As Barack Obama prepares to take office, some people think that the country is being loaded into a handbasket with launch set for January 20, 2009. Contrary to conservative opinion, the world will not end that day; and contrary to what some think liberals hope, the second coming is not scheduled for that day, either.
Some people think that the liberal agenda revolves around the destruction of the United States. For the last 8 years, conservative mouthpieces have bombarded audiences with the message that liberals have a single goal in mind, to harm conservative interests. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Some people are bracing themselves to resist whatever comes out of Washington, certain that a liberal agenda will harm them. They may not know what is going on, but they know that "liberal" is a bad word and they know that there are liberals in Washington, so woe betide us all. Talk radio has made a boogieman of all things liberal. What a shame.
The founders were all about liberty; so are liberals. The only liberty liberals oppose are the liberties some in business and government like to take with what does not belong to them; for example, they frown on stealing natural resources that belong to other countries. This brings us immediately to the great malediction, "Tax and Spend Democrats!" It never occurs to some folks that they pay taxes regardless of who is in the White House. Apparently, conservatives simply resent paying for necessities more than liberals do. If someone were to claim that they should have free groceries, people would laugh them out of town. Why should government be free? Someone has to pay for it, and that someone is us, folks.
Back to liberty, liberals believe that people should be free to live as they please. It's difficult to do that with people throwing rocks at your house because you are Black, Hispanic, White, Asian, immigrant, natural-born, gay, straight, old, young, childless, Buddhist, Catholic, Muslim, or atheist. Liberty does not apply only to conservative Christian heterosexual couples who belong to megachurches. It applies to all of us. So liberals plan to allow the rest of the country to have some freedom, too, just like the founders planned.
It may be true that the founders had an idea of preserving an elite ruling class. Those who support this plan can rest assured that that elite ruling class remains firmly entrenched in government. A look at the pedigrees of most of the members of congress bears this out.
Meanwhile, bad things are happening in the economy, and it will take the entire country, and perhaps the entire world working together to pull our collective toochis out of the fire. It might be entertaining to find ways to blame the previous administration's policies for the current situation, but it would not be productive. Those people who plan to resist simply because there is a liberal at the helm are not playing nice. Rather than looking back, people of good will should look forward: "What can I do to help?" This country belongs to liberal and conservative alike. Imagine a sculling team where half of the members either don't pull on cue or who push instead of pull. That boat goes nowhere.
It is true that liberals have a different way of doing things. Sometimes conservatives attack the way liberals approach problems. Liberals think it is cheaper to provide free birth control than to raise children on welfare. Conservatives tend to preach to people about not having sex. Liberals simply accept the fact that people get procreation and recreation mixed up, and let them have their way. It isn't hard, once you get the hang of it. My freedom ends at the end of my nose.
Liberals like to spend money. Conservatives like to spend money. The difference lies in what we like to spend money on. Conservatives like to buy toys for the elite: guns, bombs, Bradley fighting vehicles, designer flak jackets. Liberals tend to buy education, the arts, housing and health care. One shopping list is destructive, the other constructive.
In the end, everyone benefits from the liberal agenda, with better schools, roads, housing and health care. Those who tell you that these things only benefit the poor are fooling themselves or lying to you. They benefit us all.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 101
10 4 u
And yet it will and already has happened. It will continue to happen, government is not the answer.
BTW, how recent is that Crimson crew pic...?
I'm interested in helping to further the youthful enthusiasm, demonstrated through out the campaign, by young people from all walks. It was the thrill of this mother's life to hear her 26 year old, who'd worked hard to help get out the vote, cheering among the throngs Nov 4 in NYC. There was an unusual note of hope in his voice, detected for the first time in a very long time, in regards to our stand in the world his generation's not far from inheriting. It sounded good!
I was very disappointed to hear the Obama administration was planning on using RENDITION today when I turned on NPR.
Excellent article and very well stated!
The word rendition can mean a lot of different things and only recently has it been the description for kidnapping and transporting a person to a good torture country. Are you certain that kidnapping process was what we being considered?
Are you the one I have to blame for the "borrow and spend" riot that the last 30 years of Republican power (no Republican vetoes overturned and no bills passed without Republican consent in Congress) which has so greatly increased the national debt? That's what Reagan and his policies seem to have produced.
What ever happened to doing what's best for the country?
Most Americans are liberal about certain issues and conservative about others - it's a false dicotomy to define people as either conservative or liberal. I think you'll find Obama will seek to get as many people under the tent as possible - both liberal and conservative so we can get our country back on track. Salud
Myself, I would rather that the government not spend as much, but it's a little too late, so I guess we are going to be taxed, big time.
Reagan doubled revenues, but to get the tax cuts that produced the increased revenues Reagan had to bargain with the spend-crazy Democratic Congress!
(And excellent post!)
Conservatives=good
... but conservatives are way out of control and choking the life out of half the country with plans to raise that number every year. conservatives have poisoned dialog, corrupted politics, and destroyed the economy, leaving the country with a legacy of confusion and lies.
For myself, once someone introduces Reagan into the discussion............the conversation is OVER. """""
Ronald Reagan lost one state (Mondale's home state) in his reelection bid by a margin of less that 1% He obviously did something right despite your psychosis.
There will always be the die hard nay sayers which for reasons known only to themselves will resist and loudly pronounce their sky is falling theories. When their dire forecasts do NOT prove to be true OR things get better......they will ALWAYS insist it was something Reagan did/said/invented that has once AGAIN saved the world.
For myself, once someone introduces Reagan into the discussion............the conversation is OVER and the banging the head on the wall begins.
You're either really funny or really sad.
"The only liberty liberals oppose are the liberties some in business and government like to take with what does not belong to them"
Unless you count the freedom to participate in mutual exchange yourself, trading with the people you voluntarily choose to trade with, as opposed to having half your paycheck confiscated before you even see it, and having politicians and bureaucrats spend your money for you on the things they think you should buy, from the people they demand that those things be bought from.
Or the freedom to enter into whatever trade or industry that you desire, that you think people would voluntarily do business with you so you can make a living, without first having to ask permission from some bunch of bureaucrats.
Or, the freedom to negotiate with employers over what the terms of your employment will be. Or the freedom to not have the purchasing power that you work hard to earn siphoned away from you through the vicious fraudulent monetary system that they impose upon us through legal tender laws ("they" being the entire regime, not just the so-called "liberals").
Liberals (so-called) aren't real big on those freedoms.
"Apparently, conservatives simply resent paying for necessities more than liberals do."
I won't speak for the so-called "conservatives," but I personally don't mind paying for necessities at all. What I resent is some group of people thinking that they have some right or authority to tell me what my necessities are, and to expropriate my earnings and pay for those things that they have decided are "necessary" for me, from the people that they have chosen and decided must be the people to provide those necessities; instead of allowing me and everyone else the freedom to decide which things are necessary and which providers of those services we deem worthy of our business.
"Conservatives like to buy toys for the elite: guns, bombs, Bradley fighting vehicles, designer flak jackets. Liberals tend to buy education, the arts, housing and health care."
Us libertarians like to buy a lot of things, too. Difference is, we're not arrogant enough to think that we know whats best for everyone else to buy, or sociopathic enough to think that we have any right to use the threat of violent force to make them buy it.
"One shopping list is destructive, the other constructive."
Both rely on compulsion and coercion. come to think it, though; if the so-called liberals' "shopping list" is so constructive, then why do they feel as though the coercive force of government is necessary to make people use it?
"In the end, everyone benefits from the liberal agenda..."
Great! If thats true, then "liberals" should have no problem convincing everyone to go along with it -- voluntarily. That is to say; without using the force of government to carry out the "agenda."
"... with better schools, roads, housing and health care."
Government never gives us "better schools, roads, housing and health care." In fact, they ruin those very things, by monopolizing them. Monopolies are never very efficient, and they never provide the best product, and its never at the lowest possible cost. Only private enterprise does that; but private enterprise works best when the government does not crowd it out or obstruct the workings of the market or put up artifical barriers to free entry.
There is no reason why the threat of violent force should be involved in the buiding of schools, loaning of mortgages, or the providing of healthcare.
Only sociopaths think its okay to shoot people in order to build schools and roads and provide healthcare.
Your definition is fourth. Buses can indeed run on a track, as can people, cars, and game.
Excellent point, Ann.
Steve, the rapid development of the industrial and scientific revolution and the capitalist economic system would have been impossible without government-maintained roads and other infrastructure. And a livable society is impossible without public education and some level of public health care.
What kind of senseless question is this?
No, Ann, I do not have a "one-track mind." In fact, that is something I could more easily accuse you of; for it seems with you, the way to address problems is always violence. Can you think of any problem plaguing society, which you would not prefer be addressed through coercion? Just one?
I didn't think so.
Your question demonstrates that either you lack comprehension of anything I've written, or else you intentionally build straw men to tear down because you can't argue your case honestly.
"Free market" does not equate to "without the fetters of law." Freedom always requires establishment and enforcement of laws. Except to be truly free, the law must treat everyone equally -- meaning initiatory aggression must be prohibited completely. When one group is given monopoly power to impose compulsions and restrictions on the rest of society, the relationship between the state and the people is the same as that between the farmer and his livestock.
I am opposed to people being treated like livestock.
You apparently think its okay for people to be treated as livestock, so long as the farmer is kind and benevolent.
Riiiighht. Cus we humins iz jus sooo stoopid, dat we wuld neber hav bin abel to make roadz and tranes and do syence and stuff, widout teh gubinment to tell us alll wut to do, and hoo haz to du wut, and ebryting.
"And a livable society is impossible without public education and some level of public health care."
I say again: Only sociopaths think its okay to shoot people to build roads and schools and provide healthcare. Sociopaths.
The sky may not be falling, but dark clouds are dropping lower.
The second part is a combination of hysterics, a straw man (since no one said it's okay to shoot people in order to do those things), and a strange accusation. In every country with a functioning government, taxes are being collected and used for those purposes. I'm not aware of this process routinely involving the shooting of people, and I'm not sure what you're referring to specifically, but certainly there could be people who take the idea of resisting government to the point of getting themselves shot. Now let's compare: I'm advocating building roads and schools and other things society needs, and bearing the burden together, through the payment of taxes. That, according to you, is sociopathy. Some people go to the point of getting themselves shot because they don't want to pay taxes. Diagnosis?
Is the connection
...and it's not just the Republicans or conservatives. The Democrats took impeachment off the table, failed to investigate the use of intelligence leading up to the war, continued to fund the war, took big-Pharma contributions while denying seniors (or anybody else) the opportunity to buy cheaper foreign pharmaceuticals (they said they were dangerous -- when was the last time you heard of a Canadian dying due to bad pharmaceuticals?). Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals have stood by while our country has manipulated and undermined the sovereignty of many foreign nations, and caused countless deaths and ruined lives to further our interests. I don't hear a lot of Democrats or Republicans saying we're spending too much on defense, even though we outspend the other 162 nations of the world (combined) every year.
I'm glad the "liberals" are in the driver's seat, because the last driver took turbocharging of evil to the extreme, but as far as getting us into a position in which our actions can be morally or even pragmatically (for our own interests) justified... I won't be holding my breath.
I invite all to visit www.nopom.info to see how we can attain the objectives of liberal and conservative, left wing, and right wing. No matter what your political stripe you can have what you claim to want. Of course if you really like poverty, inflation, unemployment, deflation, organized crime, government intrusion into your affairs, taxes, and war you don't need to do a thing. We already have those things provided in plenty.
Regan did something right alright, he made himself personally the most likable politician in my lifetime. Obama utilized the same fine skill to get elected. Had Obama been white and with the same charisma, he'd have swept every state!
Popularity has little to do with policies or accomplishment. But popularity is essential for big wins.
Inflation may have made the apparent revenues appear greater but not double.
Of course, the liberal agenda benefits all. Liberals are not that selfish. It is selfish to demand that the wealthy benefit while everyone else gets overlooked, which the extent of what the conservative agenda has been about for the past thirty years.
What ever happened to doing what's best for the country?
Rick *Don Rico* J., Dec 22, 2008, 9:00pm EST
I couldn't agree with this statement more.
We have everything to gain as Americans if Obama succeeds. We have much to lose if his policies do not succeed. Let's stop thinking in terms of political parties and just consider ourselves as Americans and global citizens; what we do in this country will affect the entire world.
"certain consistency and uniformity in infrastructure is required for business to be able to operate."
I've never once contended otherwise. For you to assume that I have just indicates a lack of understanding from whence such an assumption must have arrived.
"Roads, police protection, and a reliable postal service come to mind immediately. This is obvious from the history of every place where such development has occurred."
I agree. Where our fundamental disagreement lies, however, is that unlike you, I do not take for granted that roads, police protection, and a reliable postal service all must necessarily be provided via compulsion by a coercive monopoly.
You make an a priori assumption based on the fallacy of pro hoc, ergo propter hoc. You assume that just because those functions have historically been taken over by one group of people exercising a coercive monopoly, that therefore those functions must necessarily be taken over by a coercive monopoly to be performed at all.
If the government had long ago decided to monopolize the production and distribution of footwear, for example, then today you would be arguing against anyone recalcitrant enough to suggest that the footwear industry be left to private enterprise and that shoes be produced and distributed on the basis of free production and voluntary mutual exchange. You would probably say something like, "certain consistency and uniformity in footwear production and distribution is required for people to be able to protect their feet." You would probably say that footwear is just too important a necessity to leave to the chaos of the free market. If the production of footwear was subject to free individuals operating according to the profit-motive, then who would make sure that poor people had the essential footwear required to work and to get around so they can live a decent life? You would likely end by saying "I'm advocating producing shoes and boots and sandals, and other things society needs, and bearing the burden together, through the payment of taxes."
But we can see today how foolish such an argument would have been, because we can see that free enterprise produces shoes much better and much more inexpensively than government would ever have been able to do. We can imagine what our footwear selection would be like and what the quality of our footwear would be like if the industry were controlled entirely by politicians and bureaucrats.
You are just incapable of recognizing the same truths as they apply to roads and schools and such, because your entire life you've always tacitly taken for granted that those things can only ever be provided by politicians and bureaucrats. You see only what hits you directly in the eye; you are somehow incapable of seeing beyond the superficial boundaries of possibility that you have been conditioned to accept.
" I'm not aware of this process routinely involving the shooting of people"
No? Well let me break it down for you then.
Government is force. Government is the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion. Anything and everything that government does necessarily implies the use of violent force to whatever extent is necessary to compel compliance. Even something as mundane as traffic tickets must imply the presence of people with guns standing in wait to enforce compliance with the terms of the punishment, lest those terms be ignored and rendered meaningless. A "market" is most concisely defined as the integrated network of voluntary mutual interpersonal exchange and free production; government, then, can be most concisely defined as the violent abolition of the market.
I contend that violent coercive force is only ever justifiable in defense of person or property. Ever
I contend that only sociopaths think it is okay to apply the force of the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion to anything other than defense of persons or property.
You can disagree all you want, you can contend that it is okay to threaten the initiation of violent aggression against individuals who do not passively assent to your plans for social engineering that you have secretly appointed (by secret ballot) some proxy to carry out in your stead; I say that sort of thinking and behavior is indicative of sociopathic tendencies.
I would love to say that we could just agree to disagree, but this is not the case. I am not free to disagree, at least not through my actions -- not without getting shot, anyhow.
Steve Bachman: Do you actually contend that social contract theory is untrue? What you have written here and elsewhere seems to say that you can only be satisfied if we abolish the government.
Personally, I don't think the free market will supply the level of police protection most folks will want.
Leaving aside the conservative versus liberal one dimension argument, the classical liberal feared and hated government as at best, a necessary evil. The modern liberal stands for all problems being solvable by government. The contradiction is pretty vast and no way can the two be compatible.
For the many of those who bothered to vote and didn't support Obama (or McCain for that matter) the last election brought no comfort but more dismay for the fact that yet another command and control candidate had won. Some of us value the Republic who we still cling to despite the majority of Repubs/Dems who push for more and more power against the expressed wishes of the Founding Fathers. For us, this election and the demand for more government in every aspect of our lives is no cause for celebration.
Both the classical liberal and the classic conservative were not into social conservatism or liberalism. There was room in both parties for liberals and conservatives. I miss those days! I'm not sure that liberal or conservative has valid meaning in today's politics. It is a case of you are conservative and I am liberal so we can't get along at all. If a fellow liberal strays and agrees with a conservative, he's no longer allowed to be liberal. Or if a conservative does not subscribe to the party line a hundred percent, he is a bad person.
I wish they'd loose both terms and talk about what each person believes in. Let the voters decide whether or not they agree on most points r disagree on most rather than does not label comply!
I would have to say, Charles, that the "express wishes of the founding fathers" is a rather nebulous thing. They failed to express it clearly and succinctly as we need if we are to be certain of their "desire" today!
I don't want to loose our republic which you mention but I believe that this republic can do a lot of things without defying any "desire" of the founding fathers. I believe it was their "desire" that the people assume the future responsibility for this nation and not hold it to any preconceived patterns other than the right to vote, free speech and press, and several other basic rights. I believe that founders wanted us to think for ourselves and to correct any errors or mistakes they might have made.. Had they wanted it absolutely fixed, they could have made it that and they did not! And the federalist papers were not adopted as our constitution even though they did influence it.
I am reminded of the second amendment which seems clearly written to me with the right of the people shall not be infringed but many interpret it differently and claim that the founders did not mean that as a personal right. They could have made that clause crystal clear.
I believe some of the corrections we have made in the document itself shows that it is a living document and not a document set in time. The freeing of the Negro, the letting of women vote, the direct election of senators all come to mind as truly different than the founders envisioned. A black man being worth three fifths of a white man being among the most absurd of ideas!
Ann, I hesitate to go into answering this or any other question that you direct toward me, for it seems that you never bother to read my responses when I do. I'll go ahead though, and hope that I'm not putting wear and tear on my keyboard and fingertips for no reason again.
Bear with me here:
I contend that "social contract theory" as it is commonly advanced by people today is invalid. The reason is because in the form it takes in popular usage today, it is wholly based on a superficial mythology.
There is no such thing as a "society." What we call "society" is an imaginary abstract; it exists only in the minds of a definite group of individuals. Just as there is no such thing as a "forest," only trees, so there is no such thing as "society," only individuals. A "forest" is an abstract figment of the imagination, that exists only in the minds of definite individuals, to the extent that those individuals all agree on the properties of what they describing -- a group of trees. The same is true of "society." What we call "society" is in reality nothing more than the intergrated network of interpersonal relationships between multiple individuals; the concept has meaning only in the minds of the pertinent individuals to the extent that they all agree on certain properties relevant to the phenomenon, and it has no existence at all apart from the individuals and their relationships that comprise it.
Say that you and I and a thousand other individuals all live on a small island somewhere. One-hundred of us agree to start a club, and we call it the Liberty Defense Club. The purpose of our club is that we all agree to help each other in defending each others' rights to defend our persons and property from aggressors, so that we may all enjoy freedom.
Our club is not a real entity existing apart from the imaginations of us 100 people who all agree to be part of it; it is an abstract, and imaginary construct, that has meaning only in the minds of individuals.
Now we could say that among the hundred of us, it is an implicit "social contract" that we will forgo our own individual rights to defend ourselves and our property and use force to exact just restitution for violations thereof, and instead seek out the judgment of other members of our Liberty Defense Club to render justice in our name, so that we may enjoy the benefits of the protection that this affords us as well. For these benefits, we all voluntarily agree to alternate serving as jurors, and to volunteer one night a week each for police-work to protect all the members of our club.
But again, the club is an abstract idea, an imaginary concept. It has meaning only in our minds. So could we possibly be justified in using force to coerce anyone else on the island to become compulsory members of our club?
If we used violence or the threat thereof to compel other people on the island to pay membership dues to our club without their having consented to being a member, could this ever be considered anything other than theft? If we used violent force or the threat thereof to compel others on the island to serve on our juries or on our police-defense squads, could this ever be considered anything other than slavery?
My answer is a firm, resounding NO. No matter how strongly we believe in the righteousness or the beneficence of oour club, it is still nothing more than abstract idea that only has validity or meaning in the minds of those of us who choose to recognize it.
We cannot claim that "society" demands that each individual be compelled to accept and pay for our services -- even if we allow them the opportunity to vote every two years on who the CEO's of our club will be -- because "society" is not a tangible, homogenous entity that has any reality of its own either. "Society" cannot demand or compel anyone to do anything at all -- "society" is a figment of the imagination, which gives meaning and certain properties to the intergrated network of interpersonal relationships between multiple individuals; but nonetheless, it is an abstract idea, we use the word "society" as a personified entity in figures of speech because it is a convenient tool of thought, but this does not give in any tangible reality.
And to the extent that we would try to use force to compel people to accept our services and pay for them, we would thus be violating the rights of those individuals, which would then have defeated our very stated purpose for coming together and forming a club in the first place.
The fact in itself would invalidate and nullify the very "social contract" that the original 100 of us had agreed upon to begin with.
Now, apply those facts to the large island with the imaginary lines called "borders" that enclose the abstract figment of the imagination that have agreed to call a "nation" (namely, the United States of America"), with the Liberty Defense Club called the "federal government of the United States," and they all still apply; the truth in one case holds up as truth in the other.
"And to the extent that we would try to use force to compel people to accept our services and pay for them, we would thus be violating the rights of those individuals, which would then have defeated our very stated purpose for coming together and forming a club in the first place."
Except that within the borders of the United States of America, we the citizens have decided that there is a club, which we call society, and which you join by default. The only requirement for withdrawing from this society is to emigrate. If you want to live here, you play by the rules here. If you don't like the rules, you can try to get them changed, but you will have to convince a bunch of people to go along with you. Not so many people are going to go along with such a far right-of-the-right view of government.
So you're saying that I am a slave "by default"? That because I was born on a certain patch of dirt, that means that others on the same patch of dirt automatically have some legitimate claim to authority to impose arbitrary compulsions and restrictions on me, or anyone else for that matter?
No one joins society "by default." We join society when we voluntarily enter into mutual interpersonal relationships with others. Anyone ought to have the right to be a hermit and be completely self-sufficient, on their own rightful property, without ever dealing with another human being in any way shape or form, if thats what they choose to do. Who is anyone to say otherwise? Are we not all born intrinsically equal?
But to the extent that people recognize the inherent benefits in the division of labor and interpersonal interaction and exchange, then they can be rightfully compelled to follow only one simple and easily-discernible law: the law of justice. That is to say, that no one may rightfully use aggressive force against the person or property of anyone else.
"The only requirement for withdrawing from this society is to emigrate."
First off, what you're saying implicitly rules out the possibility of one simply withdrawing into their own rightfully-owned home on their own rightfully-owned property, and being completely self-sufficient for their entire lives, if they wish to no longer interact with "society." Why should anyone be denied that right? Are you saying that we are not all born as equals; that a majority has some inherent right to impose their arbitrary will and discretion on the rest of the individuals in "society"?
Secondly, I do not wish to withdraw from society; I only wish to be free from the arbitrary tryanny of others. I am perfectly willing to abide by the simple laws of justice -- should I infringe upon the person or property of others, either by force or fraud, then I accept that I will be punished for this, and I enter into social relationships with others with this understanding, voluntarily.
However, I do not accept that anyone has the right to initiate coercive force against me, in the name of "society" (which does not exist), or any other excuse for subjecting me or anyone else to the whim of any group of humans who are the ostensible equals of me and anyone else.
The only purpose that people can rightfully apply collective force to, is the defense of the persons or property. Anything else is just one group of humans presuming to have some legitimate claim to power over all others, as if superior numbers or superior force could ever give anyone legitimate right to rule over others.
"Not so many people are going to go along with such a far right-of-the-right view of government."
Well, I apologize that my view of the truth doesn't fall upon an acceptable point in your narrow "left-right" axis worldview paradigm, Ann.
But it doesn't matter who or how many people would "go along" with the concept of equal human rights -- they would still be violating the rights of others by initiating aggression against them, whether they choose to accept the rights of the people they are violating or not.
When two people mug one person in an alleyway and steal his wallet, they have violated his rights; whether or not they choose to recognize those rights.
Our rights are not contingent upon the opinions of others, whether they be a "majority" or not. If they were then they wouldn't even be *rights*; they would be *privileges*. Our rights are not privileges granted to us by the state or by the majority or by anyone else; they are our natural birthright. It is true that in a social capacity, we must rely on our fellow humans to recognize and respect our rights if they are to be held inviolable; but if they are violated, this does not make them invalid or nonexistent; it just makes them violated.
I definitely understand what you are getting at in the risk of society being the instigator of the concept of society, or the state, being the reason for all persons to work and strive, with the individual having no real value except as they serve the society. This is, of course, fascism.
However, when you state that there is no society or forest, you set up an imaginary concept that few can accept. A forest is a forest, is a forest. Call it Lil Abner if one wishes, it is still a forest. And to most people, the logical thought is that this applies equally to society. The challenge is to prevent that society from becoming a fascist society. But that there is a society into which we are born is simply facing reality. And not born into slavery, but ownership. Remember, one cannot change owners if he is a slave. A citizen can give up his citizenship and become a citizen of another nation, scarcely a possibility for a slave. More like, one is born into an ownership of a portion of that society. Again, scarcely a slave!
But I acknowledge that the risk of fascism is real and must be guarded against. At least, that is my concept and how I see it!
Have a great Christmas, Steve!
Are you saying that we are not all born as equals; that a majority has some inherent right to impose their arbitrary will and discretion on the rest of the individuals in "society"?
No. I'm saying that on this patch of dirt, within these borders, the rules are X. If you wish to live within these borders, you have to agree to the rules. As James points out, you are free to leave the borders and find somewhere else where you find the rules more agreeable. From what I've seen you write, I have to wonder if there is anywhere on earth that you would agree to the rules. Because of our inherent equality, which is recognized by law, you are free to try to change the law, but the founders designed the government to change very slowly for purposes of stability. It will take you a very long time to find enough people who agree with you to change the laws you disagree with. Most people are not on either extreme left or right. This is not my opinion or an opinion; it is a fact.
This is not violence; it is reality. How could a country function that changed the rules to accommodate everyone's whim? Failed states routinely change the rules to accommodate a single leader's whims, and we see how well they function.
Your points are valid. They simply are not feasible.
You don't seem to get it. By saying "the rules are X," and tacitly accepting that those rules are legitimate and just by mere a priori assumption, automatically negates and nullifies any notion of intrinsic equality and natural human rights.
It is tacitly accepting that one group of humans has a legitimate claim to imposing arbitrary compulsions and restrictions on all other groups of humans within a codified geographical territory.
For what its worth, that mindset is contradictory to what the "social contract" that formed the United States and its government was based on. The idea was a "government of laws, not of men." The founders were influenced by Lockean theory of Natural Law, which informed their thinking throughout the process of formulating the founding documents.
The idea is that since all humans are born intrinsically equal, and all have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and property, then the only time coercive force is justified is in defense of life, liberty and property; since any initiation of coercive force must necessarily infringe upon the life, liberty, or property of others. This is the foundation of "Natural Law"; individuals have a right to organize and combine their individual rights of lawful defense, to provide for the constant, common defense of all equal individual rights. This is the only just foundation of civil government; and once the force of government is applied to anything beyond the equal defense of the intrinsic rights of all, then it cannot possibly avoid infringing upon and violating the rights of some or many, and thus contradicting what is its only rational purpose for existing in the first place.
To say that "the rules are X," and that anyone who disagrees with the arbitrary rules being imposed on them by the tyranny of "the majority" should either get over it or leave, is to completely contradict and even spit in the face of what is the very foundation of the American ideal of civil governance and jurisprudence.
"This is not violence; it is reality."
If you are referring to government and law, then it is always violence you are referring to. The "rules" must always be enforced by the implicit threat of physical force. This is why any rational concept of equal justice absolutely demands that the "rules" be in strict accordance with Natural Law, i.e., the equal defense of the intrinsic rights of all individuals.
"How could a country function that changed the rules to accommodate everyone's whim?"
Thats a great point, Ann. A fine argument against "democracy," I must say; I'm just surprised that you would furnish such a fine argument against the very premise that you have been trying to validate.
My own personal philosophy is that of Natural Law; meaning that the only "rules" that may rightfully be imposed on anyone, is the simple, immutable rules of justice, i.e., that no one may rightfully initiate aggression against the person or property of others, and that the collective force of law must be strictly confined to defending against and punishing those who do.
I have thoroughly enjoyed your discussion. You have given me quite a lot to consider. I find it interesting when people don't seem to realize their connection to society. No one in this country (or the world) for that matter is successful at whatever they are doing due to their own efforts without the help of others. We depend on society for our very sustenance. I believe that the lack of respect for our connection to society is what causes so much national strife. So, I suppose, Steve, that I disagree with you about the natural laws. We need to have a system in place for everyone to apply themselves to. Of course, therein lies the problem. There are many subsystems that only benefit the few.
I think you are somewhat misinterpreting what is the basis and rationale of Natural Law.
Although, I do want to say that I am impressed by your insight concerning the nature of social cooperation through the division of labor -- very often, that is something that I have to go to pains to point out to people (despite it being something that I consider obvious and self-evident). I get into debates with people on threads here at gather.com, who make unfounded statements about the free-market system, either insinuating or outright asserting that capitalism is antisocial and all about selfishness and greed.
So then I try to point out the degree to which, under the division of labor inherent in the system of free markets, we all rely on millions of people whom we've never so much as laid eyes upon, and the vast majority of whom have never met or even laid eyes upon one another, to all cooperate in serving us with all the various goods and services that we rely on in everyday life, every day of our lives. And likewise, under the free-market system, most of us make a living by cooperating with millions of people whom we've never met or even laid eyes upon, doing our own individual part in the vast division of labor, to serve millions of other people with the goods and services that they rely on in everyday life, every day of their lives.
And all this happens almost naturally; there is no politboro; no group of central-planning bureaucrats who must coordinate and direct all our efforts and determine what each persons role will be in the division of labor and what their remuneration shall be, etc. All this activity is self-directing through the awe-inspiring mechanisms of the free market; we each are served by, and we each do our own individual part in cooperating to serve, millions of people whom we've never met, voluntarily and via mutual benefit, acting according to nothing but our own individual self-interest.
A closer examination of the market phenomena, though, reveals that society itself is nothing more than the vast integrated network of mutual interpersonal exchanges by multiple individuals. It reveals that the division of labor is the origin and the basis of social cooperation. If humans never used their reason to discern that cooperation through the division of labor was mutually beneficial to all who participate, then there would have never been any social cooperation in the first place. Human families, tribes, and individuals would have continued to view each other as little else but potential threats to consume the scarce available resources needed for survival, and as such all would have regarded all others as mortal enemies. It was the realization that the division of labor is exponentially more productive, alleviates instead of exacerbates natural scarcity, and in the best interest of all who participate, that paved the way for integrated interpersonal relationships and social cooperation.
But in order for the division of labor and social cooperation to function, there must obviously be a social order. Since interpersonal exchange is essentially an exchange of titles to property, individuals need some assurance that their property rights are going to be recognized and protected in order to participate in interpersonal exchange. In order for there to even be any free and voluntary division of labor (i.e., division of labor that is not compelled through human enslavement), then individuals need the assurance that the contractual relationships between themselves and potential partners or employers, or between themselves and those whom they would potentially exchange with, will be recognized and upheld.
This is where Natural Law comes in.
Natural Law asserts that each person is -- in accordance with the very nature of human existence -- a self-owning individual. Since each and every individual person is a self-owner, then it logically follows that no person or group of people has any legitimate claim to impose arbitrary compulsions or restrictions on any other, since to do so would implicitly assume a right of dominion and control over those being imposed upon, by the imposing parties; and dominion and control according to personal discretion (and legitimately not responsible to the wishes or demands of anyone else) is a characteristic of ownership.
Natural Law asserts that each individual has an absolute right of dominion and control only over that which each rightfully possess as property; and property can only rightfully be acquired through the application of the personal faculties and energy to previously-unowned and unused resources (homesteading), or else through voluntary mutual exchange, contract, or bequest (gifts).
Thus, each individual has an absolute right of self-ownership, and the right to use force to protect and preserve life (the integrity of the physical person), liberty (the free and inoffensive use of the faculties), and property (the free disposition of the fruits of one's labor); and we each have a right to enlist the help or cooperation of others in protecting and preserving these rights.
But the collective force in the defense of individual rights can never legitimately exceed the proper, rightful scope of the individual right of defense; because to do so must necessarily imply the initiation of force against the person, liberty, or property of others, and since all are held to be intrinsically equal, this would necessarily violate the very principles that the collective defense was instituted to uphold, which is the only reason the collective defense has any just or legitimate purpose for existing in the first place.
"There are many subsystems that only benefit the few."
Those systems that benefit only the few are those that establish interpersonal relationships which are hegemonic and asymmetrical. i.e., those that institute the monopolization of coercive force in the hands of a few, and use it to initiate coercion against individuals, through which they then plunder and oppress the remainder of society for the benefit of themselves and a select few. Our present system is one such system. "Democracy" is just a machination to legitimize and sanctify the institution of plunder and oppression. It is supposed to be held that we are not victims of plunder and subjugation, because we are allowed to choose from a small and vetted list every few years who the individuals shall be that will direct the plundering and subjugation for a period until the next election.
The system suggested by the philosophy of liberty, of which I am an advocate, is one where all interpersonal relationships are voluntary and contractual -- as opposed to the hegemonic relationships described above -- and which each participant in interpersonal exchange benefits mutually. Real freedom benefits everyone; every individual enjoys the fullest rewards, as well as takes on the full responsibility, for their actions.
There are always requirements of individual citizens which are not voluntary in nature. Taxes are a good example. Most people would rather not pay them. We would not enjoy the great lifestyle that we enjoy in this country without taxes at every level. So, taxes are a requirement of freedom.
Thanks again for your thoughts. Perhaps, I wasn't in that much of a disagreement with you, after all.
The far wrong ... oops, I mean, far right ... said that about FDR's policies as well. Contrary to the lies of the right wing radicals, FDR's plans worked to save America from the fascists and the communists.
We have had ultra conservative Reaganomics for over 28 years in this country. And it has been nothing but a dismal failure. Thankfully, the majority have finally opened their eyes to this truth. It will take a long time to reverse the failings of the radical right. Let's hope it can be corrected during Obama's next four years. If he succeeds, the Dems are going to be in charge for a LONG time.
~~ Conservatives tend to preach to people about not having sex ~~
Ironically, conservatives are notorious for their love of pornography.
~~ Someone has to pay for it ~~
The far right borrows to pay for their wars and corporate welfare. When the bill comes in, it is the Democrats who pay for it. This will continue as long as Dems stupidly sit by and refuse to blame Republicans for the deficits they create.
For instance: "There are always requirements of individual citizens which are not voluntary in nature."
Hogwash. Says who? Who is this superhuman race that has the wisdom, and the legitimate authority, to declare what are the "requirements" that all others in society must be held to, and then to use coercive force to compel us all to these "requirements," absent our voluntary consent? Who is it that has the supreme insight to know exactly what is best for everyone else and the supreme authority to bend everyone to their will, "for our own good"?
"Taxes are a good example." Here's a few things that taxes are a good example of: Massive theft; the disgusting self-righteousness and superiority complex of those who believe that they have a legitimate claim to live -- and live well -- exclusively off the labor of others; the inexplicable ignorance and servitude of the masses of people who not only passively acquiesce to plunder and servitude, but indeed actively cheer for it.
"Most people would rather not pay them."
Hence the heavily-armed IRS agents. Does this not beg the question; why is it that people must be coercively compelled to pay for something if it is to be considered such a "neccesity"? Why offer your services at gunpoint, if you are so certain that your services are absolutely essential, and that nobody else could sufficiently provide those services?
"We would not enjoy the great lifestyle that we enjoy in this country without taxes at every level."
Thats just nothing short of a bundle of balderdash. You're saying that its due only to compulsory parasitism and a coercive monopoly that we "enjoy" our lifestyle; as though we would somehow suffer by removing a source of plunder and oppression.
Lets put this into perspective. Imagine an armed group of thugs comes into a town, and their warlord leader says "I am the law." He declares that from now on, only he and his friends shall determine and dispense justice, and he appoints a few of his brutal thugs
as "policemen" to enforce the groups decreed monopoly on force.
This group steals nearly half of everyones money every week, to pay themselves and some of which they arbitrarily redistribute among some of the townspeople whom they show favoritism to for whatever reason.
Now lets say that one day, the chief plunderer stands in front of his victims and delares: "All of you should be grateful; for the money I have stolen from you, I have used not only to keep the peace among you, but I have also helped your economy immensely, because I and my friends have all spent the loot we have taken from you, within your retail stores and your banks and your capital goods markets, etc."
Do you believe the townspeople's response should be anything other than sheer amazement at this man's gall; if not but to laugh him off the podium?
Now maybe you can conceive of how your statement sounds from my perspective.
"So, taxes are a requirement of freedom. "
Oxymoron. Plunder is not only*not* a "requirement of freedom," on the contrary, security against plunder is what is a requirement of freedom.