Libertarians & Leftists - Of the Same Fabric?

I have, over the decades, heard of different spiritual values being proposed. What are you proposing?

What I am proposing is the Aristotelian ethos of eudaimonism ... which, to her credit, AR pointed me to ... the ethos of human flourishing (according to man's nature), as opposed to mere physical survival -- that to which to which AR explicitly and philosophically reduced the good ... despite any contradictory, merely esthetic, expressions on her part.

And as a further consequence, I am proposing that a necessary condition of human flourishing is belonging to a community ... in the context of classical Greek history, the city-state; in the context of modern Western history, the nation-state.
(Edited by Karl Frederick Jahn on 4/12, 7:15pm)

Post 41

Friday, April 12, 2013 - 6:56pm

as decided by those making the effort; who else?

As decided by any human being whose purpose in life is more than merely prolonging it.
(Edited by Karl Frederick Jahn on 4/12, 7:17pm)

Post 42

Friday, April 12, 2013 - 7:45pm

Karl,

I would never make objections to someone proposing the Aristotelian ethos of eudaimonism. I find that Rand and Aristotle were very much alike in basing sucess on virtue, deriving an understanding of what is virtuous and what would constitute success from human nature. Both understood that life required action, and that action needed to be directed by reason.

And I, as well as Rand, I suspect, have always held that humans' best prospect for flourishing is in civilization. Community has the potential for multiplying the good (as long as the community is based upon free association), as each person's creation - material or spiritual - can enrich others as well.

I only point out that you seem determined to paint Rand as a materialist. That you are the one who is claiming that what Rand did was reduce everything to mere physical survival. She didn't take the wonder of fine art, or the beauty of logic, or joy of friendship and "reduce" them to mere physical survival - she showed that understanding the nature of life, and the nature of man, from the first axioms forward, gives us the philosophical structure to create the environment that maximizes our ability to flourish. She chose life as the standard of value. But for her it was always man's life qua man - and that was always about flourishing.

I have the suspicion that you aren't open to seeing that.

If you can read what she wrote, look at the characters she created, look at the life she led, and still think that she was only about prolonging life.... then I wouldn't know where to start in showing you how unbelievably off course that is.

Post 43

Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - 5:53am

Karl:

Re: As decided by any human being whose purpose in life is more than merely prolonging it.

Both 'whose purpose' and 'it' above are singular, self-referring back to a singular human being.

What is implied is, whose purpose is decided for themselves, as opposed to an emperor wanna-be asserting a purpose for others.

When we look at others behavior and assert that -their- purpose in creating more than they consume(ie, creating deferred value/wealth) 'merely prolonging their life,' then outside of mental wards treating paternalistic megalomaniacs and/or Congress, the only relevant phrase in a free nation is 'their life.'

One skin, one driver.

It's plenty. Any more of either, and some form of emperor is required.

We can leg lift -- "only reasonable people believe...God wants .... what is best for the Common Good...what is best for Society...enlightenment is defines as ... the Truth is..." all we want as part of our politics (the art and science of getting/taking what we want from others using any means short of actual violence), but it still comes down to an aggressive violation of One skin, one driver; the same lurch that gives humanity rape and slavery, often dressed up in the cloak of 'for our own good.'

It is not surprising how 'our own good' often requires some of us to be masters and others slaves to the collective organizational whims of the latest emperor wannabe with his eyes rolled back into his head declaring that what is best for the world is to put down mankind's silly abhorrence of slavery/rape/forced association and march behind the latest fasce.

There is no symmetry between paradigms based on free association and forced association, just as there is no ethical equivalence between slavery and freedom, or rape and freedom. They are not ethically equivalent. There is no moral or ethical equivalence between a rapist and his victim or a master and his slave or free association and forced association.

The universal meta-definition of religion in a free nation is not a collective seeking of 'the' singular answer to 'Why are we here? What are we supposed to be doing now as a result of that?' (Only when jointly sought under free association.) A universal meta-definition is more like "Why am I here? What am I supposed to be doing now as a result of that?" Whether we consciously seek those answers or not, our lives are our answer to those questions.

Oh, imagine the good any one of us could do if we were the Emperor who got to declare 'the' answer to those questions for the entire nation. Wait a minute, one comes around every 5 minutes, like clockwork.

Socialism is a collection of like minded folks forming up a commune in Vermont under free association; more power to them in America.

National Socialism, rammed down the nation's throat 51% to 49%, is forced association. I don't think there is any imaginable fabric of which Libertarians and Leftists in favor of National Socialism would be of the same cloth.

A free America would prosper with a commune of socialists in Vermont, freely formed, with free movement in and especially out. Why is that model not sufficient to demonstrate the superior nature of the experiment? Why would such a thing -- clearly the nation is divided on the idea -- need to be shoved down the unwilling 49%' throats, plural, by the brute force of a bare 51%? The 51% are free to form a socialist commune in 26 states.

We know why. The world has already run the experiment many times over; those 26 states could not build the walls high enough to keep the victims from fleeing.

This sick idea can't last for long in a world with at least one free haven. That is why what used to be an external struggle has long transformed into an internal struggle in America. In the socialist world, it is either freedom or socialism, it can't be some of both. The victims of socialism cannot be free to flee.

In the free world, there is no such symmetry. Another about to fail commune in the woods of Vermont is not a problem in the least.

The only problem with Socialism in a free nation is when it virulently turns to its totalitarian variant, National Socialism.

What is amazing is how the advocates of National Socialism blow by their embrace of forced association(that which makes rape and slavery = rape and slavery.) I'd think it should be the first clue that they are beating the wrong dead horse.

regards,
Fred

Post 44

Friday, April 19, 2013 - 7:26pm

"And as a further consequence, I am proposing that a necessary condition of human flourishing is belonging to a community..."

Me, too-- under rules of free association, not forced association. A community, certainly. But communities, not 'the' community.

Else 'the' community is a gulag.

And that is the fatal flaw of national socialism.

In a free nation, the purposes that communities empower a singular national or any government at any level are limited, not unlimited. The very fact that we have different levels of government attests to this fact. At each level, a hurdle exists: "Does this issue justify forced association -- enforceable enforcement -- over the extent applicable to this form of government? Is this a 'public' issue at this level of self-government?"

The hurdle gets higher at each larger political extent.

Or should.

The American phrase is "United We Stand." Not "United It Stands." That was the Soviet model.

From many -- plural communities, plural societies, freely formed under free association -- one -- one nation.

National socialism is entirely anathema to that concept central to freedom-- and vice versa.

regards,
Free

Post 45

Saturday, May 11, 2013 - 7:44pm

Karl,

Have you read the book "Intellectuals and Society" by Thomas Sowell or "Explaining Postmodernism" (see this book linked here at RoR) or Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism"?

I'd be real interested in your take on any of these 3 books.

Ed

Post 46

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 - 6:20pm

I have not read any of the books you cite, but I will check out the first two, esp. Thos. Sowell ... I already have the greatest respect for him. Jonah Goldberg, not so much ... considering his blinkered optimism about open borders.

Post 47

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 - 6:27pm

Mr. Bartlett,

Do you consider a community based on heredity and geography to be "forced"? If so, how do you define "force"?

I was born in America. I do not believe that my loyalty to it is based on force. Quite the contrary: the present regime is using force to de-Americanize the nation I was born into.

Post 48

Saturday, June 8, 2013 - 6:53am

Mr. Jahn:

re:Do you consider a community based on heredity and geography to be "forced"?

Of course not; "heredity" is a concept cemented to the vector of time; one can no more change their heredity than they can travel back in time.

As for geography, in a free nation of 50 state experiments running freely in parallel, one can certainly choose to vote with their feet and flee local 'communisty' tyranny.

It is the nature of 'community' that determines the aspect 'forced association.' If one is free to vote with their feet(as is the case in a free nation such as ours, before its lurch towards a form of National Socialism -- forced association on a national scale)then no force is involved and one freely chooses their 'loyalty' to their community.

It is only when attempts are made -- via forced association -- to align communities on a national(or much worse, global scale) that such freedom is impossible, and the concept 'loyalty' is erased, being replaced by subjugation to the local mob, as in, a gang rape, by force of numbers.

The reasons for doing so(applying forced association on a national scale)in a free nation are limited-- restricted by a concept other than the ethics that govern a gang rape(pure Democracy.) Ultimately, freedom means "from each other, by force; free association only." It is a concept worth joining together and defending, even, to die for, so that our children can live in such freedom.

Our fortunate accident of birth -- to be born in one of the last remaining, if dwindling, free nations on earth, is a gift -worth- being loyal to, including, to its principles that define that freedom, which are anathema to all the variants of totalitarianism, including National Socialism, based ultimately on forced association. Those that came before us died by the hundreds of thousands fighting against totalitarianism; I hope they didn't do so just so that their clueless children could embrace their own variant of it.

The justifications for federal forced association -- and I believe there are some-- should be (not must be-- they can be what they can be) based on principles consistent with freedom. I'm only talking about laws worthy of adherence to. The rest, I say, resist and ignore to the best of our abilities to do so, and sleep like a baby, if the only ethical justification for them is based on the same ethics that determine a gang rape. To me, those worthy laws would be enforcement against local acts of forced association; murder, rape, slavery, theft, fraud, the fouling of the commons as a consequence of commerce -- all examples of acts of forced association, justifying the actions of a state empowered to defend freedom. But the reason we have a federal government is primarily to face outward, not inward; state and local governments are already inward facing instruments. When a state runs wild and enacts a local tyranny -- such as, allowing human slavery -- that is a clear act of forced association justifying the actions of a federal government to remedy.

As Ronald Reagan said on the 40th anniversary of the Normandy landing, "Force used for liberation is not force used for domination." In a free nation, federal force should be restricted to liberation(and taking over 17% of the economies by force to dominate them with our preferred pet Soc. grad school theories that have failed worldwide is not 'liberation.')

By being wild and loose with what issues we raise for nation wide alignment -- OneSizeFitsAll, to be determined in a nationwide steel cage death match struggle for domination, so that 51% of us can ram it down the throats of 49% of us with no national recourse to vote with our feet, we exaggerate the forces that divide a free nation, not unify it. (United We Stand...not, United It Stands. Is the *plurality* of 'we' really that subtle?) Statewide experiments are sufficient -- in a nation where mobility between states is well within reach. Better still, county and local experiments, extending the reach of freedom to the greatest possible extent; it's easier to vote with out feet into the next town than it is the next state, but both are far easier than leaving the nation.

As far as 'loyalty to the tribe uber alles, no matter what, come what may', screw that with a chainsaw, when the tribe is losing its mind and caving in to the ethics of gang rape. Only a tribe intent on defending freedom is worth loyalty to.

A nationwide "definition of marriage" is acceptable as an issue of public debate? It is a matter for churches, plural, in a free nation. Certainly not any federal government I can imagine, empowered by our constitution.

It is necessary to establish a federal Minimum Wage? Really? So that the folks in rural Lancaster County, PA are aligned with the folks in Oakland, CA, are aligned with the folks in Manhattan, NY? Local standards of MW -- including, no minimum whatsoever, in a nation of folks free to vote with their feet, is insufficient? Only when we allow tyrants to impose their pet Soc. grad school theories -on all of us, nationwide.-

In a free nation, like minded folks freely acting under free association are totally free to form up the latest socialist commune in the woods of Vermont. Nobody is forced, in a free nation, to participate in 'capitalism.' More power to them.

Given that, why would a free America ever seek to lurch toward an enforced 'National Socialism' -- forced association on a national scale-- in any aspect of our nation? What is it about socialism that demands the forced association of even those who disagree with its premises, on a national scale?

There is no aspect of forced association in capitalism; restrictions against monopolies in our once 'mixed' economies acknowledge the dangers of monolithic OneSizeFitsAll entities. Human beings, after all, are imperfect, not always saints, etc.

Indeed, there is not just Exxon in the world. And indeed, when I drive by an Exxon station, I am free to drive right on by. There is no Exxon Man with a gun forcing me to buy his or any similar product(for way, way less than I could myself manufacture 15 gallons of gasoline, by far.)

We all agree that monopolists are coercive elements in our nation, and we empower the state to break them up when they rear their coercive heads.

The only way we render monopolists invisible is to give them guns. Because monopolists with guns in our nation are totally unseen, undetected, and not thwarted in the least. Why no; our monopolists with guns are perfect human beings, Saints. Just look at the IRS. Or the EPA. Or Fanny/Freddy. Or the NSA.

When do we stop calling the out of all control cluster fuck of cronyism in DC a 'federal government' (have we forgotten what the word 'federalism' means?) and call it what is; The National Government.

The number one way we defend our freedom in a free nation is to defend the freedom of our peers, which means, all Americans. Not the current divisive nonsense, be it 99/1% or 51%/49%, which is ironically created by attempts at nationwide forced association and the elimination of the plural 'we' in 'United we stand.'

Defending the freedom of our peers is what goes on on foreign battlefields, and that is what -should- go on in local legislatures and court rooms.

regards,
Fred
(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 6/08, 7:05am)

Post 49

Saturday, June 8, 2013 - 10:44am

[FGB] Better still, county and local experiments, extending the reach of freedom to the greatest possible extent; it's easier to vote with out feet into the next town than it is the next state, but both are far easier than leaving the nation.

The ease with which we can punish local tyranny defines freedom. A peaceful means of punishing local tyranny is to vote with our feet and not locally support it with our lives.

We can move to the next city.
We can move to the next county.
We can move to the next state.

By the time we must consider fleeing to the next nation, that tyranny must truly be widespread. And if America be the last, freest nation on earth, then where to flee to?

Note the progression above. At each stage, we all have a choice at the lowest possible hurdle: accept the will of the local majority, even as we disagree with it, because the issue truly isn't worth moving to the next city over. We have the -freedom- to weigh the local community advantages and disadvantages, in continuing to support it, because we are truly -free- to withdraw that support, if we choose. It is that freedom -- to withdraw support -- which keeps local communities in check -- because the hurdle of folks felling(ha! felling by fleeing) local insanity is indeed low enough to broadly access.

And so, evaluate that same process, at each succeeding layer of government. The higher the hurdle, the larger the opportunity for tyranny-- the more it behooves the defenders of freedom in this nation to restrict the topics under consideration for public control at each larger domain of forced association. The hurdle at the federal level should be miles and miles high...out of reach of the theocrats and others inspired by divined visions of What Is Best For The Tribe, and be constrained by a *principle* consistent with freedom.

The counter to this cannot be "loyalty the tribe uber alles, no matter what the tribe demands of any minority." To such arguments I truly say, fuck *that* tribe with a chainsaw.

We do not need to choose to flee; we can choose to stay and fight politically -- for our lives. And by doing so -- by agreeing to the premise that it is acceptable to subject our lives to the whims of Pure Democracy/Gang Rape just because some religious nut or Progressive Socialist whackjob proposed to put our lives up to the Tribe for a vote, we can fall into the trap of the gang rapists claiming that we are 'agreeing' with the outcome of their vote. Well, tell the same thing to any victim of gang rape, for the same reason, in the same context: forced association.

Forced association is exactly what makes rape 'rape.' The victim does not consent, even if a vote was held.

Have your vote. If folks are truly free to vote with their feet in this nation, then no problem. They can weigh the consequences and act accordingly. But on a national scale, what should we even permit to be placed on the ballot, sufficient to cause such division in the nation?

It's as if we have come to believe, in regard to presidential elections, that the 'winner' of the latest steel cage death match struggle for domination has won a 'mandate' by 51% to do what it will to the 49%, including, implement President Sparky's favorite pet Soc. grad school theories on 100% of us against our will. Because after all, like at any gang rape, we had a vote, and the victims lost.

There is an alternative view of presidential national elections; the winner was just awarded the sacred obligation to defend American freedom, and is granted the mighty power of the office of the POTUS in order to carry out that sacred obligation.

Which view is consistent with freedom in America, and which is what goes on in any pisshole theocracy in the world?

regards,
Fred

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 6/08, 10:46am)

Post 50

Saturday, June 8, 2013 - 11:04am

The ease with which we can punish local tyranny defines freedom. A peaceful means of punishing local tyranny is to vote with our feet and not locally support it with our lives.

So true.

Not only is it so much easier to flee a city whose government is getting out of hand than to flee the county, the state or especially, the nation, but it is also easier for a small group of people to stop a local tyranny from having its way, than to turn around things at the national level.

Post 51

Saturday, June 8, 2013 - 12:03pm

Steve:

I've had people -tell- me, "Fred, you don't know what *real* tyranny is."

Moot in a free nation, where free people are free to decide for themselves what is and isn't personal tyranny, sufficient for them to consider withdrawing their consent from what they weigh as local instances of it.

It is if these knowers of 'real tyranny' believe that its ok for their peers living in freedom to be free to vote with their feet-- but not free to decide what is and isnt' tyranny sufficient to decide to do so.

Trust them, they will tell us when our tyranny is here. Until then... sit and applaud while they conduct their version of what goes on at a gang rape, aka, pure Democracy.

A nation in which true freedom exists, the ability to vote with our feet and withdraw our consent, has no need for Emperors of What Is and Isn't Tyranny. In fact... no need for Emperors of anything...

Such freedom does not exist in a nation with unchecked national political agendas forever placed on a national ballot, with no discernible restrictions on what is or isn't appropriate for consideration of forced association on a national scale... such as , National Socialism.

regards,
Fred

Post 52

Saturday, June 8, 2013 - 4:59pm

Fred,

When they say you don't know what real tyranny is, they are both right and deadly wrong.

Yes we are still one of the freer nations in most ways and if a person is ignorant of political principles and comfortable to adjusting to what others say they should... it is almost like paradise here... now.

But what these people don't understand is that freedom disappears in a strange fashion where the least missed freedoms go first - with the would be tyrants picking the low hanging fruit first.

And they work from the individual transgressions ("There is no reason that businesses should be selling 16 oz soft drinks in a world where obesity and diabetes are such threats to out health") that are the least objectionable as concrete actions, towards erasing the principles underneath ("Government will decide what you can or cannot buy or sell").

They are like termites and if your neighbors are telling you not to worry about a few ant-like insects, and those tiny little piles of sawdust in the odd corner... ("Who cares about the 32 ounce Big Gulp anyway!")... they don't understand that before long, there will be no wood left under the wall paint and nothing holding the house up.

They don't understand that we are on a path of continuing change, and that it isn't linear, but exponential, and we are entering the steep part of the curve where things accelerate. The last thing I want to do is sit around and wait for them to say, "Wow, what happened?" They don't even understand that there ARE principles.... not just different sized drink cups.

Post 53

Sunday, June 9, 2013 - 6:12am