My libertarian rant for today

Yesterday morning I got another of those anonymous political email chain letters, the kind that circulate over the Internet all the time. Anyway, the upshot was some old bag was waxing wroth at Senator Alan Simpson (of debt commission fame) for, among other things, threatening to alter the terms of Social Security and Medicare, stuff like raising the eligibility date and so forth.

So, I typed up a reply. Specifically, I replied

to the end of her message, where she said this:

I have been paying in to the SS system for 45 years. It’s my money

To which I said THIS:

I hate to say it, lady, but it is NOT your money. It’s the government’s money. They take it from you (you have no choice in the

matter) then dole it back to you later, but only under THEIR terms and conditions. If you think it’s your money, just try asking for your Social Security benefits early, or in one lump sum payment. Good luck with that!

Here’s where my Inner libertarian comes out. I’m going to make a controversial statement, the sort that, if I ever ran for office, would get me killed by 90% of the press and at least 70% of the political class, but here goes anyway.

Dear Madam, if Simpson and his ilk are greedy, then you and millions of others were suckers.

You were suckers when you voted to let POLITICIANS instead of INDIVIDUALS control your retirement (Social Security).

You were suckers when you voted to let politicians instead of individuals control your elderly health care (Medicare).

And 51% of you were suckers when you voted to let Obama, Pelosi, and Co control health care for the rest of us.

You were suckers because you trusted the government instead of yourselves. You foolishly thought the politicians cared about YOU when all they really care about is YOUR VOTE. Millions of you suckers voted for FDR and applauded when he took away part of your freedom. Millions more of you suckers voted for LBJ and applauded as he took away more of your freedom. So stop whining now that today’s politicians are taking away more freedom still. You got what you asked for, and now you’re stuck with it.

And thus endeth my libertarian rant for today.

32 Comments

  1. Remeber this always: A country that is big enough to give you something, is just as big to take it away. They work on the OPM method – Other Peoples’ Money, not the Office of Personnel Management.

  2. “You were suckers because you trusted the government instead of yourselves. You foolishly thought the politicians cared about YOU when all they really care about is YOUR VOTE. Millions of you suckers voted for FDR and applauded when he took away part of your freedom. Millions more of you suckers voted for LBJ and applauded as he took away more of your freedom. So stop whining now that today’s politicians are taking away more freedom still. You got what you asked for, and now you’re stuck with it.”

    Numerous left-leaning dispensers of approved wisdom are now beginning to editorialize that perhaps it’s finally time to explicitly disabuse the herd of the quaint little notion that they are uninfringeably entitled to the so-called security entitlements for which they traded their, and others’, freedoms.

    By hacking away at the Constitution, indeed at the very idea of constitutionality as the embodiment of a government of limited and enumerated powers, they unleash the devil, as the old saying goes, and then act surprised when it turns on them.

    Sort of parallels the indignation and outrage feigned by our “liberal friends” when “devalued” as soulless.

    Laughing liberal:

    “You and your retrograde, progress inhibiting delusions of natural order and inherent rights. WE have had enough. The world is intrinsically meaningless; human life pointless, mankind the pure product of mindless evolutionary forces, deserving in no way of special regard or consideration; soulless and doomed to the ultimate fate of all other organisms. No better, no worse in kind or nature. We may do what ever we have the power to do, and if it makes us happy and we feel good, it will be right! So take that and apply it to your superstitious doctrines and your natural law conceits!”

    Non-liberal to liberal:

    You say this applies to all men, and in fact all organic life? Then, it follows that you yourself are soulless, no better than an insect, objectively entitled to no special regard or consideration, and your life intrinsically meaningless. Any value you may have to me or to anyone else, then, lies in your utility. At the moment I don’t find you particularly useful.

    Liberal no longer laughing,

    “Argggh … What kind of person are you to say such a thing!!!!” Begins sawing furiously on his feelings fiddle …

  3. Hi York,

    I believe this is the quote you are looking for:

    A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong
    enough to take everything you have.
    — Thomas Jefferson

  4. “You say this applies to all men, and in fact all organic life? Then, it follows that you yourself are soulless, no better than an insect, objectively entitled to no special regard or consideration, and your life intrinsically meaningless. Any value you may have to me or to anyone else, then, lies in your utility. At the moment I don’t find you particularly useful.”

    Ha ha, good one!

  5. “Ha ha, good one!”

    Though it might not seem like it to some, I’ve generally tried not to argue beyond the available evidence when, on the basis of the public pronouncements of the tribe, I’ve characterized leftist/progressive mindsets generally.

    If I have said that some leftists see human beings as meat machines, or meat computers, and delight in taking humanity down a peg or two while desacralizing human life as matters of principle and personal preference, you can be sure I have had several citations ready to back up my remarks.

    Which is why, although he often expressed outrage that I would dare make these observations, He Whose Name We Shall No Longer Mention was wary enough, and rightly so, so as to not usually demand a “citation.”

    He knew he’d get it. As he found out when I was challenged to provide a cite for my claim that there were western liberals who advocated forced abortions as a means of population control.

    That was why there was a certain amount of satisfaction, and comic relief, in watching the New Zealand Neurotic as he got caught up in trying to prove that your faith commitment was intellectually disreputable. He went on to argue precisely on behalf of, and while using much the same language, the exact views I had earlier imputed to the nihilist left.

    Now it seems, the ethical sensibilities of the progressive class have vaulted beyond mere ruminations as to what exactly it is that makes killing the innocent wrong, to bolder assertions that it hasn’t really got much at all to do with the life itself that is being killed, so much as the wants of …


    Well read it yourself.

    See, a human fetus is not a life. So it’s not killing to kill it. Well it is a life but it’s not human so you aren’t killing a human. Well it is human, but it’s ok to kill because it feels no pain, and even if it does, it’s not a person capable of experiencing anxiety, like say, a precious lobster or a fish which inconveniences no one.

    Says PETA: “

    Even though fish don’t scream [audibly to humans] when they are in pain and anguish, their behavior should be evidence enough of their suffering when they are hooked or netted. They struggle, endeavoring to escape and, by so doing, demonstrate they have a will to survive.”.

    Well not quite …

    “A study has found that, even when caught on a hook and wriggling, the fish is impervious to pain because it does not have the necessary brain power.
    The research, conducted by a team of seven scientists and published in the journal Fish and Fisheries, concluded that the fish’s reaction to being hooked is in fact just an unconscious reaction, rather than a response to pain.
    Fish have already been found to have “nociceptors” – sensory receptors that in humans respond to potentially damaging stimuli by sending signals to the brain, allowing them to feel pain.
    However, the latest research concluded that the mere presence of the receptors did not mean the animals felt pain, but only triggered a unconscious reaction to the threat.
    The latest findings contradict previous research, which suggested that these nociceptors enabled the creatures to feel reflexive and cognitive pain.

    Science News, Josie Ensor, 13 Jan 2013

    Well, Ok, let’s start over. Let’s just say that we are Progressives, and it’s now time – because we have gained enough political power not to fear doing so – to admit what we really think. Which is that we can kill whatever we want. Just so long as it is human.

  6. Eric says:
    Monday, 28 January 2013 at 18:55

    Hi York,

    I believe this is the quote you are looking for:

    A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong
    enough to take everything you have. — Thomas Jefferson

    Yeah, what he said. You’re screwed either way. :-(

  7. DNW:

    Well not quite …

    “A study has found that, even when caught on a hook and wriggling, the fish is impervious to pain because it does not have the necessary brain power.
    The research, conducted by a team of seven scientists and published in the journal Fish and Fisheries, concluded that the fish’s reaction to being hooked is in fact just an unconscious reaction, rather than a response to pain.
    Fish have already been found to have “nociceptors” – sensory receptors that in humans respond to potentially damaging stimuli by sending signals to the brain, allowing them to feel pain.
    However, the latest research concluded that the mere presence of the receptors did not mean the animals felt pain, but only triggered a unconscious reaction to the threat.
    The latest findings contradict previous research, which suggested that these nociceptors enabled the creatures to feel reflexive and cognitive pain.

    Science News, Josie Ensor, 13 Jan 2013

    When I was a kid, we caught dumb fish. They were different types, but all were dumb. We would catch them, throw them back, and 10 minutes later, catch the same fish. That’s your dumb fish.

    Now we went after a large mouth bass. We threw everything but the kitchen sink at this sucker for two weeks. All he did was give us the Fin (finger).

  8. “So stop whining now that today’s politicians are taking away more freedom still. You got what you asked for, and now you’re we’re stuck with it.”

  9. Well read it yourself.

    See, a human fetus is not a life. So it’s not killing to kill it. Well it is a life but it’s not human so you aren’t killing a human. Well it is human, but it’s ok to kill because it feels no pain, and even if it does, it’s not a person capable of experiencing anxiety, like say, a precious lobster or a fish which inconveniences no one.

    Well, at least this Feminazi is being honest when it states that “All life isn’t equal”. Of course, we could say that maybe Feminazi life isn’t equal to ours, either. What, by its own “logic”, prevent us from simply rounding them up in camps and disposing of them at will? Other than the fact that, since we’re more more moral than they are, we would never propose such a scheme other than purely facetiously?

  10. By hacking away at the Constitution, indeed at the very idea of constitutionality as the embodiment of a government of limited and enumerated powers, they unleash the devil, as the old saying goes, and then act surprised when it turns on them.

    ANOTHER excellent point, DNW! Bravo!

  11. ” Other than the fact that, since we’re more more moral than they are, we would never propose such a scheme other than purely facetiously?”

    And that Eric, is how people end up rounded-up. What makes you think we’re more moral? What makes you think morality is defined by logic, Freedom or desire for fellow man to be one unto himself? Marx had one thing right: all history is a class struggle. The entire history of mankind is one group subjugating another. Therefore I propose this: which should we be the subjugators, or the subjugatees?

    Or will we ever just allow others to be Free? Of course not! Because Freedom to some really means subjugation of others for one’s own sake. Perhaps Freedom, like God, is in the eye of the beholder. One may live for both, or kill for both.

  12. I was a tad harsh by saying the “entire” history of mankind is subjugation. The Age of Reason, the Enlightenment, the defeat of the Moslems in Spain and perhaps other brief periods were a giant leap forward for individual Liberty. Most followed by oppression and slavery. Mankind, can’t live with it and only death escapes it.

  13. Right now Eric, Capitalism and Freedom (that would make a good title to a book…perhaps by Milton Freidman) are under attcak in this very nation. The nation that gave life to individual Liberty and achievement and the rewards derived therefrom. And it all boils down to one word: Property. If one does not own his labor (himself) and is taxed for working (producing) then one owns Nothing! And if one owns nothing then anything can be taken lawfully. That’s where we are today. There are too many people who have been educated, coerced, and convinced that “the government” knows best because somehow they are the experts. They, and by majority rule We, end up giving our hard earned wage over to said “experts” who then go about destroying our wealth (collective) in our name! Go figure.

    We went to war with the British over a half-penny Stamp Tax and look at us now! What the fuck have we become?

  14. There should be no tax on income from whatever source derived be it labor, inventiveness, ingenuity or investment. As the saying goes: If you want less of something, tax it! Do we as a society want less labor? Invention? Ingenuity? Investment? I don’t think so. Perhaps that’s why our economy is lethargic. We keep taxing the very dynamics that make a society great, then lay it at the feet of those who did not create it and call it a Great Society. It’s crazy!

    Remove income tax and open up man’s creative nature.

  15. Hoagie says:
    Wednesday, 30 January 2013 at 09:23

    ” Other than the fact that, since we’re more more moral than they are, we would never propose such a scheme other than purely facetiously?”

    And that Eric, is how people end up rounded-up. What makes you think we’re more moral? What makes you think morality is defined by logic, Freedom or desire for fellow man to be one unto himself? Marx had one thing right: all history is a class struggle. The entire history of mankind is one group subjugating another. Therefore I propose this: which should we be the subjugators, or the subjugatees?

    Or will we ever just allow others to be Free? Of course not! Because Freedom to some really means subjugation of others for one’s own sake. Perhaps Freedom, like God, is in the eye of the beholder. One may live for both, or kill for both.”

    You make some interesting points Hoagie, which look as though they combine elements of fideism with evolutionary struggle. I’m not familiar with Lutheran theology, and I suppose it’s not purely Calvinistic, but on the surface what you are saying could be interpreted, or misinterpreted maybe, as The utter depravity doctrine meets Darwin .

    I have a somewhat more optimistic view about humanity, or at least the capacity of some portions of it.

    On my view, and this is not a “deep” observation or an attempt at critical interpretation, Jefferson had it right within limits. He reckoned that men who were capable of independent production, existing in a society composed of like-minded peers, tended not to behave in the pessimistic way you posit. They are of necessity too occupied with their own affairs, and have little opportunity to engage in schemes and frauds that go unnoticed. If your farm is a wreck, your neighbors soon gather some idea as to why, and you are evaluated on it.

    And I don’t think it really requires a world of merely small farmers.

    That of course immediately brings up the familiar ideas and objections to it a., specialization and the b., complications of commerce, and c., one other little problem: the very nature of society and the claims of others, if any, to a right of affiliation and access to yours (whether considered as a small “S” society, or a large “S” version).

    The first two I think are not insuperable and exist as problems as much in choice and political rhetoric as they do in reality. Are we saying that people really cannot be held accountable in our “complex” society? Or that we just quail at doing it?

    If we just quail at doing it, and I think it is what’s going on, then that leads to consideration of problem “C”. And that, “C”, the question of a right of “X” to affiliate with and draw upon “Y” at “X’s” option only, is a moral question par excellence.

    Mr. He Whose Name We Shall No Longer etc. etc. embedded a link in a minor diatribe of his not long before he was ‘disappeared’ which nicely laid out his root mentality.

    In the linked material, his referenced authority was attempting to de-legitimize our political project right at its historical base: by attacking the very predicate of such a society – which she criticized as an association of “stakeholders”.

    The idea of such a “society of the competent” probably offends her on a number of levels, as it does most critics of libertarianism, (But what of the morally fucked-up and obnoxious? Are they not entitled to our self-sacrifice too?) but the general tenor of the criticism of the left can be seen as always rooted in their demand for unconditional and secularly motivated social solidarity as part of the so-called human project; i.e., the ongoing making and re-making of humanity, as they conceive of it.

    Now of course this idea of open ended solidarity and commitment is fundamentally incoherent and self-defeating, like the inauguration of a program which has lost its original reason for being and will neither produce the effect is was supposed to produce, nor benefit the participants in the way calculated. But you for some reason, or perhaps none at all, go ahead anyway.

    Such an interpersonal claim system as the progressive presupposes is basically nothing more than a secularized and militantly a-theistic version of the idea of God’s hypothesized unconditional love for his creatures; which is then transformed mutatis mutandis into a promise of the government’s love and a tool of a-theistic bureaucratic control: “It is we who shall say when you may put a stop to your social losses … for we are the experts who have replaced God. It’s our permission you require now when you want to lay down any particular burden or pursue your own ends“.

    So can a Jeffersonian society of stake-holding peers exist, even if it is not agrarian? Yes, sure, I certainly think it can. The alternative is in fact ultimately incoherent, and eventually produces a kind of non-man termite. (Which may actually be the intent of some. LOL)

    But, the Jeffersonian vision – modified – clearly (and here is where I acknowledge Hoagie’s skepticism) cannot coexist in the same political space forever with the Perry “through no fault of their own” collectivist predicate and ideology, which seeks to put a man’s neighbors on the cross in order to pay for his sins.

    Yes, men can live in peace and freedom – relatively speaking. They just have to get their minds right, and not allow their emotions and expressions of pity to be manipulated for poor Mrs. Dweebson’s worthless layabout nihilist son, who after all is only that way “through no fault of his own”.

    Right now though? We are being devoured by the collectivist enemy within …

  16. “The nation that gave life to individual Liberty and achievement and the rewards derived therefrom. And it all boils down to one word: Property. If one does not own his labor (himself) and is taxed for working (producing) then one owns Nothing! And if one owns nothing then anything can be taken lawfully. That’s where we are today. “

    I’m wondering, and have been, if it’s a problem of moral psychology, and to some significant extent, can be reduced to a question of mental health.

    What if liberals are simply physically and mentally maladapted to a survival strategy of individual responsibility and self-sufficiency within an exchange system that severely penalizes cheating and deceit and coercion, and are merely trying to reconstruct the human ecology to accommodate their nihilism and dysfunctions, while calling it “justice” and humanism?

    Wait … that’s pretty much what we all have already concluded, isn’t it.

  17. That is exactly what we have already concluded, DNW.

    So, from todays WSJ:
    “The nation’s gross domestic product shrank for the first time in 3 1/2 years during the fourth quarter, declining at an annual rate of 0.1% between October and December, the Commerce Department said Wednesday.”

    Those fuckin’ experts were at it again! Just the idea of taxing the rich has an effect. Or perhaps people were just holding back in anticipation of the second regurgetation of POTUS. Forward!

  18. Hoagie says:
    Wednesday, 30 January 2013 at 12:41

    That is exactly what we have already concluded, DNW.

    So, from todays WSJ:
    “The nation’s gross domestic product shrank for the first time in 3 1/2 years during the fourth quarter, declining at an annual rate of 0.1% between October and December, the Commerce Department said Wednesday.”

    Just wait until the end of this quarter when then tax raises take effect. -0.1% will look like Growth!

  19. I’ve spent a little time recently reviewing liberal lit and argument, and find it startling how much of their entire modus is based on premises of dependency and fear.

    It brings back to mind those constantly repeated axioms we first heard as kids as the progressives of the time sought to re-frame the very context in which questions of freedom and independent life were considered.

    It starts with an escalating series fallacious stream-of-liberal-consciousness gibbering, and culminates in a collectivist climax: “Everybody is dependent on somebody sometime. When we exchange in modern society all parties to the exchange depend on the fulfillment of the exchange. We are therefore all interdependent! Therefore we are all dependent! And therefore we are all dependent on all! Therefore you are dependent on me! Kumbaya!

    Thus having, or so they think, undermined any reasonable claim to independency, they then proceed to try and frame self-interest as “fear of the other”, which is of course a manifestation of narcissism, and a result of a lack of sympathetic imagination sufficiently powerful to grasp that because all are equally entitled, you as part of the all, are less entitled.

    So, you conservatives are either fearful or selfish or both in imagining that you have a right to live for your own sake. If you could only understand how those others you fear have a right to live for their own sakes off of your sacrifice, it would all become clear to you. But it isn’t, because you lack the liberal gift of sympathetic imagination, and are tied to fascistic the tyranny of logic and reason: figuring that if all persons have the right to live for their own sakes, then so do you.

    Clearly you have not yet succeeded in transcending the shackles of pedestrian reason in the way progressives have.

  20. DNW:
    So, you conservatives are either fearful or selfish or both in imagining that you have a right to live for your own sake. If you could only understand how those others you fear have a right to live for their own sakes off of your sacrifice, it would all become clear to you. But it isn’t, because you lack the liberal gift of sympathetic imagination, and are tied to fascistic the tyranny of logic and reason: figuring that if all persons have the right to live for their own sakes, then so do you.

    Has anyone ever found a “happy” liberal/progressive? All I see them do is spread misery everywhere they go and call the shackles given to you, Progress.

  21. “Has anyone ever found a “happy” liberal/progressive?

    All I see them do is spread misery everywhere they go and call the shackles given to you, Progress.”

    That’s what makes them happy. Progressivism is in good measure not too much more than a term to describe human organisms that operate like that.

  22. And that Eric, is how people end up rounded-up. What makes you think we’re more moral?

    What I meant is that WE (conservatives and libertarians) are more moral than THEY (left wingers and Feminazis).

  23. Marx had one thing right: all history is a class struggle.

    Actually, I think Marx was completely full of shit. Even in societies where there was a rigid class structure (feudal Europe, feudal Japan, etc.) there were rarely any true “Class struggles” per se. The peasants were content to be peasants, the knights, knights, and the nobles, nobles. There was a brief peasant uprising in England in the 1300′s, I think, but in their 2,000 year history, that was pretty much it.

    And Marx wasn’t even talking about feudal class systems per se. He was writing in the mid-1800′s when the feudal system was pretty much gone. No, he was talking about the new industrial society, which, for the first time ever, created unprecedented class mobility. Indeed, many of the great industrialists, such as Carnegie and Rockefeller, started off relatively poor. But his whole “Class struggle” bullshit was designed to convince the world that getting an honest day’s wage for an honest day’s work, and having the ability to have competence and enterprise rewarded, was somehow a form of “Exploitation”. What he was basically doing was trying to get people who would otherwise work for each other’s benefit to hate each other. And of course the Marxists would then exploit this “Class hatred” to leverage themselves into what they really wanted all along, absolute power.

  24. What if liberals are simply physically and mentally maladapted to a survival strategy of individual responsibility and self-sufficiency within an exchange system that severely penalizes cheating and deceit and coercion, and are merely trying to reconstruct the human ecology to accommodate their nihilism and dysfunctions, while calling it “justice” and humanism?

    Wait … that’s pretty much what we all have already concluded, isn’t it.

    I disagree with this. It’s not as if left wingers are incompetent per se. Some, indeed, are highly successful (Hollywood types, for instance) so it’s not as if ther are necessarily just motivated by the promise of a free lunch for themselves.

    No, left wing ideology is geared to one thing, and one thing only – the acquisition of ever more political power. The excuse that they are doing it “For the poor” or “for the masses” is just self-serving bullshit to hide their true motives.

    Note that most true working class people (especially in America) are NOT left wingers. I know, I’ve worked with plenty of them. So it’s not the workers who are demanding a quasi-Marxist political/economic system. No, the vast majority of left wingers are self-proclaimed “Intellectuals”. Because they are allegedly “Smarter” than the rest of us, they see themselves as most fit to rule the rest of us. And they are unconstrained by either Judeo-Christian morality or the Enlightenment values of our Founders. They reject the notion that government should be limited because that would limit their own power, and they don’t want that.

    As I have been saying to Dana – POWER is the name of the game. Left wingers want it, lots of it, as much as they can grab in their grubby little hands. And their whole ideology is geared to that goal, and that goal only.

  25. What if liberals are simply physically and mentally maladapted to a survival strategy of individual responsibility and self-sufficiency within an exchange system that severely penalizes cheating and deceit and coercion, and are merely trying to reconstruct the human ecology to accommodate their nihilism and dysfunctions, while calling it “justice” and humanism?

    Wait … that’s pretty much what we all have already concluded, isn’t it.

    I disagree with this. It’s not as if left wingers are incompetent per se. Some, indeed, are highly successful (Hollywood types, for instance) so it’s not as if ther are necessarily just motivated by the promise of a free lunch for themselves.

    No, left wing ideology is geared to one thing, and one thing only – the acquisition of ever more political power. The excuse that they are doing it “For the poor” or “for the masses” is just self-serving bullshit to hide their true motives.

    There are indeed numerous left-wingers who have made fortunes, in Hollywood as you mention, or in licensed monopolies as I have previously stated.

    Yet it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion on the basis of his own language that what the run of the mill leftist most fears is exclusion from a supportive community geared or arranged to accommodate his maximized fulfillment.

    Now at what point this desire for power characterization is interpretable as compatible with an hypothesized small-time liberal true-believer impulse to collectively gain in relative power through politically centralizing it in a way which gives him herd-protection and a share in directing the lives of others which he ordinarily would not have, is debatable. And at what point a cynical Nietzschean sociopath who adopts a progressive mantle purely for show, takes over, is another matter.

    My judgement is that that both exist: the former are many in everyday life, and the latter, the pure cynics and hypocrites, are fewer, but much more politically and socially prominent. A number of senators fall into that class, obviously.

    I take it that you reject the idea that even the foot-slogging true-believers are sincerely self-deceived.

    But I think that the historical testimony bears out that many of the followers of leftism were marginalized people looking to create a system of universal “brotherhood” even if it killed many. Eastern European Marxists and socialists who immigrated to the US in the late 19th century, and with just such an admitted agenda, would fit into that category.

    Their spiritual descendants are found among the Parecon boys and Larry O’Donnell, and Obama’s mentors, rather than in the Kennedy family or the Harry Reids.

    “As I have been saying to Dana – POWER is the name of the game. Left wingers want it, lots of it, as much as they can grab in their grubby little hands. And their whole ideology is geared to that goal, and that goal only.”

    Power for the sake of what, would you say …

  26. “Now at what point this desire for power characterization is interpretable as compatible with an hypothesized small-time liberal true-believer impulse to collectively gain in relative power through politically centralizing it in a way which gives him herd-protection and a share in directing the lives of others which he ordinarily would not have, is debatable. And at what point a cynical Nietzschean sociopath who adopts a progressive mantle purely for show, takes over, is another matter.”

    This passage is awkward. My assertion was that at the lower level, the claim on the one hand that the progressive seeks power, and the claim on the other that he does so in order to cover his own deficits in confronting the world, amount to much the same thing. Flip side perspectives, in other words. You needn’t take their “justice” claims literally in order to believe that they have convinced themselves of their deservingness on social grounds.

    As to the actual number of self-regarding but pre-successful disciples of Nietzsche who found it useful to adopt a socialist guise in order to even further aggrandize themselves, I could not say.

    In cases wherein we can point to a presently rich politician who is very left-wing, we often enough discover someone who has acquired almost all of his wealth largely after joining The Collectivist Party, so to speak.

    So, in those cases, the line between Hillary’s cattle futures and Obama’s book contracts wealth on the one hand, and Bloomberg’s preexisting riches on the other, seems to give Hillary and Obama something more in common with the closed-shop advocate than with the Kennedy klan.

  27. Power for the sake of what, would you say …

    Power purely for its own sake, I believe. Some people want fame, or money, or sex or the pursuit of hedonism. And some just want power. It gives them pleasure to control others.

    The finest example of this motive can be found in the last third of Orwell’s 1984. The hero, Winston Smith, is being interrogated by O’Brien, a member of the Inner Party and also the Secret Police. I wish I had my copy of that book handy so I could quote from it directly, but unfortnuately I left it in Minnesota and I am now in California.

    Anyway, the upshot is that O’Brien is explaining to Smith the exact nature of the Party’s purpose. In this, he is being remarkably honest. O’Brein asks Smith why the Party wants power. Smith babbles back the canned bullshit the Party has fed him all his life, that it’s for the workers, the masses, etc., at which point O’Brien interrupts him and say (paraphrasing) – NO! The Party wants power FOR ITS OWN SAKE! We want to seize more and more power, obtain more and more control, until we can control men’s very minds themselves! We will eliminate the sex drive, and all independent thoughts and desires. Indeed, the Party at that point was well along in changing the language from conventional English to something called Newspeak, a language whose sole goal was thought control, such as to eliminate even the words that could lead to unorthodox, and thus unapproved, thoughts. Orwell, a one time Socialist himself, seemed to be absolutely brilliant in analyzing the left wing mind, and thus the left wing motive.

    Power. That’s their goal. Never forget it.

  28. I take it that you reject the idea that even the foot-slogging true-believers are sincerely self-deceived.

    As a practical matter, I don’t particularly care WHY they believe what they believe, only that their ideology as a whole, and from its inner core outward, is objectively evil, perhaps even Satanic. Of course, Satan is credited with, among other things, being the King of deceivers, so it could well be that many of his followers, especially the young, dumb ones (college students, for example) really think their power-lust is in pursuit of some “Greater good”. The older, smarter ones, the Chomsky’s, the Alinsky’s, the Obama’s, I supspect, are “In on the game”, so to speak. They know exactly what they’re doing, and why. And if they can delude lots of young, dumb, “idealistic” suckers to support them in their game, so much the better.

  29. Wow! Between Eric and DNW, I’m a douchebbag. But since I just got home (and a tad in-the bag) I must begge off till tomorrow. You guy;s got it all, but I need my whit’s about me to respond. (BTW, you’re both wrong )

    As you guys know, please forgive my spelling and my typing.

  30. Hoagie says:
    Thursday, 31 January 2013 at 00:02

    W

    ow! Between Eric and DNW, I’m a douchebbag. But since I just got home (and a tad in-the bag) I must begge off till tomorrow. You guy;s got it all, but I need my whit’s about me to respond. (BTW, you’re both wrong )

    As you guys know, please forgive my spelling and my typing.”

    LOL Not a douchebag, just a bit too forgiving. ‘Course Eric thinks I’m chasing my tail trying to solve a riddle that doesn’t exist.

    My take on your view, and once again it’s my take – I have nothing at risk here in being shown to be wrong – is that you have something of a classically Reformation view of man’s moral state, and that it is complemented by the standard life-is-intractable-competition view we all grew up with.

    Then of course there are on the other side are those heaven on earth, perfectibility of man (or it now seems normalizing deviance) types, who think that all we need is a collective existence and large doses of government enforced unconditional positive regard in order to ensure the “flourishing” of all.

    As I see it, there is some room to allow for man’s “natural light” and especially reason to operate, and I believe that given the right circumstances men, by and large, will neither seek to prey upon others nor to be their servants.

    I know a lot of middle Americans who grew up in precisely those circumstances. And as I see it, the desire to either seriously dominate or be dominated is pathological. It may be a behavioral or social adaptation, but it’s still pathological. The domineering only get away with it because the some men would rather follow than be set on their own, or because the good are too inhibited by concerns for “good order” and the fate of the weak should chaos ensure, to just walk up to Stalin and shove a hunting knife into his solar plexus.

    I don’t think that we’re are necessarily doomed to have to associate with predators. We get them in proportion to our tolerance level for them.

    Now I could be wrong about this “rule” applying “all men”. I don’t know, since I do not know all men, nor do I have a scientifically acceptable gauge for sorting the three classes effectively.

    Evolutionary psychologists seem to believe that some people are in a manner of speaking “bred” by environmental factors and sorting to be “collectivists.

    If that’s the case, we’re in more political trouble than we imagine.

  31. I don’t think that we’re are necessarily doomed to have to associate with predators. We get them in proportion to our tolerance level for them.

    An excellent statement!

    Indeed, the United States was founded to create precisely this kind of society, a society of free men where coercion, even by government, was kept to a minimum. And it worked well (with the obvious exception of slavery) for nearly 200 years. Then the collectivists started to take hold.

    Those of us who believe in this system need to be more vigorous in defending it. It truly is, as someone (Lincoln?) once said, the last, best hope on Earth. If it goes, it may not ever come back. For in America, the ideals of individual liberty are still taken seriously, in Europe, they pretty much are not. As the EU bureaucracy gains more and more power, the individual European becomes less and less a citizen and more and more a subject. And, individually, they don’t really seem to care. As Franklin said, they traded in their liberty for security, and will probably ultimately end up with neither.

    But to beat these left wingers at home, we have to stop making purely economic arguments. We have to realize that the true fight is on moral grounds. If we are not willing to assert that Judeo-Christian moral vales and the Enlightenment ideals of the Founders are OBJECTIVELY morally superior to their collectivist termite dreams, then they will win.

    And we all will lose.

  32. You guy;s got it all, but I need my whit’s about me to respond. (BTW, you’re both wrong )

    Hi Hoagie!

    I have a friend (Dana and York know her, too) who hails from Oklahoma. She’s a very sharp and astute woman, and she thinks I’m wrong, too. We had a number of spirited email conversations right after the election, and she thinks it’s all about economics. And, as previously stated, I do not. I think it’s really all about politics, about power and control. Economics (or, more specifically, economic “Fairness”) is just the bait to lure the suckers in. They promise to screw the rich and claim it’s for the benefit of the poor, and all we have to do is hand over to them more and more political power and control, sacrificing our liberty in the process.

    Left wing ideology is all about POWER. It is the Evil Empire in the Star Wars movies, the Borg in Star Trek, the Matrix in the Matrix movies. Any way you put it, they intend to be our masters.

Comments are closed.