Dan TheBookMan danust2012 at gmail.com
Wed Mar 29 01:47:37 UTC 2017

On Mar 28, 2017, at 6:04 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com> 
>> ​> ​ I'm hard-pressed to think of anyone today in the two major parties being a radical. 
> ​That may be a good thing. ​I'm hard-pressed to think of any​ radical who came to power in any country ​where the end result was positive; except maybe George Washington.

Slaveholding George Washington wasn't a radical. He was an elitist basically chosen because he wouldn't rock the boat against the upper classes in the US. Had history been slightly different -- for those who actually read history -- Washington might have simply ended up as an officer in the British military. That was childhood dream. Even in the context of American politics in the 01780s, Washington was no radical.  

We can maybe credit him for not being as harsh as other elitists (Hamilton comes to mind), especially in putting down the Whiskey Rebellion. (Washington not being bloodthirsty like Hamilton didn't call for executions.)

Also, libertarianism as a form of radical politics isn't about seizing power. It's about dismantling power. It always is funny in a way that makes me want to puke how self-proclaimed libertarians don't know this.


  Sample my Kindle books via:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20170328/4e63b7f6/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list