Page 1 of 3
Eric Cantor Loses To TEA Party Libertarian
Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 1:20 am
by MSimon
from Brat's c.v.:
“An Analysis of the Moral Foundations in Ayn Rand” by Katy Holland and David Brat, presented and published in the proceedings of Southeast Informs, Myrtle Beach, SC, October 6, 2010
Whole thing here:
http://faculty.rmc.edu/dbrat/research.html
From this comment:
http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/10/house ... nt_4566480
Re: Eric Cantor Loses To TEA Party Libertarian
Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 1:46 am
by williatw
Wow...sounds like the demise of the tea party is greatly exaggerated. I have always thought that the primaries are a powerful tool for sending a message and making change that is sorely underused and unappreciated. I wish someone had strongly challenged Obama in the democratic primaries for instance. One thing about the British system I do admire is their ability to call for a vote of "no confidence" anytime the PM is unable to effectively answer questions/issues raised by Parliament. If passed, afterwards an election usually follows. What do you think "
Ckay" or any other British poster if you’re out there?
Re: Eric Cantor Loses To TEA Party Libertarian
Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 2:00 pm
by D Tibbets
This result, while evidently shocking, and is advertised as a Republican shift to the right, may actually be more basic. Just like the new Tea Party candidates in 2010, a large part of their success was probably a reaction to the politics of the incumbents. The disfavor of congress reflects this disgust. So, this may represent a 'kick the bum out' attitude as much or more than political orientation. This is a renewed warning to all incumbents, which now also includes Tea Partiers.
Dan Tibbets
Re: Eric Cantor Loses To TEA Party Libertarian
Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:03 pm
by paperburn1
Current military is downsizing and the rumble among the troops is kick them (congressmen)out at 20 just like they are doing us.
If this gains momentum we will most likely be living in interesting times
Re: Eric Cantor Loses To TEA Party Libertarian
Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:44 pm
by MSimon
paperburn1 wrote:Current military is downsizing and the rumble among the troops is kick them (congressmen) out at 20 just like they are doing us.
If this gains momentum we will most likely be living in interesting times
Ever since Nixon put Drug Prohibition on steroids we have been living in interesting times. And for reasons that escape me (probably the money) the military has become a willing accomplice.
Look at what NRA members think of the militarization of police:
http://classicalvalues.com/2014/06/it-is-a-war-zone/
Similar attitudes towards police were evidenced at the end of Alcohol Prohibition. The Right is supposed to be the guardian of history. I'm not seeing it.
Re: Eric Cantor Loses To TEA Party Libertarian
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:49 am
by DeltaV
From his c.v., Brat knows CoBOL.
For a business major, that's about as close to knowing ForTran as it gets.
Re: Eric Cantor Loses To TEA Party Libertarian
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 1:21 pm
by mvanwink5
The Right is supposed to be the guardian of history. I'm not seeing it.
Left and right (of today), both have no confidence in freedom and believe people are incapable of living without a caretaker. Somebody, then, has to take on the duty of being the farmer - caretaker... for a cut off the top. Pure hubris, some out of the desire to do good (whatever the cost), some view it as just the way it is and might as well get in on the "money" side of it. "Baptist and the Bootlegger" (see Rothbard). Politician and the Crony. They come in pairs it seems.
As far I can see, the left have taken the position that socialism is ideal, people must be farmed, managed, and to be distinct from the left and to provide an alternative, the right has taken the position that socialism is ideal but just needs to be done in a more efficient way. Some alternative.
Pick your caretaker.
Re: Eric Cantor Loses To TEA Party Libertarian
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:18 pm
by JLawson
mvanwink5 wrote: The Right is supposed to be the guardian of history. I'm not seeing it.
Left and right (of today), both have no confidence in freedom and believe people are incapable of living without a caretaker. Somebody, then, has to take on the duty of being the farmer - caretaker... for a cut off the top. Pure hubris, some out of the desire to do good (whatever the cost), some view it as just the way it is and might as well get in on the "money" side of it. "Baptist and the Bootlegger" (see Rothbard). Politician and the Crony. They come in pairs it seems.
As far I can see, the left have taken the position that socialism is ideal, people must be farmed, managed, and to be distinct from the left and to provide an alternative, the right has taken the position that socialism is ideal but just needs to be done in a more efficient way. Some alternative.
Pick your caretaker.
First thing is to get rid of the current crop, and shift the attitudes of those not up for election from 'Master' to 'Servant'.
This is a good start. It remains to be seen if any momentum on the change can be built.
Re: Eric Cantor Loses To TEA Party Libertarian
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 3:11 pm
by mvanwink5
Throw the current bums and crooks out. What could go wrong?
Re: Eric Cantor Loses To TEA Party Libertarian
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 3:19 pm
by ladajo
I have heard this song somewhere...
"...out with the old boss, in with the new..."
I see no real hope without a change of rule sets that we would not just get more of the same.
They all wear masks, it is part of the rules.
The first rule of politics, "Once elected, all effort focuses to re-election."
This needs to change.
Re: Eric Cantor Loses To TEA Party Libertarian
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 3:33 pm
by mvanwink5
Until the general understanding changes to: get rid of care-taking, caretaker = Master, until then we will replace one caretaker with another. Once the idea that a caretaker is needed, the argument boils down to who will be the new master and how much mastering will take place (always a ceaseless moving line towards slavery), and what will be the cut off the top.
Re: Eric Cantor Loses To TEA Party Libertarian
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 4:24 pm
by MSimon
ladajo wrote:I have heard this song somewhere...
"...out with the old boss, in with the new..."
I see no real hope without a change of rule sets that we would not just get more of the same.
They all wear masks, it is part of the rules.
The first rule of politics, "Once elected, all effort focuses to re-election."
This needs to change.
Changing rules will not help a bit. As
mvanwink5 points out: without a change in the people a change in politicians and rules will change nothing. We have a nanny state because so many people want nannies. Some for themselves - it reduces the requirement of personal responsibility. Some for others - because of fear of what people will do without minders. The end result is the same.
Ultimately - in our system the whole mess comes about from a devaluation of liberty. I'm doing my best to change that with considerable effect recently. We have some new generations coming down the pike who place a higher value on liberty than their predecessors.
http://reason.com/archives/2014/06/11/c ... olitics-be
Before the progressives, the dominant political thinkers in America were Madisonians. James Madison, who kept the notes at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787—notes that eventually formed much of the language of the Constitution—made clear what the purposes of the Constitution were: to prescribe discrete areas of human endeavor in which the new federal government could legislate; to set forth open-ended areas of human behavior in which no government could legislate; and to leave the remaining areas of governmental endeavor in the hands of the states. The areas delegated to the federal government are only 17 in number and generally are referred to as federal powers. The areas in which no government may regulate are infinite and generally are referred to as natural rights.
The progressives have turned this philosophy on its head. Roosevelt and Wilson believed that the federal government could regulate any behavior, right any wrong, tax any event, and curtail any freedom, subject only to the express prohibitions in the Constitution itself. This view of American government not only contradicts Madison, but it also contradicts the language of the Constitution itself, particularly the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which state in writing what Madison said many times throughout his life.
http://reason.com/archives/2014/06/12/b ... government
Which is why I keep harping on the absent Drug Prohibition Amendment. It separates the Republicans who are real about limited government from the fakers. The majority of Republicans are fakers. And it seems a lot of those fakers comment around here. I enjoy it though. As you may have noticed.
Re: Eric Cantor Loses To TEA Party Libertarian
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 4:37 pm
by ladajo
I'm doing my best to change that with considerable effect recently.
That statement is a clear delusion of granduer.
While I agree with your point about nanny state, I also extend that to increased acceptance and desire for drug use.
Every one is looking for an easy way out. Free money, free feel good, no personal responsibilities. Drug use fits nicely into that.
Re: Eric Cantor Loses To TEA Party Libertarian
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 4:57 pm
by mvanwink5
Folks may think they will get a nanny, or a wise and kind putz, a caring big brother, or a magic unicorn for a caretaker, but in the end you get some deserving flavor of the past despots of horror (Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, Committee of the Benevolent, etc), and a well stocked prison to send family members to. Give up self liberty and roll the devil's let's make a deal dice. You won't get what you paid for even if you tell yourself "at least I tried, the collateral damage was worth it, etc." Always a losing deal that keeps getting worse.
Drug use is a symptom of a person's Microbiome, the person is ruled by their bacteria, not moral decay, (certainly not something that can be fixed by law, my view).
Re: Eric Cantor Loses To TEA Party Libertarian
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 5:02 pm
by MSimon
ladajo wrote:I'm doing my best to change that with considerable effect recently.
That statement is a clear delusion of granduer.
While I agree with your point about nanny state, I also extend that to increased acceptance and desire for drug use.
Every one is looking for an easy way out. Free money, free feel good, no personal responsibilities. Drug use fits nicely into that.
But most of the drug use you decry is caused by PTSD. Fix that and you fix most of the drug problem.
Drug use is no more abandoning personal responsibility than using alcohol is such an abandonment. Although current and former Alcohol Prohibitionists would lead you to think otherwise. Your arguments against some drugs exactly mirrors the arguments against alcohol. So much so that if I didn't think your were serious I'd call you a parodist.
Billy Sunday thought Alcohol Prohibition would give us utopia. "Hell will be forever for rent" It didn't turn out that way. And neither has the prohibition of drugs.
As to delusions of grandeur - well I didn't do it all myself. I had considerable help.
And worst of all the prohibition of cannabis has held back the deployment of a cure for cancer. That is hardly going to sit well with the general population as it becomes more widely known. Everyone knows or knew some one with the disease. I just helped bury a friend a week ago. I had not contacted him for a couple of months. It was that quick. And his brother's girlfriend has breast cancer.
Look up:
Dennis Hill biochemist cancer – or – Dr. Christina Sanchez molecular biologist cancer