RoR: Forum

Politics; the art and science of getting what we want from others. What more aggressive want is there than "to rule over their lives" and what more zealous a reason than "for their own good?"

When our desire to rule is self-validated by our zealous belief "for their own good" it self-rationalizes any tyranny imaginable including deceit lies and propaganda to achieve our noble wants -- to rule over others for their own good.

We can't be wrong in what we want, you see, because we've picked up this agenda in the Ivy League, where shit doesn't stink but this crap still floats.

So even as I agree with your article fully, I see an inherent problem; this isn't the America that once was. We live in a tribe that every year, ever more, chooses the whip. Both parties of power have long agreed on one premise; it is the proper function of the America form of government to run something called 'the Economy' and the only matter left to decide is whose Five Year Plan to choose. We didn't win the Cold War, we caught the Cold.

How do libertarians advocating libertarian ideas do so without simply coming across as competing elitists selling their philosophy to unwilling and uninterested others "for their own good?"

Libertarians tend not to loudly proselytize, propagandize, support tyranny, lies, and deceit to get what they want -- which is ultimately a political want: "to live in freedom."

Freedom from what? Ultimately from each other, except under rules of free association. That fundamental difference is why the conflict between freedom and tyranny is so one sided; only one side by definition has entered the conflict en masse and is directing aggression at the other -- 'to rid the nation of libertarian ideas.'

How do libertarians combat the so far rout without becoming that which they abhor?

And yet, there is the rising star of Rand Paul, out polling the usual cast of GOP me-toos at CPAC. But imagine that poor guy ... with a Congress full of Democrats and Republicans behind him. He'd be the whipping boy without the backing of libertarians in Congress.

Is it enough to illuminate the nature of the conflict? When its essence is illuminated as the difference between 'rape and non-rape' -- between free association and forced association -- who among the tribe will still proudly embrace forced association as something to line up and march behind?

And yet...humanity has demonstrated over and over its not only willingness, but eager willingness to do exactly that.

The conflict between free and forced association is asymetric; it is possible to force association with forced association, it is not possible to force association with free association.

Said another way; there was no public anti-war movement in the streets of Moscow, Hanoi, or Beijing during the Vietnam era. There was only an anti-US movement-- including here-- attacked for defending freedom overseas and thwarting the advance of forced association ... ultimately by force, and ultimately with the result "never mind, we really didn't mean all those JFK speeches about freedom and paying any price, flail away, freedom is undefendable at the right price."

It has happened repeatedly; in peacetime, the advocates of forced association are 'free' to practice subtle forms of force to advance their rotting agenda. Lies, deceit, propaganda-- the politics that is between honest begging and outright crime.

It is only when the conflict has reached crisis existential levels that the advocates of freedom/free association are compelled to defend freedom.

It is the nature of rot.

The danger this time, in what has become an almost purely internal conflict, in the America that is, that the peacetime rot has been too great-- a complete rout from within. Fight for freedom? We have entire generations who widely scoff at the word, as they've been taught to do.

Freedom, today, is the lie that bread isn't free at the grocery store. That first snicker-- by children who haven't the first concept where bread or anything else comes from -- is the first death blow to the idea of freedom. Libertarians are a century late to arrive at where the battle is long lost. The Scott Nearings arrived first, with deliberation; they had arrived to save the nation from freedom, for its own good.

Fixing that will take more than years.

regards,
Fred

Post 1

Sunday, March 31, 2013 - 10:35am

--------------------------------------
"At the foundation of this paternalism lies the belief that many of us ordinary blokes need some pushing around so we conduct ourselves properly, sensibly, prudently, wisely--in short, virtuously."
--------------------------------------

There is a certain argument based on the above. It is the argument that people are unable to take care of themselves, so they need the government to do it for them (as implied in the above quote).

I find this argument interesting for the reason that the general populace elects its representatives.

So the argument implies that people are too stupid or lazy to take care of themselves, but competent enough to elect representatives who are qualified to take care of them.

This becomes even more absurd when one realizes that the representatives are given extensive power because the citizenry is "unable to take care of themselves", yet the citizenry is still trusted to elect the representatives.

To sum this all up: A citizen is too incompetent to run his own life, but competent enough to elect a representative who is given extensive power because the citizen is too incompetent to run his own life.

I need to lie down...

Post 2

Sunday, March 31, 2013 - 6:06pm

Kyle the book "Catch 22" comes to mind...

Post 3

Monday, April 1, 2013 - 9:52pm

Although I exposed the paradox of the argument in my post 1, I agree with some of it. I agree that the people need rulers. It isn't any secret that most people in the United States are unable or unwilling to rightly take care of themselves, though, I think we all agree that they should. The truth is they won't or, incidentally, can't. This is why I recommend that the United States have politicians who are willing to lead the population in important day-to-day activities.

Fortunately, most people are okay with this type of assistance. I think they would find it helpful and, overwhelmingly, support it. As individualists (and egoists), I think we should also welcome it. Originally, I had my reservations about such government assistance. But, now, I can see much merit in letting it occur. Additionally, I don't think these politicians should be elected by popular vote. As I stated in my post 1, most people just don't know what's good for them.

Post 4

Tuesday, April 2, 2013 - 7:49am

Kyle,

...people need rulers.

That amounts to a call for tyranny, for the violation of individual rights. What I'd say, instead, is that everyone can use good leaders... people who inspire and inform. But the basis of all human interaction has to remain voluntary association and the sole purpose of government has to remain protection of individual rights.
-------------

It isn't any secret that most people in the United States are unable or unwilling to rightly take care of themselves...

There are only a few who "can't" - that is they are disabled in some way that isn't their fault and that is what friends, family and private charity can address. Those who "won't" aren't my concern, and the truth is that when they are no longer given government support it is stunning how many suddenly find they can take care of themselves.

We often underestimate the power of expectations. When I expect the people around me to behave towards me with respect I get more respect. But when I ask for respect, or try to lecture or wheedle it out of others,it is as if I'd opened up some kind of negotiations: "Okay, you want respect. What do I get?"
-------------

Originally, I had my reservations about such government assistance. But, now, I can see much merit in letting it occur.

Government assistance means stealing my money and giving it to others. Why would you be okay with allowing that theft to occur? Why would you want to have a system that robs from those that have money to give to those who decide they don't want to work for their own?
-------------

...most people just don't know what's good for them.

Children don't always know what's good for them, and we look after them till they do. But adults are responsible for knowing what's good for them. Kyle, I'm really surprised at this post of yours. It reads like something from a Progressive blog. Did I misread it? Was it all a spoof or something?

The problem with elections is fairly simple. A proper constitutional republic limits the power of government to such an extent that the no matter who is elected, they can't do serious harm. But this whole concept depends upon a society of individuals, most of whom think and act responsibly and have a modicum of knowledge about liberty's requirements. We once had much of that, and we may, one day, have more. Until then, feeding the idiots at the expense of the wise and productive isn't a good approach to getting where we need to be.

Post 5

Wednesday, April 3, 2013 - 5:46am

Kyle:

We need the double yellow lines in the middle of the road; those are rules.

We need folks to paint them accurately down the middle of the road; those are rulers.

We don't need folks to tell us what and where to drive, for what reasons; those are emperors.

We need plumbing, and we need to pay the plumbers; we don't need to be ruled by plumbers, nor do we live for the plumbing(Ayn Rand in "We The Living.")

When we hand a plunger to a plumber and ask him to keep the plumbing of state clean and free flowing, we should take notice when he mistakes the plunger for a scepter.

What we need(and thought we had at one time-- the constitution)is a simply stated set of axioms that define what is proper for the plumbing of state; having done so, it would be sufficient to pick our plumbers at random from the phone book. "Here are the instructions; here is a plunger. Thanks for taking on the job of plumber/referee while Americans play the game, live their lives and run the economies...but no, this doens't mean you own the team or get to be 'the' coach...."

Our elections have degraded into "American Idol" -- seeking Maxumus Leader for the role of World Emperor.

That is bullshit. We are about 50 years past due recalling the plumbers and boxing their damn ears, "What the Hell has got into you? Get back to the damn plumbing, stop trying to be f'n Emperor."

regards,
Fred

Post 6

Friday, April 5, 2013 - 10:59pm