asked about the film that seemingly inspired the riots and attacks, he echoed exactly the same sentiments contained in the Cairo embassy statement that he and his putative champions had previously found so contemptible. “I think the whole film is a terrible idea. I think [that] making it, promoting it, showing it is disrespectful to people of other faiths…. I think people should have the common courtesy and judgment—the good judgment—not to be, not to offend other peoples’ faiths.”There you have it: Mitt Romney, terrorist apologist.” 

That doesn’t mean we’re not allowed to do it if we want to. (See, that’s the libertarian in me speaking

Seriously, all of us are mongrels to some degree, politically speaking. That’s because all of our politics exist on a series of vast sliding scales from 0 (not at all) to 100 (totally and completely.) Somewhere on one of those scales a liberal slides down into communism and on another a cosnervative tips over into fascism… but nobody can say exactly where those points are. And in the middle of any particular scale, the same individual can incorporate bits from either side of the center line (wherever that actually falls.)

But, as I said… just because we’re all political mongrels doesn’t mean we can’t sit around and discuss what exactly constitutes a purebred… nor should any of us mongrels be offended by such discussions.

I wasn’t even think­ing about Muley in the course of this dis­cus­sion, much less “ques­tion­ing” or “renounc­ing” his view of him­self.

Perhaps not. But in the context of the broader conversation, that’s how it looked.

I was talk­ing about “pure lib­er­tar­i­an­ism” which doesn’t actu­ally exist any­where because it is a logis­ti­cal impos­si­bil­ity in the mod­ern world.

I don’t think there’s much pure anything out there. Arguing about the non-viability of a pure political, social, or economic system then is much like arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I would add one more: my granddaughter’s play school group. It’s a terrifying, atavistic, and often brutal milieu those little folks inhabit… but it does seem to work for them.

As soon as you add a sec­ond per­son, they are each respon­si­ble for the sur­vival of both. “

Unless one kills off the “competition”.

True. If one’s goal is to be the only player left standing, that’s a viable strategy. Rather shortsighted and bloody, but if that’s your thing, enjoy. Don’t expect others around you not to react, however; stomping one’s feet and complaining, “But I wanted to!” won’t protect one from adverse consequences.

Great linkage to games theory. It’s a fun topic to explore, and its applicability to the human condition cannot be overstated.

What filistro said. Ditto. I don’t think anyone disagrees with your statement in #295, nor implied that they did.

As for Mule, he’s already explained multiple times that he doesn’t agree with all of “pure” libertarian philosophy, nor with a number of particular libertarians. I didn’t feel it necessary to repeat what he has eloquently stated in the past. I take him at his word, and, as fili said, the current discussion doesn’t have anything to do with him, unless he agrees with the definition of “libertarian” that we’ve been discussing (and I don’t think he does).

See my mention previously (#288) about what words mean. A word means different things to different people. I will happily encourage others (Mule included) to explain what the word “libertarian” means to them.

I wasn’t even thinking about Muley in the course of this discussion, much less “questioning” or “renouncing” his view of himself.  I was talking about “pure libertarianism” which doesn’t actually exist anywhere because it is a logistical impossibility in the modern world.

In these days of population sprawl, interconnectedness and pervasive media, you can no longer find anybody who’s truly a “pure” anything.. racially, ethnically or philosophically. For example I don’t consider Ron or Rand Paul to be “pure” libertarians because they both oppose legal abortion… which means, by defintion, that they would accept government controls on one of humanity’s most intimate and personal decisions. That is hardly libertarian.