Lo-Fi Liberty
-
2011-09-11
-
2011-08-28
-
2011-08-16
![Let this fellow serve as a cautionary tale to the rest of us, who, in trying to distinguish ourselves philosophically from the status quo, must also commit ourselves to a policy of truth. Ignorance of a law has never been enough of an excuse to justify breaking said law. Nor is it any better if such ignorance is willful.
This broken logic has never worked in our legal system, so why should we make exceptions anywhere else? Just because you may not agree (or understand) someone else’s positions does not mean you are afforded a special right to blatantly misrepresent their positions or their evidence. In that case, the commenter of this Hill Post thought it permissible to play with the facts.
I myself do not pretend to understand his reasoning. He may simply be ignorant or he may be doing this intentionally. He could very well be both. But for anyone who remembers the Rally for the Republic, it could scarcely be claimed that Dr. Paul “[kept] his mouth shut and his head down”.
What can we take away from this? It is, I think, rather obvious: no matter how discouraged you may become, no matter how disheartened you may already feel, no matter how strongly you think the first amendment gives you the luxury… you have no moral right to slander others. Doing so not only relegates our cause, but also unnecessarily limits a broad debate full of vibrant opinions to the safety of prescribed views and cheap talking points.
If the facts are on your side, you needn’t worry. To paraphrase Dr. Paul himself, vindication will not come because we can give a great speech, but because we’re broke. Reality has no bias.](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lq1lq5VYyF1qm18ijo1_500.png)
Let this fellow serve as a cautionary tale to the rest of us, who, in trying to distinguish ourselves philosophically from the status quo, must also commit ourselves to a policy of truth. Ignorance of a law has never been enough of an excuse to justify breaking said law. Nor is it any better if such ignorance is willful.
This broken logic has never worked in our legal system, so why should we make exceptions anywhere else? Just because you may not agree (or understand) someone else’s positions does not mean you are afforded a special right to blatantly misrepresent their positions or their evidence. In that case, the commenter of this Hill Post thought it permissible to play with the facts.
I myself do not pretend to understand his reasoning. He may simply be ignorant or he may be doing this intentionally. He could very well be both. But for anyone who remembers the Rally for the Republic, it could scarcely be claimed that Dr. Paul “[kept] his mouth shut and his head down”.
What can we take away from this? It is, I think, rather obvious: no matter how discouraged you may become, no matter how disheartened you may already feel, no matter how strongly you think the first amendment gives you the luxury… you have no moral right to slander others. Doing so not only relegates our cause, but also unnecessarily limits a broad debate full of vibrant opinions to the safety of prescribed views and cheap talking points.
If the facts are on your side, you needn’t worry. To paraphrase Dr. Paul himself, vindication will not come because we can give a great speech, but because we’re broke. Reality has no bias.
-
2011-08-11
Reminder: The Iowa Straw Poll Debate can be seen in roughly 20 minutes on Fox News. Or, if you’re inclined to watch from your computer, check out the live stream right here.
Edit: It’s live now, folks!
-
→
"I love being a philosopher, even though it may sound pretentious."
I am a philosopher. (And yes, even I cringe because of the pretension this statement seems to contain.) It would be better if I were also a philosophy professor, because then I could say I teach. But I don’t teach philosophy. Teaching is only part of what a philosopher does. Research, which consists mainly of reading books and writing books, is also a small part of what I do. The bulk of what a philosopher does is think. I think about politics, art, society, culture, science, music, language, technology, teaching, ethics, literature, history, religion, and philosophy. And yes, I think about the meaning of life. But because I am a philosopher, I can’t unquestioningly rely on the criteria from other fields as justification for either those fields themselves or for the value I find in them. Instead, I have to think about history, for example, without relying on historical methodology. I have to question the value of art without merely resorting to historical or aesthetic or theoretical justifications for that value. I love being a philosopher, even though it may sound pretentious. I wish there were more of us enamored with thinking.
-
2011-08-10
Whole Foods' Ramadan Marketing Headaches | Fast Company
A pioneering Ramadan marketing campaign at Whole Foods has turned into a headache thanks to a handful of vocal anti-Muslim bloggers. The Houston Press leaked an internal company email claiming “it would be best” if Whole Foods did not observe Ramadan in-store, leading to widespread blowback from angry customers who supported the promotion.
Several weeks ago, Whole Foods became the first major American supermarket chain to launch a Ramadan campaign, with a pilot, online-only marketing project conducted in collaboration with frozen food brand Saffron Road. The campaign is still taking place and has not been canceled, according to Liz Burkhart of Whole Foods. Burkhart added that it was “business as usual” for the promotion and that the company is excited about the promotion. Lisa Mabe, a spokesperson for Saffron Road, also confirms the campaign is still on.
If anyone understands the risks of running a highly progressive marketing campaign such as this, it’s without a doubt John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods. After all, it isn’t exactly like the fallout is new to him.
As recently as 2009, he came under fire from his predominantly liberal customers for openly criticizing Obamacare. Now, Mackey’s chain is once again being targeted for this unprecedented Ramadan promotion, although I’d very much doubt the offended group this time around is of the same political persuasion. Indeed, they probably don’t even shop at his stores to begin with.
However, should it turn out that it is the same people, then I guess we know who really is the voice of tolerance and acceptance is here, don’t we? That Whole Foods is the first major retailer in the United States to cater specifically to a Muslim holiday is an explicit vindication of libertarian principles, particularly those involving market discrimination, which father-son politicians Ron and Rand Paul have recently been attacked for. Indeed, it’s not at all surprising that anti-Muslim bloggers have brandished their keyboards and launched a volley of criticism seeped in bigotry. Rather, the real story is the reaction from customers who actually endorsed the campaign, arguably a much larger slice of Whole Foods’ target audience. The best way to deliver democracy is through the free market.
-
2011-08-09
Truth be told, you can pick virtually any song by The Clash and it will probably end up having the same resonance with today’s events. But this is perhaps the most poignant one.
A deeper analysis is forthcoming.
-
2011-08-08
Source: neglectedtuesday
-
2011-08-06
» Regulate marijuana like wine?
Supporters are gathering signatures for an initiative that would decriminalize marijuana in California for those older than 21. The measure, dubbed the Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act, would tax and regulate the cultivation, production and sale of cannabis using grape and wine industry standards[…]
“We’re taking something that’s unregulated and we’re replacing it with a known successful program implemented by the California alcohol beverage control board,” said co-author Steve Kubby, who also helped draft and promote Proposition 215, California’s first medical cannabis law, to California Watch. “We know it works great with wine. It’s already in place.”
-
2011-08-05
I’m feeling subversive today.
