Comments on: Out of their own mouths

By: sdf

sdf — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:30:00 +0000

When did all the right wing fascists start calling themselves libertarians?

By: Observer

Observer — Wed, 19 Jan 2005 06:06:00 +0000

I don't think most Neocons believe what Humphreys does, either. I think most would say that the list should be broadly general rules rather than the iron-clad laws he presents.

I think it could be described as a green-ink version of neoconservatism.

'the most criticised societies are the best ones'

I knew Mark Humphrys in college, and he is old enough to remember apartheid South Africa. It's sad to see someone who I know is a very intelligent guy producing this tripe.

By: jamie

jamie — Wed, 19 Jan 2005 05:32:00 +0000

"Well, WW1 actually started as a spat between the Hapsburg and Romanov empires"

I think the assassination of a certain archduke was the proximate cause. The point is that most of the combatants were democratic and it made absolutely no difference as to whether and how they fought.

By: Squander Two

Squander Two — Wed, 19 Jan 2005 04:52:00 +0000

I think Humphreys is grossly misusing the word "prove", but everyone does that. I think it's pretty clear that what he means by "prove" is "back up with evidence" -- just as everyone else who uses the word does. But the core point of his letter isn't to prove any of his beliefs; it is, rather, to point out to Dawkins that he is arguing, not with genuine Neocon beliefs, but with what anti-war left-wingers say the Neocon's beliefs are. I think that central point is correct. For example, the point you make -- that he has used false logic to get from broadly true empirical statements to false generalisations -- is not the sort of point Dawkins makes in his anti-Neocon arguments. You're reading what a Neocon has written and pointing out the flaws in it. I've yet to see Dawkins do that.

I don't think most Neocons believe what Humphreys does, either. I think most would say that the list should be broadly general rules rather than the iron-clad laws he presents.

The letter is bloody dull, though, yes.

By: chris

chris — Wed, 19 Jan 2005 03:45:00 +0000

Well, WW1 actually started as a spat between the Hapsburg and Romanov empires, both of which had something of a democratic deficit. Which is not to say that humphrys is making any kind of sense, because he isn’t.

By: jamie

jamie — Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:05:00 +0000

"all wars are caused by non-democracy..."

World War One?