Latest Pew Study finds Republican party shifting fast to religious radicalism [Archive]

View Full Version : Latest Pew Study finds Republican party shifting fast to religious radicalism

Skybird

01-04-14, 06:11 AM

gi_dan2987

01-04-14, 11:36 AM

The rift between science and religion wins in importance to define the frontlines along which Democrats and Republicans define themselves.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/03/republican-views-on-evolution-tracking-how-its-changed/

It seems to me that the Republicans lose members of moderate views and scientific education, and replace them with evangelicals and Christian radicals who take the Bible literally. These may be attracted by the Tea Party. The newcomers add to the Republican pool of white radical Protestants, making it the ideological harbor of those who feel threatened by the growing influence foreign ethnicities have in inner politics. The traditional concept of the so-called WASP no longer is the dominating group in America, and since quite some time already, and for the Republicans, who traditionally attracted these and had their voter basis recruited amongst these, this is a threat to their own competitiveness against the Democrats, who gain voters due to their increasingly unhidden socialist agenda that promises candy falling from heaven, and their higher attractiveness for non-white immigrants.

The deep rifts between both political dominant groups in America seem to be set for not going away soon. It seems that instead the trenches get dug deeper and deeper. And the conflict science versus religion becomes an increasingly important battlefield on which especially the Republicans define themselves. And the more they lose, the more radical they become.

That's because both parties have actually united and turned the US into a nation that is actively operating as a fascist oligarchy. The republic was doomed in 1913 with the signing of the Federal Reserve Act, which turned money from value to debt, and forced people to give up all their gold and silver in exchange for worthless paper fiat currency. This took all the real bargaining power from the people, and put it in the hands of few, wealthy bankers.

The whole two-party system only serves to keep the people of this nation divided on every issue possible, be it race, religion, color, creed, or otherwise. A nation divided cannot stand, and especially cannot stand against its tyrannical government!

This whole system was designed by the elites to undermine the integrity of the American culture and system, and turn it into a bit of a cyborg controlled by the big money players, most notably known as the Federal Reserve.

The big corporates, the politicians, and the Fed are all intertwined in this system. They all work together to continuously steal from the people, all the while keeping them distracted with things like political debates, the illusion of voting, and of course, the Kardashians. The Kardashians are undoubtedly the MOST important thing in our society today, and "to hell with the loss of our personal freedoms!" Is usually the attitude that is displayed by modern Americans.

As a 4th generation German-American, I can say that a similar thing is happening in Deutschland isn't it?

Grüße aus den USA!

Anmerkung: Meine mutti's familie stammt aus Nordhein-Westfalen :up:

Woher kommen Sie?

Betonov

01-04-14, 11:59 AM

Not much different with a multiparty system.
They just form 2 blocks that resemble a 2 party system :/\\!!

Admiral Halsey

01-04-14, 12:02 PM

That's because both parties have actually united and turned the US into a nation that is actively operating as a fascist oligarchy. The republic was doomed in 1913 with the signing of the Federal Reserve Act, which turned money from value to debt, and forced people to give up all their gold and silver in exchange for worthless paper fiat currency. This took all the real bargaining power from the people, and put it in the hands of few, wealthy bankers.

The whole two-party system only serves to keep the people of this nation divided on every issue possible, be it race, religion, color, creed, or otherwise. A nation divided cannot stand, and especially cannot stand against its tyrannical government!

This whole system was designed by the elites to undermine the integrity of the American culture and system, and turn it into a bit of a cyborg controlled by the big money players, most notably known as the Federal Reserve.

The big corporates, the politicians, and the Fed are all intertwined in this system. They all work together to continuously steal from the people, all the while keeping them distracted with things like political debates, the illusion of voting, and of course, the Kardashians. The Kardashians are undoubtedly the MOST important thing in our society today, and "to hell with the loss of our personal freedoms!" Is usually the attitude that is displayed by modern Americans.

As a 4th generation German-American, I can say that a similar thing is happening in Deutschland isn't it?

Grüße aus den USA!

Anmerkung: Meine mutti's familie stammt aus Nordhein-Westfalen :up:

Woher kommen Sie?

I agree that we need to get rid of the Federal Reserve and need some more 3rd parties. Problem is with that last one they won't win anything until people stop thinking that voting for one is a "wasted vote".

gi_dan2987

01-04-14, 12:14 PM

I agree that we need to get rid of the Federal Reserve and need some more 3rd parties. Problem is with that last one they won't win anything until people stop thinking that voting for one is a "wasted vote".

With our system the way it is, if everybody showed up to vote, or nobody showed up, either one of the two monkey's running for office will still get in. The rub is that you HAVE to vote for one of the two, and it's been proven that a "write in" will result in a default vote for one or the other.

Now there are millions of people in this country that could do a better job than the current cabinet, but even if they have the money, they're not even allowed to run if they don't first join one of the two corrupt parties!

I'm sorry that we disagree, but I'm going to have to stick with voting being an illusion. It may never have always been this way, and there may have been a time when each vote counted, but that was a time when a representative actually took care of their constituents. They didn't just campaign for the job, then sit around and not follow through while collecting a paycheck off the public trough!

I feel we are somewhere between the "writing, voting, and protesting isn't working anymore" and "Well now how do we solve these issues?" But the issue with that is people don't care enough to want to try. They're too busy working too much, dealing with stress at home, watching TV, or drugged up on every pharmaceutical known to man.

NeonSamurai

01-04-14, 12:36 PM

The political situation in the US continues to worsen and become more extreme in both directions, rather than being more towards the middle as it should be. It is so bad now that the parties can't even work together at all and will actively try to sabotage the other party to the detriment of everyone; cutting one's nose off to spite one's face.

This really needs to stop. The first thing that needs to happen is that districts need to be reshaped back to sensible zones based on geography, and that politicians need to loose the power to reshape their own districts. Gerrymandering needs to stop now. If you want to see what I am talking about, I mean this..

http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2010/11/11/the-top-ten-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts-in-the-united-states/

Anyhow here is an Extra Credits three part video that I think really do a good job explaining some of the major problems, with out delving into the politics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa-vQ0L77LY&feature=c4-overview&list=UUCODtTcd5M1JavPCOr_Uydg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu5QZmPG8zk&feature=c4-overview&list=UUCODtTcd5M1JavPCOr_Uydg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X2es__Wtuk&feature=c4-overview&list=UUCODtTcd5M1JavPCOr_Uydg

Platapus

01-04-14, 12:37 PM

I agree that we need to get rid of the Federal Reserve and need some more 3rd parties. Problem is with that last one they won't win anything until people stop thinking that voting for one is a "wasted vote".

One easily implemented solution is to move our federal elections from a plurality system to a majority system.

I have been doing some research and I can not find any US law/regulation that mandates that elections be based on a plurality outcome instead of a majority. The only exception is the counting of the votes of the electoral college by the Vice President.

If we could start electing our congressional representatives on a majority schema, then third party votes would not be "wasted". Unfortunately, in our plurality schema, they are wasted. Especially if the voter is put in a position of voting against a candidate instead of voting for a candidate.

Platapus

01-04-14, 12:39 PM

I would also like to see members of the Senate and the House become state employees instead of federal employees. That way each state would have considerable influence over "their" representative.

gi_dan2987

01-04-14, 12:56 PM

NeonSamurai

01-04-14, 01:36 PM

What collapsed Rome was mismanagement. Too many incompetent jackwagons all trying to be the chief. As we can see with our current situation, history does truly repeat itself.

While I agree that many parallels can be drawn between the US and Rome (or generally any empire), it is also missing many features. We don't have exactly the same problems of a totally unstable government where the president is getting assassinated and replaced constantly, or the different armies declaring multiple presidents of their own, at the same time. The US is not as strained financially, nor at risk to the "barbarians" at the gate (rhetoric aside), nor is it trying to control more land than it could possibly maintain. It's armies are not out of control and the secret service is not trying to maintain control. The corruption is also not quite as bad (but not by much).

But I do not think that government is a bad thing, its a very essential thing to prevent corporate entities from running roughshod over the populace, and reigning in their endless greed no matter the cost. But government needs to be accountable for its actions, and I have to say I like what the videos i posted propose as ways to make politicians accountable to us and not be influenced by business or money.

Oh and here is a link to explain in detail what Gerrymandering is, and just how insidious it is. I should emphasize that both parties are very guilty of this, that this has been going on since 1812.

http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2010/11/10/gerrymandering-101/

Skybird

01-04-14, 03:26 PM

edit: I found the English translation of the chapter that in the preivously written post was referred to. So I delete dit and copy that chapter instead.

Thematic reference of mine is to the comparison of Rome's and America's economic fall.

One either sees the actuality of what von Mises (from whose book n"Human Action" the following is taken) is summarising here, or one does not, and then all explanations by me probably would not help anyway. To me, the parallels are so obvious that they almost jump to the eye.

L.v. Mises: Human Action

XXX. INTERFERENCE WITH THE STRUCTURE OF PRICES

2. The Market's Reaction to Government Interference

------------------

Observations on the Causes of the Decline of Ancient Civilization

Knowledge of the effects of government interference with market prices makes us comprehend the economic causes of a momentous historical event, the decline of ancient civilization.

It may be left undecided whether or not it is correct to call the economic organization of the Roman Empire capitalism. At any rate it is certain that the Roman Empire in the second century, the age of the Antonines, the "good" emperors, had reached a high stage of the social division of labor and of interregional commerce. Several metropolitan centers, a considerable number of middle-sized towns, and many small towns were the seats of a refined civilization. The inhabitants of these urban agglomerations were supplied with food and raw materials not only from the neighboring rural districts, but also from distant provinces. A part of these provisions flowed into the cities as revenue of their wealthy residents who owned landed property. But a considerable part was bought in exchange for the rural population's purchases of the products of the city-dwellers' processing activities. There was an extensive trade between the various regions of the vast empire. Not only in the processing industries, but also in agriculture there was a tendency toward further specialization. The various parts of the empire were no longer economically self-sufficient. They were interdependent.

What brought about the decline of the empire and the decay of its civilization was the disintegration of this economic interconnectedness, not the barbarian invasions. The alien aggressors merely took advantage of an opportunity which the internal weakness of the empire offered to them. From a military point of view the tribes which invaded the empire in the fourth and fifth centuries were not more formidable than the armies which the legions had easily defeated [p. 768] in earlier times. But the empire had changed. Its economic and social structure was already medieval.

The freedom that Rome granted to commerce and trade had always been restricted. With regard to the marketing of cereals and other vital necessities it was even more restricted than with regard to other commodities. It was deemed unfair and immoral to ask for grain, oil, and wine, the staples of these ages, more than the customary prices, and the municipal authorities were quick to check what they considered profiteering. Thus the evolution of an efficient wholesale trade in these commodities was prevented. The policy of the annona, which was tantamount to a nationalization or municipalization of the grain trade, aimed at filling the gaps. But its effects were rather unsatisfactory. Grain was scarce in the urban agglomerations, and the agriculturists complained about the unremunerativeness of grain growing.[3] The interference of the authorities upset the adjustment of supply to the rising demand.

The showdown came when in the political troubles of the third and fourth centuries the emperors resorted to currency debasement. With the system of maximum prices the practice of debasement completely paralyzed both the production and the marketing of the vital foodstuffs and disintegrated society's economic organization. The more eagerness the authorities displayed in enforcing the maximum prices, the more desperate became the conditions of the urban masses dependent on the purchase of food. Commerce in grain and other necessities vanished altogether. To avoid starving, people deserted the cities, settled on the countryside, and tried to grow grain, oil, wine, and other necessities for themselves. On the other hand, the owners of the big estates restricted their excess production of cereals and began to produce in their farmhouses--the villae--the products of handicraft which they needed. For their big-scale farming, which was already seriously jeopardized because of the inefficiency of slave labor, lost its rationality completely when the opportunity to sell at remunerative prices disappeared. As the owner of the estate could no longer sell in the cities, he could no longer patronize the urban artisans either. He was forced to look for a substitute to meet his needs by employing handicraftsmen on his own account in his villa. He discontinued big-scale farming and became a landlord receiving rents from tenants or sharecroppers. These coloni were either freed slaves or urban proletarians who settled in the villages and turned to tilling the soil. A tendency toward the establishment of autarky of each landlord's estate emerged. The economic function of the cities, of commerce, trade, and urban handicrafts, shrank. Italy and the provinces of the empire returned to a less advanced state of the social [p. 769] division of labor. The highly developed economic structure of ancient civilization retrograded to what is now known as the manorial organization of the Middle Ages.

The emperors were alarmed with that outcome which undermined the financial and military power of their government. But their counteraction was futile as it did not affect the root of the evil. The compulsion and coercion to which they resorted could not reverse the trend toward social disintegration which, on the contrary, was caused precisely by too much compulsion and coercion. No Roman was aware of the fact that the process was induced by the government's interference with prices and by currency debasement. It was vain for the emperors to promulgate laws against the city-dweller who "relicta civitate rus habitare maluerit." [4] The system of the leiturgia, the public services to be rendered by the wealthy citizens, only accelerated the retrogression of the division of labor. The laws concerning the special obligations of the shipowners, the navicularii, were no more successful in checking the decline of navigation than the laws concerning grain dealing in checking the shrinkage in the cities' supply of agricultural products.

The marvelous civilization of antiquity perished because it did not adjust its moral code and its legal system to the requirements of the market economy. A social order is doomed if the actions which its normal functioning requires are rejected by the standards of morality, are declared illegal by the laws of the country, and are prosecuted as criminal by the courts and the police. The Roman Empire crumbled to dust because it lacked the spirit of liberalism and free enterprise. The policy of interventionism and its political corollary, the Fuhrer principle, decomposed the mighty empire as they will by necessity always disintegrate and destroy any social entity.

Catfish

01-04-14, 03:44 PM

... doomed in 1913 with the signing of the Federal Reserve Act, which turned money from value to debt, and forced people to give up all their gold and silver in exchange for worthless paper fiat currency. This took all the real bargaining power from the people, and put it in the hands of few, wealthy bankers.

Amen to that .. as soon as money loses its real worth and becomes debt, it will grow by itself, the real problem then being compounded interest.

Grüße aus den USA!
Anmerkung: Meine mutti's familie stammt aus Nordhein-Westfalen :up:
Woher kommen Sie?

Grüße aus Deutschland, meine Familie stammt aus Berlin und Detmold, ich selbst aus Lower-Saxony :)

Skybird

01-04-14, 04:04 PM

But I do not think that government is a bad thing, its a very essential thing to prevent corporate entities from running roughshod over the populace,

And what do you call what the political paraiste do to the people? One could argue, that Bismarck introduced his social reforms (and effectively invented the social wellfare state) at a tiem when growing capitalism and the corresponding spread of wealth threatened the self-declared Fuhrer elites with a people that became increasingly free, liberal, and non_depending on politician's governing over them. Because they got lured back into obedience and submission to the state which nursed them and fed them. The same tactic as today.

That such a "freedom" can only be had at the price of Rousseau's reasoning, who wanted a total maximum of state and a total minimum of individualism, in essence declaring the state an absolute that replaced the individual freedom - that is something that many people today completely overlook, or ignore - or, if they have a heart beating strong for totalitarian collectivism, actively desire.

It's about power, Neon, and control. Not about ideals. Capitalism and free market is what emancipate people from their state masters' control and command. Non monopolised trade between free people, with no monopoles on prices or government control, robbery and power. Govenrment are unneeded parasites. Not more. There service is to suck your blood. And for that service they blackmail you for protection money. And when you pay it, they still hang on you, sucking. And send you into a war, maybe. Or a paper money currency that devalues your property. The property that you still are allowed to hold, and got not expropriated of.

Governments and politicians are as much needed and as useful as hemorrhoids in the anus. What is needed is a population educated in understand what the nature of real money is, and what economy is. With that knowledge, people can negotiate their bartering and trading, independently, freely, and self-responsibly. A nightmare for politicians. Their total uselessness and anti-social nature would immediately be so obvious for all to see . No more free ride. No more privileges for no merits. No more living by claiming to solve problems that one has caused oneself.

That's why Bismarck introduced the social wellfare legislation. Right at the time in history when Western people on a grand scale had the chance to become free from their self-.proclaimed leaders. What an unbelievable coincidence!

Tribesman

01-04-14, 04:05 PM

The main problem with Von Mises "Human action" is that its utopian dream has exactly the same flaws as Marxism.
Both claim they can take the eternally repeating fail cycle and evolve it to reach the perfect state for mankind, both ideologies fail on the very basic first step by neglecting to understand that humans are in essence rather stupid.

Skybird

01-04-14, 04:10 PM

As a 4th generation German-American, I can say that a similar thing is happening in Deutschland isn't it?

Grüße aus den USA!

Anmerkung: Meine mutti's familie stammt aus Nordhein-Westfalen :up:

Woher kommen Sie?

Could it be that you are me? I agree with pretty much of what you said.

I was born in Detmold, but have crisscrossed across Germany at all four compass directions meanwhile. Münster 14 years, Berlin ten years, ten in Osnabrück, and Lübeck five years have been my longest stays in one place, with Lübeck being liked most as a place. Berlin was my teen years, so it is a hate-love, I dislike the city, but it is a known place, even if disliked, and by age those years (and the very much liked school I was at) nevertheless where the best years in my life, roughly my second decade. But at no costs I would go back to Berlin today. Divided Cold War Berlin was so much better. Must sound strange, but many Berliners who lived back then, said and say so.

Schroeder

01-04-14, 04:48 PM

Could it be that you are me?

If you ask that you should get checked for multiple personality disorder.:O:

Admiral Halsey

01-04-14, 04:51 PM

I'm sorry that we disagree

Don't be sorry about having a different viewpoint. Having a different viewpoint then someone is a part of life. The trick is to be courteous when you talk to someone who has a different viewpoint then your own.

August

01-04-14, 05:28 PM

I question the accuracy of the poll. No way can less than 2000 people accurately represent the opinions of nearly 300 million.

Skybird

01-04-14, 06:09 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)

Tribesman

01-04-14, 06:19 PM

I question the accuracy of the poll. No way can less than 2000 people accurately represent the opinions of nearly 300 million.

If you wish to challenge the survey for what it is then challenge the survey for what it is. If it is a measure against the earlier survey then it is a measure against the earlier survey, no more and no less.

There has been no shortage of self identifying Republicans(and libertarians) on this forum complaining about the swing towards and the growth of the religious right in the party.
There is certainly no shortage of Republican politicians and candidates calling for creationism and "intelligent design" to be taught as science.
That may well be a pretty strong indication that the survey is accurate(as far as it goes).

NeonSamurai

01-04-14, 06:26 PM

And what do you call what the political paraiste do to the people? One could argue, that Bismarck introduced his social reforms (and effectively invented the social wellfare state) at a tiem when growing capitalism and the corresponding spread of wealth threatened the self-declared Fuhrer elites with a people that became increasingly free, liberal, and non_depending on politician's governing over them. Because they got lured back into obedience and submission to the state which nursed them and fed them. The same tactic as today.

That such a "freedom" can only be had at the price of Rousseau's reasoning, who wanted a total maximum of state and a total minimum of individualism, in essence declaring the state an absolute that replaced the individual freedom - that is something that many people today completely overlook, or ignore - or, if they have a heart beating strong for totalitarian collectivism, actively desire.

It's about power, Neon, and control. Not about ideals. Capitalism and free market is what emancipate people from their state masters' control and command. Non monopolised trade between free people, with no monopoles on prices or government control, robbery and power. Govenrment are unneeded parasites. Not more. There service is to suck your blood. And for that service they blackmail you for protection money. And when you pay it, they still hang on you, sucking. And send you into a war, maybe. Or a paper money currency that devalues your property. The property that you still are allowed to hold, and got not expropriated of.

Governments and politicians are as much needed and as useful as hemorrhoids in the anus. What is needed is a population educated in understand what the nature of real money is, and what economy is. With that knowledge, people can negotiate their bartering and trading, independently, freely, and self-responsibly. A nightmare for politicians. Their total uselessness and anti-social nature would immediately be so obvious for all to see . No more free ride. No more privileges for no merits. No more living by claiming to solve problems that one has caused oneself.

That's why Bismarck introduced the social wellfare legislation. Right at the time in history when Western people on a grand scale had the chance to become free from their self-.proclaimed leaders. What an unbelievable coincidence!

You cannot trust business to have the people in mind, I could list a hundred pages of examples of just how brutal and psychopathic bushiness is. Capitalism did nothing of what you are claiming, it did not liberate the individual, it enslaved them even more to the system than ever before in history. Almost everyone became a wage slave, bound and owned by the company and discarded without a second thought. Capitalism is the key thing that sparked Marxism in the first place, because of the sheer brutality of the system. It is also responsible for the massive shift in wealth over the last 100 years to the elite few. Capitalism makes its money by exploiting the people to the maximum extent it can.

Everything needs to be balanced out and a really functional society needs a bit of everything. When I speak of government, I speak of one that is accountable to the people, and acts in the best interest of the people and country. In a sense, I speak of what the founding fathers of the United States tried to form. But to do that politicians need to be incentiveised to work for the people. You need to outlaw business (The money people) having control of politicians or the government. That is where the corruption comes from.

Again I suggest the three videos I posted earlier. They may be a bit idealistic, and the big question would be how to get to what they are proposing, but I think the suggestions make a lot of sense.

Skybird

01-04-14, 07:42 PM

Sounds as if you are talking about the abuse of capitalism, stemming from monopolistic positions of actors who then indeed became powerful. All true. And even then - general wealth levels rose nevertheless, for the rich and for the poor. In the medieval, peasants and slave farmer were worse off, I would say. There is no romanticism to be found.

The problem is monopolism, and the huge size of community units and administration systems. They are too huge as if people would be able to avoid monopole holders by just evading into a neighbouring community, because the next community is not two or three villages away, but two or there nations, or continents.

Politicians want to get elected, they crave for powerful positions, and for that they promote gold and candy falling from heaven, and who has to pay for it? The money printer (debts, money devaluation), and the citizens they cheat (protection money, and more debts) . If you, as you did, claim they are the lesser evil than monopolists, than you trade anthrax for ebola.

Statelessness, a million small, minimalistic communities is the answer to make both evils smaller in size and bring them down to a scale where you can actually avoid them, battle them, control them. Only then local politicians cannot claim the power and control over nations and continents, only then monopolistic producers or power holders can be avoided by moving just some miles away into another city where they handle things differently. And that means cities, local regions must be independent form any central governance, to be free to do it like they want. If they all are part of the same nation and government, then nothing changes, and you have no chance to evade that government.

Governments must be small, not big, lacking power, not having a monopole on power. Due to politicians always necessarily turning any democratic regime into a socialistic tyranny and planned economy, you cannot put your trust in "democracy". It is doomed to fail, always. The mob demands, the politicians promise, both leads to unhealthy finances and dreamdancing economic policies, state wants more power, state plans more, regulation of markets, planned price fixing next, expropriation by currency devaluation, planned economy, et voila - there you are. Give it some time, it always will go this way, and it always has gone like this in every democratic Western country since WWI flushed monarchies away and replaced them with democratic republics. It always must lead to totalitarianism, because socialism is totalitarianism by essence and nature.

the suggestions of how state and society shall be - it is well meant, but totally disrespecting the grim realities. Those craving for power are not like that as if they will allow that. those having monopoles, will not give them up. Capitalism must be kept on a short line in that it can only be prevented from turning into monopolism if implemented in somewhat small community cells, the mere diversity of communities preventing the establishment of monopoles, because the more diversity there is, the more alternatives for the people to evade monopolists. Balancing it all, planning it all, that is all nice and well, but you fall for the classic trap of intellectuals in the west: to think that you can PLAN such things. You cannot, if there is one outstanding message from this set of ideas named Austrian economy, than this: you cannot plan human people, human acting, prices, market events, demand. The market, as if by miracle, does all this itself if you allow people meeting on it and participating freely in it. Those who have something of value, skills or items, will succeed in finding a partner with whom to barter. Those who have not, either adapt by learning and developing said skill or work to get items to trade (even money, that is: a normal trading good), and those who do not adapt and do have something valuable to contribute, will depend on working for others instead - and then again joining the market events, because by their employment they get items of values: currency quantities (=coins). Which are a traiding good.

Prevent monopoles, yes. But also prevenhjt polticians, and worse: prevent poltians gainign cintrol of the money and turning it into paper fiat money. That is the road to toal and complete disaster. Thes epolticians can only live when chnagign towards paper money and debt rising, and brainwashing people for socialist ideas so that they vote them. One should not allow these anti social parasites to unfold their destructive acitivities.

It's all around us. Right now. Forget what you believe to know. Open your eyes, and see. It's all laid before your eyes. Unhidden. Clear. Obvious. The ways we have chosen, are the ways into our doom. Doom that we have seen before in recent history, its been just 1-2 man-live that socialism and nationalism formed the unholy alliance after republicanism won WWI, and communism was a able to abuse the weak condition in Russia to enthrone itself and call itself the Soviet Union. Nobody prevent us to learn from this. We refuse to learn all by ourselves.

Stupid we are.

In capitalism (not to be mistaken with monopolism!), wealth must be distributed unequal, that keeps motivation, competition and creativity alive, and in general, everybody is better off. In socialism, all are equally poor, and no personal motivation survives.

the great role of Europe in history was made possible because its immense diversity (something that the totalitarian socialists of the EU totally ignore). that begins with the fruitful competition for talents in science arts and philosophy between cities and dukedoms in the German territories, and leads to the Italian city states. Add to this the competition between small villages and town communities who were separated by geographic obstacles like valleys and mountains. This was the mixture that did not completely prevent corruption and abuse, no. but it produced an overall raise in wealth and cultrual production and intellectual life of which almost everybody benefitted and that led to some of the cultural monuments that until today illustrate the greatness that once was there and that has led to the most advanced, profound, unique and precious achievements on behalf of human rights, freedom and dignity in the history of ALL mankind - no other global region ever pushed these qualities that we value so much to the levels our forefathers once had.

And we throw all that away? For a false religious stupid cult like socialism? Because that is what it is: a stupid religion, focussed not on the afterlife but the here and now and assuming paradise could be enforced by planning it, enforcing collective obedience to the plan, and planning economy and all that planning mania. How f#cked up is all this? Read a bit of Rousseau, and then you get a taste of how twisted and porked it all is, Rousseau is so very much alive these days, and that is a tragedy (no wonder he had mental issues and was paranoid, if I would have thought these things, I would have turned insane, too). The more the Judeo-Christian tradition ahs been pushed back, the more the spiritual vacuum has been filled by the left ideology, by Marx and Lenin and the like. Everybody knows that I am no friend of religious superstition and supremacism. But I know dam n well that people have an existential hunger for meaning, for a sense and reason in their lives, and religions address this hunger. they may play foul, but as long as the crowd does not become aware of that, it functions. How many more disasters are needed before the crowd realises that socialism and planned economy also is such a foul play? Historians count 100 millions minimum having been fallen victim to socialist regimes in the past one hundred years. Some more critical thinkers publish lists that calculate numbers three times as high. But we celebrate defenders of such bloodshed and barbarism like Che Guevara, and dance in the streets (during Vietnam) singing Ho-Ho-Ho-Tchi-Minh...? We must have a deep-rooting desire to destroy ourselves.

When will it finally be enough of this madness, and we sent career politicians and socialism to hell where they already are awaited?? Only religions maybe have caused more misery and suffering in man's history than this poisonous melange of actors and ideology. But at least they produced nice architecture and paintings and music, at times.

Don't trust monopolists. But do not trust politicians either. They are holders of the most powerful monopoly there is!

Admiral Halsey

01-04-14, 07:45 PM

Anyone else wish Teddy "Trust Buster" Roosevelt was in office?

Tribesman

01-04-14, 08:09 PM

Statelessness, a million small, minimalistic communities is the answer to make both evils smaller in size and bring them down to a scale where you can actually avoid them, battle them, control them. Only then local politicians cannot claim the power and control over nations and continents, only then monopolistic producers or power holders can be avoided by moving just some miles away into another city where they handle things differently. And that means cities, local regions must be independent form any central governance, to be free to do it like they want. If they all are part of the same nation and government, then nothing changes, and you have no chance to evade that government.

It is at that point where the pure fantasy of your latest ideology becomes completely undeniable.

August

01-04-14, 08:38 PM

And that means cities, local regions must be independent form any central governance, to be free to do it like they want.

So what stops a couple cities or local regions from putting another city or local reason to the sword?

For instance what can the people of Potsdam do to stop a future belligerent Berlin from invading and sacking them?

This is the fatal flaw in your theory. It ignores human nature and human history.

Armistead

01-04-14, 08:46 PM

The religious right could very well hijack the GOP and make it impossible for the GOP to run a moderate socially liberal person that is also fiscally conservative. Guess we'll see when and if someone like Christie runs. Abortion is here to say and gay rights are here and coming, if the GOP wants to keep making issues out of such and run candidates that are against such, forget national office...

Anyway, I see us as a nation more divided, voting the same life long nuts back in as we usually do and gridlock the future...I'm to the point I would like to see a bunch of clowns in congress....those with the big shoes and red noses...

Stealhead

01-04-14, 08:56 PM

Anyone else wish Teddy "Trust Buster" Roosevelt was in office?

You know that Theodore Roosevelt disliked being called "Teddy" right? And he went both ways true he did bust up trusts but he also broke union strikes as well.Of course the trust busting only meant that large corporations simply found ways to avoid being considered a trust.

Admiral Halsey

01-04-14, 08:58 PM

You know that Theodore Roosevelt disliked being called "Teddy" right? And he went both ways true he did bust up trusts but he also broke union strikes as well.

Still did more good then bad.(Also if there ever was a perfect war president it would have been him.)

Stealhead

01-04-14, 09:03 PM

What makes you say that?:hmmm: There where no major American wars during his time in office so we have no way to judge how efficiently or poorly his performance would have been.On top of that in all reality the President is only a figurehead military leader the Joint Chiefs are the ones who make the real military plans.

Side note he was the only Rough Rider with a horse in Cuba.

Admiral Halsey

01-04-14, 09:04 PM

What makes you say that?:hmmm: There where no major American wars during his time in office.

Well for starters his dedication to our navy. Plus factor in his war service and the fact there were no wars during his presidency.(Probably because they were to scared to take him on.)

Stealhead

01-04-14, 09:18 PM

(Probably because they were to scared to take him on.)

Or maybe because the largest navy in the world at the time was our ally and because during his presidency the United Sates was still very much a secondary power.The idea that US might get involved had no effect on WWI starting in fact The US was playing both sides for a good while profiting from sales of goods and munitions to both sides.

Dedication to having a fully effective and cost effective military would be an ideal president(never going to happen).Favoring one branch typically means that under that president the loved branch gets more than it needs and the other branches become red headed step children.

Not say that he was a bad president by any means but I would not consider his favor for the Navy a good trait at any rate we are straying well away from the thread topic at this point.

August

01-04-14, 10:09 PM

Was England our ally during TR's presidency? I thought that didn't really become a reality until WW1.

Admiral Halsey

01-04-14, 10:13 PM

Was England our ally during TR's presidency? I thought that didn't really become a reality until WW1.

I think we were more acquaintances.

August

01-04-14, 10:43 PM

I think we were more acquaintances.

I think the Boxer rebellion was the first time we had ever fought alongside GB in a conflict. Before that our only military involvement with them had been as adversaries.

Admiral Halsey

01-04-14, 10:56 PM

I think the Boxer rebellion was the first time we had ever fought alongside GB in a conflict. Before that our only military involvement with them had been as adversaries.

Never knew we were invoked with the Boxer rebellion.

August

01-04-14, 11:32 PM

Never knew we were invoked with the Boxer rebellion.

Yep.

http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1999/winter/boxer-rebellion-1.html

There was even a movie made about it with Charlton Heston.

"55 Days at Peking"

Dunno how historically accurate it is though.

Stealhead

01-05-14, 12:30 AM

I think we were more acquaintances.
The US and the UK where on very good terms at the time of Roosevelt's presidency.The UK from the end of the 19th century has been about the least likely enemy of the US.

The Great White fleet even made a stop at Gibraltar during its circumnavigation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Rapprochement

I think the Boxer rebellion was the first time we had ever fought alongside GB in a conflict. Before that our only military involvement with them had been as adversaries.

That is true however the last time the US and the UK fought each other was during the War of 1812.Much had changed in the world to make both nations realize that we where better of as friends than enemies.There of course where a few disputes between the end of the War of 1812 and 1900.

Jimbuna

01-05-14, 06:39 AM

Yep.

http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1999/winter/boxer-rebellion-1.html

There was even a movie made about it with Charlton Heston.

"55 Days at Peking"

Dunno how historically accurate it is though.

Like you I'm not 100% certain but I believe the idea for the attack on the ammunition arsenal in the film was derived from the real life attack on the Boxer barricade.

Skybird

01-05-14, 08:08 AM

So what stops a couple cities or local regions from putting another city or local reason to the sword?

For instance what can the people of Potsdam do to stop a future belligerent Berlin from invading and sacking them?

This is the fatal flaw in your theory. It ignores human nature and human history.

Neither do I ignore it, nor is it a flaw that makes the theory wrong. It is a major obstacle to implementing it.

Not a flaw it is in that what I say, or better what I just repeat and what has been pointed out by far more gifted thinkers before me, nevertheless is correct. It is the free and unhindered access to markets for everybody that gives everybody the chance to benefit from growing prosperity. wealth is (and probably must be) distributed unequally, but that unequal distribution probably is the drive that keeps the competition on the market running, and even with unequal distribution, the general level of wealth is slowly rising - for everybody. It is trade that shrinks the desire of people to damage their trading interests by launching wars against each other. It is market regulations by governments and artificial price fixing that damages the freedom of people and the fairness thta lies in that the market mechanism, by Smith's literal invisible hand, has any seller finding his interested buyer, and prices and values of items in any individual transaction being fixed freely between those who are concerned - the selling and buying party. It is true that the greatest blossoming of culture in Europe was in the times of the Italian and German city states, representing constructive competition in the best meaning. It is true that wars get declared by religious insane tyrants and governments, never be the people living their lives in the countryside.

I have said several times, and for example Hoppe expressed according pessimism himself, too, that it is unlikely that this order will come true. Because the ruling elites that have designed these things to be like they are now (to serve their interests for power and control) will not allow it, and they have had decades and generations to establish a ruleset and to brainwash people that makes sure you can get rid of them only by force, with your force being greater than theirs. But many people do not even want to get rid of them and the doom they bring in form of socialist presents that are only meant to tie them closer to the claim of the state to rule over them. Politicians makes promises to get elected, the plebs demands more, both help to get the socialist runaway train running that way, the result is paper money, devaluing, growing economic regulation, all for a good purpose of course, for social justice and social equality and peace and paradise on earth. Well, thigns seem to have stopped running like paradise in recent years, won't you agree? Every economist who is sane and serious and knows his stuff a little bit must shudder in horror when politicians promise stuff "for free". There ain't no free rides. Everything costs. The bills will be presented, in any form, but they will, be payed for, right down to the last dollar and last cent. In the last years it dawned upon me of what paramount importance it is to have a basic understanding of what is called national economy, and that is not the nonsense they publish day by day in the newspapers and popular media. Evertyhing costs, who claims differently is a liar, and thus everything you deal with on a communal and national level and that you want to adress, has necessarily a correlating basis in national economics, because it deal with how people act and behave and as a result of their acting produce the general wealth which to major parts now get stolen and claimed by "the state". Only lacking understanding of this could make a blind public enthusiastically accepting policies that raise moire and more debts and push them all deeper and deeper into the debt trap. I am convinced that at school there should be courses in national economics. Not to make students better fitting for the employment market, but to liberate them from the state's constant propaganda and to emancipate them as independently< thinking individuals who are able to assess themselves if the many claims and lies told them by politicians can be really true, as these parasites try to hammer into their heads all the time. I would tend to see national economics a necessary part of a truly humanistic education.

But wishing and planning never have made the basic principles of trade and economic functioning to bend, or to be bypassed. You can throw the boomerang with even more power thna before, to get finally rid of it and have it dissappearing at even greater a distance - it returns nevertheless to you, and strikes back even more powerful.

You are right, the problem lies in that this order has no chance to live if it is just one little place surrounded by biting sharks. The trick lies in how to get sufficient places turning away from nations without being bitten to death immediately, last but not least by the state from which the secede. I know that. Hoppe knows that. Rothbard knew that. Hayek indicated that problem somewhere, too. But that is no flaw in the theory, but an obstacle to its implementation. The basic theory of capitalism (not monopolism, which is the adversary to capitalism that it already has it in its genes and must constantly fight against), nevertheless is the best we have in fighting against poverty, government tyranny, socialist erosion. And that si what I am talking about in principle: it is the basic theory of capitalism, not more, not less.

Note that in the Western world, it is almost nowhere implemented. Our economies are heavily regulated, are protected markets, are planned. Our education sectors (in Germany at least) are almost completely under government control, there is no competition between private schools worth to be mentioned. Our social and wellfare sectors are heavily administered by the government, which constantly boost it to lure people ever more under the umbrella of the government. Our health sector is heavily government-controlled. Migration policy is government controlled. Foreign policy and defence, traffic and infrastructure - all government controlled. Where there is no government control, the government legislation helped lobbies to implement their reign. Price fixings for medical drugs for example, a song you Americans know better than anyone else, and that us Germans know better than anyone els ein Europe - we are the most expensive drug market in Europe. Due to monopolism and its lobbies in politics. We are given migration that most do not want, because the government claims the right to label roads its own property so that it can rule who shall travel on these roads. If the government would not be tolerated to claim property rights, than the owners of land and property would negotiate amongst themselves the building of infrastructure, together with traders who wants to transport their goods, and producers, who want to transport their resources. In the end, market interests would decide what road gets build and what bridge does not get build,. and the costs for that will not be payed by general taxes, but will be added in shares to product prices, and maybe usage fees where land owners demand a fee for allowing their land being used. It would be the owners of property who also can decide whom they let use their property, or the infrastructure build on it, and whom not, like you can decide whom you let into your garden or flat, and whom not.

Neither me nor Hoppe nor any of these names ignores that. Hoppe does not hide that he sees, in his own word, "not the slightest reason for optimism". We will all drive into socialist hell oncer again. We will plan ourselves to death, because we seriously assume we can plan in advance what people will want, will do, will get motivated by, and we can also plan historical and natural events, and so why not planning an economy, and price fixings and all that. Nobody will own anything anymore, (currently we all get expropriated by a dozen of different methods, from taxes to cold repression, from political correctness to anonymous group pressure both taking our decision making and opinion forming under fire.

So you are right, it will nit happen. But it better should happen, there is no functional alternative that I would like. The alternatives are totalitarianism, and thats were we travel at currently, at high speed.

And you have another point, if you would mention the thread coming from local splitter groups starting terror wars, and big jihads started by religious nutheads, in the ME for example. The first could be dealt with by local regions hosting businesses like mercenary companies, and by other companies producing legislation and law enforcement. No need for centralised governments here, as always care must be taken to not allow monopolists, of course. Else the private defence contractor may end up as head of a new milizary dictatorshipü, who knows.

The problem with religious jihadists who by the nature of their religious megalomania refuse to consider such social and economic models and only want to cause a big mess for other around them, is a bigger problem, and I could only speculate in what manner this threat could militarily met. In the end, their might be solutions, probably, but that theme is several steps ahead of the real problems one has to face first. Lets build a house first before guessing in what colour the kitchen will be painted.

You have been stationed in germany, I think I recall. Have you ever went to the GDR? Watched how it looked like? Grey. Triste. Poor. Rotten. Depressing colours. When I remember these sights, and remember the language and phrasing of their television news and propaganda program, then I immediately know that I am right in wanting to fight against all that socialist stuff. I do not want to live in such a miserable place. Heck, there even where no bright colours produced, even the colours they came up with looked depressing, toned down, faded, sick. "Trabbiland" was a land with notoriously washe dout colours. The only colours that shone bright, was the Red during the SED's flag parades and the blue in the FDJ's shirts.

For an end: what has caused the present problems we see in finances and economies, is not capitalism or a free market, but the cause is that government and lobbies were allowed by the people to dispose the free market and its inherent functional mechanism, as far as banking and the financial business sector is concerned . The market did not fail by itself. It was pushed to fail by government. Decades earlier, the commodity currency also did not collapse by itself, it was pushed and was wanted to fail, or better: it was intentionally replaced with central banks and paper fiat money. Again,m the driving force behind this were politicians with greater ambitions than the economies of their countries could support.

Skybird

01-05-14, 08:11 AM

Wowh, that achievement deserves to be mentioned, that only rarely a threads go hijacked so systematically and pulled by several parties at several different directions simultaneously. :haha:

Onkel Neal

01-05-14, 08:21 AM

Still did more good then bad.(Also if there ever was a perfect war president it would have been him.)

Yah, he was my kind of guy. Imagine if he was aged to be president in 1939! He would have been... Churchill.:shucks:

Is the Republican party moving to religious radicalism? IMO, I doubt it, but some portion of the party base may be. I get the sense that the Republican party is going to lose more ground as the country changes from traditional America to a new European style America. Republicans can try to change to stay in touch, but that will mean essentially becoming Democrats.

August

01-05-14, 08:39 AM

That is true however the last time the US and the UK fought each other was during the War of 1812.Much had changed in the world to make both nations realize that we where better of as friends than enemies.There of course where a few disputes between the end of the War of 1812 and 1900.

Yeah from what I read at the beginning of WW1 there were some pro-German elements in this country who tried to make a case that Britain was a historical enemy and Germany was not and if we should support anyone it should be the latter. It didn't really get much traction outside of German speaking parts of Pennsylvania and the Midwest.

Like you I'm not 100% certain but I believe the idea for the attack on the ammunition arsenal in the film was derived from the real life attack on the Boxer barricade.

Interesting. Of all the scenes in the movie I thought that one was the one most likely to be Hollywood fantasy.

August

01-05-14, 08:49 AM

Neither do I ignore it, nor is it a flaw that makes the theory wrong. It is a major obstacle to implementing it.

Calling it a major obstacle is like saying that gravity is a major obstacle to unassisted human flight. Unrealistic and unworkable are better terms to describe the theory.

Coincidentally I was just reading an article this morning about some folks here in the US that share many of your views. They're a little more militant about it than you but you share much the same utopian views:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/05/sovereign-citizen-movement-rejects-govt-with-tactics-ranging-from-mischief-to/

Skybird

01-05-14, 09:12 AM

That comparison is an offence, and if you seriously compare libertarianism or me with these people and their doings, than you have not understood one bit about libertarianism (to differ it from today's understanding of the term liberalism, which in American English today stands for left ideology or socialism in plain English).

I would recommend you to read Murray Rothbard: The ethics of freedom, to teach you a bit about how real libertarians would judge those idiots you compared me to. Especially the chapters dealing with questions of justice in libertarian understanding should find your attention. The book can be downloaded for free and legally at the von Mises institute's American website.

Beyond that, you just ignore that history shows exmaples for both Europe and Asia where trading local communities and city states have functioned and led to cultural blossoming in places where it caused fruitful and constructive competition for best talents. Even in ancient Greece it sometimes - sometimes - worked, usually before power hungry state leaders or abusive democratic state order took over control.

But you want your canon of democratic beliefs and republican powers, like a club fan has a banner of his team hanging on the wall. Once even were willing to donate your life and health to fight in the name of these things, by a finger's snipping of the pendant of the Führers (plural). Well, I wish people would be more choosy regarding for what they put their lives at risk. But well, not my business, not back then, not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan. BTW, free market participants were not who wanted these wars - it were polticians, governments, and business monopolists with strong lobbies in politics (that en passant by their mere existence already bypass the electorate's votes, just to mention that - so much for "democracy" and "in the name of the people"...).

August

01-05-14, 10:29 AM

That comparison is an offence

Well get fake outraged all you want but your idea that you owe nothing to your country is also an offense, and it's just that selfish belief you share with these so called sovereign citizens (or as they might call themselves "individuals seeking truth").

Tribesman

01-05-14, 01:53 PM

That comparison is an offence, And as a positive alternative on your ideology you suggest he follow some jew hating holocaust denier instead?
Now most people who find the Soveriegn Citizens an offensive bunch of fruitcakes would also consider someone who holds the KKK as an ideal model for spreading their cause as offensive fruitcakes too.
But not you.

Beyond that, you just ignore that history shows exmaples for both Europe and Asia where trading local communities and city states have functioned and led to cultural blossoming in places where it caused fruitful and constructive competition for best talents. Even in ancient Greece it sometimes - sometimes - worked, usually before power hungry state leaders or abusive democratic state order took over control.

History shows they all failed over the same very basic flaw in the theory which you claim is not a flaw

Stealhead

01-05-14, 03:12 PM

Yeah from what I read at the beginning of WW1 there were some pro-German elements in this country who tried to make a case that Britain was a historical enemy and Germany was not and if we should support anyone it should be the latter. It didn't really get much traction outside of German speaking parts of Pennsylvania and the Midwest.

Some relatives on my fathers side of the family where 1st and 2nd generation Germans around that time period up in Lackwanna County PA. There was a small contingent for a time early in WWI that was pro Axis.I always wonder how large it really was.

My great Aunt said that WWI helped bring an end to most of the Germans in PA speaking German in public anymore.By the time she was a kid in the late 30's it was only really spoken at home.Good thing for my Great Uncle that they still spoke German in the home his understanding of German helped himself and some other POWs escape after getting captured in Hurtgen Forest.

Of course there was also the German American Bund prior to US involvement in WWII though as before most German Americans where not supporters.

August

01-05-14, 04:19 PM

Some relatives on my fathers side of the family where 1st and 2nd generation Germans around that time period up in Lackwanna County PA. There was a small contingent for a time early in WWI that was pro Axis.I always wonder how large it really was.

Pro Central Powers you mean The Axis was a WW2 thang.

https://mstartzman.pbworks.com/f/1297821652/Powers.jpg

Skybird

01-05-14, 04:33 PM

Well get fake outraged all you want but your idea that you owe nothing to your country is also an offense, and it's just that selfish belief you share with these so called sovereign citizens (or as they might call themselves "individuals seeking truth").Spoken like an exemplary German Untertan to the Obrigkeit. :up: Yes, you are right, no doubt: there must be German genes in your family bloodline.

Penguin

01-05-14, 05:09 PM

Yes, giving a crap about other humans/being mutualistic is clearly the same as being an Untertan.... :doh:

Skybird

01-05-14, 07:37 PM

In the end, most of people do not want any change in a broken system at all, but want even more of it: they want the illusions they grew so fond of to come true instead. In other words: their strategy is believing in a miracle so that things all end well without any need to change for the harder aspects of life, and both reason and unwelcomed facts realities bending on behalf of wishful thinking. More nanny state, therefore. More money printing. More voting of politicians promising both. More ignoring of the brutal consequences of this, that one day can no longer be avoided. The world will suffer what it must. The people will get what they deserve.

But complaining about people who are passionate about justice instead of mandatory, undiscriminating solidarity? Passionate about freedom instead of totalitartian collectivism? Self-responsibility instead parasitically robbing the few and bribing the many with the loot? Reason and foresight instead of excessive partying and excesses in spending that the future generations have top pay for by their own sacrifices?

Murray Rothbard: Why Be Libertarian?

from "Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, and Other Essays", Auburn, Alabama 2000 (1974)

Why be libertarian, anyway? By this we mean: what’s
the point of the whole thing? Why engage in a deep
and lifelong commitment to the principle and the
goal of individual liberty? For such a commitment, in our
largely unfree world, means inevitably a radical disagreement
with, and alienation from, the status quo, an alienation which
equally inevitably imposes many sacrifices in money and prestige.
When life is short and the moment of victory far in the
future, why go through all this?

Incredibly, we have found among the increasing number
of libertarians in this country many people who come to a
libertarian commitment from one or another extremely narrow
and personal points of view. Many are irresistibly
attracted to liberty as an intellectual system or as an aesthetic
goal; but liberty remains for them a purely intellectual parlor
game, totally divorced from what they consider the “real”
activities of their daily lives. Others are motivated to remain
libertarians solely from their anticipation of their own personal
financial profit. Realizing that a free market would provide
far greater opportunities for able, independent men to
reap entrepreneurial profits, they become and remain libertarians
solely to find larger opportunities for business profit.

While it is true that opportunities for profit will be far
greater and more widespread in a free market and a free society,
placing one’s primary emphasis on this motivation for
being a libertarian can only be considered grotesque. For in
the often tortuous, difficult and gruelling path that must be
trod before liberty can be achieved, the libertarian’s opportunities
for personal profit will far more often be negative than
abundant.

The consequence of the narrow and myopic vision of both
the gamester and the would-be profitmaker is that neither
group has the slightest interest in the work of building a libertarian
movement. And yet it is only through building such
a movement that liberty may ultimately be achieved. Ideas,
and especially radical ideas, do not advance in the world in
and by themselves, as it were in a vacuum; they can only be
advanced by people and, therefore, the development and
advancement of such people—and therefore of a “movement”—
becomes a prime task for the Libertarian who is
really serious about advancing his goals.

Turning from these men of narrow vision, we must also
see that utilitarianism—the common ground of free-market
economists—is unsatisfactory for developing a flourishing
libertarian movement. While it is true and valuable to know
that a free market would bring far greater abundance and a
healthier economy to everyone, rich and poor alike, a critical
problem is whether this knowledge is enough to bring many
people to a lifelong dedication to liberty. In short, how many
people will man the barricades and endure the many sacrifices
that a consistent devotion to liberty entails, merely so
that umpteen percent more people will have better bathtubs?
Will they not rather set up for an easy life and forget the
umpteen percent bathtubs? Ultimately, then, utilitarian economics,
while indispensable in the developed structure of libertarian
thought and action, is almost as unsatisfactory a basic
groundwork for the movement as those opportunists who
simply seek a short-range profit.

It is our view that a flourishing libertarian movement, a
lifelong dedication to liberty, can only be grounded on a passion
for justice. Here must be the mainspring of our drive,
the armor that will sustain us in all the storms ahead, not the
search for a quick buck, the playing of intellectual games or
the cool calculation of general economic gains. And, to have
a passion for justice, one must have a theory of what justice
and injustice are—in short, a set of ethical principles of justice
and injustice which cannot be provided by utilitarian
economics. It is because we see the world reeking with injustices
piled one on another to the very heavens that we are
impelled to do all that we can to seek a world in which these
and other injustices will be eradicated. Other traditional radical
goals—such as the “abolition of poverty”—are, in contrast
to this one, truly utopian, for man, simply by exerting
his will, cannot abolish poverty. Poverty can only be abolished
through the operation of certain economic factors—
notably the investment of savings in capital—which can only
operate by transforming nature over a long period of time. In
short, man’s will is here severely limited by the workings of—
to use an old-fashioned but still valid term—natural law. But
injustices are deeds that are inflicted by one set of men on
another; they are precisely the actions of men, and, hence,
they and their elimination are subject to man’s instantaneous
will.

Let us take an example: England’s centuries-long occupation
and brutal oppression of the Irish people. Now if, in
1900, we had looked at the state of Ireland, and we had considered
the poverty of the Irish people, we would have had to
say: poverty could be improved by the English getting out
and removing their land monopolies, but the ultimate elimination
of poverty in Ireland, under the best of conditions,
would take time and be subject to the workings of economic
law. But the goal of ending English oppression—that could
have been done by the instantaneous action of men’s will: by
the English simply deciding to pull out of the country. The
fact that of course such decisions do not take place instantaneously
is not the point; the point is that the very failure is an
injustice that has been decided upon and imposed by the perpetrators
of injustice—in this case, the English government.

In the field of justice, man’s will is all; men can move mountains,
if only men so decide. A passion for instantaneous justice—
in short, a radical passion—is therefore not utopian, as
would be a desire for the instant elimination of poverty or the
instant transformation of everyone into a concert pianist. For
instant justice could be achieved if enough people so willed.
A true passion for justice, then, must be radical—in short,
it must at least wish to attain its goals radically and instantaneously.
Leonard E. Read, founding president of the Foundation
for Economic Education, expressed this radical spirit
very aptly when he wrote a pamphlet, I’d Push the Button. The
problem was what to do about the network of price and wage
controls then being imposed on the economy by the Office
of Price Administration. Most economic Liberals were
timidly or “realistically” advocating one or another form of
gradual or staggered decontrols; at that point, Mr. Read took
an unequivocal and radical stand on principle: “if there were
a button on this rostrum,” he began his address, “the pressing
of which would release all wage and price controls instantaneously,
I would put my finger on it and push!”1 The true
test, then, of the radical spirit, is the button-pushing test: if
we could push the button for instantaneous abolition of
unjust invasions of liberty, would we do it? If we would not
do it, we could scarcely call ourselves Libertarians, and most
of us would only do it if primarily guided by a passion for justice.
The genuine Libertarian, then, is, in all senses of the
word, an “abolitionist”; he would, if he could, abolish instantaneously
all invasions of liberty, whether it be, in the original
coining of the term, slavery, or whether it be the manifold
other instances of State oppression. He would, in the words
of another libertarian in a similar connection, “blister my
thumb pushing that button!” The libertarian must perforce
be a “button-pusher” and an “abolitionist.” Powered by justice,
he cannot be moved by amoral utilitarian pleas that justice
not come about until the criminals are “compensated.”

Thus, when in the early nineteenth century, the great abolitionist
movement arose, voices of moderation promptly
appeared counselling that it would only be fair to abolish
slavery if the slave masters were financially compensated for
their loss. In short, after centuries of oppression and exploitation,
the slave masters were supposed to be further rewarded
by a handsome sum muleted by force from the mass of innocent
taxpayers! The most apt comment on this proposal was
made by the English philosophical radical Benjamin Pearson,
who remarked that “he had thought it was the slaves who
should have been compensated”; clearly, such compensation
could only justly have come from the slaveholders themselves.

Antilibertarians, and antiradicals generally, characteristically
make the point that such “abolitionism” is “unrealistic;”
by making such a charge they are hopelessly confusing the
desired goal with a strategic estimate of the probable outcome.
In framing principle, it is of the utmost importance not
to mix in strategic estimates with the forging of desired goals.
First, goals must be formulated, which, in this case, would be
the instant abolition of slavery or whatever other statist
oppression we are considering. And we must first frame these
goals without considering the probability of attaining them.
The libertarian goals are “realistic” in the sense that they could
be achieved if enough people agreed on their desirability, and
that, if achieved, they would bring about a far better world.
The “realism” of the goal can only be challenged by a critique
of the goal itself, not in the problem of how to attain it. Then,
after we have decided on the goal, we face the entirely separate
strategic question of how to attain that goal as rapidly as possible,
how to build a movement to attain it, etc. Thus, William
Lloyd Garrison was not being “unrealistic” when, in the
1830s, he raised the glorious standard of immediate emancipation
of the slaves. His goal was the proper one, and his strategic
realism came in the fact that he did not expect his goal to
be quickly reached. Or, as Garrison himself distinguished:
Urge immediate abolition as earnestly as we may, it will,
alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said
that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it
ought to be, we shall always contend.

Actually, in the realm of the strategic, raising the banner
of pure and radical principle is generally the fastest way of
arriving at radical goals. For if the pure goal is never brought
to the fore, there will never be any momentum developed for
driving toward it. Slavery would never have been abolished at
all if the abolitionists had not raised the hue and cry thirty
years earlier; and, as things came to pass, the abolition was at
virtually a single blow rather than gradual or compensated.4
But above and beyond the requirements of strategy lie the
commands of justice. In his famous editorial that launched
The Liberator at the beginning of 1831, William Lloyd Garrison
repented his previous adoption of the doctrine of gradual
abolition:

I seize this opportunity to make a full and unequivocal
recantation, and thus publicly to ask pardon of my God, of
my country, and of my brethren, the poor slaves, for having
uttered a sentiment so full of timidity, injustice and absurdity.

Upon being reproached for the habitual severity and heat of
his language, Garrison retorted: “I have need to be all on fire,
for I have mountains of ice about me to melt.” It is this spirit
that must mark the man truly dedicated to the cause of liberty.

http://library.mises.org/books/Murray%20N%20Rothbard/Egalitarianism%20as%20a%20Revolt%20Against%20Natur e,%20and%20Other%20Essays.pdf

Tribesman

01-05-14, 08:43 PM

vienna

01-06-14, 02:37 PM

The GOP has, since the days of Eisenhower, made a disturbing series of political and tactical blunders. Ike was the last great, thoughtful, and meaningful GOP president. He foresaw the detrimental influence of corporate, financial, and military sway over the progress of the country. His famed comments about the "military-industrial complex" and how it was bad fo the USA was spot on. But, the GOP leadership, seeking to erase the fact they had lost the White House for 5 consecutive terms (20 years) after having held it for three terms (12 years). The GOP occupants, Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover were either so corrupt or ineffectual the result of GOP tenancy was the Great Depression. Following FDR and Truman, the only real way the GOP could retake the White House was by running a war hero like Eisenhower. Other than Ike, the GOP had no real candidates.

Rather than taking Ike's warnings to heart, the GOP leadership instead ran Nixon in 1960 and further soiled their nest by adopting the "Southern Strategy". The "Southern Strategy" came about when Civil Rights became an issue starting in the Eisenhower adminisration and alienated a substantial portion of the heavily Democratic southern states. THe GOP had been seen as pariahs by the white population of the South since the days of the Civil War when Lincoln, a GOP president, freed the slaves and defeated the Confederacy. Lincoln was blamed by the white South for their problems and the GOP was painted with the same brush. In 1968, following the civil rights push of both JFK and LBJ, the GOP saw an opportunity for some "cheap votes" by aligning themselves with the disgruntled Southern segregationist element and openly courted their support aginst the Democrats the South now blamed for their new troubles. The GOP even went so far as to clandestinely funnel funds to the 1968 third party presidential run of avowed segregationist George Wallace as a means of futher siphoning off votes fro the Democratic candidate, Hubert Humphrey. The result of the GOP machinations was the defeat of Humphrey and the election of Nixon. We all know what a mess the presidency of Nixon was and the still-felt effects of his corruption on our nation. But the other side-effect was the alienation by the GOP of minority voters and minority-sympathetic white voters as weel as moderates of both parties.

If it hadn't been for the Democrats letting the far-left contingent of their party hold sway and push forward such poor candidates as McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis, the GOP probably would not have regained the White House. (I view the election of Carter as an aberration since his election was, more or less, the voters' knee jerk reaction to the GOPs Nixon/Ford combo of scandal, corruption and mis management of the nation and its economy; Carter probably would have lost otherwise and, in my opinion, was ill-suited to the Prsidency.)

Reagan came into office, not because he was eminently qualified, but because he was the "lesser of two evils" since his opponent was Carter. It was during the Reagan administration the influence of the "Religious Right" began to take hold and the GOP leadership, again looking for "cheap votes" (a term, by the way, I heard from some California GOP political consultants for whom I had occassion to participate with on an election project, so don't blame me for the term), started to court the Fundamentalists much in the same manner they courted the segregationists.

The Gop has had a long-standing and very close collaboration with big corporations anf big financial interests. It has been the masive wealth of that sector that has supported the GOP in recent years and this perception of the GOP as being the party of "Big Business" has also resulted in the further alienation of the working-class, particularly during and since the "Great Recession".

THscore card seems to go as follows:

The GOP lead isuues and voter perceptions: Big Business; profits before jobs; racial insensitivity; prayer in schools; anti-abortion, sticking the name "God" on everything; anti-anything "gay" or "non-normal"; government support of religion (as long as it's Christian and especially "our" sort of "Christian"); indifference to the problems of the working-class (particularly the middle-class);

The Democrats lead isuues and voter perceptions: Pro working-class; racial, religious, and personal tolerance; jobs before profits; social equilibrium; freedom of personal choices; sensitivity and pro-action of the problems of the working-class voters;

The GOP tried to apologize for the "Southern Strategy" at a meeting of the NAACP in 2005, but it seems to have had little effect. Now, who will the GOP apologize to next for their "Far-Right" and "Religious-Right" startegies? For a once proud party, the "Party of Abraham Lincoln", the GOP leadership has gone down some dark and disturbing roads. If they wish to make themselves viable and releant again, the GOP should take a hint from the Democrats who, after the debacles in the 80s, dumped the over-influence of the "Far Left" wing and righted their ship. As once noted by Mort Sahl, if one wing is heavier than the other, all you do is fly in circles. The GOP seems to be going in spirals...

<O>