…about Dave Weigel.
First, how in the world did someone so enthusiastic about (e.g.) the Democrats’ health care legislation ever work for Reason magazine? Was he always a statist, and just passing, or did his views change (or as the lamestream media would put it, he “grew”)? Matt? Nick?
Second, when he calls “right wingers” ratcopulators, and their political activities ratcopulating, is he implying that Democrats are rats? (“Rats” is a popular shorthand for them at Free Republic, FWIW).
[Update a while later, after an Instalanche]
Matt doesn’t exactly answer my question, but he does have a link roundup. A lot of the commenters are scratching their heads, as I am.
Esoteric|6.25.10 @ 4:05PM|#
He was rooting for health-care reform to pass. That’s sort of a QED moment right there.
Mike G|6.25.10 @ 4:18PM|#
But it was libertarian-leaning total state control of your body, health and nutrition
As a commenter here said, a lot of Reason readers have always been kind of suspicious.
rat[expletivedeleted]ing is old Nixon-era slang for the aggressive, clever, borderline-legal, utterly immoral practice of dirty trickery.
At first I was curious as to what was driving Weigel’s nostalgia trip, but some googling convinced me that that old Donald Segretti turn of phrase is alive and well in some sections of the left. In fact, Weigel’s extensive use of it is a pretty good marker of the circles he’s fellow-traveling in.
Weigel is one of those lefties who helps sabotage the libertarian community with all sorts of anarcho-communist horse puckey. He’s a Red and Black, not a Black and Gold anarchist.
Weigel never went over too well with Reason readers. He fell in the rhetorical “uncanny valley” of mis-simulated libertarianism constantly, and his instincts clearly pointed him elsewhere.
If anyone didn’t know what he was, it’s not because it was a secret.
so he’s a progg who hides it with a “libertarian” front
Did anybody tell him that the McChrystal job was already filled?
This whole thing reminds me of high school gossip. I didn’t know who he is and, after reading a couple of links from Memeorandum out of the veritable cloud there, I still don’t know why I should.
As a subscriber to Reason (mixed feelings there…), I suspect that Weigel was able to fit in well enough. The essential criteria for their staff seems to be favoring the legalization of grass. As long as you are OK with that, everything else is smooth sailing…
This whole thing reminds me of high school gossip.
Iowahawk nailed it a year ago.
Mike: Any sort of Anarchist is bad. Doesn’t really matter what kind.
“how in the world did someone so enthusiastic about (e.g.) the Democrats’ health care legislation ever work for Reason magazine?”
He met Reason’s highest standard: his views would be persuasive to many Californians.
I, too, am curious about the underlying meaning of ‘rateffing’. By itself, it would obviously mean ‘to eff a rat’, but it’s being used with a direct object, so that’s not it. ‘to eff in the manner of a rat’ and ‘to eff using a rat as an anatomical substitute’ would be the main competing meanings…I eagerly await the Language Log column on the topic.
I started subscribing to Reason back in the 80s when their emphasis was on economics and taxation and regulation and investigative reporting. I gave up on “Reason” about 8 years ago when it became obvious that all they cared about was “Sex, Drugs, and Rock n Roll”. As long as those are available in unlimited supply, they no longer care what the so-called “Progressives” intend to do the rest of the country. (And their propensity to no longer give a damn about tyrants and third-world thugs didn’t help, either).
Ditto the above. A large chunk of Reason readers just want pot legalized and the RIAA put out of business. They’re “libertarians” only in the very limited sense that teenagers think parents and teachers have too much authority. Or, to put it another way, they mistakenly equate “liberty” with “free stuff” and “I don’t have to follow instructions” rather than “I am free to work for any outcome I desire.”
where is the “libertarian” outrage to the co2 rules, lead paint rules or milk spillage rules done by the epa??? the libs are progggs are libs. phonies and statists and they suck.
reason magazine is a front group for the proggs. ask weigalwhathisname or the other pot heads. march thru the institutions. yo dave how about liberty and freedom?
A large chunk of Reason readers just want pot legalized and the RIAA put out of business.
I’m a bit more forgiving. After all, these two issues are pretty big as far as libertarian issues go. For example, I’d consider either one as big as reforming eminent domain or reversing the Obama health care changes.
Also, they are good introductory issues for the libertarian viewpoint. After all a government that do many of the things that libertarians oppose can harm you for life for marijuana use or peer-to-peer file sharing (through ridiculous civil penalties).
Any comments on Glenn Reynolds identifying the “other Rand” as you and not Rand Paul? 🙂
Oh come on, Karl. Being able to smoke dope openly or get MP3s for free is only mission-critical if you’re about 14. For the rest of us…man, who really cares? If Team Obama bent their entire efforts at setting up 50-year sentences for selling pot or meth, and required ISPs to purge BitTorrents or any other file-sharing protocol — and agree in exchange to repeal the income tax, abolish 4 out of 5 Federal agencies, shrink government spending by 30%, privatize Social Security and Medicare, get out of the healthcare business entirely, restrict the FDA approval process to Phase I and II (safety) trials only, and (what the heck) remove sovereign immunity from police and judicial officers when they misuse their position — I’d not only vote gladly for them, I’d send them all my election money.
Perspective, man!
“If Team Obama bent their entire efforts at setting up 50-year sentences for selling pot or meth…”
Your willingness to sanction massive injustice against people whose habits you disapprove of in exchange for the state leaving you alone is truly disgusting. The spectacle of a moral nihilist like yourself condemning REASON for anything is both hilarious and depressing, all at the same time. The scabbiest, twitchiest tweaker imaginable couldn’t begin to sink to your level.
Often Libertarians just want the government to stop messing around with the currently illegal stuff they themselves want to do.
Usually, when you have a “libertarian” who supports Obamacare, its either drugs or porn. But it could be they just want to build an extension on the house, and the local planning board won’t let them.
One very major set of disagreements I have with the libertarian right is they seem to think government is the biggest — and for some people only — threat to liberty in the United States.
What about large corporations? Anybody who thinks they are run anything like a libertarian democracy has their heads well into the sand. The right libertarian line that if you don’t like it, move, is not very practical for large numbers of people. Ever hear the phrase “company town?” It also does not help if all the major corporations with whom you must deal are essentially variants on the same theme.
Then there are other institutions and organizations as well. Some of us think there is too little variety in academia, for example.
I could go on, but I think I have communicated my point.
Chuck, there’s about forty AU distance between the threat to individual liberty and any big corporation and the government. First, there’s just sheer size: the Federal government spends more than the combined gross sales of the largest fifty US corporations. Roughly speaking, the Feds are 50 times bigger than your average “big” company.
Second, a government hast the power of the gun and a corporation does not. The government can simply force you to buy its “products” at any price it chooses. No corporation, no matter how large, can do the same. You can always take yourself out of the power of any corporation simply by not giving them your money, and signing no contracts with them. Easy as that. Try not paying your taxes, or refusing to get a driver’s license or business license.
And, finally, there’s the fact that you can always seek redress of harm a corporation does you in a Court overseen by a judge who has no connection to the firm, and have the case judged by your peers. To whom will you appeal if government screws you over?
Chuck: how well I recall the anti-trust action against IBM and its “stranglehold on the information society”. You could go look it up. Thomas Delamarter wrote a whole dumb-ass book about it… at just about the time when IBM was ignoring the PC and two kids in a garage in Cupertino were laying dynamite at the foundations of the so-called “stranglehold”.
Let me be the first here to let you know that your fear is nonsensical horseshit. Corporations who don’t have government protection get their asses kicked in the market when they step out of line.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Carl, Billy,
Neither of you are listening. Of course, listening is something that fanatics of left, right and middle are extraordinarily bad at. So what do they do? They attack, attack and attack anyone who challenges their orthodoxies.
Yes, the Federal government is bigger than any corporation. Yes, they can also compel. That power, however, is, in some ways, limited in ways that corporations are not. Try telling your abusive, dishonest boss off in a dysfunctional corporation such as AIG — even some that are not as bad.
Billy, my first paying job was with IBM. It was an organization headed for a fall. It was also an extremely authoritarian organization that dominated its employees and customers for years — some say decades — before it finally got its just desserts.
Yes, the Federal government is bigger than any corporation. Yes, they can also compel. That power, however, is, in some ways, limited in ways that corporations are not. Try telling your abusive, dishonest boss off in a dysfunctional corporation such as AIG — even some that are not as bad.
Try “telling off” a law enforcement officer. The worst that the “abusive, dishonest boss” can do to you is fire you (assuming you didn’t quit first). The second worst thing that they can do to you is escort you off the premises. Compare that to being framed and serving a few years in prison for crossing the paths of a similarly dishonest and abusive law enforcement officer. Saying that the power of a government official is “limited” doesn ‘t make sense. A corporate official is even more limited in what they can do to you than a government official is.
You guys 🙂
do you read some of this stuff before posting?
do you read some of this stuff before posting?
A post that would have been equally out of place in any thread here. Aren’t you supposed to link to a vitamin supplements scam when you post low content like that?
Chuck,
Corporations only exist as legal entities BECAUSE of government.
Chuck, here is a rather important limit on corporate power that does not exist for governments: Private companies can’t use force against you without government help. You may personally find it difficult to distinguish ‘failure to help’ from ‘causing harm’ but there is an essential difference there. Opting not to do business with you is not force. But that’s all companies can do. Many, many, people conflate the two so that they can justify actual force in situations where it is not warranted.
Neither of you are listening. Of course, listening is something that fanatics of left, right and middle are extraordinarily bad at.
Now look who’s talking. Carl and Billy nailed your ass.
As for myself, I simply regard as not credible *anyone* who insists in the face of this that it’s large private corporations that are the threat to us all.
When IBM gets anywhere close to as many murder victims as Maoist China, then you can talk, Chuck.
Idiot.
Matt doesn’t exactly answer my question, but he does have a link roundup. A lot of the commenters are scratching their heads, as I am.
That’s what happens when you can’t think in terms of principles; you go bald. I, on the other hand, have nary an itch; there’s nothing in the Wiegel story to date that surprises me.
Weigel is your standard issue pragmatic opportunist. I expect that he’s trying to take the Arianna Huffington path to fame and fortune (maybe even literally). I’d not be surprised to hear that he himself was the Journolist leaker, as such are the pretzellian twists of the unprincipled mind.
I am with the Scott, Carl, and Raoul wing of what went wrong at Reason. I wrote this several days ago at another site:
“I used to think of myself as a libertarian but when it seems like one in three posts at the Reason site always seem to deal with drug use in one fashion or another they became too much a one issue advocacy group and I drifted away. They should cut it back to one in 20 and concentrate on more anti big-government pro individual rights posts. Just not so much on the right to do drugs, you’ve covered that one to death.”
Used to is more like 20 years ago but they have gotten more and more irrelevant as time passed them by. As to Wiegel and Reason — He is not fondly remembered as comments over there show.