The Party of Sedition

[Res Ipsa]

Hey, Shades has his own politics and he generally holds back to let the conversation go its own way. I disagree with things Shades sometimes and I can get mad at things Shades says sometimes, but I can do that with people I respect. Shades has my respect, even when I really really really disagree with something he posts.

ETA: I think Shades was contrasting a pure democracy with a form of government that protects the rights of the minority. If that’s what he was doing, I agree with his description. Without something that guarantees rights to minorities, Democracy easily becomes tyranny.

[Some Schmo]

I'm merely pointing out the inconsistency. I've always liked Shades, but I'm noticing a disturbing trend with him lately. Maybe he's just caught up with what's happening today. He should maybe step back and realize that for a libertarian, this crap is the opposite of what you'd want.

[Dr. Shades]

I had no idea you were an authoritarian. That's pretty strange for someone who purports to value free speech. . . It occurs to me that Shades' claim of a sort of libertarianism must be an illusion he keeps, because the way he's talking today, he'd be a lot more comfortable living in Russia.

Hold the phone. . . do you believe that the only alternative to pure democracy is authoritarianism?

I think Shades was contrasting a pure democracy with a form of government that protects the rights of the minority.

Yes, that was EXACTLY what I was doing. That's why, although our republic incorporates many democratic elements, it was nevertheless set up to reflect "rule of law," not "the majority rules."

[Some Schmo]

Hold the phone. . . do you believe that the only alternative to pure democracy is authoritarianism?

No, those are a couple ends of a spectrum. The things you've been saying slide toward the authoritarian end.

[Dr. Shades]

You shouldn't interpret the things I've said that way. My only message is that if the breakdown of law and order is dismiss-able in one instance, then it darn well better be dismiss-able in all other instances, too. . . regardless of politics.

(NOTE: My words are NOT to be interpreted as dismissing the jackasses in Washington, D.C. today. The correct interpretation is that I dismiss NO jackasses, regardless of the cause they purport to espouse.)

[Some Schmo]

You shouldn't interpret the things I've said that way. My only message is that if the breakdown of law and order is dismiss-able in one instance, then it darn well better be dismiss-able in all other instances, too. . . regardless of politics.

Okay, sure, I agree with that. I suppose it goes to a question Morley asked: who here patted rioters on the head?

[Res Ipsa]

You shouldn't interpret the things I've said that way. My only message is that if the breakdown of law and order is dismiss-able in one instance, then it darn well better be dismiss-able in all other instances, too. . . regardless of politics.

(NOTE: My words are NOT to be interpreted as dismissing the jackasses in Washington, D.C. today. The correct interpretation is that I dismiss NO jackasses, regardless of the cause they purport to espouse.)

I agree. I, for one, am thrilled that they caught this guy. https://mltnews.com/edmonds-man-pleads- ... trol-cars/

[Some Schmo]

(NOTE: My words are NOT to be interpreted as dismissing the jackasses in Washington, D.C. today. The correct interpretation is that I dismiss NO jackasses, regardless of the cause they purport to espouse.)

I missed this, and I appreciate the explicit clarification, Shades.

I still think you are ignoring the condemnation of violence from the left toward people opportunistically using BLM protests to riot.

[Gunnar]

Hey, Shades has his own politics and he generally holds back to let the conversation go its own way. I disagree with things Shades sometimes and I can get mad at things Shades says sometimes, but I can do that with people I respect. Shades has my respect, even when I really really really disagree with something he posts.

ETA: I think Shades was contrasting a pure democracy with a form of government that protects the rights of the minority. If that’s what he was doing, I agree with his description. Without something that guarantees rights to minorities, Democracy easily becomes tyranny.

I agree that if that was all he meant, I must withdraw (or, at least, soften) my condemnation of him.

[Dr. Shades]

ETA: I think Shades was contrasting a pure democracy with a form of government that protects the rights of the minority. If that’s what he was doing, I agree with his description. Without something that guarantees rights to minorities, Democracy easily becomes tyranny.

I agree that if that was all he meant, I must withdraw (or, at least, soften) my condemnation of him.

Gunnar, that's PRECISELY what I meant. Hence the reason for my comment, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." Maybe I should've put the word "pure" in front of the word "democracy."

The sheep in this scenario = the minorities in a purely democratic society.