repeal the 19th amendment

[Unclebill]

Unclebill-
COuld you please explain to me your beliefs on Socialism and Communism. What the differences between the two are, and why both offend you so much?

Socialism, communism, fascism, nazism, etc., are all variants of collectivism. There is substantial rhetoric, propaganda and windows dressing designed to make them look substantially different and to win the support of people.

Invariably they all promise prosperity for all, freedom, and a utopian society in some manner or other. While these objectives all sound noble and wonderful, the truth is that they are lies which are impossible to attain and those promising know the truth. All these schemes fundamentally share the same underlying principles.

Among these are the negation of individual rights and freedoms, truth is whatever serves the cause of collectivism and the end justifies the means. In the history of civilized man, collectivism has never worked on any scale to produce prosperity, quality of life, and social, economic, technological and medical advances like have been produced by the United States of America.

Where collectivism has shown momentary glimpses of prosperity, it has been prosperity gained through plunder and pillage of a richer neighbor. Collectivism has never produced wealth, it has only confiscated and plundered it. Name me one successful nation under any manner of collectivism which has shown economic expansion and prosperity on par with the United States of America over a period spanning more than a few days.

It happened in this nation specifically because collectivism was rejected and freedom was espoused as this nation's highest value and guiding principle. The Clintons epitomize the very worst of the Democratic Party in America today which has become essentially collectivist.

Look at their party platform. Everything in it is collectivist (Socialist/Communist) in nature. Seize the property and income of those who have earned and give it to those who have not earned it. They have legalized theft and made it their banner of virtue.

The welfare system they have devised does little if anything to truly help the recipients. In most cases, once enrolled, the labyrinthine rules and regulations make it extremely difficult to escape. If you attempt to and succeed in some small way to become independent of it, you lose all support immediately rather than having your assistance diminish gradually allowing graceful exodus from the welfare rolls.

It is the most wasteful "charity" that exists in the U. S. with approximately 78% of funds squandered on government bureaucrats and only about 22% actually reaching the intended recipients. But IMNTBHO, charity at the point of a gun is not charity; it's simply armed robbery.

Today the Democrats mantra has become that Bush should share power with them. The truth is that they (Democrats) have never and will never share power unless they are in the minority and can bamboozle some fool into allowing them to pursue their destructive program designed to take America to the political and economic status of a third-world nation.

People who ascribe to the principles and tenets of collectivism have no love for or concern for people except to rule them and own them. Look at history for the eloquent affirmation of this. Collectivist governments are always headed by someone who has direct authority over virtually everything in that society, be it a king, emperor, a tsar/czar, premier, dictator, or president. Or, like the Soviet Union, that authority may be a committee that I believe they called the Supreme Soviet. No matter the title or composition, the authority is ultimate and absolute.

Citizens are not free to make their own choices, pursue their own lives and fortunes except at the pleasure of the ruler. Citizens have no property rights. Citizens are allowed little or no voice of political dissent. Private communications are subject to government scrutiny. And this ruler is above the law (which happens to be the demonstrated attitude of the Clintons).

What made the United States different was that there was no such authority. The Constitution was created and placed specific limits on the power and authority of government. Note that the Constitution does not limit the freedom of individual men in America, rather it limits the power and authority of government. The Constitution constructed a government that for the first time in known history was designed as the protector of man's rights. It was not a ruling authority, a regulating authority, or a body allowed to dictate to the citizens their course of actions or choices.

At least it did until the advent of the modern collectivist who found they could pass all sorts of laws violating the principles of the Constitution by making collectivist promises and having people ignorant enough not to understand what was happening to them. Look at the plethora of laws today giving the government absolute authority of your right to choose a course of action. You can't build a house without government permission for which you pay dearly in "fees", a nice euphemism for theft and graft. You can't retain ownership of your home and property without paying tribute to the government in taxes for its services. You have no choice as to whether or not you want those services and if you have the wherewithal to pay for them you are unlikely to qualify to benefit from them. But you do pay for them and pay handsomely.

The grossly authoritarian government we have today with its arbitrary authority is the result of and is the reason for the decline of which so many people complain. The degradation and decline of freedom is followed by the decline and collapse of society.

Example:

There can be no better illustration of the Democratic Party's collectivist ideology than is currently manifesting itself in California today. The crisis in the electrical power industry is the result of Democrat control of California for the past 25 or so years. The Democrats have adopted the idiocy of the extremist environmentalists who seek nothing less than to destroy industrialized civilization.

In fifteen or more years, no new power generating facilities have been built in California. Why? Democrat entrenched government bureaucracies have prevented it by its regulations and by making the cost prohibitive. Over that same time, California's population has increased by near 10,000,000 people. Industry in California has increased producing million of jobs. But no new power plants. In fact, the environmentalist idiots succeeded via Jerry Brown and other idiot politicians of the Democrat collectivist bent to shut down nuclear power generation facilities which produce NO air pollution. Yet no air pollution is their proclaimed goal.

Over the past few years, the same Democrats have been creating deregulation legislation which has turned out to be almost everything but that. By the time they deregulated the market, the demand had exceeded the supply and guess what? Prices for electricity skyrocketed from $0.035 cents/kWH to more than $0.20 cents/kWH.

Now these thug assholes are crying foul because they were too stupid to figure out the most basic of economic principles. They passed some more asinine laws to make themselves look less incompetent and stupid by mandating that power suppliers and private citizens be forced into debt by government edict until some arbitrary future date when the balloon payment comes due and people are forced to pay it or go bankrupt.

Within the past couple of weeks, this moronic Democrat communist asshole the fools elected for a governor even declared that one solution he could see was for the government to seize ownership of the power generating facilities and operate them for the public's benefit. Where do you hear this idea of nationalizing private property except in a totalitarian society?

As a corollary, other states have gone through deregulation as well. Two of those states, Pennsylvania and Texas, under Republican governors who understand the fundamentals of economics and who are aware of the absolute truth that wishing won't make it so made certain that enough new power generating facilities were constructed to assure an adequate supply of electrical energy.

When deregulation was put in place, the result was that in Pennsylvania, the price people are paying for electricity in their homes has dropped by 25% while with the Peoples' Republic of California's collectivist societal planners it has increased by 700% or more. Businesses have been bankrupted and closed as the direct result of this fiasco. Yet the criminal politicians who orchestrated it still remain in office facing no consequences.

This one simple example illustrates clearly the difference between Democratic and Republican intellect and connection to reality. For a Texan, have your rates double or quadrupled since deregulation or have they remained fairly constant or decreased?

This is my objection to collectivism regardless of the guise, rhetoric and propaganda.

 

[Closet Desire]

Hate to burst your bubble...

I'm an American living in one of those systems that you claim is so bad, but in practice all these systems blur into shades of grey. The US has many of the very qualities that are so quickly labeled as "socialist" in Europe by Americans. Changing the name to suit your political preferences doesn't really change the animal.

Incidentally, I'm registered Republican while my wife is a Socialist. Strange bedfellows but the sex is great!

Life goes on. People with money buy. People with products sell. And nearly all people want more than they have.

Ironically, I've found freedoms here that are denied in the US and, frankly, will probably spend the rest of my life in this part of the world. I'll miss a lot of things...like all my lovely guns in storage, but other things?

Oh...it hasn't been the Soviet Union for quite some time. Before making proclamations about styles of government in other cultures, one should first be fully aware of that culture's character and why a different form of rule might be appropriate and even preferred by the populace. I see a lot of happy, successful people in many different cultures.

[Edited by Closet Desire on 01-11-2001 at 03:25 PM]

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by RisiaSkye
… I'm terrified by this guy, and I don't want to live in a country which would hand him power on a plate. …

But it didn't bother you when the Democrats in the Senate handed Clinton a license to step on the law with impunity? People who see reality with such a biased perspective truly amaze me. That these Democrat thugs would give a traitor like Clinton carte blanche frightens me.

The difference you seem determined to ignore is that in all his political positions, Ashcroft has obeyed and enforced the law. While some of these laws are abominable and should never have been passed, he at least had the honor and integrity to obey and enforce them as he swore to do in his oath of office.

To the contrary, Clinton violated many of the laws he swore to enforce and uphold.

And somehow you see the man who put aside his personal beliefs when they conflicted with the laws and executed his sworn responsibility as an evil and horrid person while a criminal who violated many laws, sold out the United States to China and persecuted people who tried to do nothing more than see justice done as a hero! Let me only say that I am genuinely impressed. Few people are willing to publicly declare that they hold such a convoluted and dichotomous set of values.

Originally posted by Closet Desire
… The US has many of the very qualities that are so quickly labeled as "socialist" in Europe by Americans. Changing the name to suit your political preferences doesn't really change the animal.

When did I ever say different? I have recognized for years the collectivist totalitarian governmental proclivities of the Democrats mainly but to a similar degree the Republicans as well. I first began to note these proclivities and tendencies in the mid 1970's.

Originally posted by Closet Desire
Oh...it hasn't been the Soviet Union for quite some time. Before making proclamations about styles of government in other cultures, one should first be fully aware of that culture's character and why a different form of rule might be appropriate and even preferred by the populace. I see a lot of happy, successful people in many different cultures.

If you note, I stated "called", past tense. I remember when the Soviet Union was disestablished about ten years ago. I find your declaration that a society's character justifies a form of totalitarian government an interesting proposition. The logical extension of that idea is that you support the ideologies of slavery and slaughter, collectivism.

Would you consider that perhaps the type of government is more formative of a culture's character than vice versa? That the degradation of government precedes and portends the degradation of the society and culture?

Originally posted by Closet Desire
Incidentally, I'm registered Republican while my wife is a Socialist. Strange bedfellows but the sex is great!

Not so strange bedfellows since the political principles espoused are not significantly different when you get down to the fundamental principles underlying each of them.

If you take a seriously objective look, the Democrats and Republicans quarrel far more over the degree of totalitarian and collectivist policies and programs to implement than over whether or not to implement them. The major difference between the two parties is the personal and political integrity of the people who comprise the two parties. On this level, the Democrats have a serious advantage over Republicans because the Democrats have totally adopted the collectivist principles of truth is whatever we must say to promote our cause, the end justifies the means and individual rights are to be respected and protected only if it's theirs threatened.

As an example, in California there was a Republican Insurance Commissioner who was a crooked thug who used his office and authority to extort money for personal benefit from numerous insurance companies if they wished to stay in business in California. Finally after several years of this ludicrous behavior, he was forced to resign from office. Not soon enough to be sure but at least he was removed.

Clinton on the other hand violated numerous laws and there is every reason to believe he committed treason against the United States. When he was impeached and brought to trial to account for his ludicrously criminal behaviors, the Democrats in the U. S. Senate made certain that he remained in office. The Democratic Party daily spread lie after lie that the impeachment was about sex and there seem to be enough people in this country who are actually stupid enough to believe that. Sadly, the media, a free press, acted more like the Soviet Pravda and perpetuated the lies put forth by the Democrats to give that criminal slug a better chance of remaining in office. They succeeded.

And this arrogant asshole is still acting as if he is the offended party. That the impeachment was purely political persecution and there are literally millions of Americans who, sadly, seem to be so bonehead fucking stupid that they purport to believe it! It is this kind of ignorance that sickens me because the truth is readily available and people would rather buy the fairy tale.

Why will people choose ignorance over knowledge, evil over good? It never ceases to amaze me! Does it attest to their character and values?

 

[Weird Harold]

[Would you consider that perhaps the type of government is more formative of a culture's character than vice versa? That the degradation of government precedes and portends the degradation of the society and culture?

Bill, I think that CD was referring to the cultural history of what was included in the USSR.

When a society has known nothing but one tyrant supplanting another for more than a millenium, They lose all concept of what it might mean to have a voice in government. Their only concept of improvements in government is to replace a cruel tyrant in hopes of gaining a benevolent tyrant in his place.

When you have never known freedom, never known anyone who has known freedom, and have no ancestors in recorded history who have known freedom, then "Freedom" is just a word in the dictionary.

 

[Closet Desire]

Your passports please...

I don’t usually get involved with such lengthy, confrontational political arguments because it is too tempting to make personal attacks on individuals and nameless masses both of which I find inappropriate behaviour. I have a personal policy, especially here on lit, to refrain from attacking or insulting individuals. It seems to be a good policy elsewhere as well. So bearing in mind that my enquiry is an academic one and that I am not attacking you personally, I have a few observations. I do respect your right to hold such views, however repugnant I might personally find them.

First, I can appreciate how frustrating it must be to have political views that are not generally shared with the majority of the American public, but does that make these people ignorant? Does it make these people “stupid” Does it mean they prefer “evil”. Is this how you see people who do not agree with you? Whether or not you approve of Clinton’s conduct or not, he did have his day in court, so to speak. He was impeached and cleared. That’s the way the system works. It seems to me that you are simply upset because the decisions made by people who have been placed in power voluntarily by the majority and who had access to information not freely available to the public didn’t agree with your views. I would be inclined to ask you a couple of specific questions like like: Which laws, in particular did Clinton break (statutes and precedent please); were Clinton’s violations criminal or torts? (he has had to settle a number of torts and now faces disbarment proceedings as well as additional suits now that he is leaving office).

Second, I have to admit being amused by all this talk of “collectivism” in a country where power is so dilute as to make such organization impossible. The US has a single federal government (with the president being the least powerful entity), fifty sovereign state governments, thousands of county governments, and tens of thousands of local governments. For all the hype it’s a fact of life that 90% of the government decisions made which affect the day-to-day life of Americans occur at the municipal and state level. While I see a lot of different approaches, frankly, I don’t see any collectivism going on.

Third, since your opinions are so strong that you feel qualified to label people as “bone head fucking stupid” and “arrogant” I must ask a few questions about your own credibility. Are you a recognized expert in your field? What papers have you published? What is your actual level of involvement in politics? Perhaps most important in light of your observations of cultures outside your own: Do you have a passport? How many stamps does it contain? Where did those stamps come from? How many “systems” do you have first hand knowledge of?

Finally, I find your concept of logic to be highly suspect. I don’t believe I ever used the word “justifies” in my comments. You did that and not just once. I fear that you likely do this to the words of other people as well. It’s the same sort of propaganda that you accuse Pravda of. I merely said that systems, cultures, and governments evolve in response to history and the will of the people. Try to not to overlook the fact that the Czars were overthrown, that the monarchy of France was overthrown, or that revolutions take place all the time. More often than not these systems are replaced with similar ones hence the move by Russians back toward communism in free elections.

You seem very bitter and possessed with a very lopsided, black and white view of the world and the people around you. I read in your words many of the same attitudes held by infamous tyrants of past as well as some detestable groups which I will choose not to name here. It would appear that the only way to set things right, in your opinion, is for you to stage a one man revolution, disband all governments, and appoint yourself leader. Not a very palatable option in my view.

 

[Sonora]

People who see reality with such a biased perspective truly amaze me. [/B][/QUOTE]

Everybody sees reality with a 'biased perspective'. Even you, Unclebill.

 

[RisiaSkye]

Unclebill--you have assigned political opinions TO me. An interesting switch for one so committed to personal liberty. Nowhere in my post, or in others, have I endorsed Clinton--nor excused his odious behavior. First you accuse me of holding beliefs which I never suggested, then you attack the straw man you set up AND use it to make a personal attack. That kind of illogic amazes me. The fact that I don't like Ashcroft does not translate into "Oh, well she's just a pansy ass liberal. Pull one down from the gun rack, Cooter." If you want to make an attack, go after the ideas I actually expressed, not the ones you've seen fit to decide that I hold.

 

[Unclebill]

So bearing in mind that my enquiry is an academic one and that I am not attacking you personally, I have a few observations. I do respect your right to hold such views, however repugnant I might personally find them.

Likewise, I respect and defend your right to hold your beliefs and opinions.

First, I can appreciate how frustrating it must be to have political views that are not generally shared with the majority of the American public, but does that make these people ignorant? Does it make these people "stupid" Does it mean they prefer "evil". Is this how you see people who do not agree with you? Whether or not you approve of Clinton's conduct or not, he did have his day in court, so to speak. He was impeached and cleared. That's the way the system works. It seems to me that you are simply upset because the decisions made by people who have been placed in power voluntarily by the majority and who had access to information not freely available to the public didn't agree with your views. I would be inclined to ask you a couple of specific questions like like: Which laws, in particular did Clinton break (statutes and precedent please); were Clinton's violations criminal or torts? (he has had to settle a number of torts and now faces disbarment proceedings as well as additional suits now that he is leaving office).

My frustration is not that people hold disparate views but that they can violate the fundamental principles upon which this nation was founded and can confiscate my property against my wishes.

When people choose to ignore obvious available evidence, what choices am I offered in a rational context other than ignorance (not knowing), stupid (rejecting evidentiary knowledge), or simply choosing evil, i. e., preferring the choice of the greater of two evils or the selection of evil vs. good? It is not their agreement or disagreement with me but their complete disregard for reality that is the root of my disdain.

Perjury, subornation of perjury are the crimes proven. Abuse of authority using the IRS to harass those who had the temerity to investigate potential criminal actions of his, violation of campaign laws regarding political contributions by foreign entities, and treason are strongly evidenced by various investigations which he has sought to thwart by refusing to produce documents required by court orders. Obstruction of justice is also evidenced via significant abuses of authority. One institution, the Western Journalism Center, was told directly by an IRS auditor that their audit was politically motivated. I'm not an attorney but the Judicial Watch organization http://www.judicialwatch.org/ can provide that information. They have filed several cases against the Clinton administration and have adequate evidence.

As far as disbarment, the same people who sought to disbar Richard Nixon who was NEVER convicted of anything want to give Clinton a pass on the premise that his was a personal foible, not a crime despite the fact that he calculatedly and deliberately perjured himself and suborned perjury in a deposition which he caused to be submitted in his behalf in a civil lawsuit. There were even those who sought to exonerate him on the premise that "No one is ever prosecuted for perjury in a civil case. Everybody does it." Yet the records of the justice department under his reign showed that it had already at that time prosecuted something like 300 people for exactly that charge! The point being that he and those supporting him have lied every step of the way and will continue to do so, yet people still defend him! Why? Could it have something to do with principles, morality, values and ethics or a severe deficiency thereof?

Similarly, although having sworn to uphold the Constitution, Clinton and the Democrat controlled Congress violated it almost immediately into his reign by passing a retroactive tax increase despite specific prohibition in Article 1 Section 9 regarding ex post facto laws.

If you consider the Senate impeachment trial a vindication, I'm curious as to how you reach that perception. The Democrat Senators voted to acquit and ignored blatant evidence as they did so. They did acquit him on the charges; they did not disprove thus "clear" him of the charges. That "trial" was a political whitewash not even subtly disguised. If they believed him innocent, what was all the hullabaloo after the acquittal to come up with the censure resolution in condemnation of his behavior? That was simply more political ass covering and a tacit admission of guilt and refusal to convict.

Second, I have to admit being amused by all this talk of "collectivism" in a country where power is so dilute as to make such organization impossible. The US has a single federal government (with the president being the least powerful entity), fifty sovereign state governments, thousands of county governments, and tens of thousands of local governments. For all the hype it's a fact of life that 90% of the government decisions made which affect the day-to-day life of Americans occur at the municipal and state level. While I see a lot of different approaches, frankly, I don't see any collectivism going on.

There is essentially one political party which is characteristic of a totalitarian government. All these various governments to which you refer are dominated by the two major constituents of this party. While it is decentralized, the general behavior of all the parts, however disparate, all have basically the same modus operandi. They operate under the same or very similar rule and regulations.

It is all financed by a collectivist system under which the property of those who have earned it is seized for the benefit of those who have not earned it, i. e., the negation of property rights. The Democratic Party mainly justifies this under the collectivist tenet that the end justifies the means, i. e., they are (by their own fiat) doing noble deeds with property that is essentially stolen. The means of acquisition (theft) is justified because they declare they are doing good things with the money.

The collections agent is an authoritarian entity (IRS) which operates outside the law. The IRS runs their own court system. When you deal with the IRS, you are guilty until proven innocent in direct contradiction to the procedure in a court of law. Their interpretation of the IRS code is the final authority notwithstanding that if you ask a dozen different people within the IRS, you get as many interpretations.

Another of the new wrinkles regards confiscation of property. If you are stopped for a vehicle violation, for example, and you or your vehicle are searched, if your are carrying "too much cash", that cash can be seized as evidence of suspected illegal intent. Once the property is seized, the suspected perpetrator (you) must initiate civil action to recover property which in a free society could never have been legitimately seized by government authority. You, the victim, are now required to expend your time, money and effort in attempts to regain possession of what was legitimately yours at the outset and there is no guarantee of your success.

Third, since your opinions are so strong that you feel qualified to label people as "bone head fucking stupid" and "arrogant" I must ask a few questions about your own credibility. Are you a recognized expert in your field? What papers have you published? What is your actual level of involvement in politics? Perhaps most important in light of your observations of cultures outside your own: Do you have a passport? How many stamps does it contain? Where did those stamps come from? How many "systems" do you have first hand knowledge of?

By the arrogant reference, I was referring to Clinton's persistent claims despite overwhelming evidence that he was the offended party in the impeachment proceedings. By stupid (or evil as an alternative), I refer to people who choose to ignore or refuse to believe obvious evidence against this thug who continue to champion him as a victim. It includes people who originate and repeat such blatant lies in attempts to defend him and to negate the reality of what he is.

Before the end of Clinton's first term, it was blatantly obvious the character of the man, yet people flocked to re-elect him. Why? One explanation was offered that they saw finally someone in the White House with whom they could identify, someone whose lack of character justified their weaknesses and shortcomings. What sort of man seeks a leader as someone to look down to rather than someone to whose character and leadership one could aspire? Or were the people who elected him totally unaware of his character and behavior? In the latter case, why are they even bothering to vote to elect a "leader"?

In my field, there are some who might consider me an expert. I consider myself competent and able to learn. I've had a number of people seek my advice over the years. My expertise is in electronics, particularly weapons systems operation and maintenance. Over the past four or five years, I've become involved in networking technology. I'm certainly not an expert there but I'm still learning.

I don't have an involvement in politics directly. My interest lies more toward philosophy than politics because philosophy is the basis on which to live one's life, not just to conduct politics or business or other endeavors as isolated events and actions. About 35 years ago I was exposed to a philosophy which took me about 15 years to digest fairly well. Of all my exposure to philosophy, it was the only one I could find that thus far has been void of contradictions, integrates consistently into every facet of human endeavor and the basis for which was clearly illustrated. Its whole structure was created based on a single premise that existence exists.

It is the only one I've encountered that is NOT faith based to some extent or other. Everything is rationally constructed and consistent. It does not offer you the answers, but the mechanism by which to determine the answers. One of its tenets is that contradictions do not exist in reality. If you find an apparent contradiction, check your premises because somewhere you have made an error.

After some time, it answered for me some questions I'd never consciously asked but actually disclosed for me the reasons behind my likes and dislikes in numerous areas, particularly art. For example, it explained in simple terms why I could admire a Greek statue and be totally uninspired if not repulsed by a Picasso painting. In essence, it all comes down to one's fundamental view of man and of life.

In essence, there are two perceptions of man. One sees man as competent, capable, an achiever, a hero. The other sees man as inept, incompetent, incapable, weak, a villain. I have come to believe that one's view of man is based upon that which one knows most intimately, i. e., oneself. By what other reference does one have to judge a man one has never met? Is this newly encountered individual to be trusted and respected as an honest man or to be viewed with suspicion and distrust as a potential enemy? It seems from my experience that what is initially expected of a stranger is rooted in what we know of ourselves. If we know ourselves to be dishonest, deceitful, untrustworthy, that is what we expect of others. If we know ourselves to be honorable, honest and trustworthy, that is what we expect of others.

I have also noticed and correlated this perception to politics and the practitioners thereof. I note that the Liberals, Democrats, and collectivists in general see man as someone who can't make it on his own, i. e., more inept and incapable than are they. He needs them to take care of him with welfare programs and other institutions for which they are gladly willing to pay with someone else's money and of course they deserve a commensurate reward (fee) for their selfless devotion. Likewise, they perceive businessmen as thugs who are getting rich by taking from the poor, thus part of the protective program is to control how people conduct business since they cannot be trusted to do it ethically and honestly.

It seems that to them the idea of initiative, creativity, and motivation to improve ones lot in life is a foreign concept. They seem to be devoid of the concept that one man might be able to produce a product or service and exchange it for a market value with others and in doing so acquire more capital for himself. To their perception, this businessman is exploiting his customers. What should he do? Give away his product or service? If that is their belief, why don't they practice it? Mother Teresa believed so and practiced as she believed. I have no quarrel with her choice, it was her life. But the politicians are not practicing what they preach. They grow wealthy by forcing others to pay for their whims and desires.

Conservatives and Republicans generally look at people as being able to fend for themselves but may need help to cope for some period of time and are willing to provide a political solution for that which they willingly provide by paying for it with someone else's money. They are also generally under the presumption that their mission is to provide moral and "spiritual" guidance via legislation, e. g., drugs, gambling, prostitution prohibitions, etc. Thus they also fall to some degree under the collectivist umbrella.

Both of these political components also seem to share the idea that if you are a political figure or the relative of a political figure, you may be exempted from certain of these moral prohibitions unless it serves the political expedience of someone more powerful. Right out of the totalitarian handbook. And these are of the political party who run all these fiefdoms of which you speak.

Libertarians share a similar view of man's competency with Republicans and Conservatives but hold that the assistance they need is more effectively and efficiently managed and provided by private charity. Thus it is paid for with the money of those who choose to support it. Libertarians also take the position that your life is yours and your morality should not be a matter of legislation. Legislation is to deal with either criminals (penal codes) or contractual dealings (civil law).

Finally, I find your concept of logic to be highly suspect. I don't believe I ever used the word "justifies" in my comments. You did that and not just once. I fear that you likely do this to the words of other people as well. It's the same sort of propaganda that you accuse Pravda of. I merely said that systems, cultures, and governments evolve in response to history and the will of the people. Try to not to overlook the fact that the Czars were overthrown, that the monarchy of France was overthrown, or that revolutions take place all the time. More often than not these systems are replaced with similar ones hence the move by Russians back toward communism in free elections.

In retrospect, having read Weird Harold's post, I probably misinterpreted your original meaning as I had not taken the perspective he offered. His perspective makes a lot of sense. From your use of "appropriate", it sounded as if being appropriate justified a form of government, i. e., never having known freedom, totalitarian rule was appropriate, thus justified.

And why is it the case that one totalitarian regime being overthrown is usually replaced by another of similar ilk? Now we're back to the feudal thug warfare system of the middle ages or tribal civilizations going back farther. The strongest thug declares himself the new ruler.

That's what was so unique about the United States. The idea of a ruler or ruling body was discarded. The government was defined in terms of the protector of man's rights, not as his ruler, provider, guardian, or nanny.

What was established in the late eighteenth century in North America is not a secret. Accounts of American history and American government abound. America has flourished economically, technologically, medically like no other nation in history. This is the direct result of the principles of individual freedom. Why, then, with this information readily available, has no other revolution started such a free society?

You seem very bitter and possessed with a very lopsided, black and white view of the world and the people around you. I read in your words many of the same attitudes held by infamous tyrants of past as well as some detestable groups which I will choose not to name here. It would appear that the only way to set things right, in your opinion, is for you to stage a one man revolution, disband all governments, and appoint yourself leader. Not a very palatable option in my view.

I concede my views are quite black and white. When most things are gray, how can you hold any definitive values? Where there is no clearly defined right or wrong, what do you use for a standard? This idea of grays seems to be the most prevalent morality today and where has it taken us?

If you read other of my posts, I think you might come to different conclusions about my aspirations as a tyrant. It is more like the businessmen of France(?) who when asked by the King, "What can I do to help you?" their response was "Leave us alone!" (laissez faire). I have never advocated abolition of government, only the abuses perpetrated by it. The actions which, when taken by a government, are permissible but when taken by an individual are labeled crimes.

Government is a necessary liability for an advanced society to succeed, prosper and grow. The smallest government necessary is the best possible government because it does not detract from the society's ability to grow, advance and succeed for which capital is necessary. Growth and advancement is financed by capital which creates more capital. Government does not produce, it only consumes. Thus the more it consumes, the more it retards the growth and expansion of a society.

I have no desire to direct the lives of others beyond my children and perhaps grand children. What I rail against is having what I work to earn confiscated and given to those who did not earn it. And that is happening in ever increasing proportions.

 

[Weird Harold]

What was established in the late eighteenth century in North America is not a secret. Accounts of American history and American government abound. America has flourished economically, technologically, medically like no other nation in history. This is the direct result of the principles of individual freedom. Why, then, with this information readily available, has no other revolution started such a free society?

The History Channel Series _The Real West_ hinted at the answer to your question in one episode. I don't recall the specific epsiode, context, or exact wording.

The essence of what was said is that frontiers don't attract people who are content with their lot. Everyone who is is discontent and of a mind to make radical changes will move to the frontier, thereby leaving behind a majority who are content with "the way things have always been."

America at the time of the revolution was in the last stages of being "The Frontier" and thus had a higher percentage of Free-thinking independent-minded men in positions to foment rebellion than any long established country. The political and economic climate that existed in the Thirteen Colonies has never existed before or since.

In old, long established countries, only outside intervention is likely to change what people expect from their goverment.

Japan, for example, is a place where rule of law has taken root only because of the occupation and Military government after WWII. The rooting is tenuous at best, because the Japanese have centuries of cultural baggage that conflicts with their new constitution.

Germany is another country with a constitution and rule of law derived from military occupation after WWII. It too is a very tenuous rooting because of cultural baggage, compounded by the influence of the French and British involvement in the occupation.

The French tried to follow our example. They failed at first because the common man in France was mostly of the type left behind my the move to the frontiers of the world. They had two conflicting examples to follow after the revolution. The written, hearsay example of The US and it's Constitution, and the in-your-face, see-it-every-day example of the Aristocracy. Many of the excesses of the French Revolution can be attributed to the more immediate example of the Aristocracy of how those in power should act.

It is the lesson that abused children grow into abusive parents writ large.

 

[Closet Desire]

Now...

...that was interesting. I think it is fair to say that I don't agree with many of your interpretations and never will. This is usually the case in politics though isn't it? I don't like the idea of the government "arresting" money or of some of the activities of the IRS. However, I'm also aware that there is often more than meets the eye in these cases. I've had my own dealings with the IRS including audits of my business, but I felt I was treated fairly and given every opportunity to defend myself.

I think there is a curious contradiction in your argument regarding black and white principles as a standard. Curiously enough the authors of the founding documents held the notion that the people of the nation were, in fact, inept and unable to look out for themselves. The people who settled the US intially held absolute rules about principles and were highly ritual (many still are). The founders were some pretty smart characters who were intellectual enough to recognise this. They penned a document that would prevent those absolute "truths" from condemning the growing nation to failure. The fundamentals of the Constitution are actually quite broad and only set limits at either end of a wide spectrum...ie freedom of religion but separation of church and state. Laws are made and passed which float within that specturm and if they exceed the limits the SC will act to rebalance the affair (Having watched the SC for decades...I think they do a pretty good job). The founders recognised that highly ritualised and absolute societies seldom endure. Dissent is sure to fester and eventually explode. You will find it in anthropoligical studies of civilisations in South America or in the history of Europe. You only have to look as far as the military to appreciate the effect of absolute rules and ritual on individuals. Few remain in the military for more than their short enlistment (I stayed quite a while longer) for this very reason...they don't share the same absoulute standards.

It's interesting that you mention philosophy, the fundamental tenants of which are often a realisation that the world is not absolute and that intellect requires one to adapt and reinterpret the world around oneself constantly. Most also advocate a quite, resigned acceptance of others. Absolute standards may seem a good idea as a point of reference, but those standards are always changing. Case-in-point the solar system and the Catholic church. Relying on standards can cause your entire world to come crashing down when the fallacy of your standard is exposed. Were blacks really inferior, inhuman? Were women too stupid to learn (Victorian England). Wise men and women accept that rules can change at any time, usually for the betterment of humanity.

I've known and been friends with a handful of senators, congressmen (sorry didn't know any congresswomen), governors, and hordes of lesser politicians. Few would I have considered "wealthy" and, in fact, I earn more than they did. Those who are wealthy didn't do so by sitting in Washington, they did it by exercising their freedoms to pursue success in other areas. Many were already successful in their professional fields. They are people just like the rest of us. Some happy, some not. Some successful, some not. Some ethical, some not. But, mostly, just normal people pursuing what they like to do and most of us content to let them do just that.

The US is successful for a lot of reasons and not just the "freedoms" (the brand of which, I hasten to add, was bestowed by the French). It is a large, sparsely populated country that had and has lots of resources (including the slaves who helped build the nation in the early years...something you won't find in most of Europe). It is isolated and has not had to rebuild from major conflicts even though it was instrumental in contributing to many conflicts. It is young and has not yet had to address many of the challenges older societies must face. It is homogenous in it's beliefs and intolerant (yes...intolerant) of religious or moral views outside of the Christian faith.

Europe, on the other hand, is a continent of many different "absolute" standards as a result of geography and history. Many nations neighbor one another who have different languages, different ideologies, and different expectations. I recently returned from Spain where they have much different expectations from life than the Americans. Money is less important so they continue to take their siestas and stay in their country villas on the weekends. Their "absolutes" are different...no better...no worse...just different. This doesn't make them a third-world country I can assure you. The French value efficiency in a way that the Americans cannot even comprehend. Transportation for example. Amtrak can't run on time or at speed, but I can travel to Paris on a French train in less time than a plane in the US can cover the same distance (just under 200mph but into the city centre and no check in or baggage claim). So absolute are their standards on this that every 14 days a special computerised train travels over their network and measures uneveness in the rails, fluctuations in the power lines, and so forth. If a problem is found it's fixed in 48 hours. Boeing is facing tough times ahead because of the French pursuit of excellence in aerospace. A different set of absolutes produces different results that all can benefit from.

It is necessary in Europe for people to accept the differences and adapt to them. Nazis had a black and white vision which utterly destroyed Europe and which has left its influence even to this day. In spite of this, it was Marconi, just down the road from my house, where radar was invented and provided to the Americans who in turn exploited it to help turn the direction of the war.

I am very successful in business here in England and Europe largely, I think, because rather than fight the culture and the politics I have made the effort to learn how and why it works and then adapted my own values to suit. I have freedoms here which are important to me and which I cannot exercise freely in the US, suggesting that even this concept of "freedom" is a fluid one with many different possibilities.

I think your arguments would be far more effective if you employed some of the philosphy of Benjamin Franklin. That is a style of language that includes deference and declines to refer to people in derogatory ways. Personal attacks turn most people's minds off and destroy any credibility you have. Stick to the issues. We have nuclear weapons today because issues weren't enough. We are prepared to actually kill people who hold different absolutes from ourselves. The threat of that keeps them in line...MAD I believe it was called.

Finally, as for the government believing that people are too inept and unable to look out for themselves...isn't that what you are saying yourself?

[Edited by Closet Desire on 01-13-2001 at 03:10 AM]