Monday, September 10, 2007

Libertarianism

I may regret this, but OK, lets have a political thread then.
(Normally you won't find me using the word "thread", for this is not a discussion board, but a blog. :)

When I found out about libertarianism, I couldn't believe there was an actual movement which was that sane. Basically a policy of non-interference, live and let live.

Basic principles shown simply. What is amazing is how unpopular it is. People don't want non-interference, they want to control others.

Coincidentally, I am just now reading the 'government' chapter of the famous book How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World, by Harry Browne. And I must say, it's an eye-opener. Even though I have most of my life been pretty much an anarchist or a libertarian, this teaches me how far that rabbit hole goes. Astounding.
I think the book is out of print, but I recommend finding it, for example on abebooks.com or abebooks.co.uk. (often cheaper than amazon.)

Update: One of the things Browne addresses in this book is the question: don't we need a government to protect us from invasion? He points out that you can't subdue a country if there is no government to surrender. If there isn't, you'd have to destroy the whole country, or send men to every single household to subdue it. The second thing can't be done, and the first thing wouldn't be, what would be the point?

Also, don't we need them to protect us from organized crime? Browne speculates how, even if we for some reason imagines that we would not be able to buy at least as good protection for the money we'd save in taxes, then what would happen? And funny enough, the end result of living under organized crime rule ends up sounding an awful lot like what life is like under a government.

---
TTL said:
["Example in point, current Republican leadership in America."]

Don't confuse them with libertarians (no matter what they say). U.S. goverment has grown more during the republican presidency than it did during the Clinton administration.

Now, of course, the republican party used to stand for those ideals, and there is still one notable republican who does: Ron Paul.

Americans, watch this video and be amazed at what a wise and courageous man you have running for president.

posted by Eolake Stobblehouse @ Monday, September 10, 2007   43 comments links to this post

43 Comments:

At 10 Sep 2007, 20:05:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Libertarianism is about as useless as Utilitarianism. Which means totally useless. I'm not surprised it would appeal to you. In the 50s, you'd have been a Communist.

 
At 10 Sep 2007, 20:12:00, Blogger eolake said...

What do you mean, "in the fifties"?

 
At 10 Sep 2007, 21:10:00, Blogger Phil said...

I'm not very keen on Libertarianism myself as I think that human society should make a strenuous effort to look after its less able members. I may have misunderstood Libertarianism, but I don't think we see eye to eye on that.
Having said that, if you're watching late night TV or prepared to hunt it down, there's a striking Gary Cooper film called The Fountainhead, based on the book of the same name by Ayn Rand, whose Objectivism influenced Libertarianism, though was apparently more cruel.

 
At 10 Sep 2007, 21:21:00, Blogger eolake said...

"I think that human society should make a strenuous effort to look after its less able members."

I think this happens naturally. If you force people to participate, it makes the whole process unnatural, and it makes people sour on charity, because they already have it taken from them in the form of taxes.

 
At 10 Sep 2007, 22:43:00, Blogger Final Identity said...

Yeah, it's simple in theory. Doesn't generally work in practice.

Problem 1. Most people aren't smart enough to be allowed to be libertarians. How many folks don't share the sidewalk of their own accord without being repeatedly asked? Instead, they walk down the smack-dab middle of it without a thought to whether or not someone else might want his proper half, when they should take up only their own proper half.

Problem 2. Parties and individuals who claim to want to be in charge in order to effect libertarianism don't generally follow the premise through to conclusion. Example in point, current Republican leadership in America. They CLAIM that they're all about small government, but then they impose a WIDE range of conservative "family values" legislation. So they're libertarian about the free market (as long as it benefits the wealthy) but not so about gays or blacks or women.

Great theory. Not implementable. Power is about power, not the lack thereof.

 
At 10 Sep 2007, 23:37:00, Anonymous Your customary lurker said...

I am bound by moral contract to denigrate anything Eolake Stobblehouse (or one of his good friends) declares to like, without ever giving a rational reason.

So, time to get to work then. What is it this time? "Libertarianism is almost unbelievably sane". Roger that.

(A-hem!)

LIBERTARIANISM IS TOTALLY PSYCHO. AND SO ARE YOU IF YOU DON'T UTTERLY HATE IT. LIBERTARIANISM SUCKS MOLTEN DEATH THROUGH A LEAD STRAW. It is YOU who badly needs to be controlled by more sensible others, mister blogger!

There, all done. Nothing personal, folks, right? Just business.
I'm actually making a good living from distributing bile samples on the internet. This blog simply happens to have a wide readership, and therefore a large target audience.

Good day to y'all.

 
At 10 Sep 2007, 23:48:00, Blogger Final Identity said...

I think we're getting a good example of that "thought systems" concept from a few posts ago on this blog ...

 
At 10 Sep 2007, 23:53:00, Anonymous The Commie-Hunting Commission said...

"Just one small question, Mr Disney. Your funny mouse... why red pants?"

 
At 11 Sep 2007, 00:13:00, Blogger eolake said...

And just as bad, some of the characters wear no pants at all. Clearly a commie plot to undermine the morals of America.

 
At 11 Sep 2007, 03:02:00, Anonymous Donald Duck said...

Originally, Clarabelle Cow didn't wear a skirt. Until the Moral Commission declared that a bovine udder was like a boobie, and therefore udderly taboo to display.

And then those jerks snickered and said that I had nothing noteworthy to hide anyway! ARRRK! SQUAAAWK! QUAAAAACK! Splutter! Lemme at'em! Lemme at'em!

 
At 11 Sep 2007, 10:14:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think government has at least two functions which would be difficult to replicate in a lkberttarian society; reconciling conflicting interests (e.g. those who already own a house vs. those who want to buy one but can't afford to)
and planning for an uncertain future.

 
At 11 Sep 2007, 11:06:00, Anonymous ttl said...

F.I. wrote: "Yeah, it's simple in theory. Doesn't generally work in practice."

It worked fine when America still practised it until 1920-1930 or so.

"Most people aren't smart enough to be allowed to be libertarians."

You have this backwards. It is not a question of you allowing or not allowing other people to be free. Freedom is a birthright no matter how bright or thick a person is.

"Example in point, current Republican leadership in America."

Don't confuse them with libertarians (no matter what they say). U.S. goverment has grown more during the republican presidency than it did during the Clinton administration.

Now, of course, the republican party used to stand for those ideals, and there is still one notable republican who does: Ron Paul.

Americans, watch this video and be amazed at what a wise and courageous man you have running for president.

 
At 11 Sep 2007, 19:34:00, Anonymous Monsieur Beep said...

My comment is a bit off-topic, but even so I'd like to point out that I've started to dislike the terms "America", "The Americans", while we are in fact talking about The People of the United States of North America (or rather their administration???!). Mind the difference, America includes the whole continent, includes Latin America as well. We Germans don't refer to ourselves as Europe, or The Europeans, we're just part of Europe.
Also see "Monocle" magazine, September issue 06, where you'll find a confirmation of my opinion on pages 55ff.

 
At 11 Sep 2007, 21:20:00, Blogger eolake said...

Update: One of the things Browne addresses in this book is the question: don't we need a government to protect us from invasion? He points out that you can't subdue a country if there is no government to surrender. If there isn't, you'd have to destroy the whole country, or send men to every single household to subdue it. The second thing can't be done, and the first thing wouldn't be, what would be the point?

Also, don't we need them to protect us from organized crime? Browne speculates how, even if we for some reason imagines that we would not be able to buy at least as good protection for the money we'd save in taxes, then what would happen? And funny enough, the end result of living under organized crime rule ends up sounding an awful lot like what life is like under a government.

 
At 11 Sep 2007, 21:54:00, Blogger Peaceful Blade said...

"Americans, watch this video and be amazed at what a wise and courageous man you have running for president."

I must say, I don't generally pay attention to politics because I've been under the impression that 1. it's a broken system 2. republicans and democrats are all batting for the same team and nobody else has a fair shot at winning.

Maybe Ron Paul's another dishonest politician using an unorthodox strategy to get his foot in the door, but he's impressed me enough I'm actually going to register to vote come 2008. If there is a candidate with a shot at changing things he's it.

 
At 12 Sep 2007, 01:52:00, Blogger Pascal [P-04referent] said...

TTL said...
"Freedom is a birthright no matter how bright or thick a person is."


Or, to quote my dear granny: "Guy has the right to be thick, this is a Republic. Bloody fools have the right to eat, same as the smart folks."

Beep,
Your point is 100% valid. But most outside people still haven't gotten used to the formula "the united-statean President". Might catch on. Or might not.

Eolake said...
..."you can't subdue a country if there is no government to surrender. If there isn't, you'd have to destroy the whole country, or send men to every single household to subdue it. The second thing can't be done, and the first thing wouldn't be, what would be the point?"


Alas, my friend, you've missed quite a few sad news events these last years. Like Darfur, for the first "option". Or nazi Germany hunting down Jews, for the second. Just two examples among many.
Unfortunately, absolute anarchy is not very viable. And absolute pacifism is utopic, if it ignores the need for self-defense.

"And funny enough, the end result of living under organized crime rule ends up sounding an awful lot like what life is like under a government."

You're definitely a commie propaganda agent, to say things like that. Even if they're true.
Especially true in a country like min... uh, never mind, forget I said that!

Ironically enough, there were some bad floods in North Korea recently, and many casualties were from people trying to salvage the portraits of their "beloved dictator" and his Daddy.
Perhaps I should mention that by law every house HAS to display one of these portraits, and that letting damage happen to them is punished. Severely. So many people drowned to abide by the law...

Peaceful Blade said...
"Maybe Ron Paul's another dishonest politician using an unorthodox strategy to get his foot in the door"...


Heck, what's the risk in giving it a try? Just to know fer sure, and just in case... ;-)
After all, things can hardly get worse than where they're heading. Any surprise would be a good one.
I wish there were the shadow of a chance that my vote had any importance in Lebanon. Not since 1975. Do you know who's most asked his opinion about our next President (to be elected this month)?
Yep, you've guessed it: the United States Ambassador!

A daring "madman" personality from the Opposition once mentioned the idea that our President be elected directly by the voices of the People. Oy! He would've raised less seething rabid reactions from the group in power if he had suggested that people vote by fornicating in the streets! With animals. Naked, underage, unconsenting animals of the same gender.
National motto: "Okay, so it's broken and hasn't been working for three decades, but why fix it?"

Some people over here are more equal than others. And more free. Why? "Because we said so! Any objections, hotshot? [cha-klak!]"

 
At 12 Sep 2007, 03:33:00, Anonymous ttl said...

peaceful blade said: "Maybe Ron Paul's another dishonest politician using an unorthodox strategy to get his foot in the door, ..."

Yes, one has to take this possibility into account. Note, however, that Paul's voting record as a congressman speaks even louder than his words:

• He has never voted to raise taxes.
• He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
• He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
• He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
• He has never taken a government-paid junket.
• He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
• He voted against the Patriot Act.
• He voted against regulating the Internet.
• He voted against the Iraq war.
• He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
• He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

If he is dishonest it seems to me you would want this kind of 'dishonesty' in the White House.

pascal said: "Alas, my friend, you've missed quite a few sad news events these last years. Like Darfur, for the first "option".

Yes, this is a sad story. But isn't it still fundamentally a normal war, with two sides fighting. (Admittedly, I don't know much about this event.)

pascal said: "Or nazi Germany hunting down Jews, for the second. Just two examples among many."

But this was the government. Of course, you could say that the Nazi party took over from the real government. But to say this would be the same as saying the current U.S. government is not the real government. The difference between government and organised crime is very subtle indeed.

 
At 12 Sep 2007, 04:23:00, Blogger eolake said...

I think a life without government would be great. But of course I realize it's not gonna happen in our lifetimes. It is simply too scary to almost everybody. Freedom is very, very scary.

 
At 12 Sep 2007, 19:02:00, Blogger Final Identity said...

TTL: you prove my point by suggesting I shouldn't confuse current Republicans with real Libertarians. That WAS my point -- the people who got elected to do vaguely libertarian things, ended up NOT DOING THEM. Thanks for agreeing! :)

You also miss my point when you discuss my comment, "Most people aren't smart enough to be libertarians," with a retort about how freedom is a birthright. I discuss intelligence and political systems, and (by your reasoning) impugn the right to freedom. Your retort is to demand freedom. This in no way addresses my evidence about intelligence. They still aren't smart enough, and (according to your failure to weaken my argument) therefore we still shouldn't have libertarianism.

In other words, I said they weren't able to handle it. You said they should have it anyway. I say, if they can't handle it, they shouldn't have it. If you say they SHOULD, then I hope you please make sure that any negative consequences of THEIR bad behavior please NOT impact me ever. Can you guarantee that in a world where murder is not outlawed, I won't be shot? If not, then your logic fails and mine remains true.

I agree on the usage "Americans." I try to say the (mildly witty) "United Stations" when I remember. Or "citizens of the USA." I have visited Mexico and the rest of Meso-America, and lived in Canada enough, to know that the usage "Americans" doesn't often work quite right. Sorry if I used it poorly.

Finally, Eolake, I disagree that the resistance to "real" libertarianism (either by government-control advocates, or by tricky politicians who claim to wish to implement less government control but then fail to do so) is about a resistance to, or fear of, freedom. I think (for me at least) it's much smarter to resist "real" libertarianism out of a fear of OTHER PEOPLE.

I live in New Orleans. We have a murder a day, roughly. Handguns are not largely regulated. I want gun control. If all those poor, uneducated, testosterone-ridden, unemployed "street youth" were CAPABLE of self-restraint, I'd be likely to be quite happy to give them a libertarian rule about (for example) guns, or other aspects of their lives. But we aren't free to do that. They'll kill people.

I think libertarianism looks quite good to people who are surrounded by smart, educated, responsible adults. Go teach in a junior high in an inner city in the USA (oops, at first I wrote, "in an American inner city"), and you'll remember something about we the people. Most of y'all from Europe who are forgetting that society can devolve rapidly to chaos, are speaking from the privileged position of living in THE SINGLE SAFEST DEVELOPED LOCATION ON THE PLANET EVER IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND. And it's made that way partly by very anti-libertarian restrictions, such as those on handguns, which we don't have over here in "Murka."

Anyway, I LIKE the theory of libertarianism. I think it could work. But please, if any of you is king or god for a day, please don't just snap your fingers and impose it on me and my city, at least not without giving me a chance to run for the hills first. I don't fear freedom. I fear the idiots who live next door.

 
At 12 Sep 2007, 23:44:00, Blogger eolake said...

It's a complex problem, obviously. But just as one note: I doubt that black inner-city youths are feeling very protected by the government.
I mean, fuck, even rich "gangsta" rappers get shot all the time.

 
At 13 Sep 2007, 01:13:00, Blogger Final Identity said...

Actually, MOSTLY rich gangsta rappers get shot all the time. And wanna-be's. The murders we have here are black-on-black, poor-on-poor, drugdealer-on-drugdealer, etc. And the bystanders. Oh dear the bystanders.

But I didn't really say the government was necessary for protecting the idiots from themselves. I said the government was necessary for protecting ME from the idiots. :)

 
At 13 Sep 2007, 01:13:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

ttl should marry Pascal. Their stupidity and ignorance would produce some horror which the world has never seen.

 
At 13 Sep 2007, 01:39:00, Blogger eolake said...

Mr. Anonymous,

Why don't you stand up and tell us your real name when you attack people like that?

 
At 13 Sep 2007, 02:40:00, Blogger Pascal [P-04referent] said...

If I WERE into gay marriage and proposed to TTL, we could never have children. Even with artificial insemination. Only Arnold Schwarzenegger ever managed such a feat, and it was a fiction movie.

So, sorry to disappoint your hopes, Anon, but you'll never have a look-alike.

P.S.: Eolake, stop being mean to the runt. He IS standing already, can't you see?
(A classic joke, but it never gets old.)

 
At 13 Sep 2007, 09:13:00, Anonymous ttl said...

Eolake wrote: "Why don't you stand up and tell us your real name when you attack people like that?"

There are only two persons (using various nick names) that post these infantile attacks on this forum. It is easy to sense their energies, i.e. which one is which.

One is the bible thumper who occasionally posts interesting posts too. A very bitter person, but one who deep down has a warm heart. His bitterness is the result of not being able to let go of certain past issues. His colour (spiritually speaking) is yellow. This person attacks me because of my views.

My advice: Relax, man. This is just a little blog by a funny Danish guy. No commentary on it can possibly merit the significance of getting angry over it. Not even mine. Incidentally, the cure for your bigger issue is the same: Relax. Regret is a complete waste of energy.

The other one is the one posting above. His energy is more closed, and comments more direct. This person's colour (spiritually speaking) is navy blue. His bitterness stems from not allowing himself a channel for his natural expression, which has severely limited his overall success. This person attacks me, Pascal and Eolake. Me for my non-conventional remarks, Pascal for his energy, positivity and know-it-all'ness, and Eolake for his overall success (which he himself hasn't met).

My advice: Start systematically exploring various forms of expression (including tools and methods) until you find one that feels natural to you. You will then discover that posting comments such as the one above is a waste of your valuable time.

 
At 13 Sep 2007, 12:07:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What success?

 
At 13 Sep 2007, 12:08:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, ttl, I just find annoying people like you who are significantly below average but don't know it.

 
At 13 Sep 2007, 14:34:00, Anonymous ttl said...

"Actually, ttl, I just find annoying people like you who are significantly below average but don't know it."

You may well be right. I couldn't know since I don't compare myself to others. It serves no purpose.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

 
At 13 Sep 2007, 17:52:00, Blogger Final Identity said...

See, I told you there were idiots next door. Please protect me from them, oh master g'ummint!

 
At 13 Sep 2007, 18:20:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I couldn't know since I don't compare myself to others."

Oh, you do.

 
At 13 Sep 2007, 18:23:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"See, I told you there were idiots next door. Please protect me from them, oh master g'ummint!"

Can you be protected from yourself? I wonder. The funny thing is, whether it's you, Eolake, Pascal, TTL, or whoever, you all sound alike. Despite what you might say, none of you are interested in new ideas or different ways of things or different people - you only want to be around those just like you. That way, you don't have to worry about being challenged. You know you'll be agreed with, and you can all pat each other on the back.

 
At 13 Sep 2007, 20:20:00, Anonymous Horatio Alger said...

That should be "different ways of thinking" I think. Anyway...

 
At 13 Sep 2007, 22:50:00, Blogger eolake said...

I think we are interested in different kinds of people, but not in the kind of people who always remain anonymous and have nothing to say except blunt criticism.

 
At 14 Sep 2007, 04:05:00, Blogger Pascal [P-04referent] said...

Yo, Navy Blue Anon, how about being a sport and giving us, say, a couple of initials? For those of us who may sound like TTL but can't see energy colors quite as aptly?

It could be the first founding stone of a truce? Your own style of patting our back feels a bit rough at times, you know. Not the best way to get people to listen to you in the first place, especially after confronting them head-on. Think about it, dude.

 
At 14 Sep 2007, 04:05:00, Blogger Pascal [P-04referent] said...

More on-topic...

TTL said...
"If he is dishonest it seems to me you would want this kind of 'dishonesty' in the White House."


If he's not elected next year, could we borrow him in Lebanon? We could definitely use this kind of 'dishonesty' here for a change!

A few details about my examples: German Jews, and the people getting systematically slaughtered in Darfur, were not themselves organized governments, and it didn't protect them at all. That's all I'm really saying, disproving this specific theory expressed by Eolake.
Don't expect me to defend the practical applications of the government principle. I'm still amazed every day at how much the world is NOT screwed up as badly as you could expect, and actually managed to evolve rather decently in some places. There must be some secret force for Good at work balancing all the rotten official mechanisms of societies and countries. No doubt about that.

Final and TTL,
I think we can all agree on this: freedom should normally be a universal right, but many people have proven that they're not sensible enough to make good use of their freedom.
Or sometimes, like Eolake says, they just choose to deliberately give it up to God/President because it scares them shitless. But President is an imperfect man like them, and it is not God that will rule them, but a self-appointed divine spokesman, equally imperfect too.

Final Identity said...
"I say, if they can't handle it, they shouldn't have it."


The heart of the problem is, my friend, that those who make that call ("they can't handle it") in "real life" are no better themselves. Getting people to give up their freedom (deserved or not) is too easy. Those same people conquering back their freedom is often a very hard, sacrifice-laiden endeavour against a well-established tyranny.
I'd rather have people educated and then guiding themselves. A bit too much liberty is always less dangerous than a bit too little. Take it from somebody who's grown up in a non-free country. :-(

Myself, I'm pro-gun control. Because, very simply, a gun is a means of pressure on others. A tool of force. And therefore having a gun is frequently an anti-libertarian act, because it means you're considering use of threat/force on someone.
Gun control doesn't mean it become illegal! But when a known felon can just buy one in the open without an ID check, or a psychiatric case like that latest college shooting author, then "freedom" has become pure anarchy. Which is the opposite of the non-agression principle.
"Absolute" freedom, where anybody does anything that damn well pleases them, is not liberty. It's barbary. And it's precisely what happens in a war, like today in Iraq. There's complete anarchy, and people have lost their freedom. Only crime goes free then.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, when an official authority switches from representing the people to representing the (more or less hidden) interests of a single group, liberty is threatened too. Nobody in power has reprepresented the people of Lebanon for 32 years. At least.

So, we need some, shall I say, "order", under constant revision and control by a people that's mature enough to know and defend its liberty. Sounds like a big agenda...

The logical consequence is, do not count on enemies of liberty, whoever they are, to educate the masses and help them reach maturity. (See the motto on my blog for a reminder.) This is an issue where people need to count on themselves and support each other. If there's truly a will. As one Lebanese poet once wrote:
"If the people one day wants to live.
Destiny can only comply,
The night can only brighten,
And the shackles can only fall."


Those problems you mention in N-O, Final, are just the consequences of irresponsibility and immaturity. Ultimately, the ignorance of some people means they're not free where it first counts: in their minds. And giving them an illusion of freedom in State laws is denying the problem, therefore making it worse.
What we should aim at, is not seeking to perfect the optimal timeless law on, say, guns. We should aim at promoting REAL freedom, through the mind, and THEN the rest would come naturally.
And you'd only need firearms if there are un-free people *elsewhere* intending to come and oppress you by force. Pointing a gun at Bin Laden if he resists arrest? I'm all for it. He promotes ignorance, illiteracy and the repression of all freedom other than his own demented anarchy.

You could say, that true freedom needs rules, but these rules should come from inside each of us. Ideally. That is responsible maturity. This is true freedom.
No system can be perfect (or perfectly free) if each and every person doesn not seek perfection within. The speck and the beam...

Also, I feel that in many ways the USA are NOT a free country. Just ask the Europeans how they feel about the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, and similar actual stuff. You're not really free to criticize religion in the USA, for instance.
And, the many failures of the social system just end up increasing poverty, ghettoes, ignorance, illiteracy... and ultimately killing freedom! The Black people were never let truly free from slavery in the USA. First, they were slaves. Later, they were set aside by racial laws. And today, they're just poor with the deck stacked against them. To the point that when a Barrack Obama comes along, they immediately feel that only a sellout could have made it out of the 'hood so well. It's not true, but it's very understandable.

The biggest crime against "African-Americans"? Telling them they're free, can manage on their own, and that if they fail they only have themselves to blame. The Government left the Blacks of New-Orleans to drown. "But they were free to swim", right Mister Bush?

What a shame for the human species, that societies of lowly ants abide by more egalitarian and sincere rules than us! "All for one, one for all, and all equals. Except the fertile queen, but she needs us and we need her."
An ant queen's life is all work anyway, laying one egg every 2 seconds or so. Her body never rests. She does her fair part. She's less a queen than a working mother.
"Thank y'all. Now watch that drive!" :-P

 
At 14 Sep 2007, 04:09:00, Blogger Final Identity said...

I'm very interested in new ideas. Libertarianism is an old old old one. Boring. Yawn.

 
At 14 Sep 2007, 04:21:00, Blogger eolake said...

But it hasn't been used.

 
At 14 Sep 2007, 18:22:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pascal, you don't expect anybody to read that do you? Life's too short.

"Yo, Navy Blue Anon, how about being a sport and giving us, say, a couple of initials?"

I'm just curious, but what is a name going to do for you? My name might as well be John Smith as far as you're concerned. Besides, you shouldn't let it stop you - not knowing my name or anything about me didn't stop TTL from trying to psychoanalyze me.

 
At 14 Sep 2007, 18:25:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I think we are interested in different kinds of people, but not in the kind of people who always remain anonymous and have nothing to say except blunt criticism."

That is obviously not true. I have read through some of the archives and have yet to see you fairly consider any ideas or opinions different from your own. I've only seen you agree with people who were basically paraphrasing what you already believe.

It's a big surprise, because you are not exactly a very well-rounded person - your interests are pretty limited.

 
At 14 Sep 2007, 18:27:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Damn. I meant "It's not a big surprise." I'm probably wasting my time here. You'll dismiss what I've just said out of hand, unfairly and incorrectly believing as you do that I have contributed only "blunt criticism." Face it, you're not interested in new things or new ideas. You've happy in your rut.

 
At 14 Sep 2007, 19:59:00, Blogger eolake said...

Yes, fair enough.

 
At 15 Sep 2007, 04:38:00, Blogger Pascal [P-04referent] said...

"But it hasn't been used."

Yep. Old, still in mint condition. Do I hear any offers?

Anonymous said...
"I'm probably wasting my time here."


For someone who's never noticed that several people use the "Anonymous" label, you're a very perceptive guy.
Surely there's got to be a place where you feel at home in this vast world. Bye-bye. It's been nice "not" knowing you, Mr "John Smith". Pity, it could have become a nice love story between us. Like many old couples, always bickering, happy to have each other for stimulation.

Gee, I hope at least RAF stays, or I'll soon get bored.

 
At 15 Sep 2007, 13:32:00, Anonymous dudley do-right said...

I never said I was going anywhere. I said I'm probably wasting my time here.

I have noticed that more than one person uses the Anonymous label. (Though TTL believes there's only two of us.) I'm certainly not responsible for every Anonymous post.

I do have to watch and make sure I proof read a bit from now on, though. I noticed in my last post I wrote: "You've happy in your rut."

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Website Counter