P.J. O'Rourke on Millennials and Baby Boomers

[Dibbler]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXBC8xYdRz4

 

[lb_on_teh_cb]

eh, i dont like these terms - millenial, baby boomer, gen x, gen y, bla bla bla

just silly

 

[FieldTheorist]

Every time I watch Rightist Libertarian talk, I'm always amazed at how much a 1% disagreement on fundamental principles leads to a 99% disagreement on (economic) policy and ethics.

"I agree; I agree; I agree; I agree.... Oh, nope, that's definitely wrong, I agree; I agree..."

 

[FieldTheorist]

Every time I watch Rightist Libertarian talk, I'm always amazed at how much a 1% disagreement on fundamental principles leads to a 99% disagreement on (economic) policy and ethics.

"I agree; I agree; I agree; I agree.... Oh, nope, that's definitely wrong, I agree; I agree..."

So I finished watching the video now, and I'll add a little more to this that I think is important:


The fundamental disagreement between Leftist Libertarians and Rightist Libertarians really is about whether you accept or deny the existence of class conflict --which is the ultimate form of coercion and subjugation. This point seems to wildly change how you view the concept of liberty, of the individual's struggle for freedom, and so on. To my mind, the things that intelligent Rightist Libertarians like P.J. O'Rourke says regarding social security, medicare, medicaid, etc, only makes sense in the context of utterly denying the existence of class conflict --which to put it mildly, I think is a pretty serious oversight.

How can you think that you can live in a genuinely free society when a group of people are already holding 90% of the cards in their favor and have their own vested class interests in keeping the system that way? How is it coercion when the government does it --which at least nominally has some democratic structure, and thus some nominal input from the individual-- but it's never coercion when the powerful get together and write the system in their own interest, to keep control over the means of production, to keep control over the working class' lives, etc? How can anyone really seriously try to claim that one is profoundly better than--and indeed, morally preferable-- to the other?

And the irony is, he even doesn't genuinely agree with himself, at least as an irrevocable principle, that the government force is necessarily illegitimate. Apparently, if you change the situation at a trivial level, and say "The government has a moral obligation to get involved in racial conflicts." then that's a totally permissible --nay, mandatory-- to back a display of government force, but if the government gets involved in fighting against class conflicts, suddenly that show of force is immoral, we're "erroneously" trying to "right everyone's wrongs" which suddenly now "we can't do," etc. Can someone tell me why that's not supremely incoherent, not totally arbitrary, and not completely internally inconsistent?

Because I can't see an alternative interpretation, unless Rightist Libertarians are so ideologically committed to denying the existence of class conflict that there's not even a point of comparison for class conflict to racial conflict. And if that's the case, then they've succumb to the most extreme form of class warfare --the notion that it's unthinkable that the powerful would ever illegitimately wield their economic power for their own self-interests (i.e. class interests). At some point, Rightist Libertarians need to concede that what makes governments illegitimate is not that they are inherently illegitimate, but that they are illegitimate when they abandon democratic principles in favor of oligarchy and the self-interest of the ruling few --and when we say governments, we should mean any institutions, whether a government, a collective, or a business.

 

[Chomsky]

<delete video for brevity>

This looks like a great interview with a subject of interest to me, but I don't have 36 mins at the moment, so I'll withhold direct comment on the video itself.

But here I would like to comment directly on Mr. O'Rourke himself:

As a teen and young man I loved his writing in Car & Driver back in the David E. David days! He's eloquent and a very good writer, though a bit too flowery when speaking, but somehow that same flowery quality comes across beautifully to me in his written word. He really was a breath of fresh-air in the automotive genre, and he managed to write at a high level tying-in all sorts of political and social references to his automotive writing! In short: the guy was dayem good!

I lost track of him as Card & Driver went through the corporate takeovers, and David E Davis went on to start 'Automobile' magazine, which never interested me as much as the more hard technical & quantified bent of C & D.

Then I more recently noticed Mr. O'Rouke reappearing in my consciousness through television guest appearances & interviews, after an absence (with me) of around two decades.

Yish! What a pompous over-the-top narcissistic Libertarian he became! Or did he? Did he change, or did I? I dunno. I had flirted with hardcore straight-up Libertarianism in my 20's, right around the time I was reading him, Davis, Brocks, Lindamood, et al - so maybe that's it. Maybe I never was exposed fully to his political leanings in the context of an automotive publication? Again, I dunno.

But for whatever reason, he no longer floats my boat the way he once did. Quite the contrary, to be honest.

I'll try to comment on the video itself when I have time to view it, because I am very much interested in it.

 

[Grand Mal]

This looks like a great interview with a subject of interest to me, but I don't have 36 mins at the moment, so I'll withhold direct comment on the video itself.

But here I would like to comment directly on Mr. O'Rourke himself:

As a teen and young man I loved his writing in Car & Driver back in the David E. David days! He's eloquent and a very good writer, though a bit too flowery when speaking, but somehow that same flowery quality comes across beautifully to me in his written word. He really was a breath of fresh-air in the automotive genre, and he managed to write at a high level tying-in all sorts of political and social references to his automotive writing! In short: the guy was dayem good!

I lost track of him as Card & Driver went through the corporate takeovers, and David E Davis went on to start 'Automobile' magazine, which never interested me as much as the more hard technical & quantified bent of C & D.

Then I more recently noticed Mr. O'Rouke reappearing in my consciousness through television guest appearances & interviews, after an absence (with me) of around two decades.

Yish! What a pompous over-the-top narcissistic Libertarian he became! Or did he? Did he change, or did I? I dunno. I had flirted with hardcore straight-up Libertarianism in my 20's, right around the time I was reading him, Davis, Brocks, Lindamood, et al - so maybe that's it. Maybe I never was exposed fully to his political leanings in the context of an automotive publication? Again, I dunno.

But for whatever reason, he no longer floats my boat the way he once did. Quite the contrary, to be honest.

I'll try to comment on the video itself when I have time to view it, because I am very much interested in it.

I remember him writing for National Lampoon. He was hilarious, and very liberal. Sometime later he woke up and realized he had a lot of money so he became conservative.

 

[lb_on_teh_cb]

This point seems to wildly change how you view the concept of liberty, of the individual's struggle for freedom, and so on.

freedom from who?

 

[FieldTheorist]

freedom from who?

See post #4.

 

[Fearandloathing]

So I finished watching the video now, and I'll add a little more to this that I think is important:


The fundamental disagreement between Leftist Libertarians and Rightist Libertarians really is about whether you accept or deny the existence of class conflict --which is the ultimate form of coercion and subjugation. This point seems to wildly change how you view the concept of liberty, of the individual's struggle for freedom, and so on. To my mind, the things that intelligent Rightist Libertarians like P.J. O'Rourke says regarding social security, medicare, medicaid, etc, only makes sense in the context of utterly denying the existence of class conflict --which to put it mildly, I think is a pretty serious oversight.

How can you think that you can live in a genuinely free society when a group of people are already holding 90% of the cards in their favor and have their own vested class interests in keeping the system that way? How is it coercion when the government does it --which at least nominally has some democratic structure, and thus some nominal input from the individual-- but it's never coercion when the powerful get together and write the system in their own interest, to keep control over the means of production, to keep control over the working class' lives, etc? How can anyone really seriously try to claim that one is profoundly better than--and indeed, morally preferable-- to the other?

And the irony is, he even doesn't genuinely agree with himself, at least as an irrevocable principle, that the government force is necessarily illegitimate. Apparently, if you change the situation at a trivial level, and say "The government has a moral obligation to get involved in racial conflicts." then that's a totally permissible --nay, mandatory-- to back a display of government force, but if the government gets involved in fighting against class conflicts, suddenly that show of force is immoral, we're "erroneously" trying to "right everyone's wrongs" which suddenly now "we can't do," etc. Can someone tell me why that's not supremely incoherent, not totally arbitrary, and not completely internally inconsistent?

Because I can't see an alternative interpretation, unless Rightist Libertarians are so ideologically committed to denying the existence of class conflict that there's not even a point of comparison for class conflict to racial conflict. And if that's the case, then they've succumb to the most extreme form of class warfare --the notion that it's unthinkable that the powerful would ever illegitimately wield their economic power for their own self-interests (i.e. class interests). At some point, Rightist Libertarians need to concede that what makes governments illegitimate is not that they are inherently illegitimate, but that they are illegitimate when they abandon democratic principles in favor of oligarchy and the self-interest of the ruling few --and when we say governments, we should mean any institutions, whether a government, a collective, or a business.

Obviously you have never read any of his work. As the disciple of Hunter S. Thompson, and Gonzon journalism, both men defy labeling. The label on which you base the entire post has nothing to do with that he's saying.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. In this so evident

 

[Helix]

So I finished watching the video now, and I'll add a little more to this that I think is important:


The fundamental disagreement between Leftist Libertarians and Rightist Libertarians really is about whether you accept or deny the existence of class conflict --which is the ultimate form of coercion and subjugation. This point seems to wildly change how you view the concept of liberty, of the individual's struggle for freedom, and so on. To my mind, the things that intelligent Rightist Libertarians like P.J. O'Rourke says regarding social security, medicare, medicaid, etc, only makes sense in the context of utterly denying the existence of class conflict --which to put it mildly, I think is a pretty serious oversight.

How can you think that you can live in a genuinely free society when a group of people are already holding 90% of the cards in their favor and have their own vested class interests in keeping the system that way? How is it coercion when the government does it --which at least nominally has some democratic structure, and thus some nominal input from the individual-- but it's never coercion when the powerful get together and write the system in their own interest, to keep control over the means of production, to keep control over the working class' lives, etc? How can anyone really seriously try to claim that one is profoundly better than--and indeed, morally preferable-- to the other?

And the irony is, he even doesn't genuinely agree with himself, at least as an irrevocable principle, that the government force is necessarily illegitimate. Apparently, if you change the situation at a trivial level, and say "The government has a moral obligation to get involved in racial conflicts." then that's a totally permissible --nay, mandatory-- to back a display of government force, but if the government gets involved in fighting against class conflicts, suddenly that show of force is immoral, we're "erroneously" trying to "right everyone's wrongs" which suddenly now "we can't do," etc. Can someone tell me why that's not supremely incoherent, not totally arbitrary, and not completely internally inconsistent?

Because I can't see an alternative interpretation, unless Rightist Libertarians are so ideologically committed to denying the existence of class conflict that there's not even a point of comparison for class conflict to racial conflict. And if that's the case, then they've succumb to the most extreme form of class warfare --the notion that it's unthinkable that the powerful would ever illegitimately wield their economic power for their own self-interests (i.e. class interests). At some point, Rightist Libertarians need to concede that what makes governments illegitimate is not that they are inherently illegitimate, but that they are illegitimate when they abandon democratic principles in favor of oligarchy and the self-interest of the ruling few --and when we say governments, we should mean any institutions, whether a government, a collective, or a business.

.....

 

[Chomsky]

I remember him writing for National Lampoon. He was hilarious, and very liberal. Sometime later he woke up and realized he had a lot of money so he became conservative.

You know, I forgot about that! Though I wasn't following him, then.

If he wrote for The Lampoon, there's no way he was conservative then!

But I think it's not too unusual for young Liberals, particularly guys, to turn a bit Libertarian as they get a little older; I've seen it often-enough, and I went through exactly such a phase!

[I was a card-carrying Dem actively involved & organizing when I disenchantedly approached the leader of the local Libertarian Party in the late '80's - only then did I realize how really organized we were as Dems! These Libertarian guys were hopeless dreamers then! Some good ideas & really awesome discussions, but hopelessly & completely ineffectual! At least at the ward/street level, to which I was familiar]

 

[Hawkeye10]

At some point, Rightist Libertarians need to concede that what makes governments illegitimate is not that they are inherently illegitimate, but that they are illegitimate when they abandon democratic principles in favor of oligarchy and the self-interest of the ruling few --and when we say governments, we should mean any institutions, whether a government, a collective, or a business.

The holders of wealth have long been consumed with the agenda to rid themselves of all controls on their power, they honestly believe that we will all be better off if they are allowed to do what ever they want without restraint. But in reality they need someone above them to run the game, which has for a long time been government. They depowered government globally when they corrupted the US government and then rammed through their global free trade agenda which was specifically designed to depower government, and so now they are left with the result, which is the collapse of everything around them. There is no solution for this short of the political revolution that Trump and Sanders represent. I doubt even that will be enough, as this global economy is now so swamped with debt and bad systems that I dont think anything can save it. I think we are doomed to many years of depression and mass terrorism before we get our act together enough to kill off what we have and then build something else.

 

[Fearandloathing]

You know, I forgot about that! Though I wasn't following him, then.

If he wrote for The Lampoon, there's no way he was conservative then!

But I think it's not too unusual for young Liberals, particularly guys, to turn a bit Libertarian as they get a little older; I've seen it often-enough, and I went through exactly such a phase!

[I was a card-carrying Dem actively involved & organizing when I disenchantedly approached the leader of the local Libertarian Party in the late '80's - only then did I realize how really organized we were as Dems! These Libertarian guys were hopeless dreamers then! Some good ideas & really awesome discussions, but hopelessly & completely ineffectual! At least at the ward/street level, to which I was familiar]

He nor Thompson, who I met, are neither liberal or conservative. That is the great joke, Thompson was dismissed as a right-wing nut bar. However anyone who has read either Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail would NEVER describe either writer as right wing. Anyone who has read PJ's work would NEVER say he was right wing. I can see it based on part of this interview, but no one informed would claim it.

 

[FieldTheorist]

Obviously you have never read any of his work. As the disciple of Hunter S. Thompson, and Gonzon journalism, both men defy labeling. The label on which you base the entire post has nothing to do with that he's saying.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. In this so evident

Read his work? No. Did I watch his interview here to completion? Yes.

P.J. Rourke repeatedly referred to himself as a libertarian in the interview, he referred to himself as being "right-wing," he openly espoused the principles that I discussed in my post (that's why I talked about those principles), he attacked social security/medicare/medicaid, he attacked people for asking for handouts and being "dependents" on the government, and he actually implied that he supports Republicans.

You should probably have read more about this guy's politics before cavalierly walking into this thread and lecturing me on what he believes. I've only watched him for 36 minutes, and I apparently have a more solid understanding of his positions than you do.

 

[FieldTheorist]

The holders of wealth have long been consumed with the agenda to rid themselves of all controls on their power, they honestly believe that we will all be better off if they are allowed to do what ever they want without restraint. But in reality they need someone above them to run the game, which has for a long time been government. They depowered government globally when they corrupted the US government and then rammed through their global free trade agenda which was specifically designed to depower government, and so now they are left with the result, which is the collapse of everything around them. There is no solution for this short of the political revolution that Trump and Sanders represent. I doubt even that will be enough, as this global economy is now so swamped with debt and bad systems that I dont think anything can save it. I think we are doomed to many years of depression and mass terrorism before we get our act together enough to kill off what we have and then build something else.

The only thing that I disagree with you on is that Trump isn't a solution here, but otherwise I think this is spot on.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Read his work? No. Did I watch his interview here to completion? Yes.

P.J. Rourke repeatedly referred to himself as a libertarian in the interview, he referred to himself as being "right-wing," he openly espoused the principles that I discussed in my post (that's why I talked about those principles), he attacked social security/medicare/medicaid, he attacked people for asking for handouts and being "dependents" on the government, and he actually implied that he supports Republicans.

You should probably read or watch this guy more thoroughly before cavalierly walked into this thread and started lecturing me on what this guy believes. I've only watched him for 36 minutes, and I have a more solid understanding of his positions than you apparently do.

I will take that under advisement.....which means no thanks.

I have been following the work of both PJ and HST all my life. The work may appear right wing but it spans the typical labeling the "Stupid voter" in America insists on labeling. I suspect PJ is so fed up with trying to make that case he caved.

The US might have been able to compare favorably with Canada had the nation learned to listen to Hunter S. Thompson as well as PJ O'Rourke.....

What they are both on about is that you have been lied to, you have no "rights", starting with the right of assembly for which I was arrested four times and never charged.

Nothing has changed

 

[Chomsky]

He nor Thompson, who I met, are neither liberal or conservative. That is the great joke, Thompson was dismissed as a right-wing nut bar. However anyone who has read either Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail would NEVER describe either writer as right wing. Anyone who has read PJ's work would NEVER say he was right wing. I can see it based on part of this interview, but no one informed would claim it.

Hah!

Somehow I find it easy to believe you have indeed met HS Thompson, I suppose in the same way I sought out my journalist/literary heros (Royko & Terkel - never got a chance to meet Jimmy Breslin).

Oddly, I never thought of Thompson as a Righty in the very least, his love for firearms notwithstanding. Maybe my/our brand of Liberalism in the '60's/'70's was different? We did come out of the conservative '50's, after all.

But I do feel O'Rourke comes across as very conservative in any video I've seen of him the past several years, including his recent commentary on CNN [he seems to be a regular guest commentator there for this election cycle's debates, if you're interested].

Unfortunately, I really don't have any recently written O'Rourke to compare.

 

[Grand Mal]

He nor Thompson, who I met, are neither liberal or conservative. That is the great joke, Thompson was dismissed as a right-wing nut bar. However anyone who has read either Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail would NEVER describe either writer as right wing. Anyone who has read PJ's work would NEVER say he was right wing. I can see it based on part of this interview, but no one informed would claim it.

I dunno, the only thing by O'Rourke I've read (besides Nat Lamp) was 'Age and Guile Beat Youth, Innocence, and a Bad Haircut' and he was certainly doing a good imitation of a right-winger. Still freakin' hilarious, though.
You must have read Hunter Thompson's 'Hell's Angels', huh? That's where I first saw the phrase, "fear and loathing", him describing how the ordinary citizens viewed the Angels.

 

[Fearandloathing]

I dunno, the only thing by O'Rourke I've read (besides Nat Lamp) was 'Age and Guile Beat Youth, Innocence, and a Bad Haircut' and he was certainly doing a good imitation of a right-winger. Still freakin' hilarious, though.
You must have read Hunter Thompson's 'Hell's Angels', huh? That's where I first saw the phrase, "fear and loathing", him describing how the ordinary citizens viewed the Angels.

It was my first introduction to his work. It was the birth of Gonzo Journalism which too many mis understand. He effectively burrowed into the core of the Hell's Angels, something no one has ever been able to repeat. And almost died in the beating they eventually gave him.

Las Vegas was the search for the American Dream through an assignment he totally botched and spent thousands on his binge which resulted in the destruction of several hotel rooms. It is the seminal book of the "progressive" movement and contains the epitaph of the whole sixties cause(s): "If you look to the west with the right pair of eyes you can almost see it, the high water mark where the American progressive movement peaked and fell back on itself in all its splendid psychedelia".

 

[Hawkeye10]

The only thing that I disagree with you on is that Trump isn't a solution here, but otherwise I think this is spot on.

Disrupting Washington and giving the disenfranchised Americans a voice in Washington would on there own with no other good things produced be a decent 4 years work considering what we have had, it is heroic work by Trump. And he might be able to get something done, as least he has different thoughts than we have seen and different motivations. If what you are doing is not working then do something else, anything else if you dont know what to do. We know for 100% sure that leaving Washington alone will not work, sending Trump at least has a better than 0% chance of working. And just wait till the next election cycle, we will get much better candidates than Trump and Sanders now that bright people know that the American people want something new.

 

[Chomsky]

I dunno, the only thing by O'Rourke I've read (besides Nat Lamp) was 'Age and Guile Beat Youth, Innocence, and a Bad Haircut' and he was certainly doing a good imitation of a right-winger. Still freakin' hilarious, though.
You must have read Hunter Thompson's 'Hell's Angels', huh? That's where I first saw the phrase, "fear and loathing", him describing how the ordinary citizens viewed the Angels.

Hah!

And Hunter was freakin' Gonzo back then too, except nobody named it that yet!

Check-out his quote in Wiki in defense of the New Journalism:

"Thompson, who was among the forefathers of the new journalism movement, said in the February 15, 1973 issue of Rolling Stone, "If I'd written the truth I knew for the past ten years, about 600 people—including me—would be rotting in prison cells from Rio to Seattle today. Absolute truth is a very rare and dangerous commodity in the context of professional journalism."[2]"

Haha! How can anyone not love a guy that lived life like that? :thumbs:

 

[Grand Mal]

Hah!

And Hunter was freakin' Gonzo back then too, except nobody named it that yet!

Check-out his quote in Wiki in defense of the New Journalism:

"Thompson, who was among the forefathers of the new journalism movement, said in the February 15, 1973 issue of Rolling Stone, "If I'd written the truth I knew for the past ten years, about 600 people—including me—would be rotting in prison cells from Rio to Seattle today. Absolute truth is a very rare and dangerous commodity in the context of professional journalism."[2]"

Haha! How can anyone not love a guy that lived life like that? :thumbs:

He lost his bid to be elected Sheriff in Aspen by a narrow margin. Imagine if his 'Freak Power' campaign had succeeded?

 

[Chomsky]

The holders of wealth have long been consumed with the agenda to rid themselves of all controls on their power, they honestly believe that we will all be better off if they are allowed to do what ever they want without restraint. But in reality they need someone above them to run the game, which has for a long time been government. They depowered government globally when they corrupted the US government and then rammed through their global free trade agenda which was specifically designed to depower government, and so now they are left with the result, which is the collapse of everything around them. There is no solution for this short of the political revolution that Trump and Sanders represent. I doubt even that will be enough, as this global economy is now so swamped with debt and bad systems that I dont think anything can save it. I think we are doomed to many years of depression and mass terrorism before we get our act together enough to kill off what we have and then build something else.

Disrupting Washington and giving the disenfranchised Americans a voice in Washington would on there own with no other good things produced be a decent 4 years work considering what we have had, it is heroic work by Trump. And he might be able to get something done, as least he has different thoughts than we have seen and different motivations. If what you are doing is not working then do something else, anything else if you dont know what to do. We know for 100% sure that leaving Washington alone will not work, sending Trump at least has a better than 0% chance of working. And just wait till the next election cycle, we will get much better candidates than Trump and Sanders now that bright people know that the American people want something new.

I eyed your steadfast support of Trump cautiously, when you first bounced in here.

But now that I've seen him evolve, and Bernie begin to falter (my pick #1), I too have hopped-on the wagon.

It's dangerous wagon though; similar to the way I felt about Ross Perot back in '92. But whereas I felt Mr. Perot was a 'breath of welcome fresh air', I feel Mr. Trump as 'perhaps a last chance'. So I'm willing to take the risk, figuring if he sucks at least we've opened the door for other non-establishment non-status-quo candidates (as you rightly pointed-out!

I just hope he doesn't damage us too badly, if he does at all. But better a quick & painful mistake discovered in him, than a slow cut-by-cut agonizing death as we've been experiencing by all the others.

 

[Dibbler]

Read his work? No. Did I watch his interview here to completion? Yes.

P.J. Rourke repeatedly referred to himself as a libertarian in the interview, he referred to himself as being "right-wing," he openly espoused the principles that I discussed in my post (that's why I talked about those principles), he attacked social security/medicare/medicaid, he attacked people for asking for handouts and being "dependents" on the government, and he actually implied that he supports Republicans.

You should probably have read more about this guy's politics before cavalierly walking into this thread and lecturing me on what he believes. I've only watched him for 36 minutes, and I apparently have a more solid understanding of his positions than you do.

His current positions indeed.

 

[FieldTheorist]

Bernie begin to falter (my pick #1), I too have hopped-on the wagon.

I don't count Bernie out just yet. He's still doing far better than anyone predicted.