Support
Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd.aoshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd.aoshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
Fundamental Concepts – Me vs We [Weirddave]
Lets take a moment to consider political labels. All too often, they are used as simple pejoratives, not the least by me. If we're talking and I tell you “You're so progressive!”, chances are it isn't a complement. Progressive, Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian, Communist, Fascist, Totalitarian, Royalist (haven't heard that one in a while), Maoist, Theocratic...each one of these terms has a specific meaning, but how do they all fit together in the big picture?
It's really not that hard, if you just visualize a continuum. On the far left you put the label “Collectivist”. On the far right, “Individualist”. Alternately you could label the right side “Freedom” and the left side “Order”. Or “Liberty” and “Control”. Once we have constructed this graph, what does it tell us?
Well, the first thing it does is give us a handy way to slot how various philosophies relate to one another. Reaching into our political hat (please don't reach into The Political Hat, no matter what sock he's posting under. He's a human being, reaching into him would be bloody) we pull out Communism and Democracy. Since Communism is collectivist by definition, it goes to the left of Democracy. Draw another philosophy: Anarchy. That goes all the way to the right. Socialism. Since Socialism is a transitional system from Democracy to Communism, it goes to the left of Democracy and to the right of Communism. Fascism. Just barely to the right of Communism (and only because it at least allows the illusion of private enterprise, making it a tiny bit less collectivist.) and left of Socialism. And so on. Once everything is in it's place, what use is it? Well, the first thing about our graph is that it is useful for dispelling common misconceptions. Fascism isn't in any sense a “right wing” philosophy. Calling someone who favors the limited government of a Republic(right of Democracy, left of Anarchy) “Fascist” makes as much sense as a bunch of self proclaimed Anarchists (They're not, they're Marxists who believe that humans will magically stop being human once they've overthrown The Man.) wearing the mask of someone who fought for a Theocratic Monarchy (to the right of Socialism, left of Democracy). Second, it tells you in a nutshell what each political philosophy priorities, Socialists prize control over liberty, Anarchists freedom over order. Where this graph really becomes useful, however, is when you superimpose political movements onto it. If the graph is static, representing how different political systems relate to each other, political movements put it into motion, allowing us to see where we're going. What the graph does is give us a handy method of figuring out where we are so we can see what direction everyone wants us to go. Right now, the US sits between Socialism and Republic (sadly closer to the former). Since it was founded as a Republic, and Conservatives want to conserve that, we are a right wing political movement. Progressives, on the other hand, are all advocating for some flavor of Communism/Socialism/Fascism, which makes them a left wing movement. Context is everything, if we were a Communist country Socialists would be right wing, if we were an Anarchy, Republicans (not the party, the philosophy) would be radical left wingers. Consider the American Revolution. We were a Monarchy, the Founding Fathers were radical right because they wanted to establish a Republic. The conservatives at the time were left wing, they wanted to conserve the Monarchy. If George Washington had been Karl Marx, he would have been radical left and the conservatives right wing. Confused yet? I don't blame you, this isn't how a lot of these terms are traditionally defined. This is just how I keep things straight in my head. Labels can be intentionally misleading, as we've seen with regards to Fascism. Occupy is another example, they call themselves Anarcho-syndicalists, but their philosophy is collectivist, which puts them at the far left, no matter how hard they may try to don the mantle of "Anarchy". All of this is based upon my belief that the most important difference between political philosophies is to which degree they seek to control the individual. That's it, the whole enchilada. Everything else is just bunting and flags, bells and whistles. I need to know two things about anyone's political system; Does it prioritize human freedom, or human coercion? Once I know that, which direction is it going compared to where we are now? That's it. Tell me those two things and I can tell you if I want to be on your side, or if I'll oppose you. YMMVComments
(Jump to bottom of comments)Posted by: rickl at April 11, 2015 10:22 AM (sdi6R)
2
This place is why I never seem to get anything done on the weekends.
Posted by: rickl at April 11, 2015 10:23 AM (sdi6R)
3
Hat trick?
Posted by: rickl at April 11, 2015 10:23 AM (sdi6R)
4
OK, off to read the post.
Posted by: rickl at April 11, 2015 10:24 AM (sdi6R)
5
One more and I'll be an ace.
Posted by: rickl at April 11, 2015 10:24 AM (sdi6R)
6
It's hard not to keep going.
Posted by: rickl at April 11, 2015 10:25 AM (sdi6R)
7
Ok, so what is a neo-con?
Posted by: Gnash Bumbler at April 11, 2015 10:26 AM (P7vZP)
8
Lucky seven?
Posted by: rickl at April 11, 2015 10:26 AM (sdi6R)
9
Thank God, I can stop now.
Posted by: rickl at April 11, 2015 10:26 AM (sdi6R)
10
I'm all about the glory of the republic. But if there's one thing that might make a person a royalist, it's this:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/bpgjlqx
(link to Telegraph)
http://preview.tinyurl.com/bpgjlqx
(link to Telegraph)
Posted by: Lurking Canuck at April 11, 2015 10:26 AM (3q+ML)
Posted by: Cake Girl at April 11, 2015 10:27 AM (3q+ML)
12
And then there are the movements which simultaneously cover disparate ends of the spectrum.
How, one might ask, is that possible?
Easy. They say one thing for public consumption, and do the exact opposite in the dark of night and shadow.
In other words; Democrats.
Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX
How, one might ask, is that possible?
Easy. They say one thing for public consumption, and do the exact opposite in the dark of night and shadow.
In other words; Democrats.
Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX
Posted by: Jim at April 11, 2015 10:29 AM (RzZOc)
13
A Liberal in Australia is a conservative to us.
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at April 11, 2015 10:31 AM (1LGj1)
14
http://www.royal.gov.uk/historyofthemonarchy/historyofthemonarchy.aspx
I love British history. They are so matter of fact about their bloody civil wars and revolutions.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/historyofthemonarchy/historyofthemonarchy.aspx
I love British history. They are so matter of fact about their bloody civil wars and revolutions.
Posted by: Gnash Bumbler at April 11, 2015 10:31 AM (P7vZP)
15
i yam what i yam
Posted by: phoenixgirl at April 11, 2015 10:32 AM (u8GsB)
16
Blog waking up?
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at April 11, 2015 10:33 AM (1LGj1)
17
The problem is that Europeans are the opposite of most Americans on "right" and "left". The consider Nazism to be far right when in fact it was communism under a different name. As for Italy's Fascism it was a socialist/regulatory State.
I put America at 30% socialism, 30% fascism, 15% capitalist, and 10% outright communist.
And don't forget that Capitalism and Socialism terms were invented by Marx while the term Fascist was invented by Mussolini.
I put America at 30% socialism, 30% fascism, 15% capitalist, and 10% outright communist.
And don't forget that Capitalism and Socialism terms were invented by Marx while the term Fascist was invented by Mussolini.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at April 11, 2015 10:33 AM (wlDny)
18
I used to think along those lines. Now I just agree with Bastiat that the law is organized justice, and derailing it into any other purpose, even organized charity, turns it into organized injustice. Either the law is just, or it just isn't.
Posted by: JohnJ at April 11, 2015 10:33 AM (TF/YA)
19
Royalist would be to the right of a Republic
Posted by: Bigby's Knuckle Sandwich at April 11, 2015 10:33 AM (miWk9)
20
7
Ok, so what is a neo-con?
Posted by: Gnash Bumbler at April 11, 2015 10:26 AM (P7vZP)
A "neocon" is a Democrat that switched to Republican because the Democrats became pacifist at all cost. A neocon is not conservative at all.
Ok, so what is a neo-con?
Posted by: Gnash Bumbler at April 11, 2015 10:26 AM (P7vZP)
A "neocon" is a Democrat that switched to Republican because the Democrats became pacifist at all cost. A neocon is not conservative at all.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at April 11, 2015 10:34 AM (wlDny)
21
I don't like the whole "corgi" thing. When people are still having a lively discussion on the old thread, I don't want to interrupt them. They'll find this one soon enough.
The exception is an hours-old stale thread when everybody is running out of things to say.
The exception is an hours-old stale thread when everybody is running out of things to say.
Posted by: rickl at April 11, 2015 10:36 AM (sdi6R)
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at April 11, 2015 10:37 AM (1LGj1)
23
neocons assert that the founding principles ought to be exported aggressively, similar to the Comintern project of worldwide communism.
Posted by: Bigby's Knuckle Sandwich at April 11, 2015 10:37 AM (XvP14)
24
Ok, so what is a neo-con?
Posted by: Gnash Bumbler
The true answer, as I have come to understand it, is that the "neo-cons"" were originally Trostkyite Jewish intellectuals, who finally had enough of the Left and appeasement of Soviet communism, and were first and foremost "anti-communists", anti-Soviets. The revelations about Stalin from the 20th Party Congress (in the USSR) were one of the first things that began the neo-con movement in America.
They also brought their intellectual viewpoints to the Right regarding what we call Social Welfare, which has in part corrupted a lot of basic American viewpoints on Social Welfare and the activity of the government in the lives of the people.
And most obviously, they were also in favor of foreign intervention to originally oppose Soviet hegemony around the world, and then on general principle to promote "democracy". "Make the World Safe for Democracy" was originally a trope of Woodrow Wilson, but fits right into the neo-con view. It's not an evil viewpoint, just not as straightforward to bring about than some thought.
And in comparison to Obama making the world safe for Socialist - Marxist revolutions, probably a lot more desirable.
Posted by: Gnash Bumbler
The true answer, as I have come to understand it, is that the "neo-cons"" were originally Trostkyite Jewish intellectuals, who finally had enough of the Left and appeasement of Soviet communism, and were first and foremost "anti-communists", anti-Soviets. The revelations about Stalin from the 20th Party Congress (in the USSR) were one of the first things that began the neo-con movement in America.
They also brought their intellectual viewpoints to the Right regarding what we call Social Welfare, which has in part corrupted a lot of basic American viewpoints on Social Welfare and the activity of the government in the lives of the people.
And most obviously, they were also in favor of foreign intervention to originally oppose Soviet hegemony around the world, and then on general principle to promote "democracy". "Make the World Safe for Democracy" was originally a trope of Woodrow Wilson, but fits right into the neo-con view. It's not an evil viewpoint, just not as straightforward to bring about than some thought.
And in comparison to Obama making the world safe for Socialist - Marxist revolutions, probably a lot more desirable.
Posted by: Bossy Conservative....lost in America at April 11, 2015 10:38 AM (+1T7c)
25
Funny thing. The other day I mentioned to my friend that the gun I've been waiting for is finally coming out, (yes it begins with a G, is a single stack, and eats stuff in a size 9, let the judgement begin...) well, she laughed and said something about me being a right-wing Republican. I was surprised at my staunch denial and stated I was a Conservative, NOT a Republican. I follow individual candidates not the party. She said that's ok, she's a Republican. See, there are some in Austin.
Posted by: lindafell is Cruzin' at April 11, 2015 10:38 AM (xVgrA)
26
Somebody around here's getting an asskicking. Who's it gonna be?
Posted by: San Bernardino Sheriff's Dept at April 11, 2015 10:40 AM (KtVta)
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at April 11, 2015 10:40 AM (1LGj1)
28
We'd draw Socialism in the middle of that picture. (if there were one, hint, hint)
Posted by: The NYT at April 11, 2015 10:42 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: Genghis Cohen at April 11, 2015 10:43 AM (fLKzW)
30
What about us non-libertarian federalists?
Keep the national level weak, but the state level strong. If any one state is too intrusive, you can always vote with your feet, but there is no escaping the Feds. We sit on both sides of the continuum simultaneously.
Just leave us with Tardisil?
Keep the national level weak, but the state level strong. If any one state is too intrusive, you can always vote with your feet, but there is no escaping the Feds. We sit on both sides of the continuum simultaneously.
Just leave us with Tardisil?
Posted by: wooga at April 11, 2015 10:44 AM (WeshN)
31
We were a Monarchy, the Founding Fathers were radical right because they wanted to establish a Republic. The conservatives at the time were left wing, they wanted to conserve the Monarchy. If George Washington had been Karl Marx, he would have been radical left and the conservatives right wing.
This explains why radical Muslims are sometimes called conservative. They want to adhere to a strict interpretation of the Koran, and bring back the Caliphate in which Islam is totally dominant. In this situation those who advocate for more freedom are liberal.
This explains why radical Muslims are sometimes called conservative. They want to adhere to a strict interpretation of the Koran, and bring back the Caliphate in which Islam is totally dominant. In this situation those who advocate for more freedom are liberal.
Posted by: rickl at April 11, 2015 10:44 AM (sdi6R)
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at April 11, 2015 10:45 AM (1LGj1)
33
It's Austin.
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at April 11, 2015 10:40 AM (1LGj1)
Hey, I'm in Austin!!! You take that back!!! Uhh, what did you mean by that anyways?
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at April 11, 2015 10:40 AM (1LGj1)
Hey, I'm in Austin!!! You take that back!!! Uhh, what did you mean by that anyways?
Posted by: lindafell is Cruzin' at April 11, 2015 10:46 AM (xVgrA)
34
Obama won for two reasons and as much as I hate Karl Rove he was partially right about one thing. On election night he said Obama won because too many people wanted free shit. That is where the term free shit army came about. I used it very early but so have others so I don't know who used it first here. But the FSA was out in force.
The other reason he won is because of pure racism such as the CBC and the NAACP display. Vote for a black if any are running regardless. If no blacks are running vote for out maters the Democrats. And blacks turned out in droves.
The only thing that didn't make it a landslide was the FSA and Racism overlapped a lot, but the Hispanic vote made up for that. They want their free shit too.
The other reason he won is because of pure racism such as the CBC and the NAACP display. Vote for a black if any are running regardless. If no blacks are running vote for out maters the Democrats. And blacks turned out in droves.
The only thing that didn't make it a landslide was the FSA and Racism overlapped a lot, but the Hispanic vote made up for that. They want their free shit too.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at April 11, 2015 10:47 AM (wlDny)
35
'The conservatives at the time were left wing, they wanted to conserve
the Monarchy. If George Washington had been Karl Marx, he would have
been radical left and the conservatives right wing.'
I've
never heard this description of conservatism. Is this correct? If so,
does that mean that conservative philosophy is subject to change,
depending on the circumstances, time and place.
the Monarchy. If George Washington had been Karl Marx, he would have
been radical left and the conservatives right wing.'
I've
never heard this description of conservatism. Is this correct? If so,
does that mean that conservative philosophy is subject to change,
depending on the circumstances, time and place.
Posted by: jeannebodine at April 11, 2015 10:47 AM (SR3U3)
36
If George Washington had been Karl Marx, he would have been radical left
The line of thought I get, but I'm not sure I understand this part.
The line of thought I get, but I'm not sure I understand this part.
Posted by: t-bird at April 11, 2015 10:47 AM (FcR7P)
37
complement to compliment
Posted by: Nancine at April 11, 2015 10:47 AM (OfXB2)
38
Ooops wrong thread.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at April 11, 2015 10:47 AM (wlDny)
39
Posted by: Gnash Bumbler at April 11, 2015 10:26 AM (P7vZP)
Originally? Adherents of Leo Strauss' political philosophy, but it has become a catch-all for anyone who began on the left and moved to the right, specifically with a robust foreign policy in mind. It is also a code for Joooo!
The first famous one I can think of was Jeanne Kirkpatrick. And of course Norman Podhoretz, the publisher of Commentary.
I think that it has become more of a pejorative now.....
Originally? Adherents of Leo Strauss' political philosophy, but it has become a catch-all for anyone who began on the left and moved to the right, specifically with a robust foreign policy in mind. It is also a code for Joooo!
The first famous one I can think of was Jeanne Kirkpatrick. And of course Norman Podhoretz, the publisher of Commentary.
I think that it has become more of a pejorative now.....
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 11, 2015 10:48 AM (Zu3d9)
40
"Hey, I'm in Austin!!! You take that back!!! Uhh, what did you mean by that anyways?"
Oh, Austin's fine. Except for the, well, ya know.
Otherwise, peachy.
Oh, Austin's fine. Except for the, well, ya know.
Otherwise, peachy.
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at April 11, 2015 10:49 AM (1LGj1)
41
26 Somebody around here's getting an asskicking. Who's it gonna be?
Posted by: San Bernardino Sheriff's Dept at April 11, 2015 10:40 AM (KtVta)
What if I don't fall off the horse?
Posted by: San Bernardino Sheriff's Dept at April 11, 2015 10:40 AM (KtVta)
What if I don't fall off the horse?
Posted by: Andrew Mendoza, horse fucker at April 11, 2015 10:49 AM (WeshN)
42
I need to know two things about anyone's political system; Does it prioritize human freedom, or human coercion?
It should do both!
It should do both!
Posted by: Goth Fonzie at April 11, 2015 10:50 AM (3q+ML)
43
all -ist or -ism words share in common a concept of a group that strives to enlist new members. The word "party" in political party is significant. It is the group one wants to party with. Political activity reflects the need preserve the groups' survival so the members can comfortably continue their association.
Even libertarianism or Individualism are parties distinct from the "leave me alone" group. The former have conventions.
Even libertarianism or Individualism are parties distinct from the "leave me alone" group. The former have conventions.
Posted by: dedomeno at April 11, 2015 10:52 AM (+D/2U)
44
If so, does that mean that conservative philosophy is subject to change
No, there's no Conservative Philosophy, it just means that that which is to conserved changes. Democrats are 'conservative' when it comes to our Federal behemoth, for instance.
No, there's no Conservative Philosophy, it just means that that which is to conserved changes. Democrats are 'conservative' when it comes to our Federal behemoth, for instance.
Posted by: t-bird at April 11, 2015 10:53 AM (FcR7P)
45
I remember when they tried to sell the Clintons as a two fer one deal tho no one voted for Hillary. I wonder if they will try to sell Hillary as a 3 fer one deal throwing Howdy Doody into the mix.
I remember when they tried to sell the Clintons as a two fer one deal tho no one voted for Hillary. I wonder if they will try to sell Hillary as a 3 fer one deal throwing Howdy Doody into the mix.
Posted by: Bruce J. at April 11, 2015 10:54 AM (iQIUe)
Posted by: eman at April 11, 2015 10:54 AM (MQEz6)
47
Posted by: jeannebodine at April 11, 2015 10:47 AM (SR3U3)
No. Personal freedom, freedom from coercive government action, freedom of association, religion, etc.
Those are timeless. This is nitpicking about labels, and it obfuscates.
No. Personal freedom, freedom from coercive government action, freedom of association, religion, etc.
Those are timeless. This is nitpicking about labels, and it obfuscates.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 11, 2015 10:56 AM (Zu3d9)
48
I go with the quote "That government is best that governs the least". It has been attributed to Thoreau and Jefferson both.
At the present time that fits best with conservatives. It used to fit with Libertarians until they decided they wanted no government at all.
At the present time that fits best with conservatives. It used to fit with Libertarians until they decided they wanted no government at all.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at April 11, 2015 10:56 AM (wlDny)
49
At the present time that fits best with conservatives. It used to fit with Libertarians until they decided they wanted no government at all.
Step into my office.
Step into my office.
Posted by: Goth Fonzie at April 11, 2015 10:59 AM (3q+ML)
50
The line of thought I get, but I'm not sure I understand this part
=======
because it's incorrect. WD Is shoehorning there
=======
because it's incorrect. WD Is shoehorning there
Posted by: Bigby's Knuckle Sandwich at April 11, 2015 10:59 AM (Cq0oW)
51
Right now we are on a fast-moving train and folks are discussing whether or not they believe in the locomotive.
Posted by: eman at April 11, 2015 10:59 AM (MQEz6)
52
I'm going to repost my comment from the last thread:
166 I don't understand how Crowdpac defines "liberal" vs. "conservative" or "left" vs. "right".
The traditional political spectrum as most people understand it places Communists on the far left and Nazis on the far right, with Democrats and Republicans towards the middle. This is why so many people identify themselves as "moderate". That spectrum is deeply flawed, as we know.
With such extreme right scores, is Crowdpac trying to insinuate that Paul and Cruz would be Fascist dictators? That's absurd on its face with Paul's well-known libertarian leanings. So this chart seems muddled to me.
Here is a video that explains the various forms of government, and uses a spectrum where the far left is total government and the far right is no government, or anarchy. On this scale Paul would certainly be to the right of center, but by no means on the extreme right.
It's 10 1/2 minutes long, and is well worth watching in its entirety.
https://tinyurl.com/kgojyux
Posted by: rickl at April 11, 2015 10:04 AM (sdi6R)
That's the video I mentioned in my first comment on this thread. I think it would fit very well here, although there are some important differences.
The main point of the video is that there are only two stable forms of government, Oligarchy and Republic. Oligarchy is by far the most common type of government throughout human history. No matter the "bunting and flags, bells and whistles", it all comes down to rule by a powerful clique.
The video also features an excellent explanation of how anarchy is used as a tool by those who wish to tear down the existing order and seize power for themselves.
I would say that the U.S. ceased being a Republic long ago. During the 20th century we transitioned to a democracy, and are now a pretty much straight-up oligarchy. Politicians of both parties just want to hold on to the reins of power, do as they please without regard to the Constitution, and are openly hostile to those who wish to restore the Republic, such as Tea Party conservatives.
166 I don't understand how Crowdpac defines "liberal" vs. "conservative" or "left" vs. "right".
The traditional political spectrum as most people understand it places Communists on the far left and Nazis on the far right, with Democrats and Republicans towards the middle. This is why so many people identify themselves as "moderate". That spectrum is deeply flawed, as we know.
With such extreme right scores, is Crowdpac trying to insinuate that Paul and Cruz would be Fascist dictators? That's absurd on its face with Paul's well-known libertarian leanings. So this chart seems muddled to me.
Here is a video that explains the various forms of government, and uses a spectrum where the far left is total government and the far right is no government, or anarchy. On this scale Paul would certainly be to the right of center, but by no means on the extreme right.
It's 10 1/2 minutes long, and is well worth watching in its entirety.
https://tinyurl.com/kgojyux
Posted by: rickl at April 11, 2015 10:04 AM (sdi6R)
That's the video I mentioned in my first comment on this thread. I think it would fit very well here, although there are some important differences.
The main point of the video is that there are only two stable forms of government, Oligarchy and Republic. Oligarchy is by far the most common type of government throughout human history. No matter the "bunting and flags, bells and whistles", it all comes down to rule by a powerful clique.
The video also features an excellent explanation of how anarchy is used as a tool by those who wish to tear down the existing order and seize power for themselves.
I would say that the U.S. ceased being a Republic long ago. During the 20th century we transitioned to a democracy, and are now a pretty much straight-up oligarchy. Politicians of both parties just want to hold on to the reins of power, do as they please without regard to the Constitution, and are openly hostile to those who wish to restore the Republic, such as Tea Party conservatives.
Posted by: rickl at April 11, 2015 11:00 AM (sdi6R)
53
When it comes to taking a stance, I hike up my skirts and say E Aho Laula- wider is better.
Posted by: Hillary! at April 11, 2015 11:00 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: eman at April 11, 2015 11:01 AM (MQEz6)
55
When it comes to taking a stance, I hike up my skirts and say E Aho Laula- wider is better.
Hellz ya!
Hellz ya!
Posted by: Larry Craig at April 11, 2015 11:02 AM (3q+ML)
56
its simple to demonstrate.
was the Magna Carta a rightwing type of document? is the diffusion of power from the singular to the several right or left? are the founding principles referred to as classically liberal?
was the Magna Carta a rightwing type of document? is the diffusion of power from the singular to the several right or left? are the founding principles referred to as classically liberal?
Posted by: Bigby's Knuckle Sandwich at April 11, 2015 11:03 AM (Cq0oW)
57
"Right now we are on a fast-moving train and folks are discussing whether or not they believe in the locomotive."
Excellent.
I believe in the locomotive. It's science fact. Just wondering how to jump off with the least bodily harm. Or disconnect the cars.
Excellent.
I believe in the locomotive. It's science fact. Just wondering how to jump off with the least bodily harm. Or disconnect the cars.
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at April 11, 2015 11:03 AM (1LGj1)
58
52 Posted by: rickl at April 11, 2015 11:00 AM (sdi6R)
We just had the anniversary of the death of the Republic yesterday.
We just had the anniversary of the death of the Republic yesterday.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at April 11, 2015 11:04 AM (wlDny)
59
(please don't reach into The Political Hat, no matter what sock he's
posting under. He's a human being, reaching into him would be blood)
^^^
dang.
there go my saturday plans.
posting under. He's a human being, reaching into him would be blood)
^^^
dang.
there go my saturday plans.
Posted by: TangoNine at April 11, 2015 11:04 AM (x3YFz)
Posted by: Jhosnon Jazz Hands at April 11, 2015 11:04 AM (0Ogcu)
Posted by: Bigby's Knuckle Sandwich at April 11, 2015 11:05 AM (Cq0oW)
Posted by: Jim at April 11, 2015 11:05 AM (RzZOc)
63
The problem is in trying to make "liberal" and "conservative" fit on a political philosophy scale. Don't think of either of those terms as nouns; think of them as adjectives.
Posted by: jwpaine at April 11, 2015 11:05 AM (i0pY0)
64
I've
never heard this description of conservatism. Is this correct? If so,
does that mean that conservative philosophy is subject to change,
depending on the circumstances, time and place.
It all depends on what is being conserved, which is #1 a sneaky trick used to discredit American conservatives and #2 why I juxtaposed the term on the political continuum as I did. Muslim terrorists are "Conservative" in that they are trying to conserve Sharia law, but Sharia law is far to the left on the political freedom spectrum. Thus when the MSM uses the term "Conservative Muslims" it's to paint American conservatives- who want to conserve the Republic, something anathema to Sharia-with an extremist brush and to make a connection between the two in the minds of LIVs.
never heard this description of conservatism. Is this correct? If so,
does that mean that conservative philosophy is subject to change,
depending on the circumstances, time and place.
It all depends on what is being conserved, which is #1 a sneaky trick used to discredit American conservatives and #2 why I juxtaposed the term on the political continuum as I did. Muslim terrorists are "Conservative" in that they are trying to conserve Sharia law, but Sharia law is far to the left on the political freedom spectrum. Thus when the MSM uses the term "Conservative Muslims" it's to paint American conservatives- who want to conserve the Republic, something anathema to Sharia-with an extremist brush and to make a connection between the two in the minds of LIVs.
Posted by: Weirddave at April 11, 2015 11:07 AM (WvS3w)
65
It's been a constant meme since WWII that the fascists (aka Nazis, or NASDP of Germany) were "right" because that's what Stalin and the Soviets said they were. There has been a lot of revisionism in history, as many post -Soviet sympathizers in the Academy said the Soviets were fighting fascism in the 1930's (which of course explains the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, which divided Poland between the Soviets and Germany, among other things).
Right and Left may all be a bunch of hooey in many ways, but it's a simple way for simple people to keep the scorecard straight, without getting into all those icky details about limited government, the Leviathan and tooth decay.
Right and Left may all be a bunch of hooey in many ways, but it's a simple way for simple people to keep the scorecard straight, without getting into all those icky details about limited government, the Leviathan and tooth decay.
Posted by: Bossy Conservative....lost in America at April 11, 2015 11:08 AM (+1T7c)
66
"Don't think of either of those terms as nouns; think of them as adjectives."
It gets weird.
A classic "liberal" wanted no interference with the government. A man/woman was a man/woman. To do as they saw fit.
It gets weird.
A classic "liberal" wanted no interference with the government. A man/woman was a man/woman. To do as they saw fit.
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at April 11, 2015 11:08 AM (1LGj1)
67
You're right, WD -- I drew up the same type of chart for my nephew who was in college. The confusion he felt about the politics all around him suddenly fell away and he finally understood what was going on. It's Individualism vs. Collectivism. And further, I explained the ethical/philosophical source of the split -- Altruism vs. Egoism. He no longer thinks Egoism is a dirty word.
Posted by: Puzzled Dolphin at April 11, 2015 11:09 AM (Z/irl)
68
I would say that the U.S. ceased being a Republic long ago. During the 20th century we transitioned to a democracy, and are now a pretty much straight-up oligarchy. Politicians of both parties just want to hold on to the reins of power, do as they please without regard to the Constitution, and are openly hostile to those who wish to restore the Republic, such as Tea Party conservatives.
Posted by: rickl at April 11, 2015 11:00 AM (sdi6R)
Pretty much. So as we point out the bells and whistles and bunting and flags, definitions of left and right are among them.
The average person votes, not based on any sort of cohesive understanding of his or her political philosophy, but as part of the artificial continuum on which the parties and players place themselves.
Posted by: rickl at April 11, 2015 11:00 AM (sdi6R)
Pretty much. So as we point out the bells and whistles and bunting and flags, definitions of left and right are among them.
The average person votes, not based on any sort of cohesive understanding of his or her political philosophy, but as part of the artificial continuum on which the parties and players place themselves.
Posted by: BurtTC at April 11, 2015 11:10 AM (Dj0WE)
69
Thus when the MSM uses the term "Conservative Muslims" it's to paint American conservatives- who want to conserve the Republic, something anathema to Sharia-with an extremist brush and to make a connection between the two in the minds of LIVs.
That's crazy talk...I suppose you're some kind of denier too!?!
That's crazy talk...I suppose you're some kind of denier too!?!
Posted by: Church of Environtologist at April 11, 2015 11:10 AM (3q+ML)
70
I found useful the approach of Arnold Kling's "The Three Languages of Politics," which postulates that there are 3 general modes of viewing politics, 1) conservative, which examines politics on a civilization vs. barbarism sprectum; 2) libertarian, where the spectrum is freedom vs. tyranny; 3) progressive, where deciding who is the oppressing group vs. oppressed group decides the issue. The interest thing is that everyone's spectrum makes them a good guy and everyone else wrong, or even evil, when in actuality your opponents may be merely using a different spectrum to view issues.
Posted by: Bud Norton at April 11, 2015 11:11 AM (KoWnw)
71
If one is a negative- liberty proponent, constitutional originalist, does that make one a libertarian? What defines libertarian?
Posted by: Edmund Burke's Shade, languishing in Krazyfornia at April 11, 2015 11:12 AM (cmBvC)
72
You OSINT free loadout. Courtesy of a great guy I just call "J"
Maltego
Creepy
Spokeo
Good tools. use them wisely.
Maltego
Creepy
Spokeo
Good tools. use them wisely.
Posted by: TangoNine at April 11, 2015 11:13 AM (x3YFz)
73
That's the video I mentioned in my first comment on this thread. I
think it would fit very well here, although there are some important
differences.
I have kept that in my pocket for the week that I completely blanked on what to write for FC.
Two reasons, really. #1, I like to bring at least SOME slightly original thoughts to these posts, and that's spot on. "Fundamental Concepts-Watch this video, see you next week!" isn't much of a thread.
#2, I wanted to write this one first. I was rather leaning towards covering that next week.
That's the video I mentioned in my first comment on this thread. I
think it would fit very well here, although there are some important
differences.
I have kept that in my pocket for the week that I completely blanked on what to write for FC.
Two reasons, really. #1, I like to bring at least SOME slightly original thoughts to these posts, and that's spot on. "Fundamental Concepts-Watch this video, see you next week!" isn't much of a thread.
#2, I wanted to write this one first. I was rather leaning towards covering that next week.
Posted by: Weirddave at April 11, 2015 11:14 AM (WvS3w)
74
It's a bit confusing because the reality is that ultra-right is the Holy Roman Empire. Google Franz Joseph for the example of this (or, better, read Crankshaw's "The Fall of the House of Hapsburg"). Everything else is to the left of this, including our beloved Great Republic (now hibernating). Once you get past 19th century Liberalism you're just getting variations on anti-human themes of leftism, one pretty much like any other.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at April 11, 2015 11:15 AM (voZKo)
75
You left off "whacko birds."
Posted by: Maverick McCain at April 11, 2015 11:15 AM (JO9+V)
76
It's 10 1/2 minutes long, and is well worth watching in its entirety.
https://tinyurl.com/kgojyux
Thanks for that. Just watched it and it is excellent.
https://tinyurl.com/kgojyux
Thanks for that. Just watched it and it is excellent.
Posted by: t-bird at April 11, 2015 11:15 AM (FcR7P)
77
Too funny OT: In the middle of an article accusing conservatives of being racially ignorant bigots, Salon misidentifies the actor playing Raj on Big Bang with actor in Office Space. Well, they all look alike.
http://tinyurl.com/qazlwbo
http://tinyurl.com/qazlwbo
Posted by: The Great White Snark at April 11, 2015 11:16 AM (AQaC5)
78
I love British history. They are so matter of fact about their bloody civil wars and revolutions.
****
It would be impolite to do otherwise.
****
It would be impolite to do otherwise.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at April 11, 2015 11:16 AM (DmNpO)
79
No. Personal freedom, freedom from coercive government action, freedom of association, religion, etc.
Those are timeless. This is nitpicking about labels, and it obfuscates.
****************
I
agree. But I don't believe we should state that George Washington was a
radical left winger. Conservatism does have tenets that don't change
over time, based on circumstances.
Dems aren't conservatives just
because they want to 'conserve' the welfare state as stated in one of the comments. We aren't radicals
because we want to do away with the leviathan, although the progressives label us as such.
Trying
to use the word 'conserve' for conservatism is a losing proposition, a
set-up by the Left. We believe in certain principles that are timeless -
natural law, etc. They try to paint us as backward, wanting to hang on
to the past and they are very successful at this.
That's why I
object to the shifting use of conserve with George Washington as a
radical and the Royalists being conservatives. If that's true,
'conservatism' is ever fluid. But it's not. The principles remain the
same.
Our
principles are
indeed timeless and our founders believed in the same ideas. Limited
government, the Constitution, etc., etc. We need to define what we
believe and stop falling into trap that are set by the Left (and where fundamentalist Muslims are just like us!)
Those are timeless. This is nitpicking about labels, and it obfuscates.
****************
I
agree. But I don't believe we should state that George Washington was a
radical left winger. Conservatism does have tenets that don't change
over time, based on circumstances.
Dems aren't conservatives just
because they want to 'conserve' the welfare state as stated in one of the comments. We aren't radicals
because we want to do away with the leviathan, although the progressives label us as such.
Trying
to use the word 'conserve' for conservatism is a losing proposition, a
set-up by the Left. We believe in certain principles that are timeless -
natural law, etc. They try to paint us as backward, wanting to hang on
to the past and they are very successful at this.
That's why I
object to the shifting use of conserve with George Washington as a
radical and the Royalists being conservatives. If that's true,
'conservatism' is ever fluid. But it's not. The principles remain the
same.
Our
principles are
indeed timeless and our founders believed in the same ideas. Limited
government, the Constitution, etc., etc. We need to define what we
believe and stop falling into trap that are set by the Left (and where fundamentalist Muslims are just like us!)
Posted by: jeannebodine at April 11, 2015 11:18 AM (SR3U3)
80
66
A classic "liberal" wanted no interference with the government. A man/woman was a man/woman. To do as they saw fit.
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at April 11, 2015 11:08 AM (1LGj1)
In the 18th and 19th centuries, "conservatives" were those who wanted to conserve the privileges of the hereditary aristocracy, while "liberals" advocated for individual liberty, including economic liberty, aka free-market capitalism.
A classic "liberal" wanted no interference with the government. A man/woman was a man/woman. To do as they saw fit.
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at April 11, 2015 11:08 AM (1LGj1)
In the 18th and 19th centuries, "conservatives" were those who wanted to conserve the privileges of the hereditary aristocracy, while "liberals" advocated for individual liberty, including economic liberty, aka free-market capitalism.
Posted by: rickl at April 11, 2015 11:19 AM (sdi6R)
81
RK: I understand the difference between what we're all calling "classic Liberalism" and "liberalism".
Liberals are always opposed by conservatives.. What was being "conserved" and what was being "liberated" was very different back in the "classic" days. Classic Liberalism wanted freedom from arbitrary state coercion. Today's liberals want freedom from consequence.
Liberals are always opposed by conservatives.. What was being "conserved" and what was being "liberated" was very different back in the "classic" days. Classic Liberalism wanted freedom from arbitrary state coercion. Today's liberals want freedom from consequence.
Posted by: jwpaine at April 11, 2015 11:20 AM (i0pY0)
82
I go with the quote "That government is best that governs the least". It has been attributed to Thoreau and Jefferson both.
-
And to Maya Angelou.
-
And to Maya Angelou.
Posted by: The Great White Snark at April 11, 2015 11:22 AM (LNbgN)
83
I go with the quote "That government is best that governs the least". It has been attributed to Thoreau and Jefferson both.
-
And to Maya Angelou.
-
And to Maya Angelou.
Posted by: The Great White Snark at April 11, 2015 11:22 AM (LNbgN)
84
"If one is a negative- liberty proponent, constitutional originalist,
does that make one a libertarian? What defines libertarian?"
No. Federalist I believe.
There was a Federal government to handle foreign affairs and ensure the general security of the individual states. The job was to promote and push the security of the general states. Not Lord over them. A very few general Federal laws to ensure the Federation could operate.
does that make one a libertarian? What defines libertarian?"
No. Federalist I believe.
There was a Federal government to handle foreign affairs and ensure the general security of the individual states. The job was to promote and push the security of the general states. Not Lord over them. A very few general Federal laws to ensure the Federation could operate.
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at April 11, 2015 11:23 AM (1LGj1)
85
Another way you could create your continuum could be along the lines of perceived ability/capability of others. Those with a low perception of others are on the Left = I feel the need to control you vs. a high perception of capability of those on the the Right = I see you as able and feel no need to interfere with you. Make sense?
You can flip this around by considering who's held accountable: Minorities, women, etc... are perceived by those on the Left as less able than say white men or Jews = the left acts in ways to absolve accountability for the former, but not the latter.
You can flip this around by considering who's held accountable: Minorities, women, etc... are perceived by those on the Left as less able than say white men or Jews = the left acts in ways to absolve accountability for the former, but not the latter.
Posted by: john at April 11, 2015 11:24 AM (T5jGA)
86
I agree with your system 100%. Doesn't mean a thing.
The Absalom method elects people. A candidate tells every loser that the loser had been in the right and if he were King the loser would have won his case. Also use the Will of Caesar method to destroy your opponents. eg Ted Kennedy put money in SS for you but my opponent is stealing it to give to his cronies.
The Absalom method elects people. A candidate tells every loser that the loser had been in the right and if he were King the loser would have won his case. Also use the Will of Caesar method to destroy your opponents. eg Ted Kennedy put money in SS for you but my opponent is stealing it to give to his cronies.
Posted by: pragmatist at April 11, 2015 11:24 AM (PGh+Q)
87
It's better than 8 years of Bush!!!
Posted by: My Liberal Father-In-Law at April 11, 2015 11:25 AM (flQTY)
Posted by: DaveA at April 11, 2015 11:25 AM (DL2i+)
89
I
agree. But I don't believe we should state that George Washington was a
radical left winger. Conservatism does have tenets that don't change
over time, based on circumstances.
I never said that. I said that if GW had been Karl Marx - shorthand for if the founders had been replacing the Monarchy with a Communist system - he would have been left wing. Obviously he wasn't.
And we do have timeless principles, they are the principles of Classical Liberalism. That's the term you're looking for. Today in the US those that believe in such principles are conservatives, but that's not universal. In Saudi Arabia a Classical Liberal would be an extreme radical. You're not wrong in what you say, you're just wedded to the wrong term.
agree. But I don't believe we should state that George Washington was a
radical left winger. Conservatism does have tenets that don't change
over time, based on circumstances.
I never said that. I said that if GW had been Karl Marx - shorthand for if the founders had been replacing the Monarchy with a Communist system - he would have been left wing. Obviously he wasn't.
And we do have timeless principles, they are the principles of Classical Liberalism. That's the term you're looking for. Today in the US those that believe in such principles are conservatives, but that's not universal. In Saudi Arabia a Classical Liberal would be an extreme radical. You're not wrong in what you say, you're just wedded to the wrong term.
Posted by: Weirddave at April 11, 2015 11:26 AM (WvS3w)
90
Exactly, pragmatist! They're all a bunch of crooks and liars, except for you and me. And someties I have my suspicions about yoou.
Posted by: jwpaine at April 11, 2015 11:26 AM (i0pY0)
91
"In the 18th and 19th centuries, "conservatives"
were those who wanted to conserve the privileges of the hereditary
aristocracy, while "liberals" advocated for individual liberty,
including economic liberty, aka free-market capitalism."
And, thus, further misadventures in "conservatives."
It changes over time and so do the motivations.
were those who wanted to conserve the privileges of the hereditary
aristocracy, while "liberals" advocated for individual liberty,
including economic liberty, aka free-market capitalism."
And, thus, further misadventures in "conservatives."
It changes over time and so do the motivations.
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at April 11, 2015 11:27 AM (1LGj1)
Posted by: SMOD 2016 at April 11, 2015 11:28 AM (JO9+V)
93
Ok, so what is a neo-con?
A great filter for Buchananite loon authors so you can skip the rest of the article?
A great filter for Buchananite loon authors so you can skip the rest of the article?
Posted by: DaveA at April 11, 2015 11:28 AM (DL2i+)
94
73
I have kept that in my pocket for the week that I completely blanked on what to write for FC.
Two reasons, really. #1, I like to bring at least SOME slightly original thoughts to these posts, and that's spot on. "Fundamental Concepts-Watch this video, see you next week!" isn't much of a thread.
#2, I wanted to write this one first. I was rather leaning towards covering that next week.
Posted by: Weirddave at April 11, 2015 11:14 AM (WvS3w)
Sorry to pre-emptively step on your toes. You can still use that next week. More people are likely to watch it if they can just click "play" instead of going through the whole highlight-the-url-right-click-open-in-new-tab rigaramole that passes for "links" around here.
I have kept that in my pocket for the week that I completely blanked on what to write for FC.
Two reasons, really. #1, I like to bring at least SOME slightly original thoughts to these posts, and that's spot on. "Fundamental Concepts-Watch this video, see you next week!" isn't much of a thread.
#2, I wanted to write this one first. I was rather leaning towards covering that next week.
Posted by: Weirddave at April 11, 2015 11:14 AM (WvS3w)
Sorry to pre-emptively step on your toes. You can still use that next week. More people are likely to watch it if they can just click "play" instead of going through the whole highlight-the-url-right-click-open-in-new-tab rigaramole that passes for "links" around here.
Posted by: rickl at April 11, 2015 11:29 AM (sdi6R)
95
And, I may be wrong, so anybody feel free to call me an idiot.
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at April 11, 2015 11:29 AM (1LGj1)
96
If that's true, 'conservatism' is ever fluid. But it's not. The principles remain the
same.
I'd say 'conservatism' isn't even a thing. It's just shorthand, at the moment, in this country, for us to describe ourselves (because we sure as heck can't use 'Republican' anymore). Personally, I'm a US Constitutional Republic Backed By The Bill Of Rights-ist, but twitter only gives you 140 characters, so I have to make choices.
same.
I'd say 'conservatism' isn't even a thing. It's just shorthand, at the moment, in this country, for us to describe ourselves (because we sure as heck can't use 'Republican' anymore). Personally, I'm a US Constitutional Republic Backed By The Bill Of Rights-ist, but twitter only gives you 140 characters, so I have to make choices.
Posted by: t-bird at April 11, 2015 11:30 AM (FcR7P)
97
By the way Weirddave, thanks for the FC posts. I mostly lurk and sock these days for shits and giggles, but these are usually my favourite posts.
They turn my thinky brain bits into words and make them good and stuff.
They turn my thinky brain bits into words and make them good and stuff.
Posted by: Lurking Canuck at April 11, 2015 11:31 AM (3q+ML)
98
The graph is a bit more complicated than two axes. There's a third which regards how responsible you are to an external, objective authority. One one end (A) is someone who believes in complete human autonomy where there is nothing more than their own will, and on the other (B) is someone who believes that humans are just robots controlled by an external force.
Most of American public and hence leadership is pretty far down toward the A end these days. Radical Islam is pretty close to the B end.
Most of American public and hence leadership is pretty far down toward the A end these days. Radical Islam is pretty close to the B end.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 11, 2015 11:31 AM (39g3+)
99
"Snowpiercer" last week.
It was bad in every way a movie can be bad.
Ya gotta admire that level of "Does not make sense"
It was bad in every way a movie can be bad.
Ya gotta admire that level of "Does not make sense"
Posted by: DaveA at April 11, 2015 11:32 AM (DL2i+)
100
And, I may be wrong, so anybody feel free to call me an idiot.
Don't tell me to be free, fascist!
Don't tell me to be free, fascist!
Posted by: t-bird at April 11, 2015 11:32 AM (FcR7P)
101
Ok, I'm confused by the George Washington bit but what about:
'The conservatives at the time were left wing, they wanted to conserve
the Monarchy.'
Isn't that tying the act of 'conserving' to identification of left or right? I'm really confused.
In general, I see a lot of abuses, mostly by the left, in defining conservatives by the act of 'conserving', as if this single act is the end all and be all of conservatives.
'The conservatives at the time were left wing, they wanted to conserve
the Monarchy.'
Isn't that tying the act of 'conserving' to identification of left or right? I'm really confused.
In general, I see a lot of abuses, mostly by the left, in defining conservatives by the act of 'conserving', as if this single act is the end all and be all of conservatives.
Posted by: jeannebodine at April 11, 2015 11:34 AM (SR3U3)
102
f that's true, 'conservatism' is ever fluid. But it's not. The principles remain the
same.
I'd say 'conservatism' isn't even a thing. It's just shorthand, at the moment, in this country, for us to describe ourselves (because we sure as heck can't use 'Republican' anymore). Personally, I'm a US Constitutional Republic Backed By The Bill Of Rights-ist, but twitter only gives you 140 characters, so I have to make choices.
Posted by: t-bird at April 11, 2015 11:30 AM (FcR7P)
Amen. Just look at his place, especially when Ace goes all kookoo over stuff Rick Santorum says. How in the world does anyone reconcile the term "conservative" with the flying elbows and arrows at those times?
same.
I'd say 'conservatism' isn't even a thing. It's just shorthand, at the moment, in this country, for us to describe ourselves (because we sure as heck can't use 'Republican' anymore). Personally, I'm a US Constitutional Republic Backed By The Bill Of Rights-ist, but twitter only gives you 140 characters, so I have to make choices.
Posted by: t-bird at April 11, 2015 11:30 AM (FcR7P)
Amen. Just look at his place, especially when Ace goes all kookoo over stuff Rick Santorum says. How in the world does anyone reconcile the term "conservative" with the flying elbows and arrows at those times?
Posted by: BurtTC at April 11, 2015 11:35 AM (Dj0WE)
103
I like that video on Americanism's explanation of left and right, they did a great job of making sense of the spectrum (such as it is) in simple terms.
Far right politically isn't Fascism, its anarchy.
Far right politically isn't Fascism, its anarchy.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 11, 2015 11:37 AM (39g3+)
104
71 If one is a negative- liberty proponent, constitutional originalist, does that make one a libertarian? What defines libertarian?
Posted by: Edmund Burke's Shade, languishing in Krazyfornia at April 11, 2015 11:12 AM (cmBvC)
I could be wrong, but I think the word "libertarian" is a recent coinage. In the 1970s, people who were disaffected by the statism in both the Democrat and Republican parties got together and formed the Libertarian Party. They advocated a return to the principles of limited Constitutional government and free-market capitalism. I believe that's when the word was coined.
Posted by: Edmund Burke's Shade, languishing in Krazyfornia at April 11, 2015 11:12 AM (cmBvC)
I could be wrong, but I think the word "libertarian" is a recent coinage. In the 1970s, people who were disaffected by the statism in both the Democrat and Republican parties got together and formed the Libertarian Party. They advocated a return to the principles of limited Constitutional government and free-market capitalism. I believe that's when the word was coined.
Posted by: rickl at April 11, 2015 11:38 AM (sdi6R)
105
Again: liberal and conservative are adjectives. Using them as shorthand nouns (like we currently do with "red" v. "blue" to descibe states) is what is causing all our present confusion.
Posted by: jwpaine at April 11, 2015 11:38 AM (i0pY0)
106
I'd say 'conservatism' isn't even a thing. It's just shorthand, at the
moment, in this country, for us to describe ourselves (because we sure
as heck can't use 'Republican' anymore). Personally, I'm a US
Constitutional Republic Backed By The Bill Of Rights-ist, but twitter
only gives you 140 characters, so I have to make choices.
********************************
That's it, for me as well. Thanks!
moment, in this country, for us to describe ourselves (because we sure
as heck can't use 'Republican' anymore). Personally, I'm a US
Constitutional Republic Backed By The Bill Of Rights-ist, but twitter
only gives you 140 characters, so I have to make choices.
********************************
That's it, for me as well. Thanks!
Posted by: jeannebodine at April 11, 2015 11:39 AM (SR3U3)
107
Unsubstantiated blather. Logorrhea.
How about some citations,maybe a link or two so we can see the underpinnings of your "argument?"
Bring back Gabe Malor! He was irritating, but at least he made some sense.
How about some citations,maybe a link or two so we can see the underpinnings of your "argument?"
Bring back Gabe Malor! He was irritating, but at least he made some sense.
Posted by: JCM332 at April 11, 2015 11:40 AM (0hn7J)
108
"Isn't that tying the act of 'conserving' to identification of left or right? I'm really confused."
Well, "conservative" at that time might well be saving the Britmonarchy and construction. A Tory at that time might well have thought that keeping the British blanket was superior to laying one's self open to the French onset from Quebec.
Nothing worse than being ruled by the Francois.
Well, "conservative" at that time might well be saving the Britmonarchy and construction. A Tory at that time might well have thought that keeping the British blanket was superior to laying one's self open to the French onset from Quebec.
Nothing worse than being ruled by the Francois.
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at April 11, 2015 11:41 AM (1LGj1)
109
Libertarian these days seems to be less about state power and freedom and more about "let me do what I like without judging me, maaan."
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 11, 2015 11:41 AM (39g3+)
110
102 Amen. Just look at his place, especially when Ace
goes all kookoo over stuff Rick Santorum says. How in the world does
anyone reconcile the term "conservative" with the flying elbows and
arrows at those times?
Posted by: BurtTC at April 11, 2015 11:35 AM (Dj0WE)
Again that is a problem generated by the MFM. Conservative and liberal, as well as right wing v left wing, have nothing to do with Christian vs Atheist. The MFM like to harp about SocialCon Christianists. it is just more of allowing them to take over the terms of the debate.
However, it should be noted that the communists were the first to try to abolish religion in the countries they controlled. Their feeling was that everyone should worship the state.
goes all kookoo over stuff Rick Santorum says. How in the world does
anyone reconcile the term "conservative" with the flying elbows and
arrows at those times?
Posted by: BurtTC at April 11, 2015 11:35 AM (Dj0WE)
Again that is a problem generated by the MFM. Conservative and liberal, as well as right wing v left wing, have nothing to do with Christian vs Atheist. The MFM like to harp about SocialCon Christianists. it is just more of allowing them to take over the terms of the debate.
However, it should be noted that the communists were the first to try to abolish religion in the countries they controlled. Their feeling was that everyone should worship the state.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at April 11, 2015 11:41 AM (wlDny)
111
There's a third (axis) which regards how responsible you are to an external, objective authority.
You're talking about SMOD, aren't you?
You're talking about SMOD, aren't you?
Posted by: t-bird at April 11, 2015 11:42 AM (FcR7P)
112
In the 1970s, people who were disaffected by the statism in both the
Democrat and Republican parties got together and formed the Libertarian
Party. They advocated a return to the principles of limited
Constitutional government and free-market capitalism.
Then they discovered weed. Ganja. Mother Earth's herb.
Democrat and Republican parties got together and formed the Libertarian
Party. They advocated a return to the principles of limited
Constitutional government and free-market capitalism.
Then they discovered weed. Ganja. Mother Earth's herb.
Posted by: Count de Monet at April 11, 2015 11:43 AM (JO9+V)
113
WeirdDave - love your Saturday morning posts, BTW. It's always a great time for me to hang about before I get moving and you always make me think, something I don't get a chance to do the rest of the week. Much appreciated!
Posted by: jeannebodine at April 11, 2015 11:43 AM (SR3U3)
114
Government power vs freedom is a sort of laffer curve: there's a minimal amount that is necessary to bring maximum liberty to a maximum number of people but quickly begins to eliminate freedom as it increases.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 11, 2015 11:44 AM (39g3+)
115
i put the scales differently, in respect to freedom of mind body or spirit then where the locus of control lies.
so an absolute sovereign owns your body and often your spirit - in the sense of deeming what church all are part of and where you live, if you must serve in war etc. but they don't much control your mind.
a pure communist system controls all three.
a Republic tends to free all spheres, while a pure democracy infringes on the mind through mob rule.
so an absolute sovereign owns your body and often your spirit - in the sense of deeming what church all are part of and where you live, if you must serve in war etc. but they don't much control your mind.
a pure communist system controls all three.
a Republic tends to free all spheres, while a pure democracy infringes on the mind through mob rule.
Posted by: Bigby's Knuckle Sandwich at April 11, 2015 11:44 AM (Cq0oW)
116
The current big "L" Libertarian Party has been taken over by anarchist kooks who want no government. This is not the theory our founders wanted for government.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at April 11, 2015 11:45 AM (wlDny)
117
I could be wrong, but I think the word "libertarian" is a recent coinage. In the 1970s, people who were disaffected by the statism in both the Democrat and Republican parties got together and formed the Libertarian Party. They advocated a return to the principles of limited Constitutional government and free-market capitalism. I believe that's when the word was coined.
Posted by: rickl at April 11, 2015 11:38 AM (sdi6R)
It remains possible to use the term Libertarian as shorthand for legalized weed.
Why? Three reasons. 1. For a significant majority of the party's faithful, that is a primary end goal. 2. If you actually sit and listen to one of them long enough, you realize legalized weed really IS as good an example of what falls within the confines of their political philosophy as anything else. and 3. It pisses them off like crazy, and there's great fun in that.
Posted by: rickl at April 11, 2015 11:38 AM (sdi6R)
It remains possible to use the term Libertarian as shorthand for legalized weed.
Why? Three reasons. 1. For a significant majority of the party's faithful, that is a primary end goal. 2. If you actually sit and listen to one of them long enough, you realize legalized weed really IS as good an example of what falls within the confines of their political philosophy as anything else. and 3. It pisses them off like crazy, and there's great fun in that.
Posted by: BurtTC at April 11, 2015 11:45 AM (Dj0WE)
118
jwpaine, I'll safely hold your wallet and all the pretty women in your life for no fee. :-)
Posted by: Pragmatist at April 11, 2015 11:45 AM (PGh+Q)
119
Yes WeirdDave, thank you!
I may not agree with everything you posit, but I will defend to the death my right to snark it.
(seriously, nice work!)
I may not agree with everything you posit, but I will defend to the death my right to snark it.
(seriously, nice work!)
Posted by: Count de Monet at April 11, 2015 11:46 AM (JO9+V)
120
109 Libertarian these days seems to be less about state power and freedom and more about "let me do what I like without judging me, maaan."
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 11, 2015 11:41 AM (39g3+)
Yeah, there are many people who call themselves "libertarian" who only care about the freedom to do as they please. They could care less about political or economic philosophy. I guess we can call those types "LIV libertarians", although an older term is "libertine".
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 11, 2015 11:41 AM (39g3+)
Yeah, there are many people who call themselves "libertarian" who only care about the freedom to do as they please. They could care less about political or economic philosophy. I guess we can call those types "LIV libertarians", although an older term is "libertine".
Posted by: rickl at April 11, 2015 11:46 AM (sdi6R)
121
Shit, have we pissed anybody off yet?
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at April 11, 2015 11:47 AM (1LGj1)
122
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.
Posted by: Maya Angelou at April 11, 2015 11:48 AM (rwI+c)
123
...I may be wrong, so anybody feel free to call me an idiot...
In the multi-verse everyone is right and no one is an idiot.
In the multi-verse everyone is right and no one is an idiot.
Posted by: Idiot at April 11, 2015 11:49 AM (PGh+Q)
124
***"Occupy is another example, they call themselves Anarcho-syndicalists, but their philosophy is collectivist, which puts them at the far left, no matter how hard they may try to don the mantle of "Anarchy"."***
Occupy is probably a poor example of anarcho-syndicalists as Occupoopers were clearly just garden variety useful idiots for Marxists.
Chomsky does a better job of articulating the position, despite the fact that it requires an irrational belief in human beings that do not, have not, and will never exist. It's a highly theoretical position, but it's definitely not right wing.
That's why the graph visualization does a better job that the linear.
Occupy is probably a poor example of anarcho-syndicalists as Occupoopers were clearly just garden variety useful idiots for Marxists.
Chomsky does a better job of articulating the position, despite the fact that it requires an irrational belief in human beings that do not, have not, and will never exist. It's a highly theoretical position, but it's definitely not right wing.
That's why the graph visualization does a better job that the linear.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at April 11, 2015 11:50 AM (xSCb6)
125
than*
Posted by: Burn the Witch at April 11, 2015 11:50 AM (xSCb6)
126
Again that is a problem generated by the MFM. Conservative and liberal, as well as right wing v left wing, have nothing to do with Christian vs Atheist. The MFM like to harp about SocialCon Christianists. it is just more of allowing them to take over the terms of the debate.
However, it should be noted that the communists were the first to try to abolish religion in the countries they controlled. Their feeling was that everyone should worship the state.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at April 11, 2015 11:41 AM (wlDny)
I don't think the media is responsible for several hours of arguments that happen right here, in this very room, whenever the topic of one brand of conservatism vs. another comes up.
It is a dividing line, that transcends the definitions, and it is very real.
However, it should be noted that the communists were the first to try to abolish religion in the countries they controlled. Their feeling was that everyone should worship the state.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at April 11, 2015 11:41 AM (wlDny)
I don't think the media is responsible for several hours of arguments that happen right here, in this very room, whenever the topic of one brand of conservatism vs. another comes up.
It is a dividing line, that transcends the definitions, and it is very real.
Posted by: BurtTC at April 11, 2015 11:51 AM (Dj0WE)
127
Oh, and speaking of "libertine", I heard a story that when early British traders went to China, they used the word "liberty" but the Chinese had no equivalent in their language. The closest they had translated to "license", which horrified their tradition-bound society.
Posted by: rickl at April 11, 2015 11:51 AM (sdi6R)
128
Anarchism is fine except the trains keep running into each other.
Posted by: Maya Angelou at April 11, 2015 11:51 AM (ZbCKc)
129
This country was founded as a Constitutional Republic.
A group of States formed a central government making it a "Republic". The authorities and the responsibilities of the central government were closely defined in a written contract, called the Constitution.
It did not take long before the founders who did not want a Republic sought to subvert it. The Marbury vs Madison fraud which was originated by Adams and his midnight court packing started the elimination of the written contract.
It has progressed to the point that the written contract is pretty much null and void.
A group of States formed a central government making it a "Republic". The authorities and the responsibilities of the central government were closely defined in a written contract, called the Constitution.
It did not take long before the founders who did not want a Republic sought to subvert it. The Marbury vs Madison fraud which was originated by Adams and his midnight court packing started the elimination of the written contract.
It has progressed to the point that the written contract is pretty much null and void.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at April 11, 2015 11:52 AM (wlDny)
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at April 11, 2015 11:52 AM (1LGj1)
131
Since it was founded as a Republic, and Conservatives want to conserve that, we are a right wing political movement. Progressives, on the other hand, are all advocating for some flavor of Communism/Socialism/Fascism, which makes them a left wing movement.
I'd stay away from those who want to conserve the status quo ante as a right wing movement. Were Stalinist hardliners in Yeltsin's Russia conservatives? In that sense, yes, but in the political sense, no, they were hard left.
Much better to jettison the original sense of "conservative" as "one who wishes to conserve" and use it in its usual present, American usage: one who favors the individual over the collective.
I'd stay away from those who want to conserve the status quo ante as a right wing movement. Were Stalinist hardliners in Yeltsin's Russia conservatives? In that sense, yes, but in the political sense, no, they were hard left.
Much better to jettison the original sense of "conservative" as "one who wishes to conserve" and use it in its usual present, American usage: one who favors the individual over the collective.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 11, 2015 11:52 AM (oKE6c)
132
Great post - I've always laughed when Libs label conservatives as 'Fascist.' It has always been the other way, especially during WWII. Think about Germany and ask what freedom was there.
Posted by: pbrod at April 11, 2015 11:52 AM (toX8+)
133
Video of the Walmart brawl where a nutter and a cop were shot:
http://goo.gl/15Mwtz
At about the 13:30 mark, you see the police throw or push a guy who then proceeds to roll and roll and roll and try to roll the way free. lol Faker. Cops grabbed him.
Video of the Walmart brawl where a nutter and a cop were shot:
http://goo.gl/15Mwtz
At about the 13:30 mark, you see the police throw or push a guy who then proceeds to roll and roll and roll and try to roll the way free. lol Faker. Cops grabbed him.
Posted by: Bruce J. at April 11, 2015 11:52 AM (iQIUe)
134
re: neo-cons - take a look at Jonathan Brontisky's "Brookylyn Burekeans" on the elder Kristols for a good idea of what the father mother of neo-conservatism thought about the subject. It was largely a Burke-style "anti-utopian" concept applied more to domestic policy than anything to do with foreign affairs.
http://tinyurl.com/qcrqm2r
He also has a good interview/podcast with Milt Rosenberg on the subject. He
worked with Kagan, Podheretz and others in the run-up to W's wars and
discusses how the foreign affairs side developed.
http://tinyurl.com/qcrqm2r
He also has a good interview/podcast with Milt Rosenberg on the subject. He
worked with Kagan, Podheretz and others in the run-up to W's wars and
discusses how the foreign affairs side developed.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at April 11, 2015 11:52 AM (QKIQb)
135
Most really radical social conservatives are not especially concerned with who has power or the rule of law except as it is used to compel certain behavior and curtail others. They generally are unconcerned with the size and scope of government, provided it does what they think is right. They have this in common with the radical left, because their motivation is the same: we know best and others should do what we say for their own good.
However, this kind of social conservative is very rare and almost completely lacking from any power or social presence. They're a strawman that socially left people love to throw out there, but they are nearly nonexistent. Libertarians see them everywhere, under the couch cushions, behind the door, hiding in the bushes. But they're just not a significant presence anywhere. Even guys like Santorum don't want huge government power to force women to button up their blouses so their "dirty pillows" don't show.
The truth is, what is usually called social conservative extremism is just "hey guys, lets consider not going so far" and wanting to roll back some of the left's extremes in the last 30 years or so. But the left controls the media, education, and popular culture, so they are able to portray any opposition to their extremism as being radical and extreme instead. They do it so successfully that many on the right fall for it.
However, this kind of social conservative is very rare and almost completely lacking from any power or social presence. They're a strawman that socially left people love to throw out there, but they are nearly nonexistent. Libertarians see them everywhere, under the couch cushions, behind the door, hiding in the bushes. But they're just not a significant presence anywhere. Even guys like Santorum don't want huge government power to force women to button up their blouses so their "dirty pillows" don't show.
The truth is, what is usually called social conservative extremism is just "hey guys, lets consider not going so far" and wanting to roll back some of the left's extremes in the last 30 years or so. But the left controls the media, education, and popular culture, so they are able to portray any opposition to their extremism as being radical and extreme instead. They do it so successfully that many on the right fall for it.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 11, 2015 11:52 AM (39g3+)
136
And to Maya Angelou.
Posted by: The Great White Snark at April 11, 2015 11:22 AM (LNbgN)
Two out of three ain't bad.
Posted by: The Great White Snark at April 11, 2015 11:22 AM (LNbgN)
Two out of three ain't bad.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 11, 2015 11:53 AM (oKE6c)
137
O/T but this shit has been bugging me for the last hour or so...
Is it possible, in any freaking branch, NG or Reserves, to retire after 23 years...as an E-4?
Is it possible, in any freaking branch, NG or Reserves, to retire after 23 years...as an E-4?
Posted by: SMFH at it all at April 11, 2015 11:53 AM (OsWis)
138
126 I don't think the media is responsible for several
hours of arguments that happen right here, in this very room, whenever
the topic of one brand of conservatism vs. another comes up.
It is a dividing line, that transcends the definitions, and it is very real.
Posted by: BurtTC at April 11, 2015 11:51 AM (Dj0WE)
A lot of the arguees are using terminology originating from the MFM, so yes they are allowing them to control the debate.
hours of arguments that happen right here, in this very room, whenever
the topic of one brand of conservatism vs. another comes up.
It is a dividing line, that transcends the definitions, and it is very real.
Posted by: BurtTC at April 11, 2015 11:51 AM (Dj0WE)
A lot of the arguees are using terminology originating from the MFM, so yes they are allowing them to control the debate.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at April 11, 2015 11:53 AM (wlDny)
139
" The authorities and the responsibilities of the central government were
closely defined in a written contract, called the Constitution. "
Vic.
Bring the pain.
closely defined in a written contract, called the Constitution. "
Vic.
Bring the pain.
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at April 11, 2015 11:53 AM (1LGj1)
140
You well informed people probably already know this, but my wife was reading to me from Judicial Watch this morning. Apparently "Republican" John McCain was part of the little cabal that sicced the IRS on conservative groups. Wrap the ole brain around that one.
Oh, and Amy Lynn Golden is released. Kindle next week.
http://tinyurl.com/p6ztge2
Oh, and Amy Lynn Golden is released. Kindle next week.
http://tinyurl.com/p6ztge2
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet at April 11, 2015 11:56 AM (KbNXw)
141
138
A lot of the arguees are using terminology originating from the MFM, so yes they are allowing them to control the debate.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at April 11, 2015 11:53 AM (wlDny)
*cough* Red State/Blue State *cough*
A lot of the arguees are using terminology originating from the MFM, so yes they are allowing them to control the debate.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at April 11, 2015 11:53 AM (wlDny)
*cough* Red State/Blue State *cough*
Posted by: rickl at April 11, 2015 11:56 AM (sdi6R)
142
Fundamental flaw in this thesis...
You cannot put Politics on a single line scale...
Its a multi axis graph.... because of the collision of Social vs Fiscal Policies.
There are Social Conservatives, who are willing to use the power of the State to ensure their Social agenda.... just as there are Statists on the LEFT...
Thus, you have some 'conservatives' and some 'liberals'... who like big Government, just for different reasons.
The two party system has programmed the US Electorate into the idea, that there are really only TWO choices... by creating and constantly using these labels...
When the labels themselves make no real sense.
You cannot put Politics on a single line scale...
Its a multi axis graph.... because of the collision of Social vs Fiscal Policies.
There are Social Conservatives, who are willing to use the power of the State to ensure their Social agenda.... just as there are Statists on the LEFT...
Thus, you have some 'conservatives' and some 'liberals'... who like big Government, just for different reasons.
The two party system has programmed the US Electorate into the idea, that there are really only TWO choices... by creating and constantly using these labels...
When the labels themselves make no real sense.
Posted by: Harry Mudd at April 11, 2015 11:57 AM (qh617)
143
Neocon has been pretty successfully slandered into being an insult but it really only meant someone who was once a leftist and changed his mind - often on 9/11 - to become more conservative. The left started using it for shorthand for "New York Money Men" then it became a smear for "people who want war and think you can force democracy on others" which has nothing to do with the entire argument.
President Bush's doctrine of setting up free peoples in the middle east to pressure the other nations to change was working until the left pulled the most infamous and horrific treason in the history of man and turned the entire thing around.
President Bush's doctrine of setting up free peoples in the middle east to pressure the other nations to change was working until the left pulled the most infamous and horrific treason in the history of man and turned the entire thing around.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 11, 2015 11:57 AM (39g3+)
144
137
O/T but this shit has been bugging me for the last hour or so...
Is it possible, in any freaking branch, NG or Reserves, to retire after 23 years...as an E-4?
Posted by: SMFH at it all at April 11, 2015 11:53 AM (OsWis)
In practicality no. One who could not get above E4 in 23 years would have had to be busted so many times that they would never have been allowed to reenlist enough to make 23 years. Hell, I was an E6 after 6 years and went to Captain's Mast once.
O/T but this shit has been bugging me for the last hour or so...
Is it possible, in any freaking branch, NG or Reserves, to retire after 23 years...as an E-4?
Posted by: SMFH at it all at April 11, 2015 11:53 AM (OsWis)
In practicality no. One who could not get above E4 in 23 years would have had to be busted so many times that they would never have been allowed to reenlist enough to make 23 years. Hell, I was an E6 after 6 years and went to Captain's Mast once.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at April 11, 2015 11:58 AM (wlDny)
145
58
52 Posted by: rickl at April 11, 2015 11:00 AM (sdi6R)
We just had the anniversary of the death of the Republic yesterday.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at April 11, 2015 11:04 AM (wlDny)
--------
Establishment of the Second Bank of the United States?
52 Posted by: rickl at April 11, 2015 11:00 AM (sdi6R)
We just had the anniversary of the death of the Republic yesterday.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at April 11, 2015 11:04 AM (wlDny)
--------
Establishment of the Second Bank of the United States?
Posted by: jbarntt at April 11, 2015 11:58 AM (+nqQU)
146
When the labels themselves make no real sense.
Posted by: Harry Mudd at April 11, 2015 11:57 AM (qh617)
Well said. That's why I always liked Constitutionalist or something like that. We have the document, follow it.
Posted by: Harry Mudd at April 11, 2015 11:57 AM (qh617)
Well said. That's why I always liked Constitutionalist or something like that. We have the document, follow it.
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet at April 11, 2015 11:58 AM (KbNXw)
147
"Much better to jettison the original sense of "conservative" as "one who
wishes to conserve" and use it in its usual present, American usage:
one who favors the individual over the collective."
I think you can marry the two into a workable modern definition, although in my perfect world I'd like the jetison conservative because it makes our project harder to sell to younger people and carries too much "monarchist/traditionalist" baggage (basically agreeing with Hayek's concerns in "Road to Serfdom" on that score).
"Conservative individualism" is tied up with being anti-utopian. Collectivists think man can and should be perfected or at least vastly improved by government and society while individualists believe that's neither just/moral, desirable or achievable. We're conservative in our idea that man is flawed and imperfectible by nature and any totalitarian project to the contrary is doomed to fail, regardless of best intentions.
What we really are is Liberal, but we long ago let the script get flipped on the terminology. I'm still hoping for new terminology to get us past "Liberal vs. Conservative" as presently construed, and think that's an important issue a third party will need to address in naming and otherwise branding itself.
wishes to conserve" and use it in its usual present, American usage:
one who favors the individual over the collective."
I think you can marry the two into a workable modern definition, although in my perfect world I'd like the jetison conservative because it makes our project harder to sell to younger people and carries too much "monarchist/traditionalist" baggage (basically agreeing with Hayek's concerns in "Road to Serfdom" on that score).
"Conservative individualism" is tied up with being anti-utopian. Collectivists think man can and should be perfected or at least vastly improved by government and society while individualists believe that's neither just/moral, desirable or achievable. We're conservative in our idea that man is flawed and imperfectible by nature and any totalitarian project to the contrary is doomed to fail, regardless of best intentions.
What we really are is Liberal, but we long ago let the script get flipped on the terminology. I'm still hoping for new terminology to get us past "Liberal vs. Conservative" as presently construed, and think that's an important issue a third party will need to address in naming and otherwise branding itself.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at April 11, 2015 11:59 AM (QKIQb)
148
O/T but this shit has been bugging me for the last hour or so...
Is it possible, in any freaking branch, NG or Reserves, to retire after 23 years...as an E-4?
Posted by: SMFH at it all at April 11, 2015 11:53 AM (OsWis)
NG/Reserves? Absolutely. There are some people who hang around for a very long time, and the fact that it takes so long for the the chain of command to get rid of them is the reason I generally don't take these entities seriously.
Is it possible, in any freaking branch, NG or Reserves, to retire after 23 years...as an E-4?
Posted by: SMFH at it all at April 11, 2015 11:53 AM (OsWis)
NG/Reserves? Absolutely. There are some people who hang around for a very long time, and the fact that it takes so long for the the chain of command to get rid of them is the reason I generally don't take these entities seriously.
Posted by: BurtTC at April 11, 2015 12:00 PM (Dj0WE)
149
I have been hammering on this essential message in other forums for years, and hope to see these ideas described more often. The individualist believes their rights come from God and/or nature. The collectivist believes they come from the state. This may literally be the root essential distinction in contemporary politics, as long as you realize that the behavior of true believers in either camp is consequential to this belief.
From this one idea, individualists realize that others are free to do what they will as long as the freedom of others does not intrude upon their own. Likewise, collectivists understand the state as the final arbiter of all things, since all rights emanate from it.
Individualists believe in the immutable rule of law. All people are to be treated equally under just law, and unjust law is illegitimate. Collectivists believe the state is the law, which means the law changes as the state changes, and as those who control the state change. This creates a powerful incentive for collectivists to establish a position with the state, as those with position have privilege (literally, 'private law') as a result.
The political thinking that created individualism is a fairly recent phenomenon historically. The United States Constitution was the first body of national laws to be designed around the idea of individualism. Prior to it, other nations operated under sets of laws that were essentially collectivist in nature.
Individualism is the perfect companion to free enterprise, and the marriage of these two ideals accounts for the unprecedented economic success of the United States over its first two centuries of life. Likewise, the onset of collectivist policies and prioritization of the state over the individual can be seen in the history of the last hundred years as the cancer that strikes at the heart of our nation.
From this one idea, individualists realize that others are free to do what they will as long as the freedom of others does not intrude upon their own. Likewise, collectivists understand the state as the final arbiter of all things, since all rights emanate from it.
Individualists believe in the immutable rule of law. All people are to be treated equally under just law, and unjust law is illegitimate. Collectivists believe the state is the law, which means the law changes as the state changes, and as those who control the state change. This creates a powerful incentive for collectivists to establish a position with the state, as those with position have privilege (literally, 'private law') as a result.
The political thinking that created individualism is a fairly recent phenomenon historically. The United States Constitution was the first body of national laws to be designed around the idea of individualism. Prior to it, other nations operated under sets of laws that were essentially collectivist in nature.
Individualism is the perfect companion to free enterprise, and the marriage of these two ideals accounts for the unprecedented economic success of the United States over its first two centuries of life. Likewise, the onset of collectivist policies and prioritization of the state over the individual can be seen in the history of the last hundred years as the cancer that strikes at the heart of our nation.
Posted by: SecondMouse at April 11, 2015 12:00 PM (nKdvO)
150
Apparently "Republican" John McCain was part of the little cabal that sicced the IRS on conservative groups.
This has long been suspected by people here: that the reason the IRS scandal went nowhere and got disappeared is that Republicans were involved who didn't want to look too closely at it.
You cannot put Politics on a single line scale...
You didn't really even read the post did you?
This has long been suspected by people here: that the reason the IRS scandal went nowhere and got disappeared is that Republicans were involved who didn't want to look too closely at it.
You cannot put Politics on a single line scale...
You didn't really even read the post did you?
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 11, 2015 12:00 PM (39g3+)
151
140
You well informed people probably already know this, but my wife was
reading to me from Judicial Watch this morning. Apparently "Republican"
John McCain was part of the little cabal that sicced the IRS on
conservative groups. Wrap the ole brain around that one.
Oh, and Amy Lynn Golden is released. Kindle next week.
http://tinyurl.com/p6ztge2
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet at April 11, 2015 11:56 AM (KbNXw)
Nice photo on the book.
And we have always known McShitty was a traitor. And to think I stood in line in the rain to vote for that SOB. No More
You well informed people probably already know this, but my wife was
reading to me from Judicial Watch this morning. Apparently "Republican"
John McCain was part of the little cabal that sicced the IRS on
conservative groups. Wrap the ole brain around that one.
Oh, and Amy Lynn Golden is released. Kindle next week.
http://tinyurl.com/p6ztge2
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet at April 11, 2015 11:56 AM (KbNXw)
Nice photo on the book.
And we have always known McShitty was a traitor. And to think I stood in line in the rain to vote for that SOB. No More
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at April 11, 2015 12:00 PM (wlDny)
152
Thanks
Leo Strauss' political philosophy
so I searched, and got
real clear politics
wiki
uchicago.edu
amazon
alternet.org
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
From Stanford. (Controversy)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/strauss-leo/
that Strauss advocates clandestine cabals with secrets imparted from teacher to disciple; that Strauss's writings are themselves esoteric documents; that Strauss thinks that all thinkers write esoterically; that Strauss claims to know a secret; and that, in one particularly crude rendering, Strauss promoted mass deception and perpetual war.
(I think this is one side saying this aboutLeo Strauss, not Strauss saying it.)
New School pops up almost immediately in 'Life and Work'
Reading further, since I have all day with nothing else to do, rather than just dismissing the entire argument as a waste of time. . .
but first, I have to go nuke a hot dog.
Leo Strauss' political philosophy
so I searched, and got
real clear politics
wiki
uchicago.edu
amazon
alternet.org
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
From Stanford. (Controversy)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/strauss-leo/
that Strauss advocates clandestine cabals with secrets imparted from teacher to disciple; that Strauss's writings are themselves esoteric documents; that Strauss thinks that all thinkers write esoterically; that Strauss claims to know a secret; and that, in one particularly crude rendering, Strauss promoted mass deception and perpetual war.
(I think this is one side saying this aboutLeo Strauss, not Strauss saying it.)
New School pops up almost immediately in 'Life and Work'
Reading further, since I have all day with nothing else to do, rather than just dismissing the entire argument as a waste of time. . .
but first, I have to go nuke a hot dog.
Posted by: Gnash Bumbler at April 11, 2015 12:00 PM (CjNJy)
153
It is a dividing line, that transcends the definitions, and it is very real.
Posted by: BurtTC at April 11, 2015 11:51 AM (Dj0WE)
A lot of the arguees are using terminology originating from the MFM, so yes they are allowing them to control the debate.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at April 11, 2015 11:53 AM (wlDny)
I don't think your definition adequately explains why the host of this here blog seeks out these fights, and can sit for hours wallowing in them.
Posted by: BurtTC at April 11, 2015 11:51 AM (Dj0WE)
A lot of the arguees are using terminology originating from the MFM, so yes they are allowing them to control the debate.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at April 11, 2015 11:53 AM (wlDny)
I don't think your definition adequately explains why the host of this here blog seeks out these fights, and can sit for hours wallowing in them.
Posted by: BurtTC at April 11, 2015 12:01 PM (Dj0WE)
154
Re: freedom vs order, liberty vs control.
The far right wants order and control in certain senses, though.
I think it's more useful to label extreme right as "the only function of government is to guarantee the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property" and the other would be "government has the ultimate right to coerce the individual in any way it wishes, for whatever it considers worthy goals".
The far right wants order and control in certain senses, though.
I think it's more useful to label extreme right as "the only function of government is to guarantee the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property" and the other would be "government has the ultimate right to coerce the individual in any way it wishes, for whatever it considers worthy goals".
Posted by: Sunni LeBeouf at April 11, 2015 12:02 PM (cIoI4)
155
52 Establishment of the Second Bank of the United States?
Posted by: jbarntt at April 11, 2015 11:58 AM (+nqQU)
Ah, no
Posted by: jbarntt at April 11, 2015 11:58 AM (+nqQU)
Ah, no
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at April 11, 2015 12:02 PM (wlDny)
156
Oh, and Amy Lynn Golden is released. Kindle next week.
http://tinyurl.com/p6ztge2
Already ordered. Had to go dead tree, why is Kindle taking so long? I wanted to be finished reading by now!
ME!ME!ME! NOW!NOW!NOW!
http://tinyurl.com/p6ztge2
Already ordered. Had to go dead tree, why is Kindle taking so long? I wanted to be finished reading by now!
ME!ME!ME! NOW!NOW!NOW!
Posted by: Weirddave at April 11, 2015 12:04 PM (WvS3w)
157
Something that's been bothering me a lot lately is how so many people on the right - libertarian, conservative, what have you - have bought too much into the "government is the final answer" lie.
You'll see it in debates all the time, when the answer for how to address a problem always centers on and rotates around the government: we need less, we need more, there ought to be a law, the government should regulate this, the government should tax that.
Almost no answers in the real world involve government activity except the extremely limited ones given in the constitution. But we've grown up in a society that for over 100 years has been constantly hammering this idea into our heads. In media, literature, entertainment, education; everywhere.
Go back to those old John Wayne westerns he did in the early 30s. They nearly all have the same plot: local people confounded by evil businessman saved by lone government agent. I'm not kidding, John Wayne played a federal Marshall or a government agent, who rode in to save the day over and over.
You'll see it in debates all the time, when the answer for how to address a problem always centers on and rotates around the government: we need less, we need more, there ought to be a law, the government should regulate this, the government should tax that.
Almost no answers in the real world involve government activity except the extremely limited ones given in the constitution. But we've grown up in a society that for over 100 years has been constantly hammering this idea into our heads. In media, literature, entertainment, education; everywhere.
Go back to those old John Wayne westerns he did in the early 30s. They nearly all have the same plot: local people confounded by evil businessman saved by lone government agent. I'm not kidding, John Wayne played a federal Marshall or a government agent, who rode in to save the day over and over.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 11, 2015 12:05 PM (39g3+)
158
You didn't really even read the post did you?
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 11, 2015 12:00 PM (39g3+)
Actually... I did.... he was just shifting what that line was based upon.... in this case liberty vs. not liberty....
But even that line soon falls apart....
My point is that ANY single axis Political Matrix, no matter what it is based upon, traps you into only considering that part of the decision set.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 11, 2015 12:00 PM (39g3+)
Actually... I did.... he was just shifting what that line was based upon.... in this case liberty vs. not liberty....
But even that line soon falls apart....
My point is that ANY single axis Political Matrix, no matter what it is based upon, traps you into only considering that part of the decision set.
Posted by: Harry Mudd at April 11, 2015 12:05 PM (qh617)
159
You didn't really even read the post did you?
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 11, 2015 12:00 PM (39g3+)
Actually I did. But I lack the mental capacity to read things that numb my brain before it makes a point. I did the best I could.
You didn't really even read the post did you?
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 11, 2015 12:00 PM (39g3+)
Actually I did. But I lack the mental capacity to read things that numb my brain before it makes a point. I did the best I could.
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet at April 11, 2015 12:06 PM (KbNXw)
160
The far right wants order and control in certain senses, though.
I disagree. The far right wants zero government.
I disagree. The far right wants zero government.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 11, 2015 12:06 PM (39g3+)
161
nood b4 the flame war starts
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at April 11, 2015 12:06 PM (wlDny)
162
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 11, 2015 12:05 PM (39g3+)
My favorite the inherently flawed concept, that we must pass a LAW, to defend your RIGHTS...
So we must pass a law, to grant you Freedom...
The very concept shows the problem...
My favorite the inherently flawed concept, that we must pass a LAW, to defend your RIGHTS...
So we must pass a law, to grant you Freedom...
The very concept shows the problem...
Posted by: BB Wolf at April 11, 2015 12:07 PM (qh617)
163
I think you can marry the two into a workable modern
definition, although in my perfect world I'd like the jetison
conservative because it makes our project harder to sell to younger
people and carries too much "monarchist/traditionalist" baggage
(basically agreeing with Hayek's concerns in "Road to Serfdom" on that
score).
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at April 11, 2015 11:59 AM (QKIQb)
How about "realistic grownups" vs. "starry-eyed children?"
definition, although in my perfect world I'd like the jetison
conservative because it makes our project harder to sell to younger
people and carries too much "monarchist/traditionalist" baggage
(basically agreeing with Hayek's concerns in "Road to Serfdom" on that
score).
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at April 11, 2015 11:59 AM (QKIQb)
How about "realistic grownups" vs. "starry-eyed children?"
Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 11, 2015 12:07 PM (oKE6c)
164
"They're a strawman that socially left people love to throw out there,
but they are nearly nonexistent. Libertarians see them everywhere,
under the couch cushions, behind the door, hiding in the bushes. But
they're just not a significant presence anywhere."
Exactly. I make that argument all the time, particularly to libertarians. 90% of "so cons" want the right to disassociate from Big Ghey and the other SJW agendas, not the power to make Big Ghey bow to "theocracy." They want their churches protected by the First Amendment, not enshrined as the State Religion. Many Libertarians such as the Reason Mag crowd seem fine with de facto recognition of the SJW Church as our state religion, and if they were really concerned about "creeping theocracy" they'd start by halting Big Ghey, the No-Slut-Shamers and other campus crit-theory idol worshippers in their civic tracks.
but they are nearly nonexistent. Libertarians see them everywhere,
under the couch cushions, behind the door, hiding in the bushes. But
they're just not a significant presence anywhere."
Exactly. I make that argument all the time, particularly to libertarians. 90% of "so cons" want the right to disassociate from Big Ghey and the other SJW agendas, not the power to make Big Ghey bow to "theocracy." They want their churches protected by the First Amendment, not enshrined as the State Religion. Many Libertarians such as the Reason Mag crowd seem fine with de facto recognition of the SJW Church as our state religion, and if they were really concerned about "creeping theocracy" they'd start by halting Big Ghey, the No-Slut-Shamers and other campus crit-theory idol worshippers in their civic tracks.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at April 11, 2015 12:07 PM (QKIQb)
165
Posted by: Weirddave at April 11, 2015 12:04 PM (WvS3w)
Because I have to OK the dead tree before they can do the electronic conversion. So, The dead tree comes out first. Kindle next week.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at April 11, 2015 12:00 PM (wlDny)
Thanks Vic, I took that picture behind a gas station in down town Fountain Inn with a model I hired. Remember my first cover, the painting? I've learned a lot. I've learned a lot from the people here.
Because I have to OK the dead tree before they can do the electronic conversion. So, The dead tree comes out first. Kindle next week.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at April 11, 2015 12:00 PM (wlDny)
Thanks Vic, I took that picture behind a gas station in down town Fountain Inn with a model I hired. Remember my first cover, the painting? I've learned a lot. I've learned a lot from the people here.
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet at April 11, 2015 12:10 PM (KbNXw)
166
Actually I did. But I lack the mental capacity to
read things that numb my brain before it makes a point. I did the best I
could.
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet at April 11, 2015 12:06 PM (KbNXw)
And right after I just complemented your writing, too!
read things that numb my brain before it makes a point. I did the best I
could.
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet at April 11, 2015 12:06 PM (KbNXw)
And right after I just complemented your writing, too!
Posted by: Weirddave at April 11, 2015 12:11 PM (WvS3w)
167
My favorite the inherently flawed concept, that we must pass a LAW, to defend your RIGHTS...
So we must pass a law, to grant you Freedom...
The very concept shows the problem...
Posted by: BB Wolf at April 11, 2015 12:07 PM (qh617)
^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^
So we must pass a law, to grant you Freedom...
The very concept shows the problem...
Posted by: BB Wolf at April 11, 2015 12:07 PM (qh617)
^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet at April 11, 2015 12:12 PM (KbNXw)
168
Boy, that evil smilie looks even more angry than I remember. I'm not really mad OSP.
Posted by: Weirddave at April 11, 2015 12:13 PM (WvS3w)
169
And right after I just complemented your writing, too!
Posted by: Weirddave at April 11, 2015 12:11 PM (WvS3w)
LOL, I'm teasing.
Posted by: Weirddave at April 11, 2015 12:11 PM (WvS3w)
LOL, I'm teasing.
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet at April 11, 2015 12:13 PM (KbNXw)
170
I disagree. The far right wants zero government.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 11, 2015 12:06 PM (39g3+)
*********
Even if you'd ideally rely on local community to maintain order most of the time, that's still a type of government, no?
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 11, 2015 12:06 PM (39g3+)
*********
Even if you'd ideally rely on local community to maintain order most of the time, that's still a type of government, no?
Posted by: Sunni LeBeouf at April 11, 2015 12:14 PM (XrHO0)
171
My point is that ANY single axis Political Matrix, no matter what it is based upon, traps you into only considering that part of the decision set.
The fact that anarchies are short-lived and self destructive (usually leading to tyranny) doesn't mean they aren't the far-right extreme.
The fact that anarchies are short-lived and self destructive (usually leading to tyranny) doesn't mean they aren't the far-right extreme.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 11, 2015 12:15 PM (39g3+)
172
"How about "realistic grownups" vs. "starry-eyed children?""
Accurate description and a good reason why progs want to lower the voting age as discussed here earlier this week. I've always said we were the party of "finish your peas first" vs the party of "cake for breakfast." It makes for a tough sell to young voters. Telling them that man is flawed and imperfectible isn't too appealing to the young either.
I don't want to alienate the young but we can't pander to them either. The truth is that our ideas work while collectivism doesn't - we provide optimal prosperity, freedom, achievable progress and actual justice while collectivism provides shadow/false versions of all of those things - Faustian promises with fake labels and packaging. As Christians see it , God creates, Satan imitates, and this is a political parallel.
We need to find ways to harness the good intentions of younger potential voters in our project. If they want to help the poor, the disenfranchised and the disadvantaged, it's better to free them than to give them free stuff. By adulthood, however, it's difficult to turn someone's world view around. We really need to break the stranglehold the Left has on early education to make headway. Once a child has been indoctrinated with the culture of "sharing is caring" and other special snowflake pseudo-ethics, it's hard to sell conservatism/individualism regardless of its word-to-world fit.
Accurate description and a good reason why progs want to lower the voting age as discussed here earlier this week. I've always said we were the party of "finish your peas first" vs the party of "cake for breakfast." It makes for a tough sell to young voters. Telling them that man is flawed and imperfectible isn't too appealing to the young either.
I don't want to alienate the young but we can't pander to them either. The truth is that our ideas work while collectivism doesn't - we provide optimal prosperity, freedom, achievable progress and actual justice while collectivism provides shadow/false versions of all of those things - Faustian promises with fake labels and packaging. As Christians see it , God creates, Satan imitates, and this is a political parallel.
We need to find ways to harness the good intentions of younger potential voters in our project. If they want to help the poor, the disenfranchised and the disadvantaged, it's better to free them than to give them free stuff. By adulthood, however, it's difficult to turn someone's world view around. We really need to break the stranglehold the Left has on early education to make headway. Once a child has been indoctrinated with the culture of "sharing is caring" and other special snowflake pseudo-ethics, it's hard to sell conservatism/individualism regardless of its word-to-world fit.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at April 11, 2015 12:20 PM (QKIQb)
173
142
There are Social Conservatives, who are willing to use the power of the State to ensure their Social agenda....
Examples are Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, who horrify Social Liberals.
just as there are Statists on the LEFT...
Many Social Liberals have no problem with the State controlling all economic activity; thus they are not liberal in the classical sense.
Thus, you have some 'conservatives' and some 'liberals'... who like big Government, just for different reasons.
The two party system has programmed the US Electorate into the idea, that there are really only TWO choices... by creating and constantly using these labels...
When the labels themselves make no real sense.
Posted by: Harry Mudd at April 11, 2015 11:57 AM (qh617)
If this thread has taught me anything, it is that we should jettison the words "liberal" and "conservative" altogether, since they can mean very different things in different contexts.
There are Social Conservatives, who are willing to use the power of the State to ensure their Social agenda....
Examples are Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, who horrify Social Liberals.
just as there are Statists on the LEFT...
Many Social Liberals have no problem with the State controlling all economic activity; thus they are not liberal in the classical sense.
Thus, you have some 'conservatives' and some 'liberals'... who like big Government, just for different reasons.
The two party system has programmed the US Electorate into the idea, that there are really only TWO choices... by creating and constantly using these labels...
When the labels themselves make no real sense.
Posted by: Harry Mudd at April 11, 2015 11:57 AM (qh617)
If this thread has taught me anything, it is that we should jettison the words "liberal" and "conservative" altogether, since they can mean very different things in different contexts.
Posted by: rickl at April 11, 2015 12:20 PM (sdi6R)
174
I think this country, and both major parties, are predominantly fascist. Private ownership and government control.
Posted by: b moe at April 11, 2015 12:22 PM (s44CK)
175
I'm just waiting for the day when self repairing machines will create utopia on earth, and will render these discussions as relevant as the DVD rendered, "should you rewind the vhs before returning it to blockbusters".
Posted by: Sunni LeBeouf at April 11, 2015 12:26 PM (cIoI4)
176
174 I think this country, and both major parties, are predominantly fascist. Private ownership and government control.
Posted by: b moe at April 11, 2015 12:22 PM (s44CK)
I think Fascism is now the dominant political/economic system worldwide. Even China, which still keeps the "bunting and flags, bells and whistles" of Communism, is fundamentally Fascist. The People's Liberation Army owns and operates businesses, for crying out loud!
Mussolini is laughing in his grave.
Posted by: b moe at April 11, 2015 12:22 PM (s44CK)
I think Fascism is now the dominant political/economic system worldwide. Even China, which still keeps the "bunting and flags, bells and whistles" of Communism, is fundamentally Fascist. The People's Liberation Army owns and operates businesses, for crying out loud!
Mussolini is laughing in his grave.
Posted by: rickl at April 11, 2015 12:27 PM (sdi6R)
177
"My favorite the inherently flawed concept, that we must pass a LAW, to defend your RIGHTS...
"
It's counterintuitive, granted, but without clarifying laws, you're left with a bare natural law argument. "This is my right regardless of your laws" is a valid argument when you're standing on an actual fundamental right, but the same argument is used to argue for things which aren't fundamental rights (e.g. healthcare, gay marriage). In either case standing on the bare otherwise unsupported position of natural law requires either civil disobedience or voting with your feet. Unless and until the law recognizes your right, your exercise of that right will be infringed or enjoined. So while the law recognizing your right might not be necessary in a philosophy of law sense, it's functionally required in the technology of law sense - the "applied philosophy" sphere of law.
"
It's counterintuitive, granted, but without clarifying laws, you're left with a bare natural law argument. "This is my right regardless of your laws" is a valid argument when you're standing on an actual fundamental right, but the same argument is used to argue for things which aren't fundamental rights (e.g. healthcare, gay marriage). In either case standing on the bare otherwise unsupported position of natural law requires either civil disobedience or voting with your feet. Unless and until the law recognizes your right, your exercise of that right will be infringed or enjoined. So while the law recognizing your right might not be necessary in a philosophy of law sense, it's functionally required in the technology of law sense - the "applied philosophy" sphere of law.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at April 11, 2015 12:30 PM (QKIQb)
178
Speaking of no labels. Scott Walker is who I would bet on. He is being labeled in ways that could boost him with LIVs (eg no college degree, first since Truman). He succeeded in a very liberal state. I don't particularly like him but I think a lot of people underrate his achievements.
Posted by: Underdog at April 11, 2015 12:35 PM (PGh+Q)
179
Above I said Wisconsin was a very liberal state. Sorry. I haven't completely overcome the propaganda yet. I meant progressive, collectivist, fascist state.
Posted by: Underdog at April 11, 2015 12:40 PM (PGh+Q)
180
"Even China... is fundamentally Fascist."
I agree where the definition of fascist is an elite ("the State") controlling all aspects of life to whatever degree and particulars it sees fit. Communism ala Lenin's "dictatorship of the proletariat" was always just "fascism in the name of the people." Contra Trotsky and others, all collectivism seems to inevitably end up with an elite controlling the masses. Human nature dictates this - Communism won't work without creating "Altruistic/Collectivist Man" first and that's simply not possible (or frankly even desirable).
It's down to opt-in vs. opt-out society: consent of the governed and delegated powers vs. man as servant of The State in the form of a self-appointed elite by whatever "right" they claim to rule, blood, expertise or "will of the people."
I agree where the definition of fascist is an elite ("the State") controlling all aspects of life to whatever degree and particulars it sees fit. Communism ala Lenin's "dictatorship of the proletariat" was always just "fascism in the name of the people." Contra Trotsky and others, all collectivism seems to inevitably end up with an elite controlling the masses. Human nature dictates this - Communism won't work without creating "Altruistic/Collectivist Man" first and that's simply not possible (or frankly even desirable).
It's down to opt-in vs. opt-out society: consent of the governed and delegated powers vs. man as servant of The State in the form of a self-appointed elite by whatever "right" they claim to rule, blood, expertise or "will of the people."
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at April 11, 2015 12:40 PM (QKIQb)
181
I find Mark Levin's term STATIST to be useful.
Posted by: Buddha at April 11, 2015 12:41 PM (3CczE)
182
"
I find Mark Levin's term STATIST to be useful."
Mark Levin finds Von Mises, Hayek and Rand's term "Statist" useful (it's an adaptation of the French "etatism" and has been used since at least the 1940s - it's all over Rand's work from back when Mark was in nappies).
I love Mark but for a guy who protests that he's not seeking credit in pretty much every segment, he seems to feel entitled to royalties on a large portion of the political dictionary (e.g. "statist," "utopian" and "feckless," to name a few of terms he's squatting on).
I find Mark Levin's term STATIST to be useful."
Mark Levin finds Von Mises, Hayek and Rand's term "Statist" useful (it's an adaptation of the French "etatism" and has been used since at least the 1940s - it's all over Rand's work from back when Mark was in nappies).
I love Mark but for a guy who protests that he's not seeking credit in pretty much every segment, he seems to feel entitled to royalties on a large portion of the political dictionary (e.g. "statist," "utopian" and "feckless," to name a few of terms he's squatting on).
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at April 11, 2015 12:50 PM (QKIQb)
183
Fascism isn't defined by state-run businesses or tyranny. It includes heavy state control of business (through cronyism, mostly) and a largely socialist economic and cultural model, but also must include a single all powerful central strong leader, very strong ties to tradition, a love and veneration of military, and a very powerful nationalist movement.
The fascists in Spain (Falangists) were strongly Roman Catholic because of their identity with Spanish tradition and past, for example.
Fascism was an attempt to scientifically borrow from the left and the right to create a third way. It was mostly leftist (state run medical care, jobs for everyone, state dictates what you do in your businesses and what you can serve, etc) but had some right-leaning aspects as well. It was driven by a philosophical worldview which saw absolutes as myths and believed everything is a matter of what you personally impose upon the world through your will; hence "The Triumph of the Will."
Fascists believed that religion weakened people and that the "new man" would demolish the old and through that become stronger, smarter, healthier, and better. They were the height of scientific thought and analysis of history and economics in the 1920s, and the darlings of academia at the time because of that.
The fascists in Spain (Falangists) were strongly Roman Catholic because of their identity with Spanish tradition and past, for example.
Fascism was an attempt to scientifically borrow from the left and the right to create a third way. It was mostly leftist (state run medical care, jobs for everyone, state dictates what you do in your businesses and what you can serve, etc) but had some right-leaning aspects as well. It was driven by a philosophical worldview which saw absolutes as myths and believed everything is a matter of what you personally impose upon the world through your will; hence "The Triumph of the Will."
Fascists believed that religion weakened people and that the "new man" would demolish the old and through that become stronger, smarter, healthier, and better. They were the height of scientific thought and analysis of history and economics in the 1920s, and the darlings of academia at the time because of that.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 11, 2015 01:06 PM (39g3+)
184
I cannot recall where I first heard it, but I take to the notion that there are, at bottom, but two political philosophies: Liberty and Tyranny, otherwise known as Individualism and Collectivism, or Good and Evil.
Posted by: Brett at April 11, 2015 01:11 PM (9V4zq)
185
I only read the first 70 comments so this may have already been mentioned, but WD when you write "All of this is based upon my belief that the most important difference
between political philosophies is to which degree they seek to control
the individual," does that mean laws to restrict unfettered abortion reflect the liberal position? Or opposition to gay marriage, or prostitution, or street drugs, or anchor babies?
All of these "controls" over the individual emanate from conservative positions, which is why libs often say it's the Christian Right Wingnuts who want to control others far more than we Free Spirits on the Left.
Seems to me both sides want to tell others how to live, but my admittedly-biased position is that our controls stem from Biblical precepts while theirs stem from Das Kapital.
between political philosophies is to which degree they seek to control
the individual," does that mean laws to restrict unfettered abortion reflect the liberal position? Or opposition to gay marriage, or prostitution, or street drugs, or anchor babies?
All of these "controls" over the individual emanate from conservative positions, which is why libs often say it's the Christian Right Wingnuts who want to control others far more than we Free Spirits on the Left.
Seems to me both sides want to tell others how to live, but my admittedly-biased position is that our controls stem from Biblical precepts while theirs stem from Das Kapital.
Posted by: Kate58 at April 11, 2015 01:20 PM (oLZsm)
186
I don't appreciate single axis descriptions. These are so limiting as to be almost useless. Individualism vs state control is a great axis buck better then left vs right. Levels of social conservatism, fiscal conservatism are two other distinct areas that lumped together to much. Strength of rule of law, level of local control, amount of democratic participation are other g
Posted by: Steve Adams at April 11, 2015 01:51 PM (XDRvf)
187
I don't appreciate single axis descriptions. These are so limiting as to be almost useless. Individualism vs state control is a great axis buck better then left vs right. Levels of social conservatism, fiscal conservatism are two other distinct areas that lumped together to much. Strength of rule of law, level of local control, amount of democratic participation are other good contrasts. Dang tablet.
Posted by: Steve Adams at April 11, 2015 01:53 PM (XDRvf)
188
185. Not at all. Abortion should be restricted because it deprived an individual of his most basic right-the right to life. Are you going to argue that prohibitions against murder are likewise verboden because they seek to control the individual?
Gay marriage isn't a thing, it's an attempt to redefine a word for political gain. I don't know any conservatives who really oppose civil unions. Opposition to prostitution or street drugs comes from the idea that it's destructive to society in the same way that murder and theft are, there's room to discuss where to draw the line here even within conservative circles. Anchor babies? They only exist because of a deliberate judicial distortion of the 14th Amendment, I'd like to conserve the original meaning of the 14th.
Limited government doesn't mean no government. I want to conserve a Republic, not to live in a state of anarchy. I'm politically left of anarchists.
Gay marriage isn't a thing, it's an attempt to redefine a word for political gain. I don't know any conservatives who really oppose civil unions. Opposition to prostitution or street drugs comes from the idea that it's destructive to society in the same way that murder and theft are, there's room to discuss where to draw the line here even within conservative circles. Anchor babies? They only exist because of a deliberate judicial distortion of the 14th Amendment, I'd like to conserve the original meaning of the 14th.
Limited government doesn't mean no government. I want to conserve a Republic, not to live in a state of anarchy. I'm politically left of anarchists.
Posted by: Weirddave at April 11, 2015 01:53 PM (WvS3w)
189
I like to present these political states the way I was taught in 8th Grade. Assume a clock as a big circle on that blackboard. With chalk write the following: For the left: Middle of the road at 12 O'clock, Democrat at 2, Liberal at 3, Radical at 5, Dictator at 6. For the right: Middle of the road at 12 O'clock, Republican at 10, Conservative at 9, Reactionary at 7, and King at 6. The circle can spin as needed dependent on time and place. But it holds up well as a great teaching tool. Note at 6, a King and Dictator are basically the same. that only wimps are middle of the Roads. Great postings here, you are powerful, Love ya, just another Moron
Posted by: SgtPete at April 11, 2015 02:31 PM (JmHVh)
190
"It's really not that hard, if you just visualize a continuum.
. . .
Once we have constructed this graph, what does it tell us?"
It tells us that a linear continuum is not a proper model.
The individual license of Anarchism is not directly comparable to the concept of "Freedom". There is very little separating an individual's freedom from everyone else's slavery. Anarchism turns to Monarchism with barely a blink, and Oligarchic Collectivism with less than that.
The same exists when trying to frame economic "freedom" as a continuum, even graphed against political "freedom".
Ultimately both are symptoms or consequences of more fundamental ideological beliefs (both secular and religious) rather than directing philosophies in and of themselves.
. . .
Once we have constructed this graph, what does it tell us?"
It tells us that a linear continuum is not a proper model.
The individual license of Anarchism is not directly comparable to the concept of "Freedom". There is very little separating an individual's freedom from everyone else's slavery. Anarchism turns to Monarchism with barely a blink, and Oligarchic Collectivism with less than that.
The same exists when trying to frame economic "freedom" as a continuum, even graphed against political "freedom".
Ultimately both are symptoms or consequences of more fundamental ideological beliefs (both secular and religious) rather than directing philosophies in and of themselves.
Posted by: Sam at April 11, 2015 02:55 PM (mkv9z)
191
"Abortion should be restricted because it deprived an individual of his most basic right-the right to life."
That's pretty much where I'm at and I support a right-to-life amendment, but I'd be satisfied with leaving the abortion question to the states in the meantime by overturning Roe.
Regardless of what you think about the soul or how you otherwise define "life" it stands to reason that even in the most secular of value systems, an unborn's right to life (or merely their "right to develop into an organism fitting your definition of life if no one actively intervenes to kill it beforehand") would trump anything but a threat to the mother's "actual" life vs. the unborn's "potential" at the very least.
Carrying a baby to term and putting the child up for adoption is much the lesser of two "evils" when the alternative is killing the baby. Absent a compelling case for the pregnancy being a substantially likely threat to her life because of unusual medical circumstances, or a case of forcible pregnancy via statutory or other rape, calling abortion anything but a matter of the mother's convenience requires euphemisms and pretzel logic.
That said, I'm not going to fracture the republic over the issue. I'll live with a bad compromise of letting the states decide then trust in moral persuasion to turn the tide state by state for the holdouts.
That's pretty much where I'm at and I support a right-to-life amendment, but I'd be satisfied with leaving the abortion question to the states in the meantime by overturning Roe.
Regardless of what you think about the soul or how you otherwise define "life" it stands to reason that even in the most secular of value systems, an unborn's right to life (or merely their "right to develop into an organism fitting your definition of life if no one actively intervenes to kill it beforehand") would trump anything but a threat to the mother's "actual" life vs. the unborn's "potential" at the very least.
Carrying a baby to term and putting the child up for adoption is much the lesser of two "evils" when the alternative is killing the baby. Absent a compelling case for the pregnancy being a substantially likely threat to her life because of unusual medical circumstances, or a case of forcible pregnancy via statutory or other rape, calling abortion anything but a matter of the mother's convenience requires euphemisms and pretzel logic.
That said, I'm not going to fracture the republic over the issue. I'll live with a bad compromise of letting the states decide then trust in moral persuasion to turn the tide state by state for the holdouts.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at April 11, 2015 02:59 PM (QKIQb)
192
"Ultimately both are symptoms or consequences of more fundamental
ideological beliefs (both secular and religious) rather than directing
philosophies in and of themselves."
Good point. Actual state of nature anarchy, rather than the mislabeled local/limited/competing government models that pass for anarchy, is pre-conceptual and has no ideological or philosophical underpinnings. It's not the yin to the totalitarian yang, it's "the void" in terms of political argument. Anarchy is the null state of politics, not the end point on any political continuum. To the extent one person establishes effective dominion over another, you have some form of government and you're on the positive/existing continuum. Anarchy is apolitical.
The ultimate "end point" to individualism on the continuum is hard to define, but it would be the minimal cooperative action/governance necessary to maximize everyone's freedoms within some kind of social contract by barring fraud and aggressive (vs. defensive) force among private actors.
Ayn Rand's Objectivist ethics are the closest thing I'm aware of that attempts a detailed rational description. I think she reasonably drew a line at one government deriving its power from the consent of the governed rather than the dangerous idea of "competing sovereignties" fashionable in some libertarian circles. One government is a necessary evil - being subject to more than one government (not in a federal sense, but in a separate competing governments with overlapping responsibilities in the same territory sense) is a nightmare for freedom, not an improvement if you really think through how it would play out.
ideological beliefs (both secular and religious) rather than directing
philosophies in and of themselves."
Good point. Actual state of nature anarchy, rather than the mislabeled local/limited/competing government models that pass for anarchy, is pre-conceptual and has no ideological or philosophical underpinnings. It's not the yin to the totalitarian yang, it's "the void" in terms of political argument. Anarchy is the null state of politics, not the end point on any political continuum. To the extent one person establishes effective dominion over another, you have some form of government and you're on the positive/existing continuum. Anarchy is apolitical.
The ultimate "end point" to individualism on the continuum is hard to define, but it would be the minimal cooperative action/governance necessary to maximize everyone's freedoms within some kind of social contract by barring fraud and aggressive (vs. defensive) force among private actors.
Ayn Rand's Objectivist ethics are the closest thing I'm aware of that attempts a detailed rational description. I think she reasonably drew a line at one government deriving its power from the consent of the governed rather than the dangerous idea of "competing sovereignties" fashionable in some libertarian circles. One government is a necessary evil - being subject to more than one government (not in a federal sense, but in a separate competing governments with overlapping responsibilities in the same territory sense) is a nightmare for freedom, not an improvement if you really think through how it would play out.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at April 11, 2015 03:09 PM (QKIQb)
193
Right wing dictator is an oxymoron.
Posted by: Dennis at April 11, 2015 04:05 PM (6h3/O)
194
I am a Libertarian Militarist
Maximum military to protect our nation from external threats which combine with maximum freedom within our borders to pursue happiness and the American dream.
Maximum military to protect our nation from external threats which combine with maximum freedom within our borders to pursue happiness and the American dream.
Posted by: bobbymike at April 11, 2015 04:33 PM (8J355)
195
jwpaine, I'll safely hold your wallet and all the pretty women in your life for no fee. :-)
Posted by: Pragmatist at April 11, 2015 11:45 AM (PGh+Q)
Heh-heh. Done! Asolutely free of charge! You pay only shipping & handling!
Posted by: Pragmatist at April 11, 2015 11:45 AM (PGh+Q)
Heh-heh. Done! Asolutely free of charge! You pay only shipping & handling!
Posted by: jwpaine at April 11, 2015 05:21 PM (i0pY0)
196
The right-left continuum originally referred to the variations of collectivism. Liberal capitalism is nowhere to be found on that continuum. Left-wing socialists believe that history is a class struggle, and right-wing socialists believe history is a racial struggle. The Nazis' economic policies allowed a certain degree of private ownership and profiteering, but the party reserved the right to appropriate property and profits at anytime as it saw fit. The Nazis set wages, employment levels, prices, and production levels. Though they pragmatically allowed a slightly higher degree of economic freedom than the Bolsheviks, the Nazis considered themselves to be even bigger socialists than the Bolsheviks. The Nazis believed that the left-wing socialists were too preoccupied with economic matters and sought to collectivize the gene pool by enlisting the entire German medical industry to weed out the physically and mentally impaired as well as ethnic minorities in an effort to supercharge the evolution of the master race. Prior to WWII, "left-wing" and "right-wing" were universally understood to refer to competing camps of collectivist thought. After the right-wing collectivists were utterly defeated militarily and utterly discredited morally, the left-wing Marxist socialists began referring to its only remaining enemy, the liberal capitalists, as "right-wing" in an effort to link them to the discredited ideology of the fascists. Putting liberal capitalism at the extreme end of your continuum is a mistake, because liberal capitalism is the least extreme political/economic system ever devised. Liberal capitalism is the only system that respects the intellectual freedom and property rights of its citizens, it has demonstrated far greater respect for human dignity than any other system, and it has resulted in the greatest prosperity for all its people than any other system. It is not an extreme system. It his mild, humane, and comfortable.
Posted by: Mikey at April 12, 2015 12:12 PM (2f/TW)
197
"Prior to WWII, 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' were universally understood to refer to competing camps of collectivist thought. After the right-wing collectivists were utterly defeated militarily and utterly discredited morally, the left-wing Marxist socialists began referring to its only remaining enemy, the liberal capitalists, as 'right-wing' in an effort to link them to the discredited ideology of the fascists."
True but that's part of the story. The Western academics who were on board with the Stalin-Hitler pack needed to distance themselves once WWII started. So they recast Nazis as right wing, which is a ridiculous canard.
If you pigeonhole politics to a two dimensions. You end up arguing that Nazi's are to the right as are Libertarians. So if you are a Conservative who becomes a Libertarian you are presumably closer in political outlook to Nazis than Orange County Republicans. It is totally absurd. Goldbergs's "Liberal Fascism" puts Nazis in the same totalitarian camp as Fascists, and Communists, and distinguish them by constituency, not ideology. Fascist's constituency was based on national constituency. Nazism based on race constituency. Communism based on class, which is why Communism was a global phenomenon.
As far as political models go I think this is pretty accurate.
True but that's part of the story. The Western academics who were on board with the Stalin-Hitler pack needed to distance themselves once WWII started. So they recast Nazis as right wing, which is a ridiculous canard.
If you pigeonhole politics to a two dimensions. You end up arguing that Nazi's are to the right as are Libertarians. So if you are a Conservative who becomes a Libertarian you are presumably closer in political outlook to Nazis than Orange County Republicans. It is totally absurd. Goldbergs's "Liberal Fascism" puts Nazis in the same totalitarian camp as Fascists, and Communists, and distinguish them by constituency, not ideology. Fascist's constituency was based on national constituency. Nazism based on race constituency. Communism based on class, which is why Communism was a global phenomenon.
As far as political models go I think this is pretty accurate.
Posted by: Levin at April 12, 2015 01:53 PM (6pgRO)
198
Right and left collectivists share many of the same assumptions and goals and share many thinkers as influences. They've had a historical debate on which assumptions to emphasize and how to best achieve their goals, so they belong on a continuum. Liberal capitalists share none of these assumptions and goals, so they don't belong on the continuum. Imagine there's a continuum of football teams with teams that like to run on the left and teams that like to throw on the right. Putting liberal capitalism on the left-right continuum is like putting a hockey team on the football continuum.
Posted by: Mikey at April 12, 2015 09:03 PM (Uff7i)
Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.032 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0118 seconds, 207 records returned.
Page size 144 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Real Clear Politics
Gallup
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Primary Document: The Audio
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Top Top Tens
Democratic Forays into Erotica
New Shows On Gore's DNC/MTV Network
Nicknames for Potatoes, By People Who Really Hate Potatoes
Star Wars Euphemisms for Self-Abuse
Signs You're at an Iraqi "Wedding Party"
Signs Your Clown Has Gone Bad
Signs That You, Geroge Michael, Should Probably Just Give It Up
Signs of Hip-Hop Influence on John Kerry
NYT Headlines Spinning Bush's Jobs Boom
Things People Are More Likely to Say Than "Did You Hear What Al Franken Said Yesterday?"
Signs that Paul Krugman Has Lost His Frickin' Mind
All-Time Best NBA Players, According to Senator Robert Byrd
Other Bad Things About the Jews, According to the Koran
Signs That David Letterman Just Doesn't Care Anymore
Examples of Bob Kerrey's Insufferable Racial Jackassery
Signs Andy Rooney Is Going Senile
Other Judgments Dick Clarke Made About Condi Rice Based on Her Appearance
Collective Names for Groups of People
John Kerry's Other Vietnam Super-Pets
Cool Things About the XM8 Assault Rifle
Media-Approved Facts About the Democrat Spy
Changes to Make Christianity More "Inclusive"
Secret John Kerry Senatorial Accomplishments
John Edwards Campaign Excuses
John Kerry Pick-Up Lines
Changes Liberal Senator George Michell Will Make at Disney
Torments in Dog-Hell
Greatest Hitjobs
The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat