In the US, the common enemy chosen to deflect blame and attention from failed policies and economic collapse is capitalism.
Question: How does con man Bernie Madoff differ from the state of California?
Answer: Bernie's victims surrendered their life savings voluntarily. In California, the victims' money was taken under threat of force by the IRS.
As pundits, politicians and the media focus America's wrath on Bernie Madoff for conning willing dupes out of over $50 million bucks, the same scam carried out by elected government officials in both Kansas and California goes virtually unnoticed.
California, home to 37 million people and a $1.8 trillion economy, recently informed taxpayers that the state will be unable to issue taxpayers their tax refunds. An IOU will take its place. Translation: Anyone who overpaid their 2008 taxes will not receive their money back from the state until, well, until the state figures out how to find more of other people's money to redistribute. Hey, isn't that what Madoff is accused of?
Likewise, the taxpayers of Kansas are plumb out of luck, as political battles are forcing the state to withhold the refunding of taxpayers' money. "We are out of cash, in essence," state budget director Duane Goossen said last week.
If an individual fails to return investor's cash, it's called fraud. If a private business defaults on its obligations, it is forced into bankruptcy. If a government entity runs out of cash, it's called business as usual.
Business as usual also requires quick action to find and/or manufacture a scapegoat to deflect blame and focus attention away from the problem.
Third world countries, decadent dictators and savvy politicians have long known that a common enemy is a powerful and unifying tool, especially when it comes to providing a scapegoat for their own failed policies. As long as Iran, Korea, Cuba, etc. are able to focus the blame for their failure on a common enemy, say the rich, decadent United States, they themselves remain immune from both the blame and the consequences of their failed policies.
So it is with the the United States. In our case, the common enemy chosen to deflect blame and attention from failed policies and economic collapse is capitalism. "It's capitalism that's to blame," politicians claim. "It's unfettered free markets," the media echo. "And, by the way, we'll fix it for you," the Obama administration promises, as they rush to make an example of Bernie Madoff.
In the supreme irony, capitalism is the very engine of wealth that allowed state and federal government to spend virtually unlimited amounts of our money on whatever pet projects they deemed necessary or politically profitable. Now that the money has been spent and the coffers are bare, capitalism has been chosen as the "common enemy" and assigned the blame that rightfully belongs to profligate politicians and reality-challenged bureaucrats. (And to be fair, the Americans who trusted them.)
As millions of Americans, myself included, are being forced to economize, cut back and re-adjust priorities and expectations, our elected officials remain immune. In California, despite a $42 billion deficit, the legislature continues to impose costly regulations and mandates.
The federal government continues to approve trillions of our dollars to "invest" and "stimulate" (code words for welfare and taxes), while continuing to pass legislation that enables key Democratic allies to gain power and impose higher costs of doing business on all Americans. But hey, the unions are ecstatic, the trial lawyers are happy and the environmentalists are placated.
It's "we the people" who pay the tab for government. It's capitalism and the free market system that enables us to do so. Yet, so far, Americans seem willing to let government kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
By demonizing and undermining capitalism in favor of the totally discredited, tried and failed system of socialism, Americans are being forced to buy into yet another unrealistic version of utopia that common sense and history tells us will fail, big time. And, once again, we will be left to pay the very real costs of the decisions being made daily by our elected officials.
Just as Ronald Reagan looked at the Soviet Union and plainly saw that their system could not support itself and was bound to collapse, so too, do I look at the new path America is on. I wonder how so many Americans have been fooled into not challenging, and actually made complicit, in the assisted suicide of capitalism. And of our great country.
I’d recommend reading Peter Kropotkin on Anarchy and Revolution to anyone whose confused between a society’s social compact and a person’s individual consent with regard to the issue of coercion. I may not “consent” to a 55 mile an hour speed limit by going 60 mph, but that doesn’t translate into the arbitrary use of government power to “coerce” behavior.
michalbp: By definition, playing games with words does not allow them to be placed in a proper context. The game playing distorts the context, which is why it’s called “game playing” instead of “analysis”.
Phil,
Pssstt!
I hain’t no dagnabbed scholar and that lastun’ jus’ dun bumbed me to thu uhhnions.
When you blasted brilliant purvayyurs uh thu Quintessence gonna cum down offa Laputa an straitin’ us Jabberwokky snooker’d dung hill beetle brained indavidls all the way out, anyhow? Eh?
Poppulur slang, mah skinnified patooter!
michaelbp: No one confused anything you said with real thought, so there was no need to restate that fact.
Complying with just laws is not coercion. Coercion carries the implication that the one being coerced is being forced by someone to serve the interests of that person, experiencing a loss regarding one’s self-interest as a result.
So, obeying the speed limit is not coercion. Even committing a crime and being sent to prison is not coercion, in that the prisoner violated the rights of someone by committing the crime.
I would tend to view coercion as a tool used by those who would enslave or oppress.
MM: Absolutely correct. You’ve just demonstrated the difference between actual analysis, and a word-game opinion.
Hm, I see michaelbp has had his veneer of civility ripped off, and his tone is more like his post #1.
MM: All it takes is pointing out that an opinion is not an analysis, and all pretense of civility is abandoned. Since the original intent of the remark wasn’t to advance the understanding of an issue but rather advance a personal opinion, once the charade of analysis is stripped away, the opinions/emotions go into overdrive.
MM,PEJ
The two of you really do need to lighten up.
I truly have endeavored to be to be civil and sincerely commend serveral folks’ postings in order to encourage further comments. And I have enjoyed engaging in the disussion in order to better my understanding and examine my own ideas. In comparison to a number of web logs I’ve had the opportunity to visit, this had been the most encouraging in terms of willingness to “go deep” and avoid merely dispensing abbreviated vitriol and contempt on whatever happens to be the scourge-du-jour (a pattern which I have found to be the norm elsewhere, probably due to my poor choice of earlier visits). Anyway, it has been good to make your acquaintance!
Interesting discussion so far. All of the discussion seems to point to the fact that government has gone far beyond the representative republic formed under the Constitution. If one were to analyze carefully the evolution away from the representative republic to one of the worst forms of government a democracy they would see that the most egregious affronts occured in the early 1900s. Once the process to modify the constitution (amendment) was abandoned to judicial activism we were on a non-stop downward spiral toward an environment where everything would be envisioned in lock step where there were no winners and no losers (school achievement, little league and other sports that do not keep score) leading to pervasive mediocraty.
Some of the supreme court decisions aimed at opening the country to any that care to slip across the borders make interesting reading particularly the 1887 decision on birthright citizenship Wong Kim Ark vs us. The dissenting opinion offers a much more reasonable course of action than that taken by the remainder of the court. If you read the actual majority decision you find some of the most tortured wording possible to justify an unjustifiable position.
Further the wording of the educate the world decision of the supreme court (Pyler vs Doe) offers similar tortured illogic.
These and others led to todays Democrats use of silly statements that have been tested for their effect on the illerate masses.
Where are we heading? Take a hint and wrap your mc mansion in Kevlar before the masses start taking directly without using the Omessiah as the middle man.
Should have spell checked or proof read before posting. Misspelling illiterate places me with the masses…OUCH!
michaelbp,
Nuance is not communicated very well through the written word. I can only judge by what you actually type. Your post #53 comes across as sarcastic and offensive. Apparently you did not intend that.
We make a real effort here to dig deeper. Talking points and unsubstantiated “feelings” don’t go over very well.
I have seen some of those websites where people are attacked and beaten up with amazingly foul language if they simply disagree. Here, the only time someone will get beat up is if they simply spout phraseology from their favorite talk radio host without something to back it up.
I want to further the conversation by being very clear about what is being said. That is why I accused you of twisting definitions. If we are not speaking the same language, we are not communicating.
PS:
PEJ, your’re right: the original intent of the remark was to advance a personal opinion. It elicited a number of comments which, in my view, proceeded to constitute a discussion which you chose to join after it had been underway for some time. Perhaps what followed wouldn’t constitute an “analysis” per se by your definition, but then to disparage a participant by accusing him of undertaking a charade is uncalled for.
Mickey G,
A very good distillation of the thrust of the conversation.
I happen to believe most people are relatively smart, but have been hampered by a very carefully orchestrated disinformation campaign. You know the old saying about repeating a lie often enough…
What I’m wondering, though, is how we recapture the founding principles of this nation. How do we overcome th MSM noise and the left’s searcha and destroy tactics?
I happen to believe that we are teetering on the brink.
MM,
I’ve been know to play devil’s advocate, but mostly in the company of my own family, who I often exasperate by trying to hone in on their imprecise language and who know when to make the call. What goes around . . .
I don’t engage in that type of behaviour in forums like this, I just want to get at the root.
I’m always open to correction and am here to learn.
PS: MM: “known” (typo).
michaelbp: We always welcome sincere debate. To that extent, your analytical comments are always welcome, and will distinguish you from others who tend to offer only their opinions. Phil
michaelbp:
Re: “On the other hand, publicly agitating in order to call attention to social defects has never been considered a hallmark of conservatism, …”
Here I offer a quote from Thomas Sowell: “Someone once defined a social problem as a situation in which the real world differs from the theories of intellectuals. To the intelligentsia, it follows, as the night follows the day, that it is the real world that is wrong and which needs to change.”
Re: “Your reference to the situation at the Vista middle school doesn’t typify leftists as much as it exemplifies illiteracy and stupidity.”
Quod est demonstratum. I have yet to present the Vista School story to a liberal/Leftist and not have this comment come back in reply. If what you say is true, why are the public school is such a mess after 50 years of liberal/Leftists control?
Again, your reaction misses the point, which was that equality was not desired by the POWs nor the students of Vista School, nor our society in general and that forced radical egalitarianism would mean an overall lowering of the well-being of their respective communities. I submit the same would result should equality of outcome be imposed on any free society, and the both examples bear this out, as well as the fact that the main purveyors of outcome equality, i.e. academics, do not live according to their professed beliefs.
Speaking of elaborate hoaxes, you are undoubtedly familiar with “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity” by Alan D. Sokal of the Department of Physics, New York University, who got his article published in Social Text by sprinkling it liberally with Leftist newspeak of the day … much to the chagrin of its editor.
Mickey G.,
I’ve read the Constitutional amendments here:
http://www.constitution.org/afterte_.htm
and noted those passed during the time frame you mention.
Nr. 16 is there shown as “Questionably Ratified” and Nr. 17 as “Possibly Unconstitutional.” The latter was presumably ratified in order to make the Senate more “responsive” rather than “deliberative” (see G.F. Will’s column:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/20/AR2009022003034.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns
I’ve heard and read much about the passage of Nr 16, specifically as an event coinciding more or less with creation of the Federal Reserve and therefore associate it with the agenda of those in favor of establishing a Federal Reserve System. Is this not one of the dangers about which anti-Federalist Founders warned?
Re “the 1887 decision on birthright citizenship Wong Kim Ark vs us.” where might one find the dissenting opinion?
Re “Democrats use of silly statements that have been tested for their effect on the illerate masses” perhaps you’ve seen Sen. Reid’s attempt to employ “tortured logic”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7mRSI8yWwg&eurl=http://www.ihatethemedia.com/harry-reid-says-income-taxes-voluntary
Mountain Man,
“What I’m wondering, though, is how we recapture the founding principles of this nation.”
THE question of the hour. For my part, re-reading Thomas Paine puts the fire back in my belly.
The absence of debate on first principles strikes me as the greatest disservice promulgated by those who deny access to those seeking to engage in that debate. During the last election, my perception was of a coinciding of belief on a number of points between Kucinich and Paul, yet a divergence on several others, and each grounded in sincere convictions as to the proper path to take. What followed,however, once the major candidates had secured their podiums, was polite contention not over “how?” but “how much?”
Your suspicicion that we are “teetering on the brink” is echoed by a close relative of mind whose politics may be quite different than yours, but who also sees the ground rushing up while the plane is disintegrating.
I’ve wondered aloud on a number of occasions what it would take to reconvene a meeting of the various states in order to re-visit the Constitutional relationship, probably a profound historical crisis. The media are constantly focused on what goes on in D.C. That in itself is not a healthy sign. A convening of the states to examine the Constitutional relationship may a constructive measure toward restating and re-applying those First Principles.
How do we take back the culture/constitution? First, we need to understand how things became so distorted.
1. Looking at it from a policy making perspective, I’ve used the subject of abortion and right to privacy to illustrate the point that moral relativism has infused the making of public policy, so that abstract notions like “fairness” replace specific constitutional provisions and limitations:
What has allowed elective abortion to supplant slavery as a national indignation is a combination of the factors of self-interest, rationalization, hidden agendas, but something else too. Those who took the “moral high ground” in sparking this debate had their own set of vested interests and hidden agendas. Beginning with prayer in public schools and other public institutions, they took key provisions of the Declaration of Independence and substituted their own religious preferences for “God” so that paying homage to “Jesus,” not following a God-given moral code, became the focus of their efforts.
Because of this approach, moral Relativists were able to seize the debate and frame their core issues in a deceitful way. Since Religion A claims to speak for God, and the Constitution forbids the state to establish an official religion, then both Religion A and the God it speaks for must be completely removed from the secular world. This logic prevailed because the Constitution is not the Declaration of Independence, and drawing inspiration and support from God is not the same thing as making laws that reflect God’s rules as expressed by a particular religion. It didn’t matter if what Christians believed perfectly matched 95% of the beliefs of every other religion. The Constitution, though inspired by God-given rights, was still man’s law. And man’s law did not permit the establishment of an official state religion.
By hijacking God and linking Him to a battle to promote their values, not only did the Christian community lose their fight, it allowed the notion of “God” — the basis for their claim — to be wiped out with it. This then led to an even more determined fight to infuse “politics with religion.” Relativists became even more relative to prevent their opponent’s success, and as the Relativists carried the fight to its relativistic extreme, atrocities like abortion on demand became the law of the land.
This, ultimately, explains why a concept like abortion could take hold and flourish in a society that condemns human right abuses, and even passes laws against cruelty to animals, but it will allow a healthy 20-month old developing child to be killed without the same level of due process it demands for suspected mass murders and captured terrorists.
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/08/25/what-kind-of-car-would-jesus-drive-to-take-his-girlfriend-to-an-abortion-clinic/
2. Another factor is the way in which people orient themselves within a culture/society to understand the “inherent truth” of an issue. Here I used the example of man-made global warming:
I need to take a few moments to reflect on how we, a supposedly intelligent race that can figure out how to put a man on the moon, could come to such a sorry state of affairs that many people actually believe Hurricane Katrina would have bypassed New Orleans if only George Bush had signed the Kyoto treaty. It’s a commentary not only about where we are today, but who we supposedly are: rational thinking people, or idiot savants who are particularly strong on the idiot side, while sadly lacking in the savant category. It begins with a simple question that few people — even rational thinkers — bother to ask when presented with a statement of ‘fact’: “How do you know that?”
Why would otherwise rational, intelligent people accept the notion that a car’s exhaust is heating the Earth to a dangerous level, but never once ask how this conclusion was derived, whether there are other factors that better account for this phenomenon, or whether the Earth is really warming at a rapid rate — or getting hotter at all?
The answer, I believe, can be traced to our shared value system, which provides a common frame of reference to address these and other issues. It is the shorthand, connect-the-dot reasoning we all engage in to navigate through daily life. Critical thought is only needed when the matter at hand is something unique, and we’ve been talking about – and worrying about — global climate change for at least 40 years.
These values and reference points are not bestowed upon us at birth, like Moses receiving the Holy Tablets. Rather, they are taught to, absorbed by, and reinforced within each individual through a life-long process that begins with our earliest years and extends throughout the remainder of our life. For example, we’re all taught from an early age that the environment is fragile. As children we write school papers on this subject and participate in community projects to “save the environment.” When we get older, we get our news from journalism school graduates who show us pictures of melting ice caps or drought-stricken farmland and talk about the importance of driving hybrid cars, practicing resource conservation, and signing the Kyoto Treaty.
As adults we happily segment our garbage to cut-down on environmental pollution, and set our thermometers at uncomfortably high or low levels to “save energy” — thereby reducing the nasty, dirty fossil fuel emissions needed to produce our electricity. The world, and our role in it, is put clearly in focus, as are the notions of “good” or “bad” behavior regarding our treatment of the environment.
This common frame of reference allows us, as a group, to make certain judgments that are universally accepted. Windmills are good. Solar energy is better. Conservation is best. The internal combustion engine, to quote Al Gore, is an example of man seeking to “artificially enhance our capacity to acquire what we need from the earth . . . at the direct expense of the earth’s ability to provide naturally what we are seeking.” By manufacturing “millions of internal combustion engines [that] automate the conversion of oxygen to CO2, we interfere with the earth’s ability to cleanse itself of the impurities that are normally removed from the atmosphere.”
No one laughs at the main theme of this passage which presumes to know intrinsically — just like the idiot savant — what man “needs” from the Earth, and what is an “artificial enhance[ment of his] capability” to acquire natural resources “at the direct expense of the earth’s ability to provide naturally what we are seeking.” No further justification is required to support these value-laden judgments, because they’re not seen as expressing anything controversial. They’re just obvious statements about obvious matters that are plainly obvious to any thoughtful, thinking individual.
From this basis it’s a logical conclusion that cars are “interfering” with the natural state of affairs of Mother Earth, which leads to an equally obvious policy objective to deal with this cancer. As for the finite-supply of fossil fuels that are mined, drilled, and otherwise gouged from the Earth to feed these poison-producing internal combustion engines, they serve only one purpose: to make Dick Cheney richer, and help George Bush justify an illegal, immoral war against Saddam Hussein whom we’re all glad is out of power, even though Bush lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction and ought to be impeached.
Because our schools, celebrities, TV anchorpersons and other opinion leaders accept these observations as fact, who are we to disagree? Since 1975 (my earliest memory on this subject) I’ve been told repeatedly that the world is running out of oil. There’s only so much dead-dinosaur juice in the ground, and it will all be gone in 20 years or less. Thirty years later, the same 20 year prediction is still being made. If we don’t switch to hybrid cars, solar powered electricity, or wind-driven generators, we’ll use up all the world’s oil by 2030, or 2040, or 2050, or [pick a date] sometime in the near future.
And when all the oil is gone, and coal is too dirty to burn, and nuclear power is too unsafe to produce, where will we be? Ergo, we need to start changing our lifestyles NOW! But at no point in this conventional-wisdom analysis does anyone stop and say, “but wouldn’t there be plenty of oil if we’re willing to pay $100 a barrel to recover it?”
The Earth isn’t running out of oil. It’s running out of easily-acquired $20 dollar a barrel oil. There’s plenty of oil off the shores of California and Florida, in Alaska, Mexico, the Middle East, the North Sea, Russia, and a whole bunch of other places in the world, including oil locked in shale. It’s harder to get, and therefore more expensive to acquire. But it’s there.
This doesn’t argue against practicing conservation or pursuing alternative means of energy production. A solar power car would be great — if there’s a strong enough market demand to justify the billions of dollars of research and development needed to expedite its arrival. Windmills are a fantastic source of cheap, clean energy, unless they happen to spoil Ted Kennedy’s oceanfront view, at which point good old fashioned gas guzzling cars will do just fine.
If Al Gore’s prescription for responsible environmental management makes sense, he should be able to propose it without the intellectual legerdemain of over-hyped, value-laden judgments disguised as impartial analysis. It’s one thing to illustrate a point with a dramatic example. It’s quite another to have the example itself stand as a substitute for any further thinking about the matter. If the issue is real, the evidence will support it.
But to get the evidence, one first has to collect all the relevant data. When dealing with an issue as monumental as global climate change, 10, 20, 50, even a 100 year “trend” is nothing more than the blink of an eye in geological terms. If global warming actually exists, and further, if man is the principle cause of its existence, there should be clear, convincing evidence of this before we begin substantially rearranging important chunks of our current way of life. Why spend thousands of dollars to place your house on stilts so it won’t be flooded if you’re living in the middle of a desert? Such an expenditure may be perfectly reasonable for those homes along Gulf Coast beaches. But before I dip into my life savings to retrofit my house, I’d like to see a little evidence that central Utah is about to get inundated with water.
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/07/31/an-even-more-inconvenient-truth-the-myth-of-man-made-global-warming/
3. Finally, to the point about a Constitutional Convention, see http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/11/29/what-we-need-is-a-constitutional-convention/
Conservatism is at a disadvantage from the get-go:
1) People must be educated about conservatism, but leftism lends itself well to sound-bites and slogans.
2) Conservatism requires a sound understanding of fundamental financial principles, human nature, and a willingness to embrace self-control, ingenuity, and self-reliance. Leftism is anything goes, blame others first, and get what you can while you can get it.
3) The MSM is tilted so far Left that the conservative message barely gets through.
4) Leftists are particularly good at demonizing their opponents, while conservatives argue the issues.
5) Too many people have known nothing but omnipresent government. They have no basis for understanding conservative thought.
6) Public schools and universities are dominated by leftist worldview. A public school education almost guarantees a new army of good little leftists.
So, what do we do to reinvigorate conservatism and convince others of its superior nature?
May I say that I don’t think that getting laws passed will change anything. Neither will getting the right people in Congress or the presidency.
Leftists began their assault on America decades ago, and they worked in the background. They infiltrated our institutions, schools, courts, and government. It started locally in a few isolated spots, and spread like a disease.
Good people didn’t object, because it was cloaked in clever, innocuous language like “fairness,” “tolerance,”, and “level playing field.” Most people just go about their daily lives, while leftists took on their cause with single-minded devotion and all-consuming passion. And if some unfortunate souls stood up and opposed them, they shouted them down, called them vile names, and made their lives miserable.
Most people, even people on the Left, are good people. Most people, even people on the Left, lead their lives as if they were conservatives. But it is the extremists that we are talking about. These people want power at any cost, they want their opinions to be the only ones, they are convinced that anyone who disagrees is not just wrong, but evil.
So convinced they are of their own moral superiority that they cannot even conceive of someone having another opinion. They are dangerous, they are bent on destroying what America stands for (they consider it evil and oppressive), they admire despots and tyrants like Castro, Stalin, and Che, they think that the masses are sheep who need to be led to do the right thing by a ruling class of intelligencia.
There comes a time when leading our own lives with integrity and honesty, living and let live, helping the poor, carrying the neighbor’s groceries, not bothering anyone – there comes a time when it’s not enough.
Phil:
Re: “How do we take back the culture/constitution?”
The only thing missing from your analysis is something that recognizes the ulterior motive of Democrats who push such drastic solutions to invented problems, something like, “Since communism failed, capitalism must be made to fail also.”
sedonaman,
RE your #68, Sowell’s unattributed observation is cleverly made and certainly contains an element of truth. What he says concerning the intelligentsia, however, could equally apply to any closed fraternity or cabal convinced that it has the answers to the world’s problems.
“I have yet to present the Vista School story to a liberal/Leftist and not have this comment come back in reply.”
What is the response from those whose political beliefs are unknown to you? Does the particular response received from those Leftists whose views you have sought in the matter demonstrate conclusively and to your satisfaction that the observation contained in the reply is in error or that the same observation has not or would not be also be made by others?
“If what you say is true, why are the public school is such a mess after 50 years of liberal/Leftists control?”
Deferring discussion of the state of public schools for the moment, are you saying that my observation concerning the statement’s stupidity and illiteracy (“We believe that the school should not create differences between students who know more and students who know less”)is not true, or merely that for you the the original statement typifies a Leftist response?
Quote:
AMAI: Laws passed in accordance with the rules established by the social compact are not “coercion” in a dictionary sense of the word, no matter how strongly one opposes them.
There is room to debate whether a law is constitutional or not, whether taxes are confiscatory or not, etc. This is what the political process is all about. But using popular slang to describe what the government does as “coercion” does not further the debate. Rather, it plunges the entire discussion into a battle of simple opinions.
End Quote
Philip, the test for whether an action is coercive or not is not whether one agrees or disagrees with it, but rather whether one’s agreement is irrelevant.
The government IS behaving in a criminal fashion. There is no way around it. And these coercive acts ARE permitted by the Constitution. To assert that the only criteria by which to judge is whether it’s permitted by the Constitution is to ignore the fact that laws made by man can be in error.
Therefore, the Constitution requires further amendment to excise sanctioned coercion (i.e., acts that represent actual initiations of force).
AMAI: I respect your enthusiasm, but “behaving in a criminal fashion” is hyperbole, not analysis.
Mountain Man,
RE your #72, you musn’t shortchange conservatism as a movement while it maintains the high ground in ideas. I read through your list of “disadvantages” and find a number of commonlities shared by both left and right: each side has its “memetic” or slogan arsenal by which to reinforce respective positions; there are thoughtful people on either side just as there are shallow oppportunists; MSM(?)may be pervasive, but there is no arguing the success of talk radio and TV and certain conservative commentators who draw attention across the spectrum; each side does its share of “demonizing,” and, beyond a certain tipping point, will resort to ad hominem attacks (the thresholds may just be different); omnipresent government, as anyone who has experienced its application firsthand realizes, can be an excellent teacher in the pitfalls of bureacracy, arrogance, and centralization; public schools are ultimately answerable to state taxpayers, their school boards, and state superintendents whose minds can be changed and who can effect change; moreover, the less affordable college becomes and the longer economic difficulties continue, the more pragamtic curriculums become, focusing more on skills rather than political dogmas. Interestingly, the latter may be less true at the more prestigious private universities, and my personal experience at private secondary schools is that they tend to me much more liberal-indoctrinated than the public schools.
The sense of moral superiority and blind ideological ambition you allude to is destructive no matter where it comes from.
And you’re absolutley right: sometimes the life we lead just isn’t enough.
michaelbp: It’s refreshing to have someone new enter a conversation who can actually analyze instead of emote. Agreement is not the objective of a conversation, clarity is. And your latest contributions are helpful in promoting clarity, even if not everyone will agree on all the points.
michaelbp:
Re: “Sowell’s unattributed observation is cleverly made and certainly contains an element of truth. What he says concerning the intelligentsia, however, could equally apply to any closed fraternity or cabal convinced that it has the answers to the world’s problems.”
I would think that the intelligentsia [i.e., academia] has infinitely more influence on society than your average “closed fraternity or cabal convinced that it has the answers to the world’s problems.” I take that by “closed fraternity or cabal” you mean those legions of Leftists who use government to modify society to conform to their image and likeness. [BTW, I don’t think Sowell’s comment is uncharacteristic of him.]
Re: “What is the response from those whose political beliefs are unknown to you? Does the particular response received from those Leftists whose views you have sought in the matter demonstrate conclusively and to your satisfaction that the observation contained in the reply is in error or that the same observation has not or would not be also be made by others?”
Let me just say that I have concluded that liberals/Leftists, by the uniformity of their responses, have tried to disown the consequences for which they are responsible, just as they have disowned the current economic crisis as a product of their own failed CRA and its Affirmative Action lending requirements. [Here http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/09/22/us-economy-a-perfect-storm-of-housing-and-lending-events , here http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html , and here http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260 .]
They instead draw the line at “greedy” bankers who were merely reacting to political reality.
This makes irrelevant the responses by others, since their persuasions are not responsible for the conditions of institutions such as Vista School.
Re: “…are you saying that my observation concerning the statement’s stupidity and illiteracy … is not true, or merely that for you the original statement typifies a Leftist response?”
My “Quod est demonstratum” response was to indicate that “stupidity and illiteracy” and the liberal/Leftist mindset are coincident. What other political philosophy has as its driving, overarching force that of radical egalitarianism, the factor at work in the Vista School situation, and BTW that for Affirmative Action in general? Where did such a mindset of the parents come from? It certainly didn’t just drop out of the sky. It came from the liberal/Leftist bombast that in order to have total equality, it is necessary that any and all discrimination[1] be eliminated, even the desirable sort.[2] The one exception to this rule, of course, is the liberal/Leftist himself who has obtained a position far above the hoi polloi, such as a member of academia. To show you how fraudulent they are, consider how one of them lives http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=1019055, i.e., not according to his professed beliefs but as the “greedy” capitalist he claims to hate. That such fraud is exposed by the fact that they themselves do not live according to their professed ideologies they would force on the rest of us should be proof-positive to the most causal observer and dimmest Doubting Thomas, with only the least of their wits about them, that not so much as a grain of truth worth saving is contained in their despotic philosophies. You might call their professions “academic pedophilia” – a thinly veiled attempt to gain intellectualism by advocating the antitheses of proven, good ideas such as truth, tradition, democracy, free markets, and individual freedom.
People see through this fraud; that’s why you have to put a gun to their heads to make egalitarianism work.
You seem focused on the politics of greed. If there is such a thing, then there most certainly is the politics of envy, a force that gets little recognition and that can, and does by sheer numbers, motivate more votes than that of greed ever possibly could.
America might have its faults, but they are minor compared to the rest of the world’s. Otherwise, how would you explain the short line to get out and the long line to get in, characterized by the willingness of Mexican peasants willing to pay a coyote thousands of dollars just for the privilege of risking their lives, and the lives of their families, by crossing a burning desert just to find a job to earn enough to eat? Would you rather live in an imperfect country of “greedy” bankers and have a chance of prospering through your own initiative, or one in which there is absolutely no chance?
[1] Definition of “to discriminate”: “To observe a difference.” [Some would add, “and to act on that observation” but I don’t.]
[2] My secretary once complained about discrimination, and I asked her if she didn’t want me to “discriminate” between her good performance and another’s poor performance when the time came to make annual performance award bonuses.
Sorry for the double post. I don’t know how it happened.
Philip, so you want analysis? Here’s some analysis.
if you cannot, or will not, see that the government is behaving in a criminal manner, then how on earth will you find the way to reverse the current trend in America towards socialism? The means to move towards complete totalitarianism in the US and Canada (and other “western” countries) is contained in the very documents that purport to establish peace in our lands. When government is sanctioned by law to take property from people (in the form of taxes or land, or whatever) regardless of their agreement, that is the essence of coercion. Just as the criminal says, “Your money or your life,” so the government says, “Your money or your freedom.” You have no choice to pay tax – you must pay it or face the consequences of loss of freedom.
The fact that the government’s behavior IS sanctioned by law makes it all the more ghastly, for it destroys the meaning of law and of justice.
Sedonaman in post 79 made this comment: “that’s why you have to put a gun to their heads to make egalitarianism work.”
Putting a gun to their heads is exactly what the government is doing. However, it is putting a gun to people’s heads when it forces them to pay taxes.
There are proper government services that should be paid for, but the proper way to pay for them is not by invoking the legal use of force. Rather, it is by voluntary methods.
The government is supposed to be the legal use of force. This is why it must be extremely careful, and we must be extremely careful, in how that force is wielded. It should only be used in retaliation against those who initiate force. However, as we know, it is not. Force is initiated daily against every single one of us, via the mountains of regulations and via the very system of taxation.
Threats of fines, of seizure of assets and of prison time all stand at the ready should one not comply with the laws. When the laws are just, objective and in defense of rights, this is proper. When the laws themselves are initiations of force, and heedless of rights, they become criminal in nature.
(And by the by, what are you alluding to with the phrase “social compact”? That’s a new phrase on me. I thought the term was “social contract.”)When “laws” TAKE BY FORCE from some in order to provide it others, this is an abomination of law, an abridgment of rights, and the destruction of freedom. This is the essence of totalitarianism, of socialism, of communism. This could only be achieved by a coercive government.
It’s time to stop fooling yourselves that you can work with the Constitution as it stands. It permitted this event to occur by permitting the use of the tax method, which in bare terms means to take money by force, at the point of a gun, under threat of imprisonment.
When the government power of force is used to take money and goods, i.e., in initiation against the people, then government is no different from a criminal. That’s when lawfulness is just the same as lawlessness.
Oh sure, they try to justify it by claiming it is for “the less fortunate.” And yet we have more and more “less fortunate” every day. More people jobless, homeless, without the bare necessities. This is the result that has been seen already in communist countries. Starving millions, while the bureaucrats live the high life.
The power to tax is NOT an honest law but a dishonest one. Just because it has the sanction “of law” does not redeem it or make it a just use of government power. Rather, it causes the breach, and the result is poverty for all.
AMAI, et al:
Let me offer some things to put your #81 comment into some perspective.
The IRS once sent my mother a bill for $1.06 — that is one dollar and six cents!. Meanwhile, they are running commercials on TV claiming that the sponsor can save delinquent taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars below what they originally owed. While some of these claims are undoubtedly exaggerated, I’m sure they are saving their clients substantially more than $1.06. Plus, anyone with half a brain knows it cost society much more than $1.06 to collect $1.06.
And I think the crux of much of the frustration with the current system really lies in the cost of compliance.
Compliance for the state of California is a prime example of government micromanagement run amok. We are all familiar with the various worksheets that reduce deductions if your income exceeds certain limits. CA does not have a personal exemption; it has a personal exemption tax credit, a dollar amount that comes off your taxes due. The last time I filed in that state, the maximum was $72 per. You had to work a worksheet to determine which of four other worksheets you completed to arrive at the final amount . Going through this labyrinth resulted in a maximum possible reduction in the credit of only $4.
P.S.
There are more lines than not on the CA tax form that require the use of worksheets.
AMAI: Analysis, by definition, requires one to define an issue in a way that doesn’t rely on opinion. Criminal behavior is not a universal concept. What is criminal in Cuba is not necessarily criminal in the US. You may not like an action and want to label it as “criminal”, but again this is just an opinion. And opinions are like … well, you know.
It also means that the words we use (like “coercion”) have a meaning in context that is not the same as a simple dictionary definition. Coercion is force. I am forced by law not to dig an open sewer in front of my house in a residential neighborgood. If I do I can be fined, or jailed. Calling this an unjustified act because an individual is coerced by government into doing something they might want (or not want) to do renders the word “coercion” meaningless.
So, you don’t like any taxes, period. Fine. It’s your opinion. But no reasonable person would call this an analysis. An analysis explores the nature of taxation in capitalist or socialist societies; discusses whether taxes are [should be] progressive, flat or regressive; whether fees should be considered as taxes; whether inflation should be considered as a tax; what obligation people have to support the common good [like defense] through taxes whether they want to pay taxes or not. You know, minor insignificant things like this.
Creating fantasy worlds where all taxation is theft is opinion, and a silly one at that.
By the way, “social contract” refers to how a society is formally structured (what specific rights are retained by individuals and/or given to the government, as reflected in the creation of specific laws). It’s based on a social compact that embodies ideas and philosophy about governance (capitalism vs. socialism vs. communism vs. anarco-syndicalism, etc.).
Knowing this is just one of the benefits of an education. Of course, that’s just my opinion …
Sedonaman,
“I would think that the intelligentsia [i.e., academia] has infinitely more influence on society than your average ‘closed fraternity or cabal convinced that it has the answers to the world’s problems.’”
I agree with you completely as to the extent of influence. In that regard, the exertions of leftist intellectuals on behalf of ostensibly egalitarian but misguided causes is almost proverb. Yet real social problems do exist, do they not, apart from any misapprehensions or misguided efforts to implement leftist solutions, or apart from their articulated recognition as such by opponents of those solutions? I do not mean to imply that either you or Sowell are dismissive of that fact; I only wish to point out that as mistaken as identification of the problems or their solutions might be, there have been occasions when attention drawn to societal defects by those with whom we might have political disagreements has achieved some common good.
“Let me just say that I have concluded that liberals/Leftists, by the uniformity of their responses, have tried to disown the consequences for which they are responsible. . .”
Not to invalidate your own personal conclusion, but I’m not sure that a uniformity of responses from your acquaintances in this instance necessarily constitutes a basis for concluding that there is a corresponding disowning of responsibility so much as it exemplifies what I suspect would be a common reaction by many if not most people encountering the original statement and able to formulate and express a complete thought in return. I do understand, however, that you are trying to pose a larger question and call attention to what you believe to be original causes leading to the issuing of such a silly statement to begin with.
“. . .just as they have disowned the current economic crisis as a product of their own failed CRA and its Affirmative Action lending requirements.”
Apparently in your judgment the same respondents to whom we have been referring have also somehow disavowed their role in or in some way demonstrated to you disingenuousness about the origins of the current financial crisis. Otherwise how does a perceived consistency among the type of comments you have received about the Vista situation necessarily correlate with such disavowal or disingenuousness about the financial crisis? I just want to make sure that I understand the logic.
Perhaps what you are trying to convey is a similarity of behaviour that you see between your respondents and those actually denying responsibility in the other matter. If so, then to be sure they have plenty of company. I am well aware, as you may have already gathered, of the role that political decisions by those in the federal government have already played in facilitating unmerited home financing which in turn created the home value bubble. Their accomplices in creation of this bubble were those mortgage companies qualifying the poor risks and those signing the applicable documents, the brokerage firms, investment banks basketing and hawking the questionable merchandise, and those purchasers of the questionable investment vehicles not knowing any better or simply choosing to role the dice despite known risk. And then or course, there is the lack of diligence exhibited by agencies tasked with policing securities markets. I don’t know how well the analogy fits, but after the politicians baited the hook, it looks like everyone who followed bit down hard and now it appears that Moby Dick is sounding.
Your reference to Chomsky does little for me other than elicit an olfactory memory of putrefying dog-regurgitated Crisco (okay, stifle the hyperbole).
I do not recall employing the term “politics of greed,” nor have I attempted in this discussion to draw attention to that slogan. I’m not even sure what the expression means or is intended to mean. I have encountered “politics of envy” in the context of descriptions of purveyors of collectivist ideologies, however (and “the politics of feeling good” by Frankie Goes to Hollywood in the context of popular music). In general, I try to avoid employing those kind of ambiguous generalities when striving to analyze issues and understand beliefs. Nor do I recall having here advocated emigration in preference to fulfilling responsibilities and investing in this Nation. But I do appreciate your apparent passion and knowledge of the questions at hand.
By way of returning to the subject of Capitalism, are you familiar with Simon Johnson,
http://baselinescenario.com/
and, if so, what is your general opinion of his analyses?
Phil,
Thanks.
Sedonaman,
That should have been “The Politics of Dancing” by Re-Flex. Sorry for the lapse in cultural literacy. For some reason the other line and ensemble seemed a better fit.
Oh, in my #77 that should be “curricula” (can’t believe I missed that) and “roll the dice” in #85. I should be more attentive before hitting “submit.”
michaelbp: My pleasure. I love a good debate. It’s the only way to test your ideas.
My problem has always been with people (on the Left or Right) who aren’t honest in the way they make their points, or think that being provocative is the same thing as being intellectual, or won’t respond to the substance of a counter-argument, or can’t distinguish between analysis and opinion, etc.
Genuine disagreement and debate is always healthy. One of the best exchanges I had was with a person who debated the meaning of the Constitution with me. The exchange pushed both of us to validate our positions with cogent, well-reasoned arguments.
Neither I nor the other person changed our position, but those looking in on the discussion saw the issue fully vetted. And this was the real benefit of the discussion.