Steve G.

Angela, We’ll Keep The Lamp Lit

In Libertarian Politics 2008 on December 9, 2008 at 1:06 am

This video was dedicated back in May to Angela.  Her resignation today adds a new layer of meaning to it.

Happy birthday, Angela.  We’ll keep the lamp lit.  Come back as soon as you can.

  1. Angela did the right thing for her and the liberty movement by walking away.

    To Angela:

    Bon anniversaire, mon amie! Je t’aime!

  2. After the initial WTF, some thought, and a public mea culpa to Eric Garris, I have come to a conclusion that I should have realized a lot earlier, mainly because I said the exact same thing to Angela at Thanksgiving: She had already won.

    I’ll be blogging more on that thought later.

    For now, Happy Birthday, Angela, and enjoy your much-needed and well-deserved down-time.🙂

  3. 1. Hope you’re having a great time off.

    2. The lamp here is always still lit. You may be off the board but you’re in no way out of our hearts. (How many quarts of salsa do you want?)

    3. There are people who detest the Starr Chamber even more than you do. Way more. There is scheming. Lots of it. This is gonna get interesting. Yes, I’m being extremely cryptic on purpose.

  4. Sounds like it’s time for the indians to start taking back the tribe from the chiefs, if you know what I’m saying and I know that you do.

  5. If this is a political party, then surely the political skills exist for a minority (let alone a majority) to clean house at the 2010 convention by putting sympathetic delegates in place, challenging attempts to pack other delegations, etc. If you want the party to reflect your views, then go to work to have a majority of delegates in St. Louis. While you are at it, have a mole or two planted on the other side to keep you informed. Nor would it hurt to have a third candidate for Chair as a stalking horse who is ready to throw his or her support to your candidate after the first ballot.

  6. Roscoe, all of what you just said is being worked on. The Transparency Caucus is a part of it, and other things are being worked on that will not be publicly discussed. We also have a couple of moles firmly established.

  7. And if I said who the ladies and gentlemen who are the moles are, then they wouldn’t be moles, now would they?🙂

  8. The Transparency Caucus is a part of it, and other things are being worked on that will not be publicly discussed. We also have a couple of moles firmly established.

    Can a transparency caucus have moles?

  9. @susanhogarth

    Don’t be naive. This is politics.

  10. I wish Angela all the best, and hope she’ll visit us here at LFV
    and IPR when she has some time.

  11. brad, susan was making a funny yet, dry joke.

  12. Saying you have moles in place might be as close as you can come to certifying that you don’t have moles in place. Is there a Nash equilibrium for the public-statement strategy of someone allegedly trying to plant moles in an group interested in detecting any such moles?

    “It’s such a fine line between stupid, and clever.” David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap 🙂

  13. ROFL @ Susan and Brian

  14. Brian, the Nash equilibrium rocks, but I sometimes feel it’s yet to be acknowledged by many in our merry band.

    Pity.

  15. Brian, if I told you I had moles in place, and I didn’t, how would you know one way or the other? It’s not like I’ve named names, after all.

    For all you know, my saying there are moles in place may be entirely true, and you serve a misdirectional purpose by thinking they are false.

    Or, you could be accurate as well, and you would then serve a misdirectional purpose by thinking they are false and confusing the issue, but the doubt would still remain.

    Only I know, and I’m not saying.

    Either way, you serve my purposes by trying to call bull when you just don’t know one way or another.

    And neither do they.

  16. All of which is the long way of saying that there’s no Nash equilibrium here.

  17. No, it’s a long way of saying you have no clue and I’m playing you like a used violin.

  18. Yes, my initial comment obviously did not anticipate your masterful explanation. How embarrassing for me.

  19. If I’m going to talk game theory with a Holtz, I prefer Lou over Brian, thank you very much.

  20. Congratulations, that substance-free zinger was almost across the line to being clever — right up until it highlighted the difference between the planes we’re operating on.🙂

  21. The tune from the VW ad used for the Holtz video was “Pink Moon” by Nick Drake, who died from an overdose of amitriptyline (Elavil), an antidepressant, when he was 26 years old.

    The images showed a couple of young people in a VW who decide not even to say “hi” to the folks at a party to which they had apparently been invited, instead just driving away…

    I’d guess Brian wrote the text that was added to the car ad.

  22. Sure, Brian, we operate on different planes: mine is stratospheric and cruising, and yours crashed and burned a long time ago.

    That’s why you’re a court jester in these pages.

  23. I guess when a radical like Mr. Seebeck engages in empty name-calling like “court jester”, that’s not evidence of any radical/anarchist temperament, but rather mere coincidence.

    At least we have radicals like Dan Grow on civility patrol, calling out fictional characters for not saying “hi” to the drunks staggering around outside a party the characters decide to skip. All fictional characters in LP-oriented media should consider themselves duly warned. 🙂

  24. I guess when a radical like Mr. Seebeck engages in empty name-calling like “court jester”, that’s not evidence of any radical/anarchist temperament, but rather mere coincidence.

    Well, I guess it’s about as much evidence as the fact that I saw a black person eating fried chicken last week is evidence that black people like fried chicken.

    If you object to Seebeck’s namecalling and want to make an example of it as incivility, by all means do so. But by making the statement above, you make the same mistake that Hospers – and those who proffered his essay in the face of an unpleasant situation – did. You elevate a silly personal back-and-forth (in which you are by no means blameless, in my opinion) into an opportunity to link personal (mis)behavior to political philosophy (anarchy) or strategy (radicalism).

    I, like you, am not shy about pointing out the incivility of others – although I do wonder sometimes how effective a strategy for promoting civility that is – but what I hope I do not often (or at all) engage in is making some sort of unwarranted connection between the poor behavior and the logic of the rude person’s positions.

  25. I simply drew attention to a point in the data. If you see a line connecting it to nearby points, I didn’t put it — or them — there.

  26. Meanwhile, on Seebeck’s blog recently, more data points:

    “For Angela’s detractors, critics, and enemies, I will defer to a quote by Thomas Knapp: ‘Go fuck yourselves.'” cf. Hospers: “the unconscious formula that the typical anarchist projects is: ‘Go screw yourself!'” (I won’t debate Hospers over how conscious Mike is when he blogs.)

    Seebeck also refers to the “pure incompetence or sheer evil” of the non-radical faction on LNC. Here’s Hospers: “There is a childish insistence on the obviousness of all points of anarchist doctrine, and of the evil and malevolence of anyone who makes an honest point against it.” (I still agree with anarchist Chuck Moulton that the Keaton Affair was not about ideology, but Keaton partisans insist otherwise, and so that’s what makes this “sheer evil” comment relevant.)

    The demonization of Libertarians we disagree with has got to stop. Susan, the easiest way to muffle my criticism of incivility by LP radicals is to criticize it before I do. Or, you can keep trying to scrape up examples of incivility in the Obama criticisms in writings recommended by minarchists who left the LP years and years ago…

  27. Brian-

    I guess your “big tent” notion of libertarianism isn’t big enough for the “staggering drunk” caucus (that would be a fun one to start!), but big enough for the “friends who snub their own friends” caucus.

    Dan.

  28. Yes, that’s a much more reasonable interpretation of the video than that there is something about the two nanny-state parties that deserves rejecting.

  29. Holtz: The demonization of Libertarians we disagree with has got to stop.

    Me: Wholeheartedly concur. But I sometimes sense that some Ls who engage in demonization don’t believe that non-anarchist Ls are in fact Ls. We are lesser creatures, woefully off the Rothbardian reservation. Perhaps we’re just “low-tax liberals”😉 In this particular jihad, the jihadists employ dialectic techniques to dismiss any questions that don’t fit into (or threaten the viability of) the Rothbardian construct.

    Jeez, I hope I’m misperceiving the situation.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if we could engage in an actual, respectful conversation?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

%d bloggers like this: