But I want you to do the same - seriously.
| Quote (MidnightToker @ Sep. 16 2004,13:35) |
| That's the problem Pete I know that you're not dense. Hey - I quoted you from this thread. Do you want me to start a separate on your quotes, so as not to pollute this thread  The Christian/Liberalism thread is yours & Tom's. I did find it interesting but it seemed to end naturally (no pun intended). I didn't see too much I could add to it - it seemed Tom had it covered. |
Oooh, I'm just getting started...actually, I'm on break from class, so, again, I'll get back to you later, Pete!
Oooh, I'm just getting started...actually, I'm on break from class, so, again, I'll get back to you later, Pete!
I'm looking forward to it, Tom. I appreciate this, and expect to learn a thing or three.
I'm looking forward to it, Tom. I appreciate this, and expect to learn a thing or three.
…
Ali - excellent post & you should be concerned with Bush.
Read the link to the PBS article that I posed “The Jesus Factor”. You may learn somethings.
…
Pete - I re-read your posts & some of what you say just plains scares the h*ll out of me - seriously.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| My continuum is quite simple - tyranny at one end, and liberty at the other. |
And it’s because I really feel that you think people like me & Kerry & other Democrats want tyranny.
Seriously - religious fundamentalists scare me. Sorry but I just had to say that up front.
Thank you for chiming in on this, Ali.
First off, the concept of natural rights really doesn’t have a lot of meaning outside of the context of the United States. What really separated us was that notion of sovereignty of the individual as opposed to having a sovereign king. The Constitution and Bill of Rights recognize the rights of US citizens - it does not grant anything. I take that a step further and say that NO right is granted. If it is granted, then it is a privilege, not a right. This concept was absolutely essential in the establishment of a government that was supposed to be limited.
You and the rest of the world are dead to rights to be concerned with the Federal Government of the United States. It was never supposed to BE like this. The various states were intended to be the ones who held the real power, with the federal level being a “necessary evil” for a variety of reasons. The establishment of it was handled gingerly and grudgingly by the states, who all too well recognized the threat of power and wealth being centralized.
That all changed in the Civil War though. I’m afraid I don’t have the time to go into it right now… I have an appointment soon. But it has been downhill in one way or another ever since then. The idea of States Rights was pretty much abolished. A federal income tax was created - the Constitution had to be amended to allow that. The Fed was established, which took our monitary system off of the gold standard. And the Federal Government grew and grew and grew, and now it is what it is.
There are many of us who are horrified by what we have created here. It IS a monster, and a powerful one. It is the kind of monster that can eat its own with impunity, and can stomp all over the world with very little concern for the consequences. How do we fix it though?
What this discussion came out of was a question about my Christianity in my (very difficult) decision to support George Bush. I don’t know how much more I can really say to that. I have my beliefs, and what I have seen from this end - and believe me when I tell you I’m not getting my “news” from the usual easy sources - tells me that between two evils, he is by FAR the lesser. That’s me, and that’s my decision. That’s all. If Bush was out pushing Christianity on you or even my neighbor here, it would be a strike against him. That’s not why my faith has become a deciding factor in this voting decision, nor has it ever been my intent to use my vote or my freedom to foist my spiritual beliefs on anybody else. I’m more than pleased to discuss them when asked and when appropriate, though. This discussion resulted from being asked, and the context is indeed appropriate.
I’m going to take a risk here, and point you at what used to be my home. Doodle down to the collection of essays from the 1990’s, when I was actively involved in trying to start a sort of revolution here. I am no advocate of violence, so don’t read me wrong… I was one of many who were trying to start a revolution of the mind and heart of the American people.
We failed, of course.
My old web site is at http://theveryfew.net/celano . If you bother with it, please start with the Quick Start Guide.
Off I go.
That all changed in the Civil War though. I'm afraid I don't have the time to go into it right now... I have an appointment soon. But it has been downhill in one way or another ever since then. The idea of States Rights was pretty much abolished. A federal income tax was created - the Constitution had to be amended to allow that. The Fed was established, which took our monitary system off of the gold standard. And the Federal Government grew and grew and grew, and now it is what it is.
There are many of us who are horrified by what we have created here. It IS a monster, and a powerful one. It is the kind of monster that can eat its own with impunity, and can stomp all over the world with very little concern for the consequences. How do we fix it though?
Ali - it's fine for Pete to express his views & characterize the US in whatever way he feels but you NEED TO KNOW that not all Americans share these views, i.e., that we are a monster & that everything has gone to h*ll. These are Pete's views & there are others who may agree with him, but they are not mine & many other Americans.
There are many of us who are horrified by what we have created here. It IS a monster, and a powerful one. It is the kind of monster that can eat its own with impunity, and can stomp all over the world with very little concern for the consequences. How do we fix it though?
Ali - it's fine for Pete to express his views & characterize the US in whatever way he feels but you NEED TO KNOW that not all Americans share these views, i.e., that we are a monster & that everything has gone to h*ll. These are Pete's views & there are others who may agree with him, but they are not mine & many other Americans.
Have I said otherwise, Mike? They are indeed Pete’s views. Period. You are the guys who want to continue empowering the monster.
Here is one piece that has relevence to this very discussion. It is from '97.
–
The Myth of Symptoms
Everybody seems to have a pet issue or two; social or political issues or situations that really get them going. Often, people will determine whether they are “right” or “left” depending on their favorite pet issues. Those who despise the seemingly lawless machinations of big business or support ecological responsibility generally flock toward the “left.” Likewise, those who dislike restrictions on business or heavy taxation tend to flock toward the “right.”
Most people associate with one side or another primarily because of these issues. We then head to the polls and vote the side we associate with. The hottest issues of the day delineate the playing field, and the hottest rhetoric of the day wins the campaign.
The winners of the two “opposing sides” then join hands and skip happily off to Washington, the land of glory. There they play some charades and say some things and eventually retire very wealthy.
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it”
–Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)
We the People have a problem, and that problem doesn’t have a thing to do with “right” or “left,” “conservatism” or “liberalism.” The problem is that our elected officials have created a legal system that authorizes plunder and a moral code that glorifies it, and they simply will not let it go. Observe the proceedings regarding campaign financing; neither “side” can get too heavy handed because ALL are guilty.
Each of us has our own hot buttons. I ask each to carefully explore those Important Issues to find what is lying underneath. The troubles of this nation are but symptoms of an underlying disease. The symptoms are grievous; it is understandable that individuals tend to immerse themselves in a few choice ones rather than get bogged down with the “big picture.” Fortunately for our power elite, however, these Important Issues tend to keep us divided along pseudo-political lines. They are broad enough in scope and numerous enough to effectively hide the underlying corruption. Our own zealousness makes very effective blinders.
As long as we continue to think along pseudo-political lines, we will remain divided in our battle against the underlying corruption that utterly permeates government. It is long past time for the “right” and the “left” to agree that the situation is not acceptable to anybody but the corrupt elite, put aside our relatively unsubstantial differences and root the corruption out of our government. We are busy fighting tiny ideological battles along false fronts with impotent ammunition, while the real battle remains not only unfought but unrecognized.
The symptoms are real, but the notion that resolving any or all of them will cure the disease is a myth. As long as We the People continue to believe that myth, we will continue to vote the same kind of corruption back into power.
–
Copyright Peter J. Celano, 1997. Permission to copy and distribute in electronic form is granted, provided there is no modification and this copyright notice is included. If you wish to publish this in any other form, please contact me at pete@theveryfew.net for permission.
–
There. If you had any doubts about how crazy I am, that should put it neatly to bed for you.
…
To survive, you must become part of a gang. And when you become part of a gang, you abrogate most of your freedoms to the leader of the gang.
And as a follow on to that: Now that survival is ensured, your next objective is to become leader of the gang.
You have just neatly summed up my world view, Ali. If you want to understand the government, study organized crime.
And as a follow on to that: Now that survival is ensured, your next objective is to become leader of the gang.
You have just neatly summed up my world view, Ali. If you want to understand the government, study organized crime.
…
…
Goodness you guys move along too quickly…I’ve lost track of things…
Ali’s right, about natural rights, they are not a US invention. But I think pushing them back to the Magna Carta doesn’t work - well, in British political mythology it does, but the MC was the product of a battle between aristocracy and monarch, and was not premised on the notionn of natural rights that one later finds in, say, Locke’s 2nd treatise in the late 1600s.
Pete, this all moves too fast for me to keep up! What I was trying to figure out was whether the fact that Bush had accepted Jesus was enough, or whether he had to also practice Christianity, not just as a set of rituals, but as a way of being in society. I don’t think there is any way to make Jesus into an “extremist” - which in political philosophy we might call a “classical liberal,” BTW - bet you love that. The message of Jesus was other-regarding, the virtues he preached involved compassion and love at their core, and rights theories of all sorts are self-regarding - they are market-based, as you correctly assume, and they are predicated on something like Smith’s invisible hand, these days with more than a dash of Benthamian utilitarianism. Whatever their historical roots, the key is that they are self-regarding - think of Ayn Rand here - and not other regarding.
Ali, natural rights minus God = human rights, as, e.g., one finds in the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights. There is no theorectical necessity that they be linked to God. Lots of atheists are rigths-theorists. What reason we might have for accepting them, well…but note that even in your social contract theory one must have a right to rely on the contract. So your position does not fully escape them.
I don't think there is any way to make Jesus into an "extremist" - which in political philosophy we might call a "classical liberal," BTW - bet you love that.
Oh man - I thought Jesus was nothing but an extremist/liberal or whatever you want to call him. He challenged many, many things about the "status quo" and order of the day, didn't he? On top of that, he performed miracles like curing people. There's no way they were going let a guy like that get out alive, was there?
Oh man - I thought Jesus was nothing but an extremist/liberal or whatever you want to call him. He challenged many, many things about the "status quo" and order of the day, didn't he? On top of that, he performed miracles like curing people. There's no way they were going let a guy like that get out alive, was there?
I’m sorry it has taken off, Tom. That was not the intent. I started the new thread so we could have some “quiet” and the ability to stay on-topic, but I have to say I’m very pleased with the others who have kicked in.
Ali - you’ve summed me up quite nicely in most regards. I remind you that what you were looking at was me a decade ago. Life has changed, and the recognition that this moment is all I really have does not escape me. My life is challenging but very very good, and that doesn’t come out enough in this sort of context. Anyway - you’ve nailed my primary problem with any sort of collectivist system… who do we put in charge? And who is going to keep tabs on them? The very creation of a government is recognition that freedom must be curtailed in the interest of survival. From the Christian perspective, that goes back to human nature and sin, of course… averice, greed, sloth, etc.
Tom… the fact that Bush has accepted Christ is not enough, but it is what I have to go on. It is in the hopes that he does practice the other-regarding virtues. I have seen evidence of this, but it is far from conclusive. You’ve also nailed me as a closet objectivist… though any true Objectivist would reject me outright as a ‘mystic,’ of course. I do not regard rational selfishness as a vice at all - it is a survival tool. It is only in freedom that we are truly free to give of ourselves. When that freedom is curtailed, actions forced on us or the time of our life forcefully taken from us, where is the giving? I can see the argument that it is in giving yourself to the society, but this is not the same thing as enslavement - the involuntary sort. If I am not making the decision of my own free will, is it good? My deep admiration of the Amish comes from their choice to be a part of a semi-autonomous collective. They have their troubles too, of course… but at least they are different from most of society’s. I participate in that collective as much as an “Englishman” is able to, including giving freely of my time and other resources. I’ve raised a couple barns in my time.
It gets sticky here, as all these discussions do. We started out talking about Bush, his Christianity, and mine with regards to how I view him. The most powerful evidence I have seen in regard to his spiritual position is in his lack of concern about PR over his decisions. When I do something I absolutely believe is right, and I am doing it because I believe it is God’s Will, is it my job to justify it to the world? Is it my job to defend myself against those who attack me because of it?
In saying all of this, it can easily appear that I consider Bush a savior of some sort. I don’t. Again, I say he is the lesser of two evils by my estimation. These are reasons why, to ME, he is exactly that.
I do not view our problem as the president or even which pseudo-party is in office. Our problem is in rampant government corruption - the kind that comes with any accumulation of wealth and power. And I really wonder when enough people will be fed up with it to be willing to try something different? Will our revolution come from within? If it does, will it be by the mechanisms through which it might still be accomplished legally? Or will the world finally come together and knock us over? The latter isn’t likely, so long as so very many other rulers and governments continue to depend on our power and wealth in the advancement of their own goals. I could ALMOST argue for Kerry in this context - because less damage will be done to the remainder of our liberty if we have a Republican congress and a Democratic administration! By my estimation, gridlock is about the best we can still hope for in our system.
Nobody wins the way things are, Tom - nobody but the people who go to Washington and retire staggeringly wealthy. How many ex-politicians do you know who are not wealthy? The only ones I know are from city governments - and small cities at that.
In saying all of this, it can easily appear that I consider Bush a savior of some sort. I don't. Again, I say he is the lesser of two evils by my estimation. These are reasons why, to ME, he is exactly that.
So you're saying that he's the lesser of two evils solely based on you believing he is a Christian? Did I get that right?
I could ALMOST argue for Kerry in this context - because less damage will be done to the remainder of our liberty if we have a Republican congress and a Democratic administration! By my estimation, gridlock is about the best we can still hope for in our system.
And that's exactly why you should vote for Kerry!
So you're saying that he's the lesser of two evils solely based on you believing he is a Christian? Did I get that right?
I could ALMOST argue for Kerry in this context - because less damage will be done to the remainder of our liberty if we have a Republican congress and a Democratic administration! By my estimation, gridlock is about the best we can still hope for in our system.
And that's exactly why you should vote for Kerry!
No, Mike, you don’t have it right.
Is that why YOU are voting for Kerry?
Then what you do mean by this?
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Tom… the fact that Bush has accepted Christ is not enough, but it is what I have to go on. It is in the hopes that he does practice the other-regarding virtues. I have seen evidence of this, but it is far from conclusive |
Where’s the lesser of the two evils considering you say that you Bush is not fit in other areas?
No - I’m not voting for him for this reason but I’m suggesting it’s a reason that you could actually vote for him. I have another conservative friend who beliefs grid-lock is the best thing to keep the government smaller.