While doing some research for an article that I was planning on writing about gun control – both domestic AND foreign – I came across an article that I feel sums up the position quite nicely.
Here’s Scott Lazarowitz at LewRockwell.com in his recent article, The Conservative Nut That’s Hard To Crack:
A few months ago, National Review’s Andy McCarthy questioned the US’s presence in Afghanistan, and NR’s Mark Levin responded with Not So Fast. Perhaps that should be “Nutso Fast,” because clinging to Big Government whether it’s in the name of preventing the spread of Islamism or the spread of communism, or for “spreading democracy” through military force, is irrational and counter-productive. For many years, such debt-increasing policies of military socialism have required huge sacrifices, and, while the costs of “protection services” have risen, the quality has declined to such a degree that such policies are making us more vulnerable.
Most conservatives agree that, domestically, the biggest enemy of freedom and prosperity is government. If only they could see that government is also the enemy of our security and safety, and that our government is destroying our country more than terrorism ever could.
The principle is simple – Conservatives so often (and rightly so) rail against government programs in health care, regulation, and the like – but those same principles go out the window when it comes to trying to do much of the same in some foreign country. Cognitive dissonance reigns supreme, I guess.
Michael, you say I'm missing the point, but the problem is that you have no point. Blathering on about "cognitive dissonance" sounds very impressive, but you provided nothing to support that claim. Critically your article totally failed to back up the title you gave it.
Another poster, DDS, similarly noted that what you wrote appeared to have no relation to the title of the article and all you could do is brush him/her off with a throwaway line about government employees.
Might I suggest that if you write an article titled "Gun Control Doesn't Work" then you actually include something substantive to support that case. Maybe you don't have anything substantive, which would explain why you provided nothing.
Funny. This is a blog…dumbass…nothing substantive just short bits of lite commentary. So can I take it that your position is that gun DOES work?
No need to start whining Michael, you seem quite annoyed that people are asking why your article failed totally to support the title of the article, or blog if you wish. Seems odd that you ignored the title of the article and spent the precious few words apparently available to you rambling on about cognitive dissonance and how conservatives allegedly go out the window in certain circumstances.
And yes, I believe gun control can work. The limited space available in a response to a blog ("just short bits of lite commentary") precludes a full blown explanation here.
Your freshman English Composition professor would have asked what your main topic was and why you didn't stick to it.
Probably. But my freshman English composition professor was also a government employee and would think that government programs to control people – whether at home or abroad – work.
supporters of government thugs, and employees of the thug government often have the same viewpoint. So it does not surprise me at all.
The article is titled ‘Gun Control Doesn’t Work’ but the extract from an article that allegedly “sums up the position quite nicely” contains NOTHING about gun control.
This entire effort by Boldin is a waste of time and cyberspace because it contributes nothing to the supposed topic.
hmm. interesting. guess you missed the point. Trying to control the weapons of a nation is analogous to controlling the weapons of people. It's just part of the cognitive dissonance that I'm talking about – so many people don't even see how it relates.
Let me suggest that, in modern times, our wars are not fought to prevent "communism" and "terrorism." They are fought to keep regular the flow of resources – minerals, cheap labor, etc. – from other countries. Our definition of foreign "democracy" and "friendly" government is "those who will trade with us on favorable terms."
Of course, what has happened as a result is that productivity has been outsourced abroad, damaging the middle class. So, how is this exactly good for America?