Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Werewolf on June 16, 2009, 10:01:58 PM
-
The word liberal is tossed around quite a bit here, in the media, on the street, at water coolers.
It seems to mean different things to many people.
When I think liberal - at least liberal as the media uses it and not the classic definition - I think:
- ideal: belonging to or characteristic of an ideal perfect state or place
- admirable but impracticable: admirable but impracticable in real life
- impractically idealistic: tending to deal in admirable but impracticable ideas
These are the things that modern liberals seem to want. It is what Obama wants. Especially the 1st and 3rd ones.
It seems likely that many would agree.
Except for one thing: Those traits classify one as a Utopian - not a liberal. So why doesn't the media call these people what they are Utopians? Is utopian a dirty word? too hard for Joe SixPack to understand. Is liberal emotionally charged in a way that can grab one's heart strings while utopian is a cold and academic word?
What's the deal? Inquiring minds want to know.
-
It would be too vague. Anarcho-capitalists have Utopian visions as well. Galt's Gulch is also an Utopian vision.
To me "liberal" and "conservative" are two of the most abused words. We don't mean what they are defined as, but they are code words for entire sets of tribal beliefs completely unrelated to liberal or conservative meaning.
-
I think that "statist" is a better descriptor than "liberal".
-
I think that "statist" is a better descriptor than "liberal".
It's a far better term.
-
leftist is also more useful than liberal. I think when most people say liberal they mean leftist.
-
My gut tells me this is a better fit in politics, so I'm going to move it.
-
When I think liberal - at least liberal as the media uses it and not the classic definition - I think:
- ideal: belonging to or characteristic of an ideal perfect state or place
- admirable but impracticable: admirable but impracticable in real life
- impractically idealistic: tending to deal in admirable but impracticable ideas
"Overrealized eschatology".
-
When I hear the term "Liberal" today, my first thought is of a person who claims the moral authority to lay claim to the fruits of someone else's labor so he can redistribute the wealth to people he believes are more deserving of it than those who worked for, earned, or created it.
-
Thank you HankB, that hit the nail on the proverbial head, now if we can just drive some of those nails into a lot of the mainstream liberals heads.......... starting with Obama.
-
They are "utopian" only in the sense that Utopia was NOWHERE, and that is where the beliefs of the Left will lead us. Nowhere in the sense of unreason, unprosperity, and unhappiness.
I find it hard to take the positions of the modern Left as anything but embarrassing projections of arrested emotional development. It is less programmatic than an incoherent array of unprocessed emotions that do not belong on a serious political playing field.
-
... emotional ...
... emotions ...
This is generally how I detect a liberal.
-
The word liberal is tossed around quite a bit here, in the media, on the street, at water coolers.
It seems to mean different things to many people.
Generally speaking, being a liberal means holding a particular set of authoritarian and statist principles. Usually associated the presumption that they know better than I how to spend my money. With a couple of wedge issues to keep the base happy.
Generally speaking, being a conservative means holding a particular set of authoritarian and statist principles. Usually associated the presumption that they know better than I how to spend my money. But with different wedge issues!
=D
-
Generally speaking, being a liberal means holding a particular set of authoritarian and statist principles. Usually associated the presumption that they know better than I how to spend my money. With a couple of wedge issues to keep the base happy.
Generally speaking, being a conservative means holding a particular set of authoritarian and statist principles. Usually associated the presumption that they know better than I how to spend my money. But with different wedge issues! =D
You might think that's cute, but it is yet more distortion piled on top of distortion that can not be left without comment.
Contemporary liberalism ~ progressivism. The labeling head feint was accomplished in the 1930s/1940s where the term "liberal," which had up to that point meant those in accord with the virtues we now know as "classical liberalism" was co-opted by the progressives as camouflage. Statism is part of the very nature of progressivism, as progressivism sees to replace faith in religion with a cult of the state.
Contemporary conservatism* ~ classical liberalism. The lexicographical transformation also occurred in the 1930s/1940s, when classical liberals were marginalized and progressives captured the term, "liberal." "Conservative" was a pejorative used by the progs/libs that was eventually claimed by those so excoriated. The postwar conservative agenda can be seen in WFB's mission statement for National Review (http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NDJhYTJjNWI0MWFiODBhMDc2MzQwY2JlM2RhZjk5ZjM=). It is about as anti-statist a manifesto as one will find that is still grounded in the founding principles.
Libertarianism is yet another utopian creed, with no roots in the founding of our nation (which it has in common with progressivism). Happily, some of its principles are compatible with classical liberalism, though they usually have a different provenance or methodology. The last few years it has been morphing from a philosophy based on negative rights (essentially the right to be left to one's own devices) into a philosophy of positive rights (rights that must be enabled by or provided by the state).
* The other thread trying to define conservatism was such a mess and so ate up I didn't even want to touch it.
-
Libertarianism is yet another utopian creed, with no roots in the founding of our nation (which it has in common with progressivism).
This is abjectly incorrect. Libertarianism is not utopian , nor would it be wrong to say it has no root whatever in the work of the Founding Fathers. Obviously the Founding Fathers weren't libertarians, but it's quite arguable that libertarianism draws on their work.
Libertarianism is also not utopian. Utopianism proposes the construction of a perfect society, and requires improvements of human nature (which are usually only improvements in the mind of the utopian. Libertarianism does not propose a perfect society (except possibly in the mind of some exceptional utopians such as Rothbard and Rand), nor does it require superhuman qualities from people for it to work (again, with the exception of objectivism).
-
This is abjectly incorrect. Libertarianism is not utopian , nor would it be wrong to say it has no root whatever in the work of the Founding Fathers. Obviously the Founding Fathers weren't libertarians, but it's quite arguable that libertarianism draws on their work.
Libertarianism is also not utopian. Utopianism proposes the construction of a perfect society, and requires improvements of human nature (which are usually only improvements in the mind of the utopian. Libertarianism does not propose a perfect society (except possibly in the mind of some exceptional utopians such as Rothbard and Rand), nor does it require superhuman qualities from people for it to work (again, with the exception of objectivism).
OK, if you excise two of the three* greatest American libertarian philosophers from American libertarianism, I suppose you could avoid the utopian label. ;/
Thing is, they are inextricably entwined with American libertarianism. Cut objectivism (AR) and anarcho-capitalism (MR) from libertarianism and you pretty much have some nice free-market economics.
* #3 would be Milton Friedman, whose work was not utopian.
-
OK, if you excise two of the three* greatest American libertarian philosophers from American libertarianism, I suppose you could avoid the utopian label.
Ludwig von Mises and Hayek were part of American libertarianism. Though of course neither were born in America, but then neither was Ayn Rand.
[But then I am not sure how much of a libertarian Friedman was...
-
Ludwig von Mises and Hayek were part of American libertarianism. Though of course neither were born in America, but then neither was Ayn Rand.
[But then I am not sure how much of a libertarian Friedman was...
I would very much argue you would find Hayek more in the camp of conservatives.
-
I think the man who wrote "why I am not a Conservative" might disagree.
Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments
-
I think the man who wrote "why I am not a Conservative" might disagree.
The definition of conservative at the time of his writing is different from the current time. He is using conservative with the correct definiton as one who is trying to preserve the status quo.
He is a classical liberal, as am I. However, classical liberals are now classified as "conservatives". I say he is not a libertarian as they reject many of the notions that Hayek thought important: traditions and mores.
-
He is a classical liberal, as am I. However, classical liberals are now classified as "conservatives". I say he is not a libertarian as they reject many of the notions that Hayek thought important: traditions and mores.
You might say that a libertarian is simply a conservative stripped of the belief in cultural or moral traditions.
-
I would argue there are also certain emotional differences. More and more I start thinking you can support almost all the libertarian policies and still be a conservative.
-
I think the man who wrote "why I am not a Conservative" might disagree.
Hayek was referencing continental European conservatism, the philosophy classical liberalism was at odds with for several hundred years: hereditary titles, clericalism, class system, monarchy, etc.
Damn straight Hayek wasn't that sort of conservative, and neither am I. Monoarchy is fine for the Brits, but I am a dyed in the wool small-r republican.
-
Do not be offended, JF, but I think that while you do not share the platform positions of Eurocnservatives, you share many of their key attitudes.
-
Do not be offended, JF, but I think that while you do not share the platform positions of Eurocnservatives, you share many of their key attitudes.
Care to elaborate?
-
Monoarchy is fine for the Brits, but I am a dyed in the wool small-r republican.
I think the Brits might look at you kinda funny, and say, "What's a monoarchy?" :P
-
I think the Brits might look at you kinda funny, and say, "What's a monoarchy?" :P
Rule by stuffed Spanish monkeys.
-
Get your hands off me, you dirty mono!!
-
I think the Brits might look at you kinda funny, and say, "What's a monoarchy?" :P
It's a disease you get by kissing a European socialist.... =D
-
Oooooh, winner.
-
I would argue there are also certain emotional differences. More and more I start thinking you can support almost all the libertarian policies and still be a conservative.
I would not disagree with that. I have spent a lot of time with libertarians and aside from their position on abortion, I rarely find myself at odds with them.
This is what frustrates me the most about many of the libertarians (on this board and elsewhere). So many attack conservatives and especially conservative Christians more fiercely than any others.
And yet, Christians and conservatives are most often their closest allies. I am for as small a government as we can possibly have. I believe the federal government ought to be providing national defense and negotiating with foreign powers and very little else. I am for federalism.
I can compromise on things like National Parks that I don't think is an enumerated power of the government, but, so long as they have purchased the land, I have only small problems with that unenumerated power.
However, because I believe a child in the womb deserves life (and think the individual states should protect it), and that marriage should be between a man and a woman (and states should decide whether to recognize other states marriages that contradict that), and I also would rather drugs be illegal (but, again, that's a state's rights issue), I am enemy number one to many libertarians.
This is one of the reasons I'm fairly certain that, unfortunately, libertarians are destined to remain an inconsequential party: they attack those who should be their closest allies.
-
When I used to get the Constitution Party newsletter, it was a laundry list of every evil deed by Bush, Reagan, et al. Both parties (Const. and Libtn.) have to convince you that the Republican Party is no better than the Democrats. That's how they get votes and money, though of course the Libertarians double-dip, by running the same game on Democrats.
-
Mak is pretty much spot on with my beliefs, although I suppose we differ a bit on the War on some drugs, but not others. Just the ones we feel uncomfortable with. Although I'm not all the way to let's sell heroin in the grocery store either, so I think we could probably compromise.
-
I would argue that the issue is not really about the right to life (there are plenty pro-life libertarians) or a given issue. But consider this:
Plenty of libertarians believe in The Man. Not in conspiracy theory, but in the existence of a social and political elite that is in charge – the media, the big corporations, the professional bureaucrats and politicians, pressure groups like the NEA and the retiree's lobby (what's the proper name again?). On this logic, the order of things around us is immoral. It's not just that we'd save money chasing drug users, but that the suffering of drug users and dealers and their families is an act of injustice and oppression. Not just that we oppose gun control, but that the suffering of people who are in prison for having a gun that is too short is immoral.
A Conservative doesn't believe in a Man. In fact, even if the Conservative opposes given policies, it seems that the Conservative respects the 'system' – so even if a given conservative opposes, say, carry licensing, he still thinks that the people punished under the law 'deserve' it because they somehow 'consented' to the penalty by disobeying the law, and the law has been 'passed democratically' after all. The Conservative – even if he supports revolutionary policies - would never endorse a revolution against The Man, even a peaceful one, because he does not believe there IS a Man.
-
I would argue that the issue is not really about the right to life (there are plenty pro-life libertarians) or a given issue. But consider this:
Plenty of libertarians believe in The Man. Not in conspiracy theory, but in the existence of a social and political elite that is in charge – the media, the big corporations, the professional bureaucrats and politicians, pressure groups like the NEA and the retiree's lobby (what's the proper name again?). On this logic, the order of things around us is immoral. It's not just that we'd save money chasing drug users, but that the suffering of drug users and dealers and their families is an act of injustice and oppression. Not just that we oppose gun control, but that the suffering of people who are in prison for having a gun that is too short is immoral.
A Conservative doesn't believe in a Man. In fact, even if the Conservative opposes given policies, it seems that the Conservative respects the 'system' – so even if a given conservative opposes, say, carry licensing, he still thinks that the people punished under the law 'deserve' it because they somehow 'consented' to the penalty by disobeying the law, and the law has been 'passed democratically' after all. The Conservative – even if he supports revolutionary policies - would never endorse a revolution against The Man, even a peaceful one, because he does not believe there IS a Man.
Interesting, I don't know that I've ever gotten that impression from the libertarians I have associated with.
Of course, these were economists so they may have been significantly different from the types to which you refer.
Personally, I think the most important means of voting is doing so with your feet.
-
Back to the topic of Liberals as Utopian, I discovered this excellent paragraph from a recovering leftist:
...I also started waking up. I realized, to my utter incredulity, that conservatives made sense, and that I was one of them. I recalled Mark Twain's quip about his father: When Twain was a teenager, he thought his father was the stupidest man in the world; but when he became a young man in his 20's, his father had many intelligent things to say. Twain couldn't believe how much his father had learned in those years! Like Twain, I grew up and saw the world as it is. Yes it would be nice to save the planet, to eliminate hunger, and to make everyone good and righteous. But humans don't have the power to do that. To walk around, as I did, with utopian images that didn't match reality was to view life through the eyes of a child. An adult understands that civility matters, people need to be held accountable for their behavior, and protecting yourself and your country are moral imperatives.
I emphasized the most pertinent parts.
It's an interesting read for understanding the Utopian mindset:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/how_to_deprogram_a_liberal_in.html
-
A Conservative doesn't believe in a Man. In fact, even if the Conservative opposes given policies, it seems that the Conservative respects the 'system' – so even if a given conservative opposes, say, carry licensing, he still thinks that the people punished under the law 'deserve' it because they somehow 'consented' to the penalty by disobeying the law, and the law has been 'passed democratically' after all. The Conservative – even if he supports revolutionary policies - would never endorse a revolution against The Man, even a peaceful one, because he does not believe there IS a Man.
That's not quite right. Conservatives respect the civil society and want their communities to remain orderly. Revolution is literally uncivilized.
There are better mechanisms in place in America for reforming the government. Rejecting those mechanisms in favor of "revolution" is foolish and dangerous, not to mention a gross exhibition of poor citizenship. Respect your neighbors, don't wreck the community over your own political whims.
Oh, and conservatives don't think that people in jail under unjust laws "deserve it". However, we do acknowledge that breaking the law often results in prosecution.
-
You're assuming I advocate a violent revolution. Nothing would be further from the truth.
-
You're assuming I advocate a violent revolution. Nothing would be further from the truth.
No, I assumed you meant non-violent revolution. There's a big difference between revolution, even peaceful revolution, and reform. Only the latter is worth supporting.
-
Why would revolution not be worth supporting?
-
Why would revolution not be worth supporting?
its to much work :| :angel:
-
You're assuming I advocate a violent revolution. Nothing would be further from the truth.
You don't think there was already one of those, last November?
-
Why would revolution not be worth supporting?
No, not because it is "too much work", but because "revolutions", even non-violent ones rarely go in a direction towards liberty.
The American revolution is quite unique. Most other revolutions have not ended well.
Bringing about another "revolution" may end up with complete socialism: people prefer order to chaos and even poor economies are better than no economy.
Instead, since we already have an amazing framework created in this country, it is better to work within that framework. It is slow progress and that is by design. Just as this slide towards socialism did not occur overnight, neither will progress towards greater liberty. I don't want to be able to quickly change this country because then my opponents can do the same.
I will modify the famous quote (often attributed to Benjamin Franklin):
Those who would give up necessary restraints on government for a momentary gain in liberty deserve neither liberty nor limited government.
-
Why do people assume that by "revolution" I am talking about some magical military engagement, in which Loyal Heroes will Charge the BArricades, bayonet the Agents of the States, Set Everything on Fire, and enact Liberty In Our Lifetime at bayonet-point?
How many times do I need to repeat this is not the case?
-
No one is assuming that. Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they misunderstand your ideas.
-
Why do people assume that by "revolution" I am talking about some magical military engagement, in which Loyal Heroes will Charge the BArricades, bayonet the Agents of the States, Set Everything on Fire, and enact Liberty In Our Lifetime at bayonet-point?
How many times do I need to repeat this is not the case?
I made no assumption that you wanted violent revolution.
However, to advocate "revolution" means you want to quickly change the state in which we exist now into a state you prefer which is vastly different.
I do not want that power. I have no idea how you intend to achieve your peaceful revolution, but to have the ability to swiftly remake a society means your opponent will have that ability as well. I am concerned with far more than simply my own liberty, but that of those who follow as well.
-
The problem with your perception of events is double:
1.For one, the Constitution (and modern American law) is equipped with various tools that do allow for rapid change. Judicial impeachment, independence of the three branches of government, the unified executive, and the pardon power are all useful here.
But more importantly, you are operating on the premise that there is some 'power' to a revolution that is issued to someone, somewhere, by some document. The truth is that a revolution – peaceful or otherwise – is a power that cannot be takn away. Once enough people want a revolution, it happens. Now, the number of people needed is lower in the US than it is in, say, North Korea, for obvious reasons such as the availability of free speech.
The Founding Fathers understood that the US government may one day become tyrannical, and they explicitly installed moral approval of changing the system of government when that happens. It's there in their writings, and in the DoI in particular.
Once a critical mass of people is dedicated to a revolution and equipped with competent leadership, the revolution tends to happen. It's difficult for me to understand how it is possible for people NOT to have that power.
2.Suppose you were unjustly imprisoned. Surely you would want to be freed today. You would not want whatever political movement which favored freeing you to dawdle for forty, fifty years as they enacted moderate reform, right?
In the Eugeny Shwartz rendition of “Don Quixote”, Don Quixote is woken up at night hearing the “Voices of the Unjustly Punished”. They repeat merely: “We are the Unjustly Imprisoned. Do you hear, good knight? You are free, we're in chains! You're free, we're in chains!”
There are literally thousands of people imprisoned under various laws which libertarians (and some conservatives) consider unjust. This thread is not the proper place to debate these laws, but here's my point: from a libertarian point of view, objective morality exists. The suffering of these people is an act of injustice going on every single day.
From a libertarian point of view, no-knock warrants, drug enforcement, and so on, is an act of constant injustice, the same as slavery was. The various laws enabling the state to apply fines, arrests, and imprisonment to activities from 'not wearing a helmet' to 'having a gun barrel an inch too short', or prohibiting people from selling and buying certain items, are an injustice. (And let's not forget there the thousands of options we'd have if society was freer that we're not even aware of.).
Every single day that goes on, a person goes to prison for some violation of these statutes, or dies because the development of a cure was held up by some FDA regulation, or maybe gets his home or car confiscated under forfeiture laws. Or maybe they just ruin his life with a conviction and let him go.
And I'm not even talking about stuff that happens in countries less fortunate than America (though I think the problem is with the entire Western world).
If I lived in America today, I'd be pretty much free to do the things I personally want to do with my life, (apart from owning machineguns*). I'm not a big fan of the forbidden pleasures. But there are people out there who are really suffering, who really need help.
The libertarian concept is tied intrinsically to the idea that objective morality exists. If an immoral status-quo, an oppressive status-quo exists – like it did with slavery, the solution is not to try to deal with it over a course of seventy years. Thousands of innocents people will live out their lives in prisons, or be shot in police raids, or have their lives otherwise destroyed or limited by the State by the time you're done.
If, within my lifetime, I will help free one drug-law inmate, or shorten the lifespan of the System by one day, then I have done something with my life. The difference between me and a conservative is that I feel the moral duty to work as hard as I can to end the System as fast as I humanly can.
*Yes, I know that if I were an American citizen I'd have the wondrous freedom of choosing from a selection of 200,000 guns manufactured 23 years ago. Even if I had the coveted citizenship (which, as you all know, is the primary goal of my life), I would prefer not to partake.
-
I can see you are passionate about this Micro, however, I will defer to the founding fathers (my own emphasis added):
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.(Aside: this is the part you are emphasizing). Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; (THIS is the part I am emphasizing) and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states.
These are the abuses they cited (among others):
He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.
He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.
For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:
For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:
Of these abuses, I ca so far only find 2 that would apply today:
He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
Here is the withholding of federal funds unless a state bend to the will of the National government.
And:
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
I believe that one is self-explanatory.
The other objections are not applicable to our present government: we still have voice in our representation and laws. For that reason, clamoring for "revolution" is unwise.
-
So you're implying that as long as the abuses are not the same abuses listed in the DoI, we're okay?
-
So you're implying that as long as the abuses are not the same abuses listed in the DoI, we're okay?
What do you mean, we?
:lol:
-
So you're implying that as long as the abuses are not the same abuses listed in the DoI, we're okay?
No. However, I am implying that any "revolution" will need abrogations of rights at least that bad.
You, on the other hand, seem to be implying the proper response to Prohibition (18th amendment) should have been revolution.
-
You, on the other hand, seem to be implying the proper response to Prohibition (18th amendment) should have been revolution. [/qute]
The proper response to Prohibition was revolution. THey repealed the Prohibition, they didn't screw around with 'compromise'.
In essence, I state that we should react to the Welfare State in the same way in which the Sufragettes reacted to the lack of proper representation and the Civil Rights marchers reacted to discrimination and the way abolitionists reacted to slavery.
No. However, I am implying that any "revolution" will need abrogations of rights at least that bad.
Please explain this assertion. So far I don't even understand by what mechanism this would occur.
-
So using the laws and following constitutionally proscribed processes qualifies as "revolution"? (i.e. passing the 21st Amendment.)
If that is the case that following constitutionally proscribed processes is a "revolution", then, I'll support your "revolution".
-
Yes, of course.
However, it doesn't mean that I support respecting all the various social institutions that sprung up informally around the Constitution over the years.
-
Yes, of course.
However, it doesn't mean that I support respecting all the various social institutions that sprung up informally around the Constitution over the years.
Well, if that's revolution, I support "revolution" as well: I think every state should withhold the money taken from people's checks by the IRS and then have the state send the money to the IRS.
That way if the federal government starts playing with the "purse strings" the state can simply refuse to send the tax bill.
I hardly consider that "revolution", though.
-
But then we ask ourselves, what is a revolution?
-
Don't forget this one:
He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.
-
So using the laws and following constitutionally proscribed processes qualifies as "revolution"? (i.e. passing the 21st Amendment.)
If that is the case that following constitutionally proscribed processes is a "revolution", then, I'll support your "revolution".
That sounds more like reform than revolution. I don't want to quibble over the terms but there's a difference, and a major distinction, that needs to be recognized here.
-
That sounds more like reform than revolution. I don't want to quibble over the terms but there's a difference, and a major distinction, that needs to be recognized here.
I quite agree. That's why I questioned his use of the word "revolution" and continue to use it in quotes. I think that is reform as well.
-
But then we ask ourselves, what is a revolution?
Not all revolutions require firearms.
Definition: Revolution
a drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and behaving.
-
Not all revolutions require firearms.
Definition: Revolution
a drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and behaving.
This is the very point I was seeking to make.
-
Not all revolutions require firearms.
Definition: Revolution
a drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and behaving.
"Revolution" implies a rapid, impassioned, dramatic overthrow of the previous order, often throwing out the good with the bad. "Reform" is a more orderly and deliberative process which seeks only to fix the problems and preserve what's good about the previous system.
Definitions:
revolution (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/reform)
reform (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/revolution)
The Founders wrote about balancing the need a government that can be changed as the need arises vs the possibility of a popular demagogue inflaming the passions of the population to implement damaging, radical changes, such as installing himself as a dictator and/or revoking the peoples' hard-won liberties. They put a number of checks in place to try to prevent such an occurrence. In the intervening years many of those checks have been removed (example: the direct election of senators).
It's hard to look at the Obama phenomenon and not see the wisdom in their thinking.
-
Types of revolutions
A Watt steam engine in Madrid. The development of the steam engine propelled the Industrial Revolution in Britain and the world. The steam engine was created to pump water from coal mines, enabling them to be deepened beyond groundwater levels.
There are many different typologies of revolutions in social science and literature. For example, classical scholar Alexis de Tocqueville differentiated between 1) political revolutions 2) sudden and violent revolutions that seek not only to establish a new political system but to transform an entire society and 3) slow but sweeping transformations of the entire society that take several generations to bring about (ex. religion). One of several different Marxist typologies divides revolutions into pre-capitalist, early bourgeois, bourgeois, bourgeois-democratic, early proletarian, and socialist revolutions. Charles Tilly, a modern scholar of revolutions, differentiated between a coup, a top-down seizure of power, a civil war, a revolt and a "great revolution" (revolutions that transform economic and social structures as well as political institutions, such as the French Revolution of 1789, Russian Revolution of 1917, or Islamic Revolution of Iran). Other types of revolution, created for other typologies, include the social revolutions; proletarian or communist revolutions inspired by the ideas of Marxism that aims to replace capitalism with communism); failed or abortive revolutions (revolutions that fail to secure power after temporary victories or large-scale mobilization) or violent vs. nonviolent revolutions.
The term revolution has also been used to denote great changes outside the political sphere. Such revolutions are usually recognized as having transformed in society, culture, philosophy and technology much more than political systems; they are often known as social revolutions. Some can be global, while others are limited to single countries. One of the classic examples of the usage of the word revolution in such context is the industrial revolution (note that such revolutions also fit the "slow revolution" definition of Tocqueville). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution)
:angel: =D
-
"Revolution" implies a rapid, impassioned, dramatic overthrow of the previous order,
I'm all for rapid, impassioned, and dramatic.
-
I'm all for rapid, impassioned, and dramatic.
Yeah, that French Revolution worked out really well huh?
-
Yeah, that French Revolution worked out really well huh?
Better than the Russian Revolution did.....and the French were really lucky that all they got from it was Napoleon....
-
I'm all for rapid, impassioned, and dramatic.
And that's precisely the problem.
-
But HTG, this time it'll work! Really! It's different now, all those revolutions before just didn't have the right people leading them!
I should also note Micro undoubtedly has a different view about what a "good result" from a societal revolution would look like.
-
Revolution is not something you weigh the pros and cons of. It is theater of the absurd. And that doesn't mean it's not part of the "option set." Right now, to many, America's future appears to be jackboots and monkeywrenches. If you believe, as some do, that the age of Good Faith began dying forty years ago and is now all but evaporated, your view of realism has to be modified.
-
But HTG, this time it'll work! Really! It's different now, all those revolutions before just didn't have the right people leading them!
It worked for the Founding Fathers, the English, the Turks, the modern Greeks, the Irish, the Romanians, and a dozen of other peoples I can mention - and that's just the non-peaceful ones, which are not our subject. The notion that revolutions never work is the stuff of legend.
-
It worked for the Founding Fathers, the English, the Turks, the modern Greeks, the Irish, the Romanians, and a dozen of other peoples I can mention - and that's just the non-peaceful ones, which are not our subject. The notion that revolutions never work is the stuff of legend.
I was actually speaking of peaceful societal revolutions as well. That said...
FF I'll grant you.
Which English "revolution" are you referring to?
Turkey: you refer to the post-WWI establishment of independent .gov? Refuting an order shortly after it is imposed by a foreign body against the will of the people is not a revolution ie sweeping cultural change. It's resistance to outside influence; not the same thing.
Modern Greeks: again, which "revolution" are you referring to?
Ireland: the IRA's consistent terrorism is a good result? Or what are you referring to?
Romania: you refer to it's post-Communism change? I'll also grant you that. If America ever becomes a Communist country then yeah, almost anything would be an improvement. Not saying a lot.
Also, cherry pick and strawman much? "It's utterly impossible and never ever works" != "It's a bad idea and generally doesn't work."
-
It worked for the Founding Fathers, the English, the Turks, the modern Greeks, the Irish, the Romanians, and a dozen of other peoples I can mention - and that's just the non-peaceful ones, which are not our subject. The notion that revolutions never work is the stuff of legend.
It's not that revolution never works, it's that it rarely works. And at least in the US, there are other alternatives to revolution that work much, much better.
-
Turkey: you refer to the post-WWI establishment of independent .gov? Refuting an order shortly after it is imposed by a foreign body against the will of the people is not a revolution ie sweeping cultural change. It's resistance to outside influence; not the same thing.
I am pointing to the Young Turks' rebellion and establishment of parliamentary rule.
[Modern Greeks: again, which "revolution" are you referring to?
Greek war of Independence.
Ireland: the IRA's consistent terrorism is a good result? Or what are you referring to?
The establishment of the IRish Free State, and later, independent Ireland.