Foxfyre,
In the first place let me say that I have taken no offense from anything you – or anyone else here, for that matter – have written.
The best thing (in my view) about A2K is the opportunity to encounter different points of view about topical issues and to engage in a kind of debate about them. The worst part, for me, is the personalization, the name-calling and attempted insults that too often result. Once that starts the value evaporates.
In my observation, you are far less given to such name-calling and personal attacks than most posters here – but not entirely immune either. Like many others (myself included), you are fairly steadfast in your views and not easily receptive to opposing interpretations of events. You stand out in that you are very persistent, almost relentless, in advocating your point of view -- a quality that is magnified in its effects because your views are conservative – (we live in a world that, as a matter of observable fact, is generally more receptive to left-of-center interpretations of events). These qualities place a high premium on your patience and the care required in putting your ideas forward. Generally you do fairly well in those areas, but your persistence keeps the required standard high and, as is evident here, it drives some folks crazy (as much their problem as yours).
I don’t think the discussion you started about MAC principles is necessarily stupid or even superficial – it is the application of such labels to individuals that I was referring to. However, I do recognize that the right wing in American politics is in a bit of disarray right now – perhaps a necessary precursor to a revised formulation. In that sense I think it is premature to talk about the details of a ‘movement’ that may well be forming, but is otherwise undetectable. I can see that you were attempting to stimulate the discussion of a new definition for such a formulation. However, it should be no surprise that A2K is not a friendly environment for such a discussion – on either side of the political divide. Perhaps not fair, but certainly true.
With respect to professor Williams, let me acknowledge first that I have a generally skeptical view of academic types (left and right) who make a big deal out of their views on topical political issues. It is a probably unjustified generalization, but I have come to see them as very often Walter Mitty types who don’t cut it in the real world but insist on inflicting their obsessive ideas on everyone else. Whether this truly applies to Williams is something I don’t know. However, it is simply not deducible from the founding principles of our republic that there is an absolute moral prohibition of the compulsory use of one person (or his property) for the benefit of another. Even if one takes the obvious case of slavery as an unnoticed aberration, there are too many obvious and built-in violations of the principle to make the assertion, that it is absolute or fundamental, defensible – particularly by one who styles himself as a man of ideas.
That Williams might PREFER that such a principle be applied absolutely is understandable - just as is the supposition that he might indulge in a little academic pretense to create the illusion that its application is intellectually "necessary" compatible with my prejudices towards academics generally.
Still, I enjoyed the discussion.
