Brain Power

Comments in a conversation considering the contrast between Conservatism and Libertarianism.

You don't find THIS level of discussion on Democratic Underground!

_______________________________________

Stuart Koehl| 2.28.13 @ 7:44AM

Libertarianism is an ideology; conservatism is a "disposition". Libertarians live according to a set of abstract ideals (as do all ideologues) and build sandcastles in the air. Real conservatism, on the other hand, recognizes human society as a messy organic construct and are loathe to interfere with long-standing social institutions that have withstood the test of time. Libertarians trust to their own wisdom in all things, while conservatives defer to the wisdom of our ancestors. True conservatives do not mindlessly imitate the past, nor do they worship the past, but they recognize continuity with the past and are not willing to sever those connections in the name of an untested intellectual construct that does not take cognizance of the frailty of human nature.

C. Vernon Crisler | 2.28.13 @ 9:37AM

Can't say I agree with the idea of contrasting "abstract ideals" with concrete life. America was founded on abstract ideas as opposed to status quo traditionalism. However, the fathers would no doubt agree with Locke that one doesn't change things on the basis of light and transient causes, so they would also accept the value of continuity.
I think we have to distinguish among libertarians. Many libertarians are okay with public morality while others are little more than anarchists (cf. Lew Rockwell et al.). Mises would not have agreed with Rothbard's anarchism and even said Rothbard's mind had gone to pot on foreign policy issues. Hayek definitely would not have agreed with the Rothbard or Rockwell versions of libertarianism.
Lincoln spoke of the abstract truths of the Declaration. By that he meant the truths of the Declaration were universal, applicable to all for all time. In touting continuity, tradition, and concrete life, we should never forget that without abstract truths, ancestralism can often be the basis of much oppression, as Lincoln well knew.


http://spectator.org/archives/2013/02/28/are-libertarianspansies#commentcontainer


________________________________________

I THOUGHT I was a libertarian. But I might be a Libertarian Conservative...

/Gunslinger

Dude...Freedom!

Bill Kristol asks:

"Can conservatives develop a program, an agenda, and a governing vision that would, in the words of Federalist 39, vindicate 'that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government'? " 

I've been thinking the very same thing: that we need a "Program, and agenda, and a governing vision" for the Tea Party/Liberty movement.

It's not really a "mission statement. It's both something more specific and yet more general...

It needs to be a touchstone; something that we can refer to when arguing issues, when designing programs, and redesigning government.

It needs to be a compilation of what we believe in, the Declaration, the Constitution, The Road to Serfdom, The Law...

...all consolidated into a few talking points that are easily accessible, easy to remember, catchy and cool.

And we need to remind people that freedom is "cool".

Even the pinheads in Hollywood know that. They consistently portray it in their movies—apparently oblivious to the cognitive dissonance between the stories they tell and the politics they profess.

Have you ever seen a movie celebrating the crushing of the hero's individual spirit and his transformation into an obedient sheep of the Powers That Be?   Ever?

Of course not. Everyone knows freedom and freemen are cool. We just have to learn how to exploit that.

The Gunslinger

(Too cool for tyranny)

Human vs Hyena

I read a little booklet by David Horowitz called The Art of Political War for Tea Parties. In it he says that what Conservatives do wrong is concentrate on logic, process and results.

He say Conservatives need to appeal to people's emotions like Leftists. I get what he means. And maybe it's a good idea as a short-term goal - to win the next election. But to encourage humans to live like animals sounds like a bad idea.

Animals live in their "feelings" (when not operating strictly on instinct). They want what they want when they see it and they have no rules about property or ownership. They'll take it if they can. And pack animals gang up on their victims. They have no rules about fair fights, or proportionate response.

Progressives are busy making government their Pack so they can sic it on anyone who has anything they want. Progressives are like nothing so much as hyenas who watch the lioness make the kill, then as a pack, steal the carcass.

I don't like encouraging that sort of mindless enthusiasm, even if it's for MY cause. I suppose we can learn to stampede animal-natured humans by appealing to their appetites. But what we end up with is still dumb beasts who are not fit to govern themselves.

Reason is what distinguishes human beings from animals. I think it's time we made that appeal.

I don't think we have to be stuffy school marms or talk like actuaries.

In fact, what we need to do is make thinking cool.

The Gunslinger
(Vulcan)

Principles vs Details

I think this is important enough to reiterate...and clarify:

We Conservatives/Libertarians/Constitutionalists often fall into a trap because we are only human, and find it difficult to resist engaging the Progressives/Marxist/Statists when they say something stupid, false, cruel, ugly, mistaken, threatening or evil.

That's the trap, you see.

If you offer money to a woman for sex and she doesn't slap your face, but starts arguing about the details of the transaction, she's pretty much ceded the underlying concept that she's a whore.

If you offer a citizen Socialized Medicine, and she doesn't slap your face, but starts arguing about the details of the bill, she's pretty much ceded the underlying concept of the possibility if not the legitimacy of Socialized Medicine.

The citizen's reaction should be as sharp and instantaneous as the virtuous woman's: Outrage at the mere suggestion of such a concept, and its utter rejection on Principle.

The only correct response is to avoid debate on the details, and denounce the concept itself—on PRINCIPLE—and never let the baiting of the Left suck you into a false argument.

It is our principles of Individual Liberty, Limited Government and the Free Market that the very idea of Socialized Medicine offends. And that should be our argument. And we should make it clear to all that we will not dignify with debate or discussion, the details of a concept we find un-American, unconstitutional, immoral, reprehensible, repugnant and entirely unacceptable - on Principle!

The Gunslinger, EOTIS
Enemy of the Imperial State

Blog Notice

I will be getting my refurbished, beautiful, upgraded, updated iMac back with the very latest operating system: "Snow Leopard" on it....Saturday.

Delivery is delayed because I opted to wait for the intro date for Snow Leopard which is Friday, rather than buying the previous OS and upgrading two days later...

On Friday, however, I will be in Sacramento for the Tea Party Express kick-off demonstration for the Tour they're making across the country, to arrive in Washington, D. C. on 9/12 for the big March on Washington taking place 9/12-13. (Unfortunately traveling to D.C. is not an option just now.)

So, it'll be Saturday before I'm back in the regular blog routine.

Thanks, everyone for hanging in there...

In the meantime, can I suggest a book ....a skinny, amazing, down to earth, clear, wonderful book that articulates our point of view with clarity and simplicity?

The Conscience of a Conservative, by Barry Goldwater.

It was written in 1960...and I'm just getting around to reading it now. I want to say "I should have read this so long ago", but I have a feeling I was supposed to read it right now. Because, what I'm reading is confirmation of the conclusions I have come to in my own evolution since 9-11-01.

And he might have written it yesterday...given that the principles he propounds are eternal and universal.

I can't recommend it enough. Like Glenn Beck's Common Sense, I really do recommend you carry The Conscience of a Conservative around with you...so you'll be armed against any argument for collectivism, government programs, State control, "social justice", redistribution of wealth, a "public option" for health care, or anti-capitalism of any stripe.

And if you've already read it, READ IT AGAIN!

The Gunslinger
Enemy of the Imperial State (EOTIS)
Vampire/Cannibal Hunter
Wolfpack

"Centrist by Definition"

I have reprinted this essay because it is too important ever to lose a link to. May the copyright gods forgive me. It will be permanently listed under "Conservative Arguments" at the top left of the front page of this blog.

If I was smart enough, and a good enough writer, I would have written this. It is precisely what is needed: A clear, concise description of what Conservatism is, and logically why it can never be "fascist", or "theocratic". And in such a few words, it tells us what we believe, why, what's wrong, and how to fix it. Not bad for a single page article!

Tony Rubolotta is my new hero. (A good Italian boy!)

Here's the link. It's the least I can do. Visit New Media Journal, where this essay was published. It's a great site.

The Gunslinger



Centrist by Definition
by Tony Rubolotta

I have always viewed conservatism as the centrist position between the extremes of left wing totalitarianism and right wing anarchy. Conservatives have always had the more difficult task of defining the balance between the interests of the individual and the interests of society. From this viewpoint, communism, theocracy, monarchy and their derivatives are left to extreme left. Anarchy is a virtual impossibility since any collective action by anarchists to promote anarchy is oxymoronic. Hayek’s idea of spontaneous order works against anarchy.

The human desire for social interaction and the obvious benefits of cooperation compete with an irrepressible desire to remain distinctly individual and to exercise free will. Conservatism’s challenge is to reconcile these competing desires. Unlike leftist ideologies and ideologues, conservatism makes no claim to create paradise on earth but only to create an environment where individuals can enjoy relative happiness from their own efforts and freedom without denying others the same rights. Indeed, conservatism recognizes a collective responsibility to assure individual freedom.

Conservatism is antithetical to theocracy, but its principles must be theistically consistent and informed. Submission to a higher authority provides stability of principle. Hence a belief in God is not required to be conservative, but a belief in unchanging truths of decent behavior is a must. How we are informed is equally important, which is why conservatism rejects the tyranny and brutality of Islam and atheistic communism. These deny and suppress free will and individuality, enable the happiness of some men at the expense of others and ultimately devolve to the law of the jungle in the struggle for supremacy in the upper echelon.

How we are informed of our principles also determines our sense of justice. The Judeo-Christian ethic has served America and conservatism well as the source of governing principles. Leftist criticism of America rings hollow when compared to the savagery and cruelty of the communist workers paradise or the Islamic caliphate. Even the charge that conservatives are racists pales in comparison to the racism exhibited by leftist totalitarian governments. Any effort by government to enforce or apply racial preferences or discrimination is anti-conservative and left leaning. Conservatism informed by Judeo-Christian ethics is anti-racist. Jews and Christians do not have religious instructions to kill Muslims, Hindus or atheists for that matter, or discriminate based on color or ethnicity.

Conservatism informed by the Judeo-Christian ethic puts forward a clear and consistent message which is exactly what our founders expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

We are equal in our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and join together to protect those rights against anyone or any interest that would deny them, including government. That is the Golden Rule of just governance. We are not all equal in our abilities or ambitions and it is not the role of government to suppress or equalize those differences. To do so requires government to make some men the slaves of others and give some men preferences over others. Justice is then not equal but the province of a ruling elite emplaced by a mob to arbitrarily decide the beneficiaries of this unequal treatment.

Limiting the power and size of government is also a principle of conservatism and clearly expressed by the Constitutional doctrine of enumerated powers. Our government today has evolved over history to become the master, not servant of the individual, usually under the premise of achieving some collective good. This has been accomplished through judicial chicanery, legislative excesses and executive abuses of power. Our government is now more remote, both literally and figuratively, than it was ever intended to be. Access to that government is bought and sold as part of the political process. That needs to be reversed and is a goal of conservatism.

When people are given the choice between clearly expressed conservative principles and the totalitarian principles of the left, regardless of what disguise they wear, most choose conservatism, the centrist position. When people are given a choice between leaders who cherish morality and those who cherish power, most will chose morality, the conservative and centrist position. The challenge conservatism faces today is to find the leadership most capable of expressing and living by those principles.

The Republican Party needs leadership that is inspired to win elections based on conservative principles more than fear of losing power to totalitarian Democrats. Until Republicans become the champions of conservative principles, the centrist position, all they can offer is the diluted totalitarianism of the left. I would like to vote for a representative, not a master, and that is where Republicans must make a distinction.

LIBERTY

Why do Conservatives believe in Liberty?

Liberty is the natural state of man. In every land, in every time, under every circumstance that limited it, man has fought, killed and died for freedom.

The impulse to freedom is strong in all sentient beings. But man, with his big, hungry brain, suffers the most in captivity.

The Woodrow Wilsons, the Stalins, the Maos, the Hitlers, the Left and The Borg will try to convince you that being part of a human hive is a cozy and safe place to be, that being assimilated is wonderful.

But no one believes it. Everyone knows it's a lie. Liberty is Life.

The Gunslinger

LIFE

In the Declaration of Independence, our Founders’ proclaimed that all men were endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, and among them were Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

This short essay will address the first: LIFE.

God gives man life. Each man's life is his own, a gift from the Creator that no other man has the right to take.

This is so obvious it might seem silly to say it. But there is a necessary element in this argument that is under assault everywhere in our country that will undermine the very "right to life" of humans: the existence of God. It is under vicious attack by Atheistic "Humanists".


"Humanists" deny God’s existence. Every American atheist was brought up in a Christian country, in which he learned everything he knows about morality. He learned Christian morals by default. It is the moral code that underpins our entire culture, its traditions, and its laws. And having been immersed in Christian morality his entire life, his entire notion of good and evil is informed by the Christian moral code.

But, having decided to deny God, he also rejects Christianity.

But he doesn’t rethink or reinvent his morality. He believes he is a good person, and he calls his moral code: Humanism.

In other words, he rejects Christianity, but because he knows no other, retains Christian morality, but renames it “Humanism”.

Then he compares the clone called "Humanism" with the original, Christianity, and lo! he discovers that his "Humanism" has developed the identical moral code as Christianity. He therefore concludes that God need not exist for people to be moral, nor is religious “superstition” necessary!

As obvious as this is, our "Humanist" doesn't understand what he's just done. He's a Liberal; not a thinker. He doesn't realize that atheism could never arrive at the same moral code as Christianity. Christian morality is based on the existence and belief in God. He's not thought through what an atheist “moral code” would be.


He has not considered that with his idea of man’s brain, his clever, accidental machine that is not the creation of a God of compassion, justice, or reason—might have no access to or understanding of, the concepts of compassion, justice or reason.

Worse, our "Humanist" refuses to follow his own logic. He wants a "moral code" that allows him to do whatever he wants, without consequences, but fails to realize it also authorizes others to do whatever they want to him, without consequences.

The unalienable Right to Life can only exist as a right if endowed by a Creator.


Abortion, so beloved and defended by "Humanists" proves the argument irrefutably: The minute they got rid of God, "Humanists" started murdering babies.

As their “moral code” evolves away from its Christian matrix, we get a glimpse of what a it looks like. The moment they stopped considering a new life as a gift from God, they saw no reason not to kill it if it's “inconvenient”.

Their pretense that "Humanism" results in a moral code equal to Christianity’s is betrayed by the very first thing they embraced once they got ride of God: The Murder of the Inconvenient.

So far it’s just babies in the womb. Who’s next?

The Gunslinger

PRIVATE PROPERTY

Why do Conservatives believe in “Private Property” Did you know that the famous declaration of inalienable rights, “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”, was supposed to be, “Life, Liberty and Property”? They changed that last one because of slavery.They didn’t want to enshrine in founding documents, a word that would certainly be used by slaveholders to justify the institution. But here, now, since we have no such concerns, the original third word of the great triumvirate will be given its rightful place of prime importance.

PROPERTY

The first argument is the Life Argument:

We have established that as humans, we have a right to the lives and bodies given to us by Providence. But of what does that life consist?

It consists of what we are, but it also consists of what we do. Action is the expenditure of our life’s time and our bodies’ energy – the very essence of ourselves.

Through action, a person transforms his time/energy into a new form, but it remains his time/energy, an extension of his being.

Our time/energy may be expended working in a cannery.

Time/energy = labor = money = a new car.

Though it goes through many transformations, our time & energy is a part of our being, even in the form of a new car.

Property is our life’s time/energy transformed into matter. Our property is ourselves!

Hence, the right to Property is absolute. It is the right to the time/energy of one’s own life and body.


MEANS OF PRODUCTION

The second argument the Liberty Argument:

Having established that Liberty is the natural state of all human beings, it is necessary to secure the right to private property to secure liberty.

People cannot live without shelter, food, water, medicine. If the State owns all the housing, food production & delivery systems, water supplies, doctors & hospitals, one is dependent on the State for life itself.

When the State owns production, the State owns the people. It becomes the Master, and men become its slaves.

Private Property keeps the means of production in as many individual hands as possible. Natural competition among the various producers provides variety, options—the freedom of many choices, which prevents the domination of the people by an authoritarian single Power like the State.

Private Property is REQUIRED for Liberty.

Knowing What's Good & Bad

Quick and Dirty Rules for determining whether a policy, proposal or idea is good or bad:

1) If it advances individual liberty, it's good

2) If it limits individual liberty, it's bad.

3) If it decreases the power of The State, it's good.

4) If it increases the power of The State, it's bad.

There are exceptions, and degrees of compromise sometimes required and reasonable in the real world. But this is a simple litmus test, and will keep you from getting sucked into arguments about detail and minutiae that take your eyes off the prize.

The Gunslinger

ARGUMENT AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE

UPDATE:

Since I wrote this, I have had something of a change of conclusion on this topic. Not because I have changed the opinions I wrote below, but because the basis/criterion for marriage in our country is not really as I described it. The one I used is, essentially, obsolete.

We no longer, in fact, consider marriage a contract between a reproducing couple and Society for the purpose of raising up the next generation of mothers and warriors. We, pretty much, as a historically ill-educated mob, believe marriage to be about (awwwww.....) "love". 

You know, something akin to big-eyed puppies and rainbow-farting unicorns.

So, since we have descended into this morass of effulgent emotionalism, we no longer have an argument to keep people from marrying chimps or goats or their mommies. If marriage is about (awwwww......) "love" (and it seems that we have, as a culture, decided that it is) refusing to allow gays to marry is just kind of pointless and a little cruel.

After all, they (awwwww.....) "love" each other.

My argument below was operating on notions and societal rules that are no longer in effect. We passed beyond that boundary sometime while we were sleeping. 

The Gunslinger  (February 19, 2011)

-—-—-—-

Marriage recognized by the state is a privilege...not a right. And society deems it good to reward the privilege of marriage to those people who are willing to vow fidelity to each other for the purpose of making and raising the next generation.

"Marriage" is not about "love" or the "fulfillment of the partners" or any other such drivel. It is about the recognition by society that couples thus dedicated will be taking on the burden of perpetuating the species.

Homosexual unions simply don't qualify for this particular privilege.

Society does, actually, have some right to determine upon whom it will confer privileges.

And every privilege conferred by society is not a "civil right" automatically due to everyone.

Homosexuals have the EXACT same right to marry as I do. I have to marry a member of the opposite sex. So do they. There is no "discrimination" at all.

They want "special" rights for themselves: The privilege of marriage without the duties & responsibilities.

(Gay adoption...is part of the radical homosexual "marriage" agenda, it is not an argument, it's circular reasoning!)

It's quite simple really.

Heterosexuality is the norm. Obviously. If it were not, we would not be here. Heterosexuality is the planetary norm. Homosexuality is a deviation from the norm.

Assuming for the moment that homosexuality is inherent, it may be considered "natural", but it can't be considered "normal".

I don't hate homosexuals anymore than I hate people born blind. But it makes as much sense to privilege homosexuals with marriage as to privilege the blind with drivers licenses.

They are not qualified.

The Gunslinger

How To Win Any Argument

1) When you keep prices artificially low, you get shortages.

2) When you keep wages artificially high, you get unemployment.

3) When you subsidize something, you get more of it.

4) When you tax or regulate something, you get less of it

These are laws of nature. Human nature. They are unbreakable. They are universal. And they are why Leftist policies always fail. Yet, every Leftist continues to believe that he can somehow invalidate these laws. No matter how many times these laws have proved inviolable, the Leftists continue to batter their tattered and broken philosophy against them.

For us, these four laws are gifts. Gifts to use against the often vague and generalized arguments Leftists employ to support their doomed programs. All we have to do is boil down every proposal to its fundamental effects. Some examples:

Rule #1 tells us that "Controlled Cost Medicine" will result in rationed care.

Rule #2 tells us that a high "Minimum Wage" results in fewer unskilled workers hired.

Rule #3 tells us that legal abortion encourages irresponsible sexual activity - no consequences!

Rule #3 also tells us that taxpayer funded abortion encourages choosing abortion as opposed to adoption—it's free!

Rule #4 tells us that "windfall" taxes on oil companies will result in gas shortages.

I'm thinking most leftist policies can be successfully disputed using these four rules. Am I missing anything?

The Gunslinger