MSimon wrote:It is all a red herring. We have two socialist parties in America. The moral socialist party and the economic socialist party.
In the theory of Oswald Spengler, Socialism will be the final ethical ideal of the West, much as Stoicism was for Mediterranean Antiquity.
The current issue in the US is not capitalism vs socialism. That is a done deal. The current contention is Optimates vs Populares. Both parties have Optimate and Populare factions. The question is when will they rationalize.
MSimon wrote:The original American Party was the "leave us alone" party. It gets no representation in the current mix.
The Anglosphere's version of Enlightenment thinking was always grounded in John Locke, whereas the Continent's was always the more radical prescriptions of Jean Jacques Rousseau. Gradualist change vs "Bang! Now!" change. But the Lockean and Rousseauean versions both follow the same path and achieve the same ends; the Rousseauean radicals just get there faster.
drmike wrote:Speaking of communism and psychology - I always think of "red" as "communist". So when I see republicans in red I just assume they are
communists!! It's really dumb because obviously they are fascists.
I dare say that there are many voters out there who are not nearly as asstute as you, and yes, their votes are just as good as yours. (dispite your education.) They may do exactly as you have said, or they may simply associate the color "Red" with Danger. Either way, people are being steered and manipulated.
In any case...
It is my understanding that the facists are communists too! The word Nazi is an anacronym for NAtionalsoZIalistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. National Socialist German Workers party.
It is peculiar that people somehow associate the totalitarian dictators with the right, when in fact they are a product of the left. Of course, since most of the people in Universities and Journalism (history and news) happen to favor the left, maybe it isn't all that suprising.
Look at any of the policies of Hitler or mussilini, and tell me which ones were right wing and which one's were left wing.
You will find that their polices were pretty much exclusively leftist.
drmike wrote:Speaking of communism and psychology - I always think of "red" as "communist". So when I see republicans in red I just assume they are communists!! It's really dumb because obviously they are fascists.
It is all a red herring. We have two socialist parties in America. The moral socialist party and the economic socialist party.
The original American Party was the "leave us alone" party. It gets no representation in the current mix.
I think msimon is mistaken when he says the "Leave us alone party" is the Original American party. The "Leave us alone party is in fact " Libertarians, (NO GOVERNmENT) and their opposite extreme is Liberals.
(TOTAL GOVERNmENT) The Original founders were REPUBLICANS, and the form of government they created was a REPUBLIC.
The middle would be the optimal amount of government we need, but no more, and no less. It is obviously my opinion that the optimal amount of government we need is that which is advocated by conservatism. We need far less than we currently have, but we don't need NONE.
ravingdave wrote:It is my understanding that the facists are communists too! The word Nazi is an anacronym for NAtionalsoZIalistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. National Socialist German Workers party.
The original Coke vs Pepsi Challenge. The only differences were focus (Nationalist vs Internationalist) and choice of scapegoat.
ravingdave wrote:I think msimon is mistaken when he says the "Leave us alone party" is the Original American party. The "Leave us alone party is in fact " Libertarians, (NO GOVERNmENT) and their opposite extreme is Liberals (TOTAL GOVERNmENT). The Original founders were REPUBLICANS, and the form of government they created was a REPUBLIC.
Far too simplistic. The tension of centralized vs decentralized has been in place in the US since the beginning. The decentralized Articles of Confederation failed, leading to the federal Constitution. Hamilton's original attempt to create a centralized financial structure under the Bank of the United States failed, but its descendant succeeded four generations later. "Go Fast" Jeffersonians vs "Go Slow" Jacksonians defined the extremes from the start.
To say "My way was the true way" is comforting, but it is hardly ever true.
I was a Libertarian for over 10 years. I was an official in my local group. At no time was the Party EVER a no government party. It is true we attracted the occasional wavering anarchist. But that was not the party.
The closets to your definition is that the party has on occasion been described as minarchist. The debate was always: what are the minimum functions of government.
You sir have been misinformed.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
ravingdave wrote:It is my understanding that the facists are communists too! The word Nazi is an anacronym for NAtionalsoZIalistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. National Socialist German Workers party.
The original Coke vs Pepsi Challenge. The only differences were focus (Nationalist vs Internationalist) and choice of scapegoat.
ravingdave wrote:I think msimon is mistaken when he says the "Leave us alone party" is the Original American party. The "Leave us alone party is in fact " Libertarians, (NO GOVERNmENT) and their opposite extreme is Liberals (TOTAL GOVERNmENT). The Original founders were REPUBLICANS, and the form of government they created was a REPUBLIC.
Far too simplistic. The tension of centralized vs decentralized has been in place in the US since the beginning. The decentralized Articles of Confederation failed, leading to the federal Constitution. Hamilton's original attempt to create a centralized financial structure under the Bank of the United States failed, but its descendant succeeded four generations later. "Go Fast" Jeffersonians vs "Go Slow" Jacksonians defined the extremes from the start.
To say "My way was the true way" is comforting, but it is hardly ever true.
Duane
The term "true" implies certainty. There is no certainty, just probability and optimization. People should not get the cart before the horse and declare "Their way" to be the true way, they should look at probabilites and optimizations, and figure out which method results in the highest of both, then they should declare THAT their way.
Human history is vast compared to the experiences of one human. A macroscopic view tends to demonstrate the fallacies of various ideas.
David
Last edited by ravingdave on Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I was a Libertarian for over 10 years. I was an official in my local group. At no time was the Party EVER a no government party. It is true we attracted the occasional wavering anarchist. But that was not the party.
The closets to your definition is that the party has on occasion been described as minarchist. The debate was always: what are the minimum functions of government.
You sir have been misinformed.
Of course i'm exagerating by emphasizing the central tenet of Libertarianism. That being said, i've spoken with many people who self identify as Libertarians, as well as reading what others have wrote on the web and elsewhere. People I have spoken with regard speed limits and stop signs to be an "infringement on their personal liberty. " Drivers licenses and car tags are likewise examples of an onerous and burdensome government. The idea that these things serve some other purpose than depriving these people of their liberties simply doesn't occur to them.
In any case, Libertarianism is the right vector, it's just the scalar is too large.
I have to agree with Simon, Libertarians are for small government. Not no gov.
I know, i'm just exagerating for effect. Of course it is my opinion that Libertarian policies will RESULT in no government, at least temporarily, and then a monarchy will step in.
MSimon wrote:It is all a red herring. We have two socialist parties in America. The moral socialist party and the economic socialist party.
In the theory of Oswald Spengler, Socialism will be the final ethical ideal of the West, much as Stoicism was for Mediterranean Antiquity.
The current issue in the US is not capitalism vs socialism. That is a done deal. The current contention is Optimates vs Populares. Both parties have Optimate and Populare factions. The question is when will they rationalize.
MSimon wrote:The original American Party was the "leave us alone" party. It gets no representation in the current mix.
The Anglosphere's version of Enlightenment thinking was always grounded in John Locke, whereas the Continent's was always the more radical prescriptions of Jean Jacques Rousseau. Gradualist change vs "Bang! Now!" change. But the Lockean and Rousseauean versions both follow the same path and achieve the same ends; the Rousseauean radicals just get there faster.
Not quite. Rousseau invented all that 'social contract' garbage that is the basis of socialism. To Locke, the individual was tabula rasa, a blank slate, ergo born with no obligations to caste or community. He also warned against the tragedy of the commons, a lesson the socialists failed to learn.
The west is not and never has been free-market, except perhaps in the pre-Roosevelt USA and perhaps victorian Britain to some degree. It has primarily been a mercantilist oligopoly using socialism to externalize costs onto the workers. Since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 it increasingly became a military-industrial complex, but has since transitioned into a welfare-industrial complex.
Aero wrote:David - Don't you mean Anarchy, not Monarchy?
No. Anarchy is the transition period between Libertarian government and Monarchy. It is inherently unstable and temporary.
David
Having been an anarchist for a long time, but operating a big virtual land business in SL, I've gradually come to the opinion that libertarianism or anarchy can only persist under the shelter of a benevolent laissez faire monarchy.
"If men were angels, there would be no need of government." < this I have come to realize the reality of. People get the government they deserve. Be careful what you wish for.
I have to agree with Simon, Libertarians are for small government. Not no gov.
I know, i'm just exagerating for effect. Of course it is my opinion that Libertarian policies will RESULT in no government, at least temporarily, and then a monarchy will step in. :)
David
We can fix that problem with 100,000 more laws. Or maybe 1,000,000.
That way no matter what you do you will be guilty.
So the real question David is: do we have the right number of laws, too man, or too few?
Then it gets down to details - which ones?
Libertarians start with the proposition: too many.
If too few laws lead to no government then obviously we were in very great danger in 1800. However, in the intervening 208 years the deficiency was made up before any one noticed. Thank the Maker.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
