Woods’ Law #2

The “progressive” Left always prefers a neoconservative to an antiwar libertarian.  That’s Woods’ Law #2.  They can overlook the support for war, the centralization of power (what “progressive” would disagree with that these days?), the encroachments on civil liberties.  That’s all fine and dandy.  But someone who opposes the initiation of violence against peaceful people?  Get him!

I am under attack from these people because I wonder if 300 million people ruled from one city is the most humane way to live.  Don’t I know I am not supposed to ask such a heretical question?

I predicted exactly what these people would say about me when my book Nullification came out.  I nailed it to a T.  Here’s my actual background, since you won’t learn about it from them (an oversight, I’m sure).  And I’m pretty sure my Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, which they haven’t read but are sure must be terrible, survives the two neoconservative attacks they cite against it.  See my “Replies to Critics” on this page, and decide for yourself who has the better of the argument.

The fact that the Claremont Institute, which awarded Donald Rumsfeld its 2007 Statesmanship Award, doesn’t like my book is evidence to a progressive that you’re not supposed to like it.  How clueless can you be?  (Natch, they leave out that Claremont did like this book.  Probably just an oversight.)

The progressives who are after me are the worst kind of all.  If California decriminalizes marijuana, they will be the first to call for locking people up in government cages anyway.  For how dare they resist their wise overlords in Washington!  What’s that, comrade?  “Question Authority,” you say?  Wherever did you learn that?  What are you, some kind of “neo-Confederate”?

These “progressives” favor centralized government, they insist, because it’s so good for minority groups.  Oh, it’s super.  How great the federal drug war has been for blacks!

You know what all this calls to mind?  My Interview with a Zombie:

Share this post:Digg thisShare on FacebookGoogle+Share on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on Twitter
  • Phil W

    Let me know when the 3 minute “hate Tom” sessions begin. I need a good laugh.

  • http://www.fascistsoup.com Michael Suede

    I think it is clear that the only way a country can prosper is by looting people at gun point.

    If someone has money, they are probably a capitalist and therefore should have their money confiscated so it can be put to work doing good for humanity instead of evil.

    For example, a capitalist would sell shoes for a profit, thereby depriving people of their money. If the State takes this evil capitalist’s profits, it can then use that money to do good things, like blowing up brown children in foreign countries.

    Only through violence can a society hope to achieve peace and prosperity.

    Praise Mao, and may Stalin expropriate your home to build a green energy windmill farm.

  • http://www.aviewfromthefence.com/ John Lambert

    I think Bob Murphy should be nominated for an Oscar. ;-)

  • Kieran

    Mr. Woods,

    Would you leave a link to Woods Law #1, please? I looked through your previous blog posts, but I couldn’t find it.

    I have finally begun reading Nullification, and I’m enjoying, as usual, your wit and intellectual insight.

    Keep up the great work.



  • Jack

    Kieran, Woods’ Law #1: “Whenever the private sector introduces an innovation that makes the poor better off than they would have been without it, or that offers benefits or terms that no one else is prepared to offer them, someone—in the name of helping the poor—will call for curbing or abolishing it.”

    Tom, have you had any direct communication with Martha Dean about this?

  • Kieran

    Thanks, Jack! That’s great.