Are You An Extremist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

But to make the death penalty stuff more clear: It does not allow for moderation. You cannot half kill someone or kill him only a little bit. It's either-or. And that makes it extreme.

---

So says a 21st century abolitionist.

For nearly all of human history the notion of murder being a capital crime has never been extreme. Instead the questions would not be over the sentence but would be over how you treat a suspect prior to their execution. Habeas corpus, the right to a fair trial - all of these have evolved long before the notion that murders shouldn't die.

If you were to go back a few hundred years and say to people that a convicted murderer should be kept alive for upto 20 years in jail, given multiple chances to appeal etc before carrying out the sentence they'd probably think you were extreme - but not in the direction you're thinking. America's implementation of the death penalty viewed through the prism of history is far from authoritarian. So yes extremism changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

I'll believe you when you start replying to Khen as if he was just any other American with German identity or cultural roots. :bored:

---

Jebus, he was responding to Khen's question on how you can be more extreme than killing someone.

YOU took that to mean he was going after Khen's ancestry. No one else did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I'd be remiss if I posted in this thread without quoting Goldwater.

---

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

But was Goldwater referring to the actors as individuals, or as nations?

Zealots who define "liberty and freedom" in religious terms don't condemn suicide bombers, let alone anyone who uses vigilantism to pursue their own views of "justice". Indeed, they're often characterized as heros and celebrated as martyrs.

Whether they're pro-life extremists bombing abortion clinics, or cultural extremists bombing high rises or airplanes...they're still extremists who believe they're being virtuous and righteous.

The US has been criticized for its military hawkishness, and "defense of liberty" for similar reasons. :bulb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

But was Goldwater referring to the actors as individuals, or as nations?

---

Maybe you could flesh this out. Right now I don't think what you are asking is relevant or particularly insightful.

Quote:

---

Zealots who define "liberty and freedom" in religious terms don't condemn suicide bombers, let alone anyone who uses vigilantism to pursue their own views of "justice". Indeed, they're often characterized as heros and celebrated as martyrs.

---

Er... that's a gross overstatement and not even close to being even generally true. There are many people who define liberty and freedom in religious terms that do condemn suicide bombers, vigilantism, and those who would espouse violence. Those who believe their freedoms are derived not from government but God are not particularly rare, nor do they fit neatly into the mold you seem to want to put them in.

Quote:

---

Whether they're pro-life extremists bombing abortion clinics, or cultural extremists bombing high rises or airplanes...they're still extremists who believe they're being virtuous and righteous.

The US has been criticized for its military hawkishness, and "defense of liberty" for similar reasons. :bulb:

---

It certainly can be confusing if you don't understand libertarian principles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Maybe you could flesh this out. Right now I don't think what you are asking is relevant or particularly insightful.

---

Regarding the OP about being an Extremist (the subjective part as a given) there weren't many replies outside how we see ourselves. Taken one step farther, and how we see others, your quote reminded me of things I'd witnessed at abortion clinic demonstrations from the pro-life crowd.

There was quite a bit of physical violence that fell outside 'peaceful protests'. Patients and staff were assaulted, physicians were shot--some killed--and clinics bombed. Those people were extreme in the defense of liberty [for zygotes or fetuses], yet saw themselves as virtuous, pursuing justice [for zygotes and fetuses], and thought using immoderate ways was acceptable, even necessary.

They could just as easily use Goldwater's quote to defend their actions, as they could to take it out of context.

Quote:

---

Er... that's a gross overstatement and not even close to being even generally true. There are many people who define liberty and freedom in religious terms that do condemn suicide bombers, vigilantism, and those who would espouse violence. Those who believe their freedoms are derived not from government but God are not particularly rare, nor do they fit neatly into the mold you seem to want to put them in.

---

The 'gross overstatement' was aimed at those who don't make those condemnations of violence, but DO use violence (not to lump them all into a monolithic group). I'm not sure if the IRA or PLO would call themselves "Extremists" for using violence, when they felt that violence was being done TO them, and they were taking a defensive position. Palestinians don't have a nation, or an organized/recognized national government structure, but the factions fighting against Israel are still real, and it's still War. No, it's not neat-and-tidy at all. That's the point!

Hell, I'm not even sure what our American ancestors would call themselves today, with the benefit of hindsight. They weren't being "Extremists" at the time, when practically everything was achieved via violence. Today we call them Patriots and Founding Fathers, even though they used violence to dominate, exploit, and force land away from Natives, with a Constitution that condoned slavery. :bulb:

Quote:

---

It certainly can be confusing if you don't understand libertarian principles.

---

Yeah, I didn't mean to turn this into a debate about American Libertarians vs libertarians in general. Just exploring the different definitions and self-identifications behind "Extremist". As much as we like to call practically everyone "terrorists" these days....I don't think they see themselves as either extremists, or terrorists. No, they think they're Freedom Fighters, and maybe that includes individuals that join Al Qaeda or other groups?

:think:


damn tags

The idea of democracy was pretty extremist at the time. :noob:

http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-seces...150021276.html

Interesting how warped Paul's understanding of history and the law are by the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

The idea of democracy was pretty extremist at the time. :noob:

---

Exactly. So are the ideas of "Liberty and Freedom", and voting democratically, for all types of self-governance....including mixed theocracies. At least that's how my fellow nursing friends from Iran saw the situation in the early 80s. They didn't want the US dictating who their leaders should be, or helping to install a favored puppet regime. They wanted to make their own choices.

Quote:

---

http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-seces...150021276.html

Interesting how warped Paul's understanding of history and the law are by the way.

---

Well, I like how Ron Paul has influenced peoples' thinking outside the box, even though that meant some kooks and loons along the way. If I had to choose a label to describe my affinities, it would either be American Nationalist or Unionist (United States). But I'm sure there are plenty of people from the old USSR that wouldn't see it the same way....if ya know what I mean.

Ron Paul doesn't seem like much of a Unionist. :noob:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Ron Paul doesn't seem like much of a Unionist. :noob:

---

That's irrelevant. The main issue is "Extremism". Is it defined by Self or Other....by today's context, or historical relevance?

Look, I don't claim to have the answers. I just thought adding another dimension to the discussion might be interesting. We don't have many posters outside the Americas or the Eurozone. We don't have a diverse set of members representing the entire globe, even though everything is now global.

http://winliberty.com/blog/wp-conten...6/ron-paul.jpg

RON PAUL

I don't get why you like Ron Paul Geegee other than he's different. I think you'd hate him if he got in.

Considering that he would look to defund/abolish/replace everything she likes...strikes me odd as well.

Except for the fact I think she knows where she stands with him. He doesn't tend to sugarcoat, but is polite.