Maddow Visits Planet Wingnuttia »« More PR Spam

Agreeing With Vox Day

I’ve hammered the guy enough over the years, I ought to at least acknowledge when he’s gotten something right. And his recent column about the 10th anniversary of 9/11 has some good stuff in it.

One of the many troubling aspects of the hijackings is the brutal demonstration that we, as a people, have received very little of the security we were promised in return for the many violations of personal freedom and civil liberties that have been enacted over the past decade. We would go so far as to raise the question if this had not been a fool’s bargain, wherein we have given up something of precious value in return for … arguably, nothing. It is bad enough that we allow the FBI to filter our e-mails and record our keystrokes, that we permit the National Security Agency to intercept every electronic communication floating through the aether, but it is even worse that we have done so without realizing that which we hoped to gain.

Just as the drug war has not reduced the amount of illegal drugs used in this country, the sacrifice of our civil liberties on the altar of national security has not brought us security. Keep this in mind, as the inevitable drumbeat begins for more sacrifices, as the calls begin for Americans to give up even more of their hard-won freedoms.


He continues:

It is said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, but that vigilance must be applied within as well as without. A thousand suicide bombers could not destroy America, but America is quite capable of destroying itself in the pursuit of any number of false idols, among them wrongheaded and illusory notions of security at any price. Individual privacy, like private property, is one of the foundations of our freedom, and it must not be thrown away out of fear. Anonymous cell phones or encrypted e-mail missives could be used by a terrorist, true, but the same is also true of a razor blade or a flight simulator…

The lesson of 9/11 is not that America must live in terror or go to war with it. It is that no violent event, however horrific, should ever be accepted as justification for the further erosion of American freedom or further expansion of American empire. The decade since 9/11 has amply illustrated the fact that those who trade liberty for security will end up with neither. Amidst the pomp and emotional porn of the 9/11 tributes, Americans would do well to keep in mind how the bloodshed of that day has been cynically exploited by their government in the 10 years since.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Comments

  1. Aquaria says

    Stopped clocks and all that.

    Also, I don’t think he would be so worried about civil liberties if a nig–a (white) Republican was President.

  2. rabbitscribe says

    Also, I don’t think he would be so worried about civil liberties if a nig–a (white) Republican was President.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

    Short version: Pres. Obama believes he is entitled to order the targeted killing of an American citizen without due process of law. There’s a war on, you know. A war on terror, or a war on drugs, or a culture war, or a war on Christmas or something- forgive me: I lose track of them all after a while. I must admit, I have my qualms. The prospect of a President Perry declaring, “Herp derp, war on demons, derp herp.” and having me summarily executed is troubling.

    Or perhaps my concerns have nothing to do with the erosion of civil liberties since 9/11. Maybe I’m just a racist. After all, I did vote for one Republican once (State Attorney Jack O’Malley). Would you do me the inestimable favor of using your amazing super-power that enables you to read the minds of anonymous strangers on the Internet? Am I really irked by the notion that the Executive can just have anyone he dislikes whacked, or is it just a black-guy-in-the-White-House thing?

  3. Michael Heath says

    I agree with his points except this premise:

    A thousand suicide bombers could not destroy America . . .

    It depends on the bomb materials, especially biological or chemical threats that may one day emerge coupled to my perception we’re far too weak a people to successfully respond to thousand suicide bombers. The ‘thousand suicide bombers’ is the only premise beyond the 9/11 catastrophe Vox Day uses to define the threat. From this perspective I’d argue he’s made a strawman of that threat; perhaps in hopes of making his prescription argument more compelling or perhaps because he’s mundanely ignorant to what the threat actually is.

    I happen to agree with Vox’s set of prescriptions. But for me it’s in spite of the threat to that liberty that we shouldn’t give up many of the liberties we’ve sacrificed, not to minimize or deny the level of the threat.

  4. Aquaria says

    Would you do me the inestimable favor of using your amazing super-power that enables you to read the minds of anonymous strangers on the Internet?

    1) It doesn’t take in super-powers to decipher VD’s behavior.

    VD said next to nothing about the civil liberties violations going on when Bush was Prez, and often actively defended them in the name of “keeping merka safe from the islamofascists”. And then he went as bonkers as any other tea party nitwit when the nig–not white guy became President.

    2) 1) I’m talking about this guy specifically, you narcissistic douchebag.

    Not everything is about you, cupcake.

    Fuck off.

  5. Aquaria says

    IOW, I was pointing out VD’s hypocrisy. How you got yourself tangled up with that, I have no idea.

    And just how did you extrapolate that I supported civil liberties violations from any President?

    Seems like you’re the one who thinks he has superpowers.

    So are you done burning that man of straw, stupid?

  6. jasonfailes says

    Speaking for myself, I can only read minds over the internet with very poor resolution through the proxy of what those minds have written.

    As for Vox Day saying something both coherent and sensible, it may have more to do with common interests than stopped clocks.

  7. ManOutOfTime says

    Actually, I don’t think it’s necessary to give a disingenuous fraud like VD props just because he accidentally expresses a reasonable idea. He fancies himself a small “L” libertarian; they’re all for the freedoms that extend to the end of your own nose, it’s mercy and mutual responsibility they all lack. And anyway, his anti-atheist screeds are so lacking in depth and sincerity, it’s hard to believe he really cares about human rights (except his own, I am sure).

  8. dingojack says

    Oh Ed, agreeing with Poxy?
    “Merry and tragical! Tedious and brief!
    That is hot ice and wondrous strange snow.
    How shall we find the concord of this discord?”
    :) – Dingo

Leave a Reply