Freeman and His Laser-Like Criticism.
I guess my answer to his comments were unsatisfactory to freeman because he decided to extend his criticism (of a sort) to his blog with this article. It is a piece which expresses his disapproval for three groups which he feels (more like 'asserts' than 'feels')
"are in collusion with Uncle Sam"
I assume he means that I am an unwitting dupe in my collusion and not that I am secretly working for their covert Internet propaganda department. (Not that there is such a thing... He he, I've said too much haven't I?) I would appear to be in his third group namely:
"State capitalists who falsely claim to be free marketeers"
State capitalism seems to have several definitions from the preceding link to that which freeman gives; one which needs to be extracted from his analogy of a person with broken legs, the government breaking legs, and various attitudes towards crutches. Most of the definitions sound like China or Russia where state monopolies and private companies are so corrupted and entwined that you can't tell where one leaves off and the next starts. While this applies to some companies/political figures like Cheney/Halliburton, the idea that I support a state capitalism model because I am in favor for overthrowing regimes which cut off your ear to mark you in society as an enemy of the state is enough of a stretch to require some explanation. I don't remember being in favor of Russian or Chinese style crony capitalism but I had better re-read some of my old posts. He may know me better than I know myself. Then again he may be reading an awful lot into the fact that I don't oppose the war in Iraq or the reconstruction efforts.
I will post a quote from the article and throw my 2 cents in as well.
"Among the three groups listed above that are in collusion with Uncle Sam, the latter two..."
That would be the honest hard core state capitalist (Republicans) and people like me, state capitalists in denial.
"seem to be especially hostile to those people who steadfastly adhere to the principled promotion of free markets and individual liberty,"
That would be him. He is steadfast in his adherence. We who are not steadfast are hostile to those people like him. This "hostility" may be because I disagreed with him or because I defended my beliefs in response to his comments on my blog. Either way I must learn to be less hostile. I could start by disabling my computer's sarcasm key but I will need to read the manual for that.
"which of course involves condemning all of Uncle Sam's leg breaking excursions, both here and abroad."
Of course being steadfast involves such condemnation. Freeman said it does. What, you need reasons or something? Condemning Baathist leg breaking is someone else's concern. After all what goes on in other countries does not affect our liberty (With the exception of activities in Afghanistan resulting in the patriot act, repeated attempts to get people finger printed at the Canadian border, the government mandating that large amounts of personal data be kept on you in an easily obtainable and abusable form etc. But really how many rogue nations have the power to affect the West the way Afghanistan did?).
"It's amusing to notice these statists who love the leash around their necks..."
We love it do we? He know us so well, the kinky devil.
"defend their masters by barking various slanderous sophisms at those who resent their masters and wish to break free entirely from their leashes. Do they really love their masters that much, or do they just have a serious flea problem or something?"
Humor! (of a sort) Finally something to come out of freeman which I can respect (at least in the attempt).
"Maybe there's another angle to it that I'm just not picking up on."
I think that last bit is a pretty safe bet. Understanding someone's point of view, even well enough to criticize it does not seem to be freeman's strong point. But then it requires much less effort to make sense of the world if you break everything down into simple terms and simple motivations.*
"Whether it be puppy dogs, apesnakes..."
Free plug! Thanks!
"or whomever, it seems that certain critters just seem inclined to bow to authority, even if they like to fancy themselves as being otherwise."
I am bowing now? I certainly can't accuse freeman of "barking... slanderous sophisms" because to be a sophism something must at least sound plausible while being wrong. Well I don't want to look like I am bowing to authority especially in the eyes of... some guy on the Internet.
I had better get in my time machine, go back and be against the war. Better yet I should fight against Uncle Sam and his overseas leg breaking by signing up with Saddam's forces. I just should not go too far back to before Saddam became an ally of freedom. I can then help prevent Uncle Sam from trampling on the Hussein family's right to freedom and liberty and their bastion of free enterprise that state capitalists like my future self conspire to overthrow.
It is decided then. On the weight of freeman's argument I will no longer be in favor of limiting anyone's freedom, no matter how many people they kill or torment. That is unless my sarcasm key is still stuck in which case I may still be hostile to those who are steadfast.
"I guess there may be some readers who are wondering what an apesnake is. Beats me."
Sorry but unless you can send me the illuminati password via a secure channel you are not entitled to that information.
*The lazy man's guide to dealing with life:
Step 1) Identify someone who disagrees with you.
Step 2) Attach an emotionally charged label like "statist".
Step 3) Criticize the label and propose fiendish or base motivations for those who would risk adopting the label by disagreeing with you.
Step 4) Use analogies which make you sound cool and make those who are hostile to you sound like losers.
Step 5) Go to sleep.