One never knows what bit of information or what argument might stimulate someone into a realization. With that notion in mind, I want to present this article as something that might inspire some thinking along paths that have never been considered before.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... ation.html
Libertarian epiphany catalyst?
For a movement like the Libertarians or the Tea Party to succeed, all members have to be able to agree on a common set of attainable goals that a majority of the electorate will support.
One of the problems they will face is the dezinformatzia from the mainstream media, which can confuse them by mixing truth with falsehood. Another problem they face is infiltration and co-opting by the same establishment parties that co-opt the mainstream media.
It's an uphill battle for any small party to gain traction in any country, but if they get lucky, they can hold the balance of power after a close election.
One of the problems they will face is the dezinformatzia from the mainstream media, which can confuse them by mixing truth with falsehood. Another problem they face is infiltration and co-opting by the same establishment parties that co-opt the mainstream media.
It's an uphill battle for any small party to gain traction in any country, but if they get lucky, they can hold the balance of power after a close election.
CHoff
It's the Year of the Minarchist. 45% of GDP is too much.
Anyways, this is a an argument that been failing for centuries. Do people not realize this argument has been made a hundred times before, in regards to women's suffrage, minority rights, birth control, gay rights, premarital sex, the right to a beer, single motherhood... society never seems to collapse despite the increasing absence of jackbooted thuggery.
Obviously not. Libertarianism has a very clear moral code: thou shalt not coerce. It's not only morally superior to all other codes, it's much more coherent. And its main tenet is the absence of "dictatorial legislation."The Libertarian mantra, he says, implicitly legitimates the dissolution of the moral consensus that holds society together, and may lead to a situation in which a totalitarian government attempts to fill the social void with dictatorial legislation.
Anyways, this is a an argument that been failing for centuries. Do people not realize this argument has been made a hundred times before, in regards to women's suffrage, minority rights, birth control, gay rights, premarital sex, the right to a beer, single motherhood... society never seems to collapse despite the increasing absence of jackbooted thuggery.
This warning should be a cause for uproarius mirth. The Roman Republic fell to Julius Caesar, Marc Antony, and Augustus. The Roman Empire never really fell at all; it became too pacifist to remain monolithic and the slave state economy ossified into socialism under Nero, allowing the Germanic tribes to conquer them, but it nevertheless spawned the states that became modern Western Civ.This warning should be taken seriously. Anyone familiar with the collapse of the Roman Republic recognizes the danger that attends the dissolution of society's moral consensus
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...
TallDave wrote:It's the Year of the Minarchist. 45% of GDP is too much.
Obviously not. Libertarianism has a very clear moral code: thou shalt not coerce. It's not only morally superior to all other codes, it's much more coherent. And its main tenet is the absence of "dictatorial legislation."The Libertarian mantra, he says, implicitly legitimates the dissolution of the moral consensus that holds society together, and may lead to a situation in which a totalitarian government attempts to fill the social void with dictatorial legislation.
And it has a fatal flaw to which it's adherent's seem oblivious. How can any nation survive if everyone is a "conscientious objector?" Your enemies will find your non-coercion philosophy to be quite amusing while they take advantage of your naivete.
Coercion is absolutely essential for any government to survive. It behooves us to make sure that what coercion we must tolerate is only to that extent which is necessary. (Taxes, Defense, Law Enforcement)
Perhaps you are underestimating the impact of the advance of knowledge and science? I have long pointed out that we have been able to do ever more foolish things because we are prosperous enough to afford them. It is axiomatic to me that Liberalism waxes during prosperity, and wanes during austerity.TallDave wrote: Anyways, this is a an argument that been failing for centuries. Do people not realize this argument has been made a hundred times before, in regards to women's suffrage, minority rights, birth control, gay rights, premarital sex, the right to a beer, single motherhood... society never seems to collapse despite the increasing absence of jackbooted thuggery.
As we have been able to more fully control aspects of our existence for abundance of worldly goods, we have been able to disregard notions that were commonsensical in past times, and indeed, adopt ideas which would have resulted in calamity had anyone been foolish enough to follow them before the abundance came about.
Are you saying it suffered from an absence of coercion? Now how could that possibly have a negative impact on a State? Yes, it fell into a libertarian mindset, then an anarchy mindset, then Individual strongmen collected up the pieces to form their own petty kingdoms.TallDave wrote:This warning should be a cause for uproarius mirth. The Roman Republic fell to Julius Caesar, Marc Antony, and Augustus. The Roman Empire never really fell at all; it became too pacifist to remain monolithic and the slave state economy ossified into socialism under Nero, allowing the Germanic tribes to conquer them, but it nevertheless spawned the states that became modern Western Civ.This warning should be taken seriously. Anyone familiar with the collapse of the Roman Republic recognizes the danger that attends the dissolution of society's moral consensus
No doubt the Libertarians objected to the coercion they were subjected to by the new rulers. Sic Semper.
Because everyone isn't, obviously.And it has a fatal flaw to which it's adherent's seem oblivious. How can any nation survive if everyone is a "conscientious objector?"
Government is coercion, more or less. Yes, the state must have a monopoly on the use of force, if only to prevent private coercion, which, aside from some limited regulation, eminent domain, etc, should be the only reason it employs force.Coercion is absolutely essential for any government to survive.
I'll accept that as a general observation. But I think you're kind of missing the point: we can afford them. Open tolerance of homosexuality, permarital sex, and prostitution might have been fatal to a society that had high child mortality, periodic starvation, and needed to grow or fall victim to other societies. In 2010 America, not so much.It is axiomatic to me that Liberalism waxes during prosperity, and wanes during austerity.
No, an absence of civic militarism (Christian priests actually went as far as discouraging even violent wargames, like jousting -- and the Church did not mind employing coercion in the service of pacifism). Libertarianism isn't pacifism. As you've probably noticed, we haven't drafted anyone in about 60 years now, and we're more secure than 99.99% of the people that ever lived.Are you saying it suffered from an absence of coercion?
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...
Why should such a nation survive?How can any nation survive if everyone is a "conscientious objector?
=====
Nice comment at the link.When the chips are down social conservatives can be really smart. The trouble so far is that they do not stay smart. At least not enough of them.
And yes. I also have a lot of social conservative friends who get it. Politically libertarian and morally as straight as they come. What a pleasure it is to work with them. We may differ as to how to live but we have no practical difference on how we want to be governed.
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... alism.html
====
And this nice bit on the Republican strategy for winning elections:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... ional.htmlGOP strategists said the party's focus this year on fiscal issues rather than social wedges such as abortion and gay marriage has helped give centrists comfort in backing Republicans.
====
If my social conservative friends insist on using government guns for moral uplift I intend to work for the communist side from time to time - just to keep the fear of God alive in the social conservatives.
I do rather like social conservatism. Just not at the point of a gun.
It all depends on how bad the social conservatives want to beat socialism. Do they want a pure 40% and failure or would they prefer 55% not so pure and success?
I'll give you a hint about where I think this is going long run:
They don't call Rs the stupid party for nothing.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
About forty years. And the current military is not interested in conscripts.As you've probably noticed, we haven't drafted anyone in about 60 years now, and we're more secure than 99.99% of the people that ever lived.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
D,
You are becoming an anachronism. There are enough social conservative libertarians that I think your Power and Control social conservatism will be dying out.
In a way it is what motivated our founding social conservatives to agree to form the US. The heavy hand of government in social issues and the resulting wars were still fresh in people's minds. Every group in one place or another had been told how to live and they all resented it.
"Mind your business" - was quite a popular phrase in the old days. So much so that it beat "In God We Trust" to the money supply.
Every power you give government beyond the minimums only encourages the socialists. "If government can fix drugs, and abortion, I'm sure we can make it work to fix poverty."
As I said, I see a new generation of social conservatives coming up who see politics my way even if they consider Hunter S. Thompson a bad example.
You are becoming an anachronism. There are enough social conservative libertarians that I think your Power and Control social conservatism will be dying out.
In a way it is what motivated our founding social conservatives to agree to form the US. The heavy hand of government in social issues and the resulting wars were still fresh in people's minds. Every group in one place or another had been told how to live and they all resented it.
"Mind your business" - was quite a popular phrase in the old days. So much so that it beat "In God We Trust" to the money supply.
Every power you give government beyond the minimums only encourages the socialists. "If government can fix drugs, and abortion, I'm sure we can make it work to fix poverty."
As I said, I see a new generation of social conservatives coming up who see politics my way even if they consider Hunter S. Thompson a bad example.
I have set a trap with that quote. We shall see if it catches anyone.I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. Hunter S. Thompson
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Saw the 'Wall Street' sequel last week. One of the arguements toted in the movie was that at the same time the big banks were asking for a bailout, they were short selling each other via offshore accounts. Now, hypothetically, if the major financial institutions currently all hold large short positions regarding an economic recovery, it would be to their disadvantage to loan money and finance economic expansion. A better strategy would be wait for the longs to go bankrupt, then pick up financial instruments as part of the settlement.
This is purely hypothetical of course. I've heard of municipal governments that got stuck putting the taxpayers money in what they were told was AAA investments while the ratings agencies were shortselling them. What annoys me about this story is that in my own province, the Auditor General suggested the very same strategy for tax funds.
Anyway, since the Tea Party movement and Libertarians are opposed to new regulations on markets, and since it's very difficult for small party's to make political breakthroughs, why not use the same market tools as the large financial institutions to effect positive change.
Collectively, the Tea Party and Libertarian membership could employ common personal financial strategies to pressure large banks into lending again, or gain voting rights at annual bank shareholders meetings. In my country, during the depression era Credit Unions were established to compete with the large banks.
This is purely hypothetical of course. I've heard of municipal governments that got stuck putting the taxpayers money in what they were told was AAA investments while the ratings agencies were shortselling them. What annoys me about this story is that in my own province, the Auditor General suggested the very same strategy for tax funds.
Anyway, since the Tea Party movement and Libertarians are opposed to new regulations on markets, and since it's very difficult for small party's to make political breakthroughs, why not use the same market tools as the large financial institutions to effect positive change.
Collectively, the Tea Party and Libertarian membership could employ common personal financial strategies to pressure large banks into lending again, or gain voting rights at annual bank shareholders meetings. In my country, during the depression era Credit Unions were established to compete with the large banks.
CHoff
choff,
Uh. The deal is libertarians are no pressure folks. Do what you feel is in your interest. i.e. transactions are mutually beneficial. Which is to say that I trade dollars for donuts because I'd rather have the donuts than the dollars.
Uh. The deal is libertarians are no pressure folks. Do what you feel is in your interest. i.e. transactions are mutually beneficial. Which is to say that I trade dollars for donuts because I'd rather have the donuts than the dollars.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Well, you ALMOST had it. Libertarian mantra is "thou shalt not INITIATE involuntary action (force, fraud or coersion)" but Libs feel very free to RESPOND with same. Might be why so many avail themselves of the various open and concealed carry laws throughout the nation.TallDave wrote:It's the Year of the Minarchist. 45% of GDP is too much.Obviously not. Libertarianism has a very clear moral code: thou shalt not coerce. It's not only morally superior to all other codes, it's much more coherent.The Libertarian mantra, he says, implicitly legitimates the dissolution of the moral consensus that holds society together, and may lead to a situation in which a totalitarian government attempts to fill the social void with dictatorial legislation.
Last edited by KitemanSA on Thu Oct 21, 2010 8:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
CaptainBeowulf
- Posts: 498
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:35 am
Re: Roman empire, coercion and collapse - my impression is that, along with accepting that the state should have a very restricted monopoly on the use of force in order to stop private coercion, many libertarians are willing to submit themselves to the collective (communistic) organization of a military in very narrow parameters in order to stop coercion by an an aggressor/invader.
Think of Cincinattus: ok, I will be your leader and win this war, then let me go back to my farm.
For practical reasons, you accept temporary collective military action in order to preserve a state in which no one can tell you what to do or think in the long term. This more or less describes my position.
Refusing arbitrary coercion is much different than being anti-militarist. The people of the late Roman empire could have chosen to fight off the invaders and then return to their lives. Not that I necessarily agree in whole with that argument of why the Roman empire collapsed. I think inherent political instability was also a major factor. However, it was Gibbon's central thesis in "The decline and fall of the Roman Empire" and has been argued for effectively ever since.
Think of Cincinattus: ok, I will be your leader and win this war, then let me go back to my farm.
For practical reasons, you accept temporary collective military action in order to preserve a state in which no one can tell you what to do or think in the long term. This more or less describes my position.
Refusing arbitrary coercion is much different than being anti-militarist. The people of the late Roman empire could have chosen to fight off the invaders and then return to their lives. Not that I necessarily agree in whole with that argument of why the Roman empire collapsed. I think inherent political instability was also a major factor. However, it was Gibbon's central thesis in "The decline and fall of the Roman Empire" and has been argued for effectively ever since.
http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/3540/26/As I said, the decline of great powers invariably starts with the money. When government spends on the scale Washington’s got used to, that’s not a spending issue, it’s a moral one. There’s nothing virtuous about “caring” “compassionate” “progressives” being caring and compassionate and progressive with money yet to be earned by generations yet to be born. That’s what “fiscal conservatives” often miss: This isn’t a green-eyeshade issue. Increasing dependency, disincentivizing self-reliance, absolving the citizenry from responsibility for their actions: The multitrillion-dollar debt catastrophe is not the problem but merely the symptom. It’s not just about balancing the books, but about something more basic and profound.