Friday, February 29, 2008

A case in point of why I detest doctrinaire Libertarianism

Via Crooks and Liars

Hoenig: Snacky dog is property. If I want to take Snacky’s head and smash it against a brick wall (I’d never do that to you) it’s my right to do it!
I'll make Hoenig a deal. He has the "right" to smash his pet's head into a brick wall if I can have the "right" to smash my fist into his face afterwards.

Hoenig is the ideological equivalent of a communist, as far as I'm concerned.

Perhaps he might benefit from brushing up on his great literature.

Queen: I will try the forces Of these thy compounds on such creatures as We count not worth the hanging, but none human, To try the vigour of them and apply Allayments to their act, and by them gather Their several virtues and effects.

Cornelius: Your highness Shall from this practice but make hard your heart
--Shakespeare, Cymbeline Act 1 Scene V

Update: Regarding the communist ideologue comparison:

In Stalin's USSR, Darwinian evolution was rejected because it conflicted with Marxist ideology. Genetics was considered "fascist" propaganda.

Here's Hoenig on global warming explaining why it's "bogus."

There’s no scientific proof that global warming even exists. To be honest, it’s a bogus consensus dreamed up by Greens because they hate industry. They hate advancement. They hate technology…Greens will lead us back to the stone ages.
Notice the similarity?


Sheldon said...

"In Stalin's USSR, Darwinian evolution was rejected because it conflicted with Marxist ideology. Genetics was considered "fascist" propaganda."

Darwinian evolution and then modern genetics was rejected because it conflicted with Stalinist ideology, or Stalins endorsment of Lysenkosism. Read the link provided yourself. Prior to Stalin, the Soviet Union made many advances in evolutionary biology.

Marx himself saw support for his theories in Darwin, whether he was right or wrong about that is another debate. However, both Marx and Engels thought highly of Darwin's work.

My larger point is what exactly is "Marxist ideology" or a "communist". If you take your definitions from the Communist Manifesto, then Stalin could hardly be called a "communist". Of course, I do recognize that these terms take on new meanings, and dogmatic "communist" ideologues exist.

And is the thought of Marx to be be discarded or blamed for every error or atrocity committed under his name?

Hume's Ghost said...

I'm using "Marxist ideology" the same way I'd use "Christian ideology" That is, not what some hypothetical principles of Marxism are but what Marxists do.

I recognize the distinction you're making, and if I had intended to lay this on Marx I would have written "it conflicted with Karl Marx's ideology" or some such variation. Plus, I did add the qualifer "in Stalin's USSR"