ARI dip-shittery strikes again:

So, some while back I stumbled across a (typically crappy) video on the ARI youtube channel.  It consisted of “Yawwon Bwook” (The Israeli answer to “Elmer Fudd”) yip-yapping his usual nonsense, with his trademark speech-impediment.

Anyway, the video was titled something along the line of “Objectivism is radical, and applying it can be hard.”

The basic “thrust” of the video was actually fairly unusual for something originating from ARI:  instead of slobbering all over Ayn Rand’s desiccated corpse, and slavishly regurgitating Randroid talking-points, Yawwon  was saying that there is actually room for a fair amount of debate (even disagreement) among Objectivists.

On one hand, it was refreshing to see an ARI functionary come out against the last 30+ years of sucking Peikoff’s dick simply because he happens to be Rand’s “legal and intellectual heir-head”.

On the other hand, it was damnably dissapointing for Yawwon to fail to roundly denounce so-called “Gun control”.

Quite frankly, this is either/or:  EITHER you are in favor of the State making NO LAW abridging production and trade (vis. a vis. Atlas Shrugged) — or you’re not.

IF you would allow “some” restrictions on production and trade — then acknowledge that fact.

Moreover, claiming that your particular pet infringements are different from other kinds of “Statism”, because they’re sensible is nothing more than a cop-out:  ALL would-be tyrants and totalitarians say exactly the same thing.

Guns are “deadly weapons”, so the government needs to “protect” its citizens from their misuse?  This same “argument” can — and has — been used to excuse censorship in the past (because ideas can lead to actions).

My point is not to open a “dialog” on which sort of guns/weapons must be banned, etc.  My point is simply to illustrate the fact that “A is a”, and Yawwon Bwook should simply acknowledge the fact that he/his gun-control-coddling cronies do in fact support at least the possibility that there might be SOME circumstances (no matter how narrowly circumscribed) where Government “should” infringe production and trade.

So, yeah:  Yawwon Bwook is NO advocate of “laissez-faire”.  Nor are the myriad of evasive hypocrites who claim to have discovered a “libertarian” case for the “war on drugs”, or banning prostitution, or banning abortion, or any number of other instances where they believe that there “oughta be a law.”

Hell: at least the mainstream “Right” and “Left” are somewhat more honest than your typical Objectivist/Libertarian, in that they pay lip-service to “free enterprise” — as an “ideal” which cannot exist in the “messy” real world.

Bottom line:  even in an Objectivist/Libertarian takeover, there would still be any number of infringements of “production and trade”, and a myriad of excuses and rationalizations used to “justify” such things.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s