Equality of responsibility

7 Responses to Equality of responsibility

1. Lyle says:

   January 5, 2015 at 9:01 pm

   Awesome. Where has L Neil Smith been all my life? That essay is one of the best I’ve read in a long, even accounting for the ones written by me. It’s almost “fractally awesome, awesomeness made out of awesomeness, every little bit of it being independently awesome in its own right, like;
   “Peace is neither won nor maintained by the unarmed.”
   And
   “Self-defense is a wholly individual bodily function tha[t] can no more be delegated to somebody else—especially to the thumb-fumbling government—than can going to the bathroom, eating, or making love.”
   And
   “The simple change that I propose would not be unaccomanied by screaming, wailing, hair-tearing, and tooth-gnashing by the whining babies who have made this mess.”

   It’s just full of them.
   • Paul Koning says:

     January 7, 2015 at 4:18 pm

     I didn’t realize you weren’t familiar with his work. There’s lots of it. Read back issues of his online magazine TLE. Or his books, fiction or non-fiction. He’s thoroughly consistent and incredibly clear about the reasons for why we have, and need, the right to bear arms. (Just as Oleg does with images.)
2. RegT says:

   January 6, 2015 at 12:35 am

   “And hundreds of millions of decent, productive, nonviolent Muslims around the world wouldn’t have to go on taking the rap for jerks like him.”

   I admire much of what Smith has written over the years, but this comment shows him seriously out of touch with reality. Are there non-violent muslims? Sure, and they are all apostates, under threat of death by each and every orthodox muslim in the world.

   The Qu’ran demands death for infidels, and is even harsher in it’s demand for death in the case of those who do not adhere exactly to the Qu’ran and Hadith (the later sura and edicts written after Medina – look up and understand what “abrogation” means). Both books direct muslims to kill, behead (“strike their necks”), molest children, beat, starve, stone their wives and daughters for the smallest infractions, command death for homosexuals (while permitting sex with “beardless boys”, animals, and especially “war brides” (sex slaves acquired through violence), and the rest of the litany of horrors that is islam.

   Nice try, Neil, but if you are a true muslim, you are commanded to be violent. If you are a “Jack-Mormon” type, if you are non-violent to non-believers, you are an apostate under sentence of death. So, now tell me how there are “hundreds of millions” of non-violent muslims? And many of those who profess to be tolerant of infidels are practicing deception (taqqiya) until there are enough of them in that society to drop the pretense.
   • Oleg Volk says:

     January 6, 2015 at 8:59 am

     I am friends with far too many non-violent libertarian Muslims in the US for me to discount them as an insignificant minority.
     • Paul Koning says:

       January 7, 2015 at 4:23 pm

       Unfortunately, they nearly all seem to be silent. When terrorists claim to act in your name and you don’t speak up, it’s hard to blame bystanders for concluding that you support them.
       I would apply this particularly to “religious leaders”. It’s one thing for the average citizen to be intimidated into silence. But those who have a claim to be “leaders” also have the obligation to speak up. For them, a threat of violence is not an excuse. You can’t pretend to be a religious leader if you shirk your responsibility to defend that religion from those who defile it by evil acts in its name. Yes, doing so is dangerous. But part of the duty of a religious leader is the willingness (not desire, but willingness) to be a martyr for the faith. If you don’t have that, don’t pretend to the honor and benefits of the title of religious leader.
3. Lyle says:

   January 6, 2015 at 3:26 am

   Interesting contrast.
4. Paul Koning says:

   January 7, 2015 at 6:40 pm

   The concept in that image is wonderful.
   When looking at a situation involving genders or races, I like to switch the labels around (swap male and female, or black and white). The results can be very informative. (Imagine a political group called the “congressional white caucus”, for example.)
   You’ve done just that with this image. Marvelous.

Comments are closed.