The Decline of the Right

Lew Rockwell decries the devolution of Team Red:

The most significant socio-political shift in our time has gone almost completely unremarked, and even unnoticed. It is the dramatic shift of the red-state bourgeoisie from leave-us-alone libertarianism, manifested in the Congressional elections of 1994, to almost totalitarian statist nationalism. Whereas the conservative middle class once cheered the circumscribing of the federal government, it now celebrates power and adores the central state, particularly its military wing….

In 1994, the central state was seen by the bourgeoisie as the main threat to the family; in 2004 it is seen as the main tool for keeping the family together and ensuring its ascendancy. In 1994, the state was seen as the enemy of education; today, the same people view the state as the means of raising standards and purging education of its left-wing influences. In 1994, Christians widely saw that Leviathan was the main enemy of the faith; today, they see Leviathan as the tool by which they will guarantee that their faith will have an impact on the country and the world.

Comments

[gaius marius]

do you put this stuff here just for me? lol...

the red states, in a fit of nationalistic arrogance driven by an individualistic hero complex, have adopted hegel in lieu of locke. apparently, a few too many reaganite sops about cities on a hill coincident with an extended inflationary period of reckless leveraging has deprived middle america of any semblance of self-control, personal or national.

[Warren]

I agree with Lew.

[joe]

The key word in the phrase "leave us alone" is "us." The "red state bougeoisie" never, ever had a "leave people alone" philosophy or a "leave everyone alone" philosophy. This alleged dramatic philosophical shift is no different than a legionaire leading with his sword, rather than his shield, when the tide turns in his side's favor. The strategy and goals are the same, just the conditions have changed.

Selling red America on the politics of self interest might not have been such a wise idea for the antio-government crowd. Looks to me like they're pursuing their self-interest with abandon.

[drf]

see the gov't spending article below.

see how neo-cons and theo-cons alike pour over articles in a postmodern frenzy in a search for ideology in the pages of our newsrags. the PC left has been blown away by the PC right, using the same tactics and methods. just the goals were different.

yet this side still has the balls to speak of "personal responsibility" (no idea what the hell that is) and "freedom" and "liberty".

http://www.rationalview.homestead.com/files/Majority_Role__The_Tyrants_Next_Door.htm

http://www.rationalview.homestead.com/files/America_Under_Rights_or__under_God_.htm

http://www.rationalview.homestead.com/files/Heads_Statism__Tails_Statism.htm
good call, warren.

[Brooke Belanger]

I may be just a kid and not know munch about the world but, I think I know anuf about the tsunami like the fact that it killed thousound and millions of people and I heared about the amazing storys that were on the news and in the news paper. Don't you think the storys are remarkable???

please someone email me about this you have my email me

[gaius marius]

The "red state bougeoisie" never, ever had a "leave people alone" philosophy or a "leave everyone alone" philosophy.

mr joe, i would disagree -- but i think the shift has been ongoing for a longer time than may be considered by mr rockwell. ten years is a blip, and i think its his perception rather than the reality that has changed so quickly.

the last time the american ruralia looked entirely like his eulogizing was probably the early 20th century.

[Akira MacKenzie]

...and all this is a surprise to Mr. Rockwell?

I mean, the Right would blather on and on about "limited government" but didn't the conservative caveats of "excpet for gays, abortion, drugs, erotica, and the power to wage a war" send up any red flags?

[Ayn_Randian]

Here it is New Year's and I already find myself agreeing with joe. 2005 is going to be a bonzer, if nothing else.

Seriously, Republicans haven't had a serious committment to small government since, oh, I'd say Herbert Hoover. Consider the presidents the party has given us since: Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush and Son...does anyone here consider these people serious crusaders for small government? There's a lot of evidence that the later presidents have read Milton Friedman, it's just that it hasn't been politically expedient to actually follow him.

As for the lip service in 1994, well, how many of those class graduates have already broken their term limit promises?

I used to be a big Republican lackey until I realized that the party has been nothing but a big lie on small government for 70 years. I mean, how can we keep getting fooled? They're not even TRYING! Bob Barr and I have a lonely future together.

[Brian]

Yep.

To me the only remarkable thing is the speed with which the right has dropped the "leave us alone" small government conservatism rhetoric. It really was just 10 years ago. . .

I think when Andrew Sullivan compared the contemporary republican party to Bismarck that was the best take I've read. Militarism, social conservatism, and Big Government.

[c]

Absolutely -- championing small government (and state's rights too, btw) was always a tactical decision, not an ideology. They only wanted a small federal government when that government was inclined to do things they didn't like, or when they felt more confident about winning their issues at a state level rather than a national one.

Now, how long do you think it will take for the left to really pick up the "ideals" of small government and state's rights? I'll start my stopwatch...

[Jason Ligon]

There is no ideology, there is only coalition. The coalition member that matters is the one that brings home the votes. In some cases, libertarians have benefitted from the right's alignment of lower taxes people and gun people. Gun people put a serious hurt on Gore, for example.

When large voting blocs are all about 'give me free stuff' (e.g. the AARP), they control the parties.

The Contract with America was mostly good stuff, but it scared people back into gimmee mode, and we won't be recovering from that for a few election cycles yet.

[drf]

c:

you got it! just think of how many lefties who were anti militia are anti PATRIOT in the name of "civil liberties"?

and of course it's a tactic. just as government spending rhetoric is a tactic. we have two sides that have several sets of rules and no principles.

Ayn and Joe: think Bob Barr and the ACLU. or the end of the naked gun at the big A.

[E.D. Kendrick]

Enough bashing of all sides. It's time to think of positives. Can't think of anything positive politically, then think about something else. Both sides are wasting time and energy. Let's deal with other issues. Peace!

[Brett]

I used to be a big Republican lackey until I realized that the party has been nothing but a big lie on small government for 70 years. I mean, how can we keep getting fooled? They're not even TRYING! Bob Barr and I have a lonely future together.

Guess I make three...

[drf]

" Can't think of anything positive politically"

sure: i POSITIVELY fucking hate those guys.

would you prefer that we all grab our ankles?

and you've forgotten that under kerry it would be worse.

[cdunlea]

C, the left has readily picked up the banner of states' rights after the past election, with everything from (idle) talk about secession to local nullification of federal laws. I suspect that the pendulum will begin to swing back towards the Left as the theo-cons overreach themselves; I wouldn't be surprised if the next brain trust at the DNC begins positioning themselves to exploit this. If they're interested in having a future, that is.

[Brooke Belanger]

The most significant socio-political shift in our time has gone almost completely unremarked, and even unnoticed. It is the dramatic shift of the red-state bourgeoisie from leave-us-alone libertarianism, manifested in the Congressional elections of 1994, to almost totalitarian statist nationalism. Whereas the conservative middle class once cheered the circumscribing of the federal government, it now celebrates power and adores the central state, particularly its military wing....

In 1994, the central state was seen by the bourgeoisie as the main threat to the family; in 2004 it is seen as the main tool for keeping the family together and ensuring its ascendancy. In 1994, the state was seen as the enemy of education; today, the same people view the state as the means of raising standards and purging education of its left-wing influences. In 1994, Christians widely saw that Leviathan was the main enemy of the faith; today, they see Leviathan as the tool by which they will guarantee that their faith will have an impact on the country and the world. well, i really don't understand the concept. can someone please explain this to me??? email me at [e-mail] -brooke-

[Jose Ortega y Gasset]

How many people here actually live in a "red" state? Support for the military has always been strong in rural America. The "leave us alone" issues generally applied to environmental policies, gun laws, taxes, etc. Rural America has always had a strong moralistic impulse. When public libraries start tossing out "Catcher in the Rye," it is usually somewhere in rural America. In short, rural America is much as it has always been. What has changed is the divide between the city mice and country mice. If you need an explanation, sit down with a group of small town rural folks and watch a few episodes of the "West Wing" or a cable screening of "The American President."

Libertarian politics are always a minority. Why? Perhaps because the majority so enjoys wielding its power, whatever that majority may be.

[fyodor]

There is no ideology, there is only coalition.

Let's not forget "rhetoric"! 🙂 Or, for that matter, trends and fashions, etc...

I agree in turns with Lew, joe and Jason, even though they may be disagreeing with each other. Thing is, nothing is ever black or white, just as they're not simply blue or red. I think all of these ideological/tactical/rhetorical elements have been in play in Republican politics all along, they just may manifest themselves differently at different times. That said, the current admin is taking a more hands on approach about certain things where Reagan took a consciously hands off approach, which I would concur with many here is...bad.

[fyodor]

The Contract with America was mostly good stuff, but

But it lost steam when people got sick of Newt and he resigned a beaten and bitter slimy amphibian.

Oh, and in addition to coalition, rhetoric and trends, let's add "personality." Ah, now I think we're getting to the essence of politics! 🙂

[gaius marius]

There is no ideology, there is only coalition.

mr ligon, people are not rational monads. they are emotional, nonsensical animal creatures who, while sometimes capable of something approaching rationality, have been fed a load of hegelian nationalist bullshit for decades now, and if you assume that they will be measured rational operators as neville chamberlain once did, i fear you will be disappointed.

Rural America has always had a strong moralistic impulse.

of course, mr ortega y gasset -- but the nature of the impulse has changed under the influence of the romantic philosophy of heroism. once, morality was seen to be the avenue to stability and happiness. now, morality is seen as a noble mission of revolution to be prosecuted at all costs and sufferings by the heroic (ie, "christian" america). this is profoundly different.

what is moral has also changed, imo -- significantly reduced and revised from the tolerance of the sermon on the mount to something quite a bit more wrathful. the occasional appearance of a savonarola has changed into hegelian masses. we shouldn't pretend that is no change, much as we might like it to be so.

[thoreau]

I agree with most of the comments here. Limited government is only acted upon with regard to a handful of issues, even then only in a half-assed manner, and the rest of the time it's rhetoric.

The ONLY possible change is that after 2 years of consolidated control of DC and an election that further solidified that control, some of the excuses are wearing a little thin. That won't change the actions of the politicians or the makeup of the coalition, but it will cause a handful of pundits to express SHOCK! that the small gov't rhetoric may just be rhetoric (gasp!).

[PintofStout]

Libertarian politics are always a minority. Why? Perhaps because the majority so enjoys wielding its power, whatever that majority may be.

If small is good, none is better when government is at issue. Especially because of the majority wielding power. I don't have complete faith that if Libs were the majority, they wouldn't wield the power too.

[Pavel]

I agree with joe's somewhat overstated point.

Putting aside the shattered pipe dreams of libertarians who thought Republicans were their niggaz, there was never a big shift in ideology.

More importantly, to the extent that there was one, it's been completely irrelevant to government behavior. Interest group liberalism was institutionalized in the 1960s. Any subsequent "cheering the circumscribing of the federal government" was in fact cheering the symbolic neutering of a fiscally meaningless program in a ritualized show of dominance of one's own interests over the opposition party's.

[drf]

"Interest group liberalism was institutionalized in the 1960s."

what about the 30s and FDR? wouldn't the public works projects be institutionalized, government-directed spending?

"This alleged dramatic philosophical shift is no different than a legionaire leading with his sword, rather than his shield, when the tide turns in his side's favor. The strategy and goals are the same, just the conditions have changed."

i like the sword/shield analogy...

so besides that we're all in vehement agreement, what now? does anybody disagree with this?

[Jason Ligon]

"mr ligon, people are not rational monads. they are emotional, nonsensical animal creatures who, while sometimes capable of something approaching rationality, have been fed a load of hegelian nationalist bullshit for decades now, and if you assume that they will be measured rational operators as neville chamberlain once did, i fear you will be disappointed."

I disagree to an extent, gaius. Demanding that you buy me a car is rational on my part. It is much better than me buying myself a car. The power of liberalism is the simplicity of its message - vote for me and get free stuff.

The politics of coalition tends to make us select The One Thing we want from government and align ourselves accordingly. When I say there is no ideology, I mean that what right and left respectively signify these days is a series of ideologically disconnected One Big Issues that are not mutually exclusive. Guns are not really related to church, and neither is related to low taxes. What these things have in common is that the blue team doesn't like them.

We try after the fact to assign an ideology to the mess, and I am arguing that there is no point in that exercise.

[Jose Ortega y Gasset]

If you care enough to use punctuation, Marius, why not care enough to use the shift key? Insofar as the romantic notion of heroism, I can see little that has changed over three centuries of American history. If anything, Americans seem to erect fewer statues and monuments to war heroes than in earlier times. I doubt morality has ever been seen as the "avenue" to happiness. The immoral seem to have entirely too much fun. The America you describe is nothing new. Witness the temperance societies and America's great failed experiment of Prohibition. If you think American morality is wrathful now, try a little 19th century reading. With all due respect, you seem to see what you want to see... an angry, militant Christian America thumping Bibles upon any available head. The simple fact is that America has always had a dour Puritanical side willing to burn a witch, lynch a black, beat a Catholic (or communist).

Oh, and a side note: try to limit "Hegelian" references to one per thread. Anything more looks pretentious.

[thoreau]

Guns are not really related to church, and neither is related to low taxes. What these things have in common is that the blue team doesn't like them.

We try after the fact to assign an ideology to the mess, and I am arguing that there is no point in that exercise.

I agree. We can graft on explanations, like tax cuts and gun rights both being about limited gov't. But team red is frequently cool with big government in other areas, so that's a weak explanation.

In the end, it's about coalitions.

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

With all due respect, you seem to see what you want to see... an angry, militant Christian America thumping Bibles upon any available head. The simple fact is that America has always had a dour Puritanical side willing to burn a witch, lynch a black, beat a Catholic (or communist).

Nah. Prohibition only started after Bush was elected the first time.

[Pavel]

what about the 30s and FDR? wouldn't the public works projects be institutionalized, government-directed spending?

Only some of what the FDR brought about actually survived. The '30s made the necessary evil of statism politically feasible. The '60s made it a positive virtue, worth pursuing for its own sake.

so besides that we're all in vehement agreement, what now?

Now we hide in our attic and hope someone eventually has the good sense to publish our diaries.

[Jennifer]

Brooke-
What people are saying here is that certain folks who *opposed* state power when they thought it would be used against them decided to *support* state power when they thought it would be used against their enemies.

[drf]

Pavel:

fair enough. as long as nobody, per the urban legend, does the "she's in the attic" bit.

http://www.snopes.com/movies/actors/zadora.htm

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

Only some of what the FDR brought about actually survived.

I guess this depends on the scope of "some". There are a helluva lot of FDR programs and departments that are still going strong. Then there are the bastard stepchildren programs that have roots or direct ancestors in FDR's madness.

[Isaac Bartram]

Ayn_Randian

I agree with most of your post at 11:22 AM.

You were off by one president though. Calvin Coolidge warned us about Herbert Hoover. Too bad "Silent Cal" didn't say it louder, or more often.

[Guy in the back row]

Isn't Brooke just looking to infect your computer or something? Or is he that dude from Germany in prison for cannibalism?

[gaius marius]

We try after the fact to assign an ideology to the mess, and I am arguing that there is no point in that exercise.

i thought so, mr ligon, but i think the relationship of philosophy to human events is more complex than that. i don't think it valid to say that individualism has no effect on our outlook until after we do something antisocial.

try to limit "Hegelian" references to one per thread. Anything more looks pretentious.

lol, sorry, mr ortega y gasset. it simply fits the american militarist mindset to a tee -- it's hard not to think of "philosophy of history".

I doubt morality has ever been seen as the "avenue" to happiness.

from descartes until rousseau, happiness was the goal of western ethical philosophy. i would simply say that the western world has changed more profoundly than is commonly believed since 1750.

[Ken Shultz]

"In 1994, the central state was seen by the bourgeoisie as the main threat to the family; in 2004 it is seen as the main tool for keeping the family together and ensuring its ascendancy. In 1994, the state was seen as the enemy of education; today, the same people view the state as the means of raising standards and purging education of its left-wing influences."

I was in North County San Diego over the holidays, and I saw a Soccer/Security Mom driving a Range Rover with a bumper sticker that struck me as a sign of the times. The bumper sticker had a couple of American flags on it, and the caption read, "You'll Burn It Over My Dead Body!" For whatever reason, the association between the welfare of the children in the back of her Rover and the might of the state was clear to her.

...I'd chalk that up to fear.

There are millions of mothers out there who are afraid that Al Qaeda is targeting their children. Someday, hopefully, we will look back and ridicule the alarmists of today the same way we look back and ridicule the alarmists of the Red Scare. Indeed, I'm surprised fallout shelters haven't made a comeback.

"In 1994, Christians widely saw that Leviathan was the main enemy of the faith; today, they see Leviathan as the tool by which they will guarantee that their faith will have an impact on the country and the world."

Ah..the over-reach.

Christian or non-Christian, I'm skeptical of anyone who claims to be able to make generalizations about the political views of contemporary Christianity.

[joe]

"We can graft on explanations, like tax cuts and gun rights both being about limited gov't. But team red is frequently cool with big government in other areas, so that's a weak explanation.

In the end, it's about coalitions."

Were this so, thoreau, we'd see those coalitions shifting a lot more often. There is a uniting principle - power relations.

Conservatives, broadly speaking, want to preserve existing structures of power relations, and don't take too kindly to troublemakers who want to change them. Hence, burly white guys from rural areas, the business elite, religious conservatives, homophobes, and people who think women should stay at home and have babies consistently side with the Republicans, while their nemesises (hmmmm...) side witht he Democrats.

It comes down to a reflexive response to seeing people exert power over others - you either reflexively side with the underdog, or you reflexively side with the boss man.

[thoreau]

joe-

I see your point. However, most people here would probably retort that it's been 70 years since the New Deal, and so a lot of government programs could be considered "the way things have always been." Yet conservatives object to them. How would you respond?

[c]

joe, I appreciate your attempt to weave some cohesiveness out of the patchwork of left/right ideas, but your simplifications don't wash.

For one thing (one of many...), disagreement about who is the underdog is at the core of the argument between the left and the right. Why do you think that conservatives toss around the term "liberal elite"? Do you think its because the right regards liberals as pesky little troublemakers?

[dlc]

Guy In The Back and Jennifer-

I would guess Officer Brooke is looking to get someone to engage in a little illegal dirty underage e-mailing. The e-mail address is a dead give-away. Perhaps someone at the FBI has taken a shining to Reason magazine?

dlc

[joe]

I would respond, thoreau, by pointing out that the existence of government programs meant to help X does not mean that X is actually more powerful than Y.

The Civil Rights Act was passed 40 years ago - would anyone like to claim that black people are more powerful than white people in America today?

Careful, c, folks 'round these parts don't take to kindly to the idea that having access to more media gives you power over other people - see any thread about indecency or campaign finance.

"disagreement about who is the underdog is at the core of the argument between the left and the right." In cases in which changes in power relations are ongoing, or the progressive side has not yet consolidated its gains, it is entirely consistent with my comments for the right to fight to restore the "natural" order.

Also, my comments were about relations among people in society, not between government and individuals. Obviously, when the government is in liberal hands, liberals have power over conservatives. But that's not what I'm talking about. Politics is only partly about government. All sides in politics want to use the power of the government to achieve their ends (even libertoids, who would use the power of the govenrment to prevent a worker at a liquor store from supplementing his income from the cash register). Political groups are defined by the ends they seek, not merely that they want to use the government to achieve those ends.

[Jose Ortega y Gasset]

Conservatives and liberals want to preserve structures of power relations that serve their respective constituencies. The only real difference between the two camps is the social agenda they want government to impose. As noted on this thread, neither side has really embraced libertarians. The archetypal "independent" westerner has depended heavily on federal subsidies for things like grazing. The conservative family farmer depends on massive government subsidies. The businessman wants protection from foreign competition, but an open market for everyone else. I hardly need to provide examples of the liberal collectivist urges.

Most Americans want freedom for themselves and limits on their neighbors. So it goes.

[thoreau]

joe-

I was referring more to things like Social Security. Is Social Security an existing power relationship?

My point isn't so much the merits or demerits of Social Security, but rather the question of whether it really reinforces "existing power relationships."

[joe]

"Conservatives and liberals want to preserve structures of power relations that serve their respective constituencies."

But Jose, that just begs the question, what makes liberal constituencies liberal, and conservative constituencies conservative? There has to be something that makes certain groups "our guys" to liberals and conservatives.

To test my hypothesis: name me a conserative/rightist constituency that was disempowered by a liberal constituency. Not the government, mind you, since everyone uses the government to enact policies that people on the other side oppose. I'm talking about the equivalent of white landowners in Dixie owning black people as slaves, or corporations sickening people with industrial emissions, or bosses ignoring workers' complaints about safety on assembly lines and firing the troublemakers, or the like.

Obviously, there will be individual cases - such as those assholes almost killing that truck driver during the LA riots - but I'm talking about society-wide systems of power and organization.

[thoreau]

joe, if you pose your question narrowly enough then we can't distort it!

[joe]

thoreau, Social Security is not a power relationship, it is a program. This is an important distinction. The government having the power to collect taxes is a power relationship, but it's not really relevant to the question of liberal and conservative, since conservatives want the government to have that same power - they just want to use it differently.

It is liberal/left to use the government's taxing authority to give more power (money) to poor people and pensioners. It is conservative/right to use the government's taxing authority to keep black people from voting.

Which is not to suggest that many conservatives support such a thing today, just that when poll taxes were being used to keep black people from voting, it was conservative to do so, an attempt to keep power in the hands of those who had traditionally wielded it.

[c]

You don't think there are examples to be had of organized labor bullying business owners? Or of universities leaning on right-leaning student groups or student journalists?

[drf]

"To test my hypothesis: name me a conserative/rightist constituency that was disempowered by a liberal constituency"

hey joe!

forgive the typing here, but i'm holding my nose as i throw (up) out this answer that lotsa shit-kickin', god-fearin', amerika-lovin' christian amerukuns would say:
the liberals have secularized society and forced it's immoral, sometimes amoral views on religion and sex onto the rest... simply look at the decline of decency in our society today! how good christians have been marginalized. and our schools have bastardized the teachings of the bible by filling their heads with the second law of thermodynamics or that they don't even eat all civilized like in the orient. and that "evolutionism" is in the schools, even though it's clearly not true.

shudder. (to come up with that previous blob of horseshit, i employed a frightening technique: WWMUBD: what would my uncle bob do?)

Ortega y Gasset: nice final sentence. sadly that is more true than not, and people seem to froth most when it is none of their business... yar.

🙂

[Jason Ligon]

joe:

I think you could stand to take of your DNC decoder glasses and look at your last few posts again.

There is no uniting principle. Labor unions are old power structures that are fundamentally conservative in nature. When the longshoremen hold the entire economy hostage because they fear and loathe bar codes, they are acting like them people who want women-folk bare foot n' pregnint.

There are historical reasons for most of the alignments, but what voters do is determine who will take care of their one thing. For many people, the one thing they vote for is free stuff. If you eliminate Santa Claus from the left coalition, what remains?

[joe]

"You don't think there are examples to be had of organized labor bullying business owners? Or of universities leaning on right-leaning student groups or student journalists?"

Of course there are. There are examples of Ethiopian soldiers killing Italian soldiers with spears during Mussolini's invasion. That doesn't make Ethiopia more powerful than Italy.

In the first case, bosses have power over their employees, buy definition. Union activity, good or bad, is an attempt to change that power relationship. In Soviet Russia, I'll grant you, unions had more power than entrepreneurs, but then, that's why the hardline reds became known as "conservatives" and the reformers "liberalizers" in the 1980s.

In the second case, teachers have power over their students, just as the government has power of its citizens. Is it conservative to take away teachers' power over their students?

[Jennifer]

Dlc-

An FBI guy desperate for a bust posing as a hot young thing, hmm? You know, the irony here is that I was actually going to add to my posting something along the lines of "By the way, don't post your full name on the Internet, because you never know who's reading it." It's the former high-school teacher in me, I guess. That's also why the atrocious spelling didn't raise any flags--I know from bitter personal experience that such spelling is more reality than parody in many cases.

Now that I actually look at the email address and read the message again, I'm embarrassed not to have seen the obviousness of it. That's what comes of posting on the Internet when I'm at work and thinking of other things, I guess.

[Jason Ligon]

joe:

In a democratic republic, voting blocs grant access to the monopoly of legitimate force. Votes in numbers are the most significant of powers that can be wielded in this country.

The New Deal was precisely a voting liberal constituency taking from a less powerful voting conservative constituency. The uneven bargaining power of labor unions (i.e. they can choose not to work with you, but you can't choose not to work with them) resulted precisely from a voting liberal constituency taking from a less powerful conservative constituency.

The appearance of the taking is different, but the result is the same.

[joe]

Jason, I stopped reading at "decoder ring." If you want to join the conversation, be civil.

drf, your Uncle Bob and his ilk could probably come up with a lot of deluded stuff. I'm not talking about perceived subordination, but the real thing.

Not being able to censor TV to your liking is not actually an example of people having power over you. Nor is an inability to censor the curriculum of High School biology classes. Both of your examples are cases of people not having as much power over others as they'd like; they are NOT cases of people having power over your Uncle Bob. Your Uncle Bob isn't angry because TV producers have power over him; he's angry because people like him don't have power over them, and he's "supposed" to, since people like him are "supposed to" control the culture.

[joe]

JL, at 5:50, much better.

But you're assertion that "The New Deal was precisely a voting liberal constituency taking from a less powerful voting conservative constituency" is off base. The wealthy and the owners of corporations had power over their workers, and over low income people. Government, certainly, acted as a liberalizing agent, in that it granted greater power to the poor, at the expense of the elite. The New Deal was a radical shift in power relations in a liberal/left direction. For this to be true, the conservative constituency had to have held greater power, no?

Our government's system of popular elections is a liberalizing element on occasion, in that it allows changes in power relations that benefit the less powerful over the more powerful. But let's face it, even after the New Deal, the owner of Boeing still have power over a guy in his assembly line, and the guy on the assembly line still had no power over his boss.

[drf]

hey joe!
" your Uncle Bob and his ilk could probably come up with a lot of deluded stuff"

no kidding. good call.

but seriously, what of the constiuency that feels that its place as a religious entity is getting tromped on?

[Rick Barton]

...the Cato Institute said that libertarianism had to change its entire focus: "Libertarians usually enter public debates to call for restrictions on government activity. In the wake of September 11, we have all been reminded of the real purpose of government: to protect our life, liberty, and property from violence. This would be a good time for the federal government to do its job with vigor and determination."

This is a most important time for libertarians to call for restrictions on government activity because these are just the type of times when government grows in areas where it shouldn't even be in the first place. This growth of government often manifests itself in direct attacks on individual liberty. Of course, all government beyond that which is devoted to combating force and fraud is certainly an attack on individual liberty.

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home"

James Madison

"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

James Madison

[Jason Ligon]

I think I get it now, actually. It is loaded language, but most people here are saying the same thing.

I pull up next to a guy in a Ferrari. Nice car, I think to myself. That guy has more power than me in the current fascist property rights regime. Maybe it is time to upset current power structures.

Any time you see something you want but can't afford, it is time to upset current power structures. You can express your frustration at being powerless by getting together with other people who like stuff and taking it from The Man. If he protests, you can always throw him in jail. There, he will have time to contemplate that unfairness of his awesome power over you.

Now, sometimes you may find yourself facing unequal treatment under the law, but it is your duty to act as though facing a poll tax is the same as having to buy your own car - it is all powerlessness and disenfranchisement on your part. Your ideology is all about upsetting power structures through the force of law.

On the flip side, don't forget who the enemy is. He is that fat white guy over there that wants you to be a slave. Now, he didn't say anything of the sort, but he is demonstrating his love of current power structures and thereby slavery by insisting that the Ferrari isn't YOURS.

[joe]

Like I said, Jason, you look at an underdog and you either feel an affinity for him, or you feel threatened by him. You see differences in power, and you are either inclined to accept them as the natural order of the universe, or you're inclined to see them as human artifacts that have been made by humans, and can be undone by humans.

I read about poor people who want better, I think of them as being like a mother who wants her kids to have a decent life. You read about poor people who want better, you think of them as being like a carjacker.

You're inclined to see existing power structures as "innocent until proven guilty." People who are as far to the left as you are to the right (I don't include myself in this category) see them as "guilty until proven innocent."

Thank you for demonstrating what I'm talking about.

[joe]

"but seriously, what of the constiuency that feels that its place as a religious entity is getting tromped on?"

What of it? What of the constituency that feels that black people are oppressing them by buying houses in the white neighborhood? What of a king who felt oppressed by the Magna Carta? People who are used to having power often feel persecuted when they have slightly less, even if they continue to be the most powerful by any objective measure.

My thesis is this: those who are motivated by a desire to retain traditional power relations are on the right; those who are motivated by a desire to break down those power structures are on the left. Religious conservatives who miss the good old days when they could censor the media to their liking are pining for traditional power relations. The fact that they define oppression as the inability to exercise power over others to the degree they desire is pretty good evidence that they are not, in fact, subordinate.

[Rick Barton]

joe:

My thesis is this: those who are motivated by a desire to retain traditional power relations are on the right; those who are motivated by a desire to break down those power structures are on the left.

But joe, the whole anti tax crusade, Howard Jarvis-prop 13, the Tabor amendment here in Colorado, etc. is a creature of the libertarian right or, at least, the libertarian sympathetic right. Taxation IS power.

[joe]

Rick, I haven't seen any rightist anti-tax crusaders who were actually opposed to the authority to tax. The want their tax money spent differently, and they want less taxes collected, but they still want the government to collect taxes to do the stuff they want to do.

A zoning board that grants a lot more permits than the last zoning board isn't less supportive of the power to permit and regulate, they just have a different view of what that power should be used for. Same with taxes. Even Grover Norquist wants the federal government to collect taxes.

"Anti-tax" is like "anti-deficit" or "federalist" when it comes to left/right issues.

[Kevin Carson]

drf,

The irony is heightened by the fact that USA Patriot is made up of stuff that wound up on the cutting room floor when Clinton's 1996 "Counter-Terror" legislation was crafted.

[Rick Barton]

joe,

Most of the sentiment of the anti-tax right was, and hopefully is, less tax, not spending it for different things. And, I think that there is a fair amount of outright contra-tax sentiment in those quarters but it's muted by political marketing sensibilities.

[Kevin Carson]

Rick and joe,

Most of the present administration's tax agenda is not to shrink the size of government, but to shift taxation from returns on accumulated wealth to returns on labor.

Austrians and other subjectivists believe that labor is just another "factor of production" like land and capital, right? So why is a tax on capital gains or inheritance a less "legitimate" tax than a tax on wage income?

The argument that they're taxes on wealth that was already taxed when it was first earned just doesn't cut it. Every time I go to the friggin' grocery store or buy gasoline, I pay a sales tax on money that I was already taxed on before I even got my paycheck. Absolutely the ONLY form of "double taxation" that those people object to is double taxation that affects the rich.

[Rick Barton]

Lew Rockwell makes a lot of strong points but his The Nation thing is really grasping at straws. Those folks don't appreciate individual liberty anymore than the neocons do.

[Ken Shultz]

joe,

Many on the anti-tax, right are against the income tax in principle. They may be willing to settle for cuts in marginal rates, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't "break down" the IRS and replace it with a consumption tax if they could.

Many from the same group would "break down" much of the New Deal. I don't see anyone on the left calling for the destruction of Social Security and Medicare. Do the vestiges of the New Deal qualify as "power structures" or am I missing something?

[Rick Barton]

Kevin,

I certainly don't consider the administration part of the "libertarian sympathetic right".
Also, isn't a better example of double taxation on middle class folks; the sales tax plus all the taxes on the production of the stuff that they buy?

[joe]

Ken, you're missing something. Specifically, my 5:24 post. Government programs are not systems of relationships. They are responses to traditional power relationships - the elderly were traditionally too powerless to provide for their own economic needs.

Rick, "less taxes" is not "no taxes," any more than an ACLU civil libertarian is an anti-police anarchist. Conservatives want to continue to have taxation - they just want to tax at amounts, and types, designed to concentrate economic power where they think it belongs, which just happens to be in the hands of traditionally powerful constituencies.

[Jadagul]

Joe: two questions.

First, why aren't government programs systems of relationships? I understand that they're usually responses to traditional relationships (or responses to threats to traditional relationships, e.g. farm support and FCC censorship), but don't they just replace one set of relationships with another? So when we create welfare, this creates a new system of relationships in which one class of people (the qualifying poor) have a claim on the wealth of another class of people (middle-class taxpayers).

Second, when does a power relationship become 'traditional'? For instance, I learned in my class on Enlightenment thought this semester that the idea of women secluded and needing to be protected, of female as the opposite of male, wasn't present in Mideval Europe and was in a sense a creation of the Enlightenment. So the 'liberals' under your scheme at the time would be those who supported restricting women's rights (and in fact, those who were considered liberal at the time were those who wanted to restrict women). So my question is: at what point did the power structure of women being weaker than but basically the same as men stop being the traditional power structure, and the power structure of women being fundamentally different and basically imprisoned and kept from doing anything become the traditional power structure?

Also, I should point out that traditional power structures aren't always bad. Note, for instance, the enlightenment example, where the old power structure was replaced by something worse. In a society where wealth is gained through effort, judgment and production, I think the wealthy should have more power--they're the ones who've shown themselves worthy of having it.

[Josh Yelon]

I know it doesn't seem that conservatism has a unifying principle, but it does. Here's how you know:

No matter what country you look in, the political party that supports hawkishness also supports sexual taboos. The more dovish party also supports sexual liberation. Now logically, hawkishness and prudishness have nothing to do with each other. But time after time, you see hawkishness tied to sexual taboos. If there were no unifying force, if this were just a coalition, it wouldn't *always* coalesce along the same boundaries in almost every nation.

According to Lakoff, the boundaries are determined by ancient instincts that arose when we were a tribal apelike people. People who identify with the alpha male are the conservatives. Alpha males are responsible for the defense of the tribe, and alpha males are also responsible for ensuring that the other males of the tribe do not have sex with the females.

[Rick Barton]

joe,

they just want to tax at amounts, and types, designed to concentrate economic power where they think it belongs, which just happens to be in the hands of traditionally powerful constituencies.

The folks who have initiated the tax limitation initiatives have largely been middle class. And they have been guided by an ethos which values tax limitation as its own end. This is not an effort to concentrate power. Limiting taxes limits power, so the only way that you could argue that the motivation was really to concentrate power would be to contend that their proposals would give net tax beneficiaries ( be they corporate, government or individual) more of a break. There is no evidence for this.

Actually, it is just those "traditionally powerful constituencies" that you speak of who have fought tax limitation the hardest because they are the ones who feast at the public trough.

[Yay Lew Rockwell!]

I gain no pleasure from it, but I am also not in the least embarrassed by unveiling the sleazy connections, the disturbing anti-Americanism, the chumminess with the BHHRG - a mere PR firm for dictatorships, the sickening glee shown by Lew Rockwell at the killing of Pat Tillman, the endorsement of killing American soldiers, the cultish behavior and low scholarly standards, and the sullying of the good name of libertarianism by lewrockwell.com and antiwar.com. Regarding the invocation of the despicable, racist, and oppressive White Citizens Councils, I invoked that group for a reason, because Lew Rockwell, as a Confederate revisionist and revivalist, is holding up the flag of the most detestable institution in American history, chattel slavery. How could one be so enthusiastic about a secession that was organized for the purpose of holding others in slaves? That such a cause is the driving force behind Lew Rockwell explains so much - starting with the complete abandonment of any pretence to favoring liberty. To associate such a cause with the name of a great and brilliant champion of liberty - Ludwig von Mises - is hurtful in the extreme."

(http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/016326.php)

[joe]

Jadagul, systems of relationships can be expressed by government programs, but they themselves are not the systems. Think of segregation in the post-Reconstruction South, a system of relationships that was expressed in miscegenation laws. It was also expressed through extra-legal means as well.

As for the second question, there is no hard and fast rule. At the founding of this country, organizing the economy according to meritocratic capitalism was a liberal idea, one that sought to overturn centuries of feudal privilege. A hundred years later, it was the conservative status quo, and other liberationist movements sought to change it. Each case is different.

[joe]

Rick, I do not buy your assertion that the tax-limitation movement is entirely a middle class movement. The rich people behind like to present it that way, just as the industry-funded lawyer/lobbyist who runs the "Center for Consumer Freedom" likes to present his org as a coalition of ordinary consumers. In a democratic system, it is good politics to invent a grassroots background for your movement.

In addition, at this point in our country's history, the middle class is probably the most powerful political interest group in the country.

Finally, corporatism is a rightist phenomenon. Not libertarian, not small-c conservative, but certainly conservative or rightist - just like the railroad land grants. Alpha males working together to keep the best bananas for themselves. As I said before, the Left and Right design tax and spending policies intended to benefit either the entrenched powers, or the underdogs.

[Russ D]

Social Security is not a power relationship, it is a program.

Every program, despite the honest intentions of their implementations, devolves into a basis of a power relationship. The test of the theory is watching what happens when talk of discontinuing the program begins. Social Security began as a program, but it is now mostly a power relationship; joe, you can review all your posts about the subject in the last month to see that you already know that.

[joe]

Russ D, while there may be a power relationship between Social Security recipients and taxpayers, the program itself is not a power relationship, but a manifestation of a power relationship.

Guns don't kill, people kill people. This is all peripheral, btw. The question is, does the transfer of wealth from workers to retirees demonstrate a traditional power relationship? I would argue not, since all retirees were once workers, and all workers expect to be retirees. This is unlike white/black or male/femal, which are immutable, or even rich/poor, given the low levels of actual mobility that occurs among economic classes, even in this country.

Would anyone claim that injured workers are a dominant group, and active workers subordinate, because of the existence of worker's comp? Workers pay into Social Security during part of their lives, and collect from it during another part. There really aren't two classes here - they are really the same group.

"Every program, despite the honest intentions of their implementations, devolves into a basis of a power relationship." You mean, extremely poor disabled people living in public housing are a powerful group, with income tax payers and property owners subordinate to them? Really now, think about the actual power that those groups hold relative to one another.

[Jose Ortega y Gasset]

If we strip down your argument, Joe, what we have is that liberals (the "underdogs") need deserve the power of government to defend themselves against those awful conservatives (the "bullies"). You want to frame this discussion in terms of "groups," a convenient tactic given your traditional list of the disenfranchised.

I think an apt example comes from "The Lord of the Rings." The one ring of power is like government. Almost everyone wants it for reasons noble and foul. The truth of the ring, however, is that it serves it own ends. Even the best intentioned person wielding the ring will become twisted and corrupt.

I do not question the good intentions of liberals nor that some liberal policies have done some good. In the end, Joe, a liberal wielding the ring of power that is government is even more dangerous than a conservative. A conservative mostly wants to enrich himself and hold others to a high moral standard (while keeping his porn magazines in the locked desk drawer). The liberal wants to change the world, make it a just place, an egalitarian place. With liberals in power America created a welfare system that perpetuated poverty, a public housing system that perpetuated blight and so on.

You, Joe, are Galadriel.

"And now at last it comes. You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!"

[thoreau]

Once upon a time I was active on a Tolkien board. Somebody posted a quote from Tolkien, where he said that if Gandalf had accepted the Ring he would have been even more awful than Sauron (if such a thing is possible), because Gandalf would have started with good intentions and hence would have been even more ambitious.

If the LP can find a midget to run on its ticket, maybe joe will entrust that midget to destroy the government.

[Pro Libertate]

Nice analogy, Jose. Although I've seen or thought of the Ring-equals-government metaphor before, it raises an interesting issue. Would joe have thrown the ring into Mt. Doom? Certainly, any true libertarian would, fearing that such power would be dangerous in anyone's hands, but there's no question that the ring could've been used to turn the table on those in power.

[Aside: Of course, everyone knows that the Hobbits were libertarians. I'll give joe the elves as liberals and will assume that the men were the conservatives of the tale :)]

The urge to help people is hardly a left, right, or other political leaning issue, so the temptation to "set things right" is one everyone in power has to face. Are we willing to accept some pain to avoid the dangers of "the Ring", or is the temptation to save the world simply too great? As much as I'd like to say that the left has the most trouble resisting such urges to wield power, I think it's apparent that the right behaves in a similar fashion.

[Mirthrander]

Actually the logic here is that Aragorn and the Gondorian red-staters weres nationalist totalitarian fascists for fighting ("war-mongering") against Mordor while Frodo was busy tossing the ring into the fire.

[Russ D]

You mean, extremely poor disabled people living in public housing are a powerful group, with income tax payers and property owners subordinate to them? Really now, think about the actual power that those groups hold relative to one another.

Both groups are subordinate to the implementers and adminstrators of the programs, and you conveniently leave them out of the equation.

[Jose Ortega y Gasset]

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many?yours not least." Gandalf

[Mirthrander]

Who said Aragorn and the red-staters in Rohan and Gondor were eager about dealing death in judgement?

But he still went ahead and (illegally?) invaded and occupied Morder and Isenguard.

[Jose Ortega y Gasset]

The point was more "For even the very wise cannot see all ends." The problem with wielding the power of government is unintended consequences. There is no question that many government programs are noble in intent. The problem is the results. Joe would use the power of government to save us all, and in doing so, he would enslave us all.

[Mirthrander]

And I think you give joe and his ilk too much credit about their "noble" intents.

joe is the embodiement here of what Nietzsche described as Slave Morality and such a morality is far from noble.

[gaius marius]

ah, hello -- more praise for nietzsche! at least this time its indirect....

Nietzsche described as Slave Morality

of course, we wouldn't want any limitation on the noble hero individual, would we? even if it were for self-protection? because who could ever need to be protected from their basest elements? the individual is always right! the individual is never unfortunate!

"For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

i agree, mr ortega y gasset -- but the vast majority of individuals have no hope of being even "very wise". in the interests of protecting ourselves from our stupidity, then, government becomes essential -- i would go so far as to say that this is one of government's most important functions (though no libertarian could admit that, i'm sure).

mr joe is arguing for the insurance of citizens by society from themselves and misfortune. this is not ridiculous. it is an admission of our nature as idiots and our lives as victims of random circumstance.

does that come at a price? yes. is it worth paying? as a moral question, if you believe basic happiness the purpose of society, i think yes. indifferently leaving the unfortunate to rot cannot be construed as social, imo.

[gaius marius]

if, however, you believe that what is commonly called "noble" and "heroic" is the point of life, i can see that you would be apt to contemptuously spit upon those whose luck ran out or who made some mistake as you kick them to the curb, calling them "weak". this certainly seems to be the neoconservative philosophy.

but i can find no way to construe that as good.

[Mirthrander]

gaius marius - Only individuals can act by definition of acting. By trying to trick me into believing otherwise, into limiting myself to your wishes, this is the Slave Morality that Nietzsche speaks of. You too, are clearly an advocate for it. That is fine and dandy, but don't expect me to submit to it...or to not call it for what it is.

[Mirthrander]

"but i can find no way to construe that as good."

That is because you probably construe "Good" in contrast to what you label "Evil."

Nietzsche suggests what you define as "Evil" is really the "Noble" or the "Good" of the Master Morality.

The Master Morality, in contrast to Good/Evil, sees the world as Good/Noble versus Bad/Ignoble.

[thoreau]

I just realized that if the LP did nominate a midget who earned joe's support, a lot of people on this forum would accuse the LP of selling out by seeking the support of a lefty like joe. And then the Fellowship would dissolve long before they even reached Moria, let alone the falls of Rauros.

And the midget candidate would never reach Mt. Doom (be elected) and hence never be able to destroy the Ring (dissolve the gov't).

Nice going, "libertarians", you doomed Frodo! 😉

Anyway, with Frodo officially doomed, I'd just like to say that I, for one, welcome our new Nazgul overlords! ;->

[gaius marius]

i'm well aware of nietzsche's philosophy, mr mirthrander. i'm also aware that it is misanthropic, profoundly insecure, perverted and the wellspring of the totalitarianism that slaughtered tens of millions -- and that nietzsche's insanity was manifest well before they sent him away.

that anyone can still think nietzsche sane -- despite hitler and stalin, being clearly ideal outcomes of nietzsche's philosophy -- is absurd. you and the many who agree with you are why i'm convinced that western civilization is in its death spiral.

[Mirthrander]

gaius marius: Yes, we have all heard the smears. They are not even worth responding to.

But do actually have a response to his points?

Most don't.

PS: If you define "Western Civilization" as the culmination of Slave Morality, understand I won't shed a tear for its doom. Bubba bye, Last Man!

[Jadagul]

I would say, Joe, not that the poor and disabled have all the power in society, but that they have power over others in certain arenas. Bill Gates has more power than Bill Bob the welfare recipient in most areas. He's more widely accepted. He can get more stuff. But Bill Bob has power over Bill Gates because Bill Gates is obligated to support Bill Bob through welfare. In this sense, the rich have more power to do things, but the poor have more power over others (and government administrators, of course, have the most power over others of all. As was pointed out, one of the power relationships almost all government programs entrench is the power of governors over us commoners).

Similarly, it seems that employers have more power than unions; but government regulations force businesses to deal with unions even if they'd rather hire non-union labor and the labor is happy to work unionless (and do the same thing to labor--you have to join the union to work at the company, even if you don't want to and the employer will hire you without your doing so). In this way unions are at the top of a power hierarchy, with both businesses and laborers beneath them.

And all these relationships, I submit, have now become 'traditional' or 'entrenched.' A simple proof: see how many people are horrified by the idea of doing away with welfare programs in general, or the ability of governments to give orders, or protections for unionized labor. SEe how many people are willing to consider scrapping any of these. I suspect you might get some support on the unions question--especially if you explain it thoroughly--but that's a fairly new development, which would only show that we're on the backswing, where protecting union rights is the 'old' way of doing things, and the new, 'liberal' way would be to overturn those protections. For the other two, they're so firmly entrenched that only a few people are willing to even consider scrapping them. So by Joe's definitions, a 'liberal' would favor eliminating the poor's claim on the rich, eliminating government power to control people, and scrapping union controls.

On the other hand, part of me agrees with Joe. Liberalism and conservatism, as abstract terms, have definite meanings, and I might well define them as Joe did. But I don't think these meanings have any bearing on our actual political parties--that is, I don't think Republicans are necessarily conservative, or Democrats liberal.

But then, if you really want to save the definition, try saying Conservatives want to maintain the way society existed in the early 1800s, and liberals want to invert those power relationships. That's a definition that might--though I haven't thought it through completely--map onto our political parties more closely. But it's a totally arbitrary definition, and holds only for one pair of political parties, in one place, at one time.

[kevrob]

joe, no "liberal" in classical terms, uses "power" conveniently. We libertarians refer to the use of "force", or its threat, in an attempt to be exact about what we mean - the application of violence in order to achieve social ends. "Power", in common parlance, conflates several separate concepts, among them: force, popularity, economic success, ideological influence, mastery of technology - you name it. Someone who owns a bulldozer has "power" in relation to moving mounds of earth, but may not have any authority to do so, if he owns no land, nor leases any, nor is hired to push dirt for anyone who does.

The arrangement of legal rights, within which whatever power one has must be exercised, is the essence of the problem of designing an effective polity. Those of us of a libertarian outlook prefer a certain basket of rights. joe seems to be OK with destroying certain ones we hold dear in order to achieve some floating end-state of economic distribution. Fie on that. People should be as free to refuse to make contracts as to make them, Wagner Act or no Wagner Act. To say otherwise is to have a fundamental disagreement about the nature of private property. This isn't a surprise to anyone, is it?

Kevin

[gaius marius]

But do actually have a response to his points?

Most don't.

that life as a nietzschean is not worth living, mr mirthrandian -- and indeed could not long be lived by anyone who was consistent to his principles.

a life devoid of sympathy -- as nietzsche advocates -- is what? a life spent in the love of pain.

this is not a love of life -- it is antithetical to life and its enjoyment. if life cannot be enjoyed -- if indeed the point of life is only pain -- why live it?

i know men to be animals of the meanest sort. but i, unlike The Misanthrope, do not take that to be evidence of their worthlessness. why? because i know that i am immeasurably better if i am at all -- and that no man is better than any other except by pernicious chance.

we are learning by observation that the world is random and probabilistic at its smallest quantum levels, and chaotic even in its largest systems. in our nature, in our development, in the outcome of our existence -- in this way the universe assures randomness is the most significant factor in our lives.

nietzsche argues against free will -- "a man is as he ought to be" -- he believes Great Men destined to be great, each ruled by his internal noble idea, and that Noble Greatness entitles the Superman to be valued over a million lessers. he is wrong -- which is not that free will is right. it is simply to say that Great Men are the product of the outcome of a series of probabilities which they have nothing to do with deciding. Great Men are random -- they are made or destroyed by chance.

when this is so, how can any man be admired above any other? we are not equal; and yet, the quality of our lives is distributed randomly, irrespective of our inequalities, because the role of chance is so large in comparison to them.

nietzsche's philosophy is that of a man who cannot live except in fear of this truth -- and in his psychopathic insecurity, he was forced to believe in destined Greatness because he could not accept randomness.

because the lowest wretch and the highest hero is different from me by chance, i know that there are no Supermen -- at least none i could separate from ordinary men -- but only fortunate men.

i am unable to muster lasting contempt or worship for men who are significantly different from myself on that basis -- as nietzsche was able to, on the premise that some were destined to be greater than others. i am unable to condemn prudence as a symptom of weakness, when the random turn that destroys a fortunate man is waiting around every corner, as solon knew -- as nietzsche could not admit, deriding prudence as Slave Morality. i am unable to avoid sympathy in considering the pain of my fellow man because i know that mere chance separates me from him -- something nietzsche was well capable of because of his misguidance.

i am able only to try to enjoy my life, accepting its random distributions with levity, and to help where i am able to assist my fellow man in doing so as well for the benefit of us both -- knowing that he, if he is like me, will assist me when he can.

[Pro Libertate]

"Apes don't read Nietzsche."

"Yes they do Otto. They just don't understand it."

[Pro Libertate]

That was a joke, not a shot at anyone's understanding, interpretation, or molestation of Nietzsche's philosophy.

By the way, if I had the Ring, I'd use it to get a date with the Censor, Jennifer Garner (that was for you, thoreau). Then I'd toss it.

[Broken Window]

Yeah gaius marius is basically the Slave Morality personified. BF Skinner wrapped up with Rawls, with the annoying spice of St. Paul thrown in too. All he is missing is a dash of Marxism to complete the Slave stew.

[Rick Barton]

joe,

I didn't say the tax-limitation movement is entirely a middle class movement. I said that it mostly is. There are lots of examples of corporations fighting tax limitation. They tend to be those corporations that get government subsidies. Also, tax limitation's wealthy partisans are the type of affluent folks who don't utilize the government teat.

[gaius marius]

All he is missing is a dash of Marxism to complete the Slave stew.

thanks for noticing at least that much, mr window.

i suppose you hold your fellow man in comtempt instead of sympathy?

[jc]

All men are created equal. After they are created, we start measuring them according to our whims and fancies so that they aren't equal anymore.

[Jose Ortega y Gasset]

A few closing comments, if I might. While I agree with Einstein on the infinite nature of human stupidity, I observe that government is generally comprised of humans. How can a large and powerful monolith of very stupid people protect me from my individual stupidity?

Does the paternal protection of a nearly omnipotent government make people happier? I find it instructive that the American Declaration of Indepdence affirms the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Pursuing happiness is quite a different thing from catching it. I concede that government can help protect an individual's rights. Beyond that, I think it can generally do more to hurt than help.

[gaius marius]

How can a large and powerful monolith of very stupid people protect me from my individual stupidity?

mr ortega y gasset -- i think that was the problem which locke attempted to solve with a government constructed with a separation of powers diluted between branches under a ruling law.

any such construction is transient, i suppose, and the enumeration of locke's principles here is certainly tattered.