Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: makattak on June 10, 2009, 01:38:09 PM
-
Michael Medved has written an EXCELLENT (and long) article.
http://townhall.com/Columnists/MichaelMedved/2009/06/10/the_death_of_capitalism_dont_bet_on_it?page=full&comments=true
Below is the conclusion:
In any event, we can only damage our effectiveness by misrepresenting the nature of the battles that surely lie ahead. We are fighting against a bone-headed and unaffordable expansion of government by well-meaning but misguided bureaucrats, not the imposition of socialist tyranny by jack-booted thugs. We’re struggling to protect our free market system from damaging intrusion by Washington, D.C., not to defend it against definitive obliteration. If President Obama pushes the system the wrong way (and he will) then it is up to conservatives to push back, rather than wringing hands over the system’s total destruction.
In fighting for smaller government, we fight for more liberty--- not the survival of liberty itself. Yes, that struggle amounts to a “fine old conflict” (which we can ultimately win), but it is by no means The Final Conflict of communist fantasies and conservative nightmares.
Extremely good for putting current events in perspective. We aren't in the end of the world. There may be significant damage, but if China can move towards freedom, how can we believe ANYTHING Obama and the democrats in Congress do will be irreversible?
(And as I've said before- our opponents are not working for the destruction of America, however much their actions may appear to lead there. They are not evil bloodsuckers; they are ignorant (willfully so at time), arrogant, and foolish. They are quite convinced that we are evil, though, for similar reasons that many on our side believe them to be evil.)
-
Well, to paraphrase Keynes, in the long run we're all free.
Then again, the long run can be a while.
Medved likes to put a positive spin on things. I'd like to think he's right about this one. Well-meaning but misguided covers an awful lot of ground in history.
-
We are fighting against a bone-headed and unaffordable expansion of government by well-meaning but misguided bureaucrats, not the imposition of socialist tyranny by jack-booted thugs.
Hmmmm . . . .
In the same vein, here are a couple of additional quotes which echo much the same sentiment:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Louis
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. - SCOTUS Justice Louis D. Brandeis, 1928
So the "we know what's best for you" attitudes within the government have been vexing to people who desire liberty for a long time.
In recent history, though he's a bitter old man now, Jimmy Carter probably was well-meaning as President, just woefully inept and terribly naive. But today, I really am having grave doubts about this administration's sincerity when it comes to doing what's best for us . . . BHO's policies appear to be driven by anger and hatred, are deeply steeped in corruption, leavened with arrogance, and seem to be teetering on the brink of being downright vengeful . . . a dangerous combination.
Remember, all too often the "we know what's best" rhetoric has been used by real bad guys, and I'm beginning to see signs of that at work here. (Think of Benito "he made the trains run on time" Mussolini, Karl Marx, and the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.)
-
Bravo! It would do good for people to read that snippet before posting in politics, as the handwringing crying of wolf seems to have taken over as of late.
-
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Louis
Who is this C.S. Louis of whom you speak? I've only heard of C.S. Lewis.
Sorry. I couldn't help myself. =D
-
We are fighting against a bone-headed and unaffordable expansion of government by well-meaning but misguided bureaucrats, not the imposition of socialist tyranny by jack-booted thugs.
"Well meaning?" I'm sure Lenin meant well, too, according to his own perverse version of logic.
Leftists have always been, still are, and always will be hate-filled, and to pretend otherwise is to play into their hands.
-
Easy catastrophism is cheap.
But so is easy optimism.
I've listened to Medved a lot. In his realm he's brilliant; no one on radio knows more about American history than he does.
Medved, though, suffers from the Gentleman's Disease. He believes in honor, reason, and civility, and too often he appears to think everyone else does. I think, personally, he is closing his eyes to our President's background and influences.
-
Who is this C.S. Louis of whom you speak? I've only heard of C.S. Lewis.
Sorry. I couldn't help myself. =D
Ewe no, spell Czech Kant ketch everything, rite?
-
Thing is, all those "well-meaning" type ideas that get enacted are enforced by men who are willing to kill me so they can go home after their shift.
Motivation is of use in solving a crime or in predicting future action. It means less than nothing to me, however, when the force of gov't is applied to my person.
-
Thing is, all those "well-meaning" type ideas that get enacted are enforced by men who are willing to kill me so they can go home after their shift.
Motivation is of use in solving a crime or in predicting future action. It means less than nothing to me, however, when the force of gov't is applied to my person.
That's great. Worry about the consequences of their actions. Work to defeat them.
If you'll read the rest of the article, you'll find very little of it deals with the motivations of those currently in charge of the US, but rather it is about the lessons we should take from history and the HOPE we can derive from them.
-
Nobody here's giving up. Far from it.
But from what I can see, talking to liberals and moderates, the greatest dangers are naivete' and complacency in the face of ruthless power. Dealing with bullies is never easy, and I'm afraid the current crop of Americans is emotionally ill-prepared for that task.
-
Nobody here's giving up. Far from it.
But from what I can see, talking to liberals and moderates, the greatest dangers are naivete' and complacency in the face of ruthless power. Dealing with bullies is never easy, and I'm afraid the current crop of Americans is emotionally ill-prepared for that task.
No, but what most of you are doing is using this forum to cry, whine and declare the falling sky. Other than massive amounts of debt, most of which hasn't actually been spent yet, and some inane policies, this administration hasn't done much.
I advocate keeping your eyes and ears open, your powder dry, and your pen full of ink. We have the power to throw the bums out simply by casting a vote and being heard.
-
I would argue that the problem with this administration is not its actual provinces, but the fact it's victory is seen as a major ideological point for those who support the ALREADY-EXISTING status-quo of already-existing (and slowly-growing) restrictions that have accumulated for decades.
No, the sky is not falling, it has long fallen.
-
Of course irony of Medved, the guy who opposes the very existence of third parties, and coined the word "losertarian" posing as a friend of liberty, is enormous.
-
I find it difficult to ascribe good intentions to this administration's handling of the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies. Pressuring bondholders to take pennies on the dollar for their ownership of the company, and then giving much of that same ownership to the unions as payback for campaign support isn't benign ignorance. It's criminal conduct disguised as altruism for the public good.
-
I find it difficult to ascribe good intentions to this administration's handling of the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies. Pressuring bondholders to take pennies on the dollar for their ownership of the company, and then giving much of that same ownership to the unions as payback for campaign support isn't benign ignorance. It's criminal conduct disguised as altruism for the public good.
They are true believers in the power of the union and the worker, and that it is the government's job to make sure that large companies don't fail. They don't think the bondholders deserve anything for their capitalistic investment. Just because we don't agree with it, doesn't mean they don't do it with the truest of intentions to their cause.
-
One man armed with a copy of Rules for Radicals and a teleprompter outnumbers a hundred thousand well-meaning bureaucrats.
-
Of course irony of Medved, the guy who opposes the very existence of third parties, and coined the word "losertarian" posing as a friend of liberty, is enormous.
Do you believe that only supporters of third parties and the Libertarian Party specifically can be "friends of liberty"?
-
They are true believers in the power of the union and the worker, and that it is the government's job to make sure that large companies don't fail. They don't think the bondholders deserve anything for their capitalistic investment. Just because we don't agree with it, doesn't mean they don't do it with the truest of intentions to their cause.
The GM and Chrysler fiascoes were political paybacks, Chicago-style corruption writ large. Don't confuse that with misguided good intentions.
-
And as I've said before- our opponents are not working for the destruction of America, however much their actions may appear to lead there. They are not evil bloodsuckers; they are ignorant (willfully so at time), arrogant, and foolish.
It's a distinction without a difference. Sure, they're well-meaning. They don't know they're working for the destruction of America. They just are. Their good intentions don't change the facts of the matter.
-
Do you believe that only supporters of third parties and the Libertarian Party specifically can be "friends of liberty"?
I believe that those who oppose the very EXISTENCE of all third parties and who go out of their way to insult big and small L libertarians are not friends of liberty, no.
-
It's a distinction without a difference. Sure, they're well-meaning. They don't know they're working for the destruction of America. They just are. Their good intentions don't change the facts of the matter.
Quite true. Which is why I said we need to work to stop them.
However, too many people (on our side) believe the conspiracy theories that it's all a sinister scheme to destroy our country.
In actuality, it's just bumbling fools who believe they have fresh ideas which have already been tried and failed. They refuse to believe the failure. It's Hayek's Fatal Conceit, only worse: they think they can do it, even though everyone else who tried what they are doing failed. The problem is our CURRENT crop of leftists weren't in charge, or the last experiment (and the one before that and before that....) with socialism would have worked.
-
I believe that those who oppose the very EXISTENCE of all third parties and who go out of their way to insult big and small L libertarians are not friends of liberty, no.
I listen to Medved a lot and that is not what he says as far as I have heard. Part of it is that he considers himself a Republican and he is going to defend that party and avoid heavy criticism of members of that party. That also means trying to convince people that they shouldn't go vote Libertarian, they should stick with the 'pubs and try to support better candidates. In selling that idea, he said that voting Libertarian is a losing proposition, leading to the Losertarian line. I have never heard him say he thought 3rd parties shouldn't exist at all. As far as insulting, I don't know what you mean. I think I have heard him be critical of Ron Paul, but Ron Paul earned some criticism in how he went about his campaign in '07/'08.
Is his show aired in Israel or are you listening to is over the internet?
The main thing that has always impressed me about Medved is he seems to be extremely well read and has very good recall of information on the air. My favorite is when he occasionally does his "Conspiracy Day" shows. All sorts of people call in with all kinds of conspiracies even many that I thought were obscure and unknown. In most cases, he had heard of it and read the book.
-
Of course irony of Medved, the guy who opposes the very existence of third parties, and coined the word "losertarian" posing as a friend of liberty, is enormous.
True. I am not a big L libertarian, but Medved's nastiness WRT them and the lower-case variety was shocking the first time I heard it. Just plain nasty.
Medved talks a big game that sounds a lot like the founder's conception of liberty, but in the details he is not so good. He is a "big gov't" social conservative kinda guy, at heart, and thinks the GOP is just fine with RINOs like McCain at the helm.
-
It's a distinction without a difference. Sure, they're well-meaning. They don't know they're working for the destruction of America. They just are. Their good intentions don't change the facts of the matter.
Yup.
-
As much as I like Medved most of the time I put him, along with a few other radio talks I sample, into the "wobbly" class. They will not follow their own reason where it's trying to take them, probably because they realize they'd make the wrong enemies and might lose their highly-paid jobs. They go to the brink and back off. Sometimes I think they exist just to let Joe and Jill Sixpack vent but never actually take responsible action.
Medved's snide remarks about "losertarians" demean his intelligence. There's no God-given necessity for only two parties, and you'd think in these times he'd be a bit more cynical about what we can expect from either established organization.
Our situation is not hopeless, but it is what our hope truly rests on that is the issue for me. The first thing is clarity: to see what is happening and who is causing it to happen. The next is realism: to understand what it will take, all things considered, to stop the insanity. The conclusion may not be the one we read in civics class sometimes.
-
I believe that those who oppose the very EXISTENCE of all third parties and who go out of their way to insult big and small L libertarians are not friends of liberty, no.
Medved and I both seem to disagree with you on whether the Libertarian Party represents the gold standard when it comes to advancing liberty. The Libertarians talk a good game, but then again they manage to lose every election they enter. To my knowledge, the Libertarian Party has never managed to advance any pro-liberty policy on the national level, and I suspect not on any statewide level either.
Maybe calling them "Losertarians" is a poor way to express the point, but it isn't inaccurate.
It's a distinction without a difference. Sure, they're well-meaning. They don't know they're working for the destruction of America. They just are. Their good intentions don't change the facts of the matter.
This is very true. It doesn't matter whether they're causing extreme harm deliberately or through ignorance or accident. It's extreme harm either way.
And expecting people to avoid speaking about how extreme the current policies are is a joke. I know some people don't like the discord and extreme talk and general contentiousness Obama engenders. But his policies really are this extreme, and the only way to discuss them accurately is with extreme language.
-
NO ONE is winning elections any more, not if you mean in terms of representing the best interests of the American people. It's not about partisan politics, it's about reality. Reality is that this nation is unraveling in critical ways, and that's because the agendas of both parties do not comport with good policy and honest values any more. It is about appearance and self-aggrandizement.
-
It's a distinction without a difference. Sure, they're well-meaning. They don't know they're working for the destruction of America. They just are. Their good intentions don't change the facts of the matter.
If I point my gun at your head, and shoot and kill you, I'll be charged with murder. If I carelessly spin my gun on its trigger and shoot you in the head and kill you, I'll be charged with manslaughter. The DA isn't going to let me walk because I was stupid.
I don't think these folks are simply being stupid, though. They're trying to rush legislation through before the public has a chance to digest what's going on. They've all read the history of our country, including the history of the Great Depression and its causes, yet they're pursuing the same policies that caused the Depression.
They can't be so stupid as to believe that their health care "reform" plan will allow for private insurance companies to compete with a taxpayer-funded system. They surely know that they're going to drive insurance companies out of business, and Americans will be stuck with the system the politicians devise. They know that they can't sell a single payer system, so they try to hoodwink the public into thinking that a government-funded program can coexist with private companies.
Even where their policies are the product of stupidity, it's the equivalent of multiple DUI's, and they should be imprisoned for Governing While Intoxicated with Power.
-
The left actually believes that shooting our nation in the head would be good for it. That is how warped popular thinking has become. Indeed, any talk of not shooting the head is now seen as mean-spirited, bigoted, hateful and "the old, failed politics of the past."
-
And it is the head that seems to most desire the decapitation...
-
Medved and I both seem to disagree with you on whether the Libertarian Party represents the gold standard when it comes to advancing liberty.
No, we quite agree on that.
-
The left actually believes that shooting our nation in the head would be good for it. That is how warped popular thinking has become. Indeed, any talk of not shooting the head is now seen as mean-spirited, bigoted, hateful and "the old, failed politics of the past."
I don't know whether they believe that or not. They certainly like using it to advance their own ends.