patrick.net

"In Gandhi’s teaching, no human should be regarded or treated as being an 'enemy', in the sense of someone you have a right to destroy, or to hate, or to regard as alien, from whom you cannot learn, for whom you can feel no understanding or concern.

"These are simply not appropriate attitudes toward another human being. No one should be regarded as being -- in his or her essence or permanently -- evil or as utterly antagonistic. No people should be seen as being evil persons, as if they were without good in them, a different, less human order of being, as if one could learn nothing from them or as if they were unchangeable, even if what there were doing in the moment was harmful and terrible, indeed evil and needed to be opposed. Thus the whole notion of enemy was both unneeded and dangerously misleading."

-- Daniel Ellsberg, from his memoir _Secrets_, relating his initial encounter with Janaki Natarajan Tschannerl, and her description of the Gandhi philosophy of non-violence.

This country was founded on resisting people like you, and we, the right will not give up.

Actually this country was founded as a Novus ordo seclorum, a place that rejected the old order of noble privilege, dynastic wealth, and inequality.

The Progressive Era of 100 years ago had the same conservative vs. liberal battles we see now.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=607

No, this war of ideologies, is not over. But you are not my enemy, nor am I yours.

I can learn from you and you can learn from me.

The liberals won the battles of 230 years ago, 150 years ago, 100 years ago, 50 years ago, and we'll win the current ones.

If we're still right.

I am reminded of the very great American, Senator Carl Schurz:

“My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.”

stated in a speech in the Senate, February 29, 1872.

The fight between liberals and conservatives is, as you state, a long, rich one, one that the conservatives have been generally losing from the start. But stick to your guns, we need you to keep us honest and our arguments correct.

Troy says

“In Gandhi’s teaching, no human should be regarded or treated as being an ‘enemy’, in the sense of someone you have a right to destroy, or to hate, or to regard as alien, from whom you cannot learn, for whom you can feel no understanding or concern.
“These are simply not appropriate attitudes toward another human being. No one should be regarded as being — in his or her essence or permanently — evil or as utterly antagonistic. No people should be seen as being evil persons, as if they were without good in them, a different, less human order of being, as if one could learn nothing from them or as if they were unchangeable, even if what there were doing in the moment was harmful and terrible, indeed evil and needed to be opposed. Thus the whole notion of enemy was both unneeded and dangerously misleading.”
— Daniel Ellsberg, from his memoir _Secrets_, relating his initial encounter with Janaki Natarajan Tschannerl, and her description of the Gandhi philosophy of non-violence.
This country was founded on resisting people like you, and we, the right will not give up.
Actually this country was founded as a Novus ordo seclorum, a place that rejected the old order of noble privilege, dynastic wealth, and inequality.
The Progressive Era of 100 years ago had the same conservative vs. liberal battles we see now.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=607
No, this war of ideologies, is not over. But you are not my enemy, nor am I yours.
I can learn from you and you can learn from me.
The liberals won the battles of 230 years ago, 150 years ago, 100 years ago, 50 years ago, and we’ll win the current ones.
If we’re still right.
I am reminded of the very great American, Senator Carl Schurz:
“My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.”
stated in a speech in the Senate, February 29, 1872.
The fight between liberals and conservatives is, as you state, a long, rich one, one that the conservatives have been generally losing from the start. But stick to your guns, we need you to keep us honest and our arguments correct.

Troy,

Making a gratuitous assertion, doesn't make it true.

The liberals of 250 years ago, are NOT the Liberals of today.

Liberals 250 years ago, were all about freewill, free speech, self reliance, self determination.

The Liberals (or more aptly) the Progressives of today, want only to steal the wealth of the Tax paying class (people like me), and maintain themselves in the ruling class.

The sad truth is, that intellectually honest progressives, have MUCH more in common with awakened, and informed Tea Party/ Right / Patriots like myself.

The political left, manipulate people to vote Democrat to "get the evil rich", when it's really the super rich, that back the left, and democrats to steal money from me (the tax paying class) to keep us from rising up and competing with the rich.

I wish you would all read Hayek.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek

There is no place on Earth -- worth living in at least -- that operates according to Hayek.

There is, however, real-world socialist paradises of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany to learn from.

They have their share of problems but Austrian libertarianism is a pipe dream wrapped in delusion.

I am actually a left-libertarian by leaning. I'd like the world to be structured such that we have infinite economic freedom. However, this is not an infinite world, and what I see with the "Honest Abe" version of libertarianism is nothing more than a vicious circle of the rich getting richer and the poor getting increasingly disempowered as wealth -- land, natural resources, capital -- become increasingly owned by the hereditary wealthy.

This is exactly what the Founders were fighting against. Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson especially.

Thomas Paine wrote _Agrarian Justice_:

"Thus Paine views private property as necessary, but that the basic needs of all humanity must be provided for by those with property, who have originally taken it from the general public. This in some sense is their "payment" to non-property holders for the right to hold private property."

Speaking with my Georgist hat on, it's a beautiful idea!

As for your babble above, I don't know how to respond to it. The Tea Party is largely captured by Christianists like DeMint and Palin, and their shadowy billionaire backers like the Kochs, Murdoch, Dick Armey's FreedomWorks.

The Tea Party is just retreaded and rebranded Republicanism of the sort that catastrophically failed in 2006-2008 after its good long run of 1995-2005. It's all bullshit.

Republicanism and movement conservatism as exercised under Gingrich and Hastert, created many more problems than they solved. Pelosi only got 4 years to address these massive disasters, Obama only 2.

Oh well.

What's funny is that Obama was a lecturer at the University of Chicago, and by accounts got along great with the general Misean nature of the place. Leftists certainly have more to fear from Obama than conservatives, LOL.

Progressives: Hand-holding conservatives through change since 1775.

Troy says

This is exactly what the Founders were fighting against. Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson especially.

Funny that you would reference Jefferson when responding to the assertion that the "liberals" of 250 years ago are not the "liberals" of today.

Agree with Hayek's major economic positions or not, a reading of his major work makes clear that the term "liberal" has changed meaning in only the last 60-70 years or so. Today's "liberal" is generally what Hayek referred to as a "collectivist" and seeks more central government control over how the economy is run. The arguments between today's "conservatives" and "liberals" as to the merits and pitfalls of central goverment control aside, there should be little argument that when coming up with a very basic description of the difference between the two, degree of central government control is the issue.

Yesterday's "liberal," such as Jefferson, was for decentralizing government down to the most local level that could be implemented. Jefferson himself stated this explicitely in his writings. Given how you refer to Palin, DeMint, etc., who are probably, generally speaking, to the left of the so-called "liberals" of 250 years ago that you claim are your ideological cohorts, vs. today's conservatives, perhaps you should re-examine whether you are in fact a "liberal," "left-leaning libertarian," etc.: You would absolutely hate Jefferson if he were a political figure today.

BTW, there have been plenty of places on earth that have operated according to Hayek, where (generally speaking, and to pre-empt the typical strawman, not in EVERY single case) government has interjected itself into an economic activity, made the situation worse, and in an effort to fix it, interjected itself even more, to the point of eventually taking nearly full control, while of couse, blaming the non-government sector for the problem and denying any responsibility for any contribution to the problem at all. Hayek's most common work, the Road to Serfdom, was mainly an observation of the socialist movement and control of Germany during the Nazi years, where the central government took more and more control over both economic and social activity... Which leads to another Hayek observation that is generally true and can be seen all around the world: Economic and social policy are inextricably linked...

Troy says

Progressives: Hand-holding conservatives through change since 1775.

Progressives are for a clearly defined, very limited role for the central government?

Paralithodes says

Jefferson himself stated this explicitely in his writings

Jefferson was also elected to office in 1800 with 41,330 votes in total.

What I like about Jefferson was that he was on the same page as Thomas Paine about the evils of concentration of wealth and private ownership of nature.

While as a left-libertarian I think decentralization is good, I also think central coordination about establishing minimums to avoid races to the bottom is better.

The health care reform is very conservative and as such is really no big deal.

As for my left-libertarianism, I'd like to think that if we all had a citizen's dividend like those socialists up in Alaska enjoy, we'd have a much more egalitarian economy. The core problem I see with the existing economic regime is that 20% of the population is engaged in rampant rentierism on the remaining 80% -- in FIRE, landholding, medical services, energy production and distribution, etc.

It's these rents and the rent-seeking that are the corruption of our current economy. Without them we wouldn't need so much socialism in response, nor would we have the intergenerational dependencies on welfare etc we have now.

there have been plenty of places on earth that have operated according to Hayek

generally when somebody like you then proceeds to omit a list of actual examples I get the impression that you're just bullshitting me on this.

Progressives are for a clearly defined, very limited role for the central government?

No, we're for implementing intelligent change when & where necessary. Even Hayek didn't have much truck with conservatives harking back on a past that wasn't worth conserving in the first place.

The idea that this nation is an agglomeration of independent states starting sailing away with Hamilton 200+ years ago, took a body blow 150 years ago with the Civil War, and really went away 75 years ago with the 'Switch in Time that Saved Nine'. The ACA reform is actually pretty decentralized, with states given missions and minimums to meet.

This is probably less efficient than a fully centralized approach like "HillaryCare" but it is also conservative and does pay lip service to allowing state-level innovation.

One advantage the Swedes and Norwegians have over us is that they are nations of 5-10 million people. Perhaps that's the largest agglomeration where socialism can work, though the German "Central-Socialism" is a counter example that success can come with population in the tens of millions.

Troy says

Jefferson was also elected to office in 1800 with 41,330 votes in total.

Irrelevant to the point, which is that referring to Jefferson as if he were a "progressive" or a "liberal" in the same fashion of today's "progressive" or "liberal" is simply false. Regardless of the commonalities you have with his views, he would be considered a right wing extremist due to at least a) his views on decentralization and limited government control, and b) despite his supposedly being a "Deist" and even pissing off Adams with regards to religion, his quoting and reference to a "God" would have today's left accusing him of wanting a "theocracy," being a "Christian Taliban," etc.

Troy says

The health care reform is very conservative and as such is really no big deal.

It is very much not conservative, for the simple reason that it specifically breaches a particular aspect of limited central government control. If the government can force people to purchase one product for a specific reason, even if it's a good reason, it can later force them to purchase others, or to further restrict the purchase of others, for other reasons that it argues is good. The health care reform is a specific (and in my opinion intentional) method to finally breakdown the idea of limited central government, or in Obama's words, to "fundamentally transform" the US, which by logical definition means more central government, not less.

Troy says

there have been plenty of places on earth that have operated according to Hayek
generally when somebody like you then proceeds to omit a list of actual examples I get the impression that you’re just bullshitting me on this.

Yes, I answered unfairly. You were referring to examples of where things operated in a positive method according to Hayek, and I answered in the negative, referring primarily to where things operated or progressed poorly, with increasing government control and loss of freedoms, just as Hayek argued they would. I need not provide many specifics on the latter - you can see them all over, but I did not answer your assertion fairly. And I can't because I simply haven't researched that aspect well enough.

Troy says

Progressives are for a clearly defined, very limited role for the central government?
No, we’re for implementing intelligent change when & where necessary.

Great! So now we can put to bed the idea that today's liberals have any semblance to those of 250 years ago!

Troy says

The idea that this nation is an agglomeration of independent states starting sailing away with Hamilton 200+ years ago, took a body blow 150 years ago with the Civil War, and really went away 75 years ago with the ‘Switch in Time that Saved Nine’. The ACA reform is actually pretty decentralized, with states given missions and minimums to meet.

I disagree that the reform is pretty "decentralized" since increased centralization can be either a) full administration and control or b) de facto control via directives, regulations, "missions and minimums to meet," etc.

I agree with your observations regarding Hamilton, et. al., but do not accept that as an excuse for continuing down that path. Jefferson himself specifically observed that the natural tencency was for government to increase its power over the people. That, in itself, did not add any legitimacy to the approach, and perhaps that is why he was no fan of Hamilton.

Troy says

One advantage the Swedes and Norwegians have over us is that they are nations of 5-10 million people. Perhaps that’s the largest agglomeration where socialism can work, though the German “Central-Socialism” is a counter example that success can come with population in the tens of millions.

Perhaps.

Liberals have liberated them selves to being irrelevant. There's no Crown to over throw.
America is the empirical Crown, Liberals aren't trying to liberate people from its subjugation or any injustices.

They want to take her out on the highway and open this baby up, and see what this puppy can really do.

Troy says

Paralithodes says

Jefferson himself stated this explicitely in his writings

Jefferson was also elected to office in 1800 with 41,330 votes in total.
What I like about Jefferson was that he was on the same page as Thomas Paine about the evils of concentration of wealth and private ownership of nature.
While as a left-libertarian I think decentralization is good, I also think central coordination about establishing minimums to avoid races to the bottom is better.
The health care reform is very conservative and as such is really no big deal.
As for my left-libertarianism, I’d like to think that if we all had a citizen’s dividend like those socialists up in Alaska enjoy, we’d have a much more egalitarian economy. The core problem I see with the existing economic regime is that 20% of the population is engaged in rampant rentierism on the remaining 80% — in FIRE, landholding, medical services, energy production and distribution, etc.
It’s these rents and the rent-seeking that are the corruption of our current economy. Without them we wouldn’t need so much socialism in response, nor would we have the intergenerational dependencies on welfare etc we have now.
there have been plenty of places on earth that have operated according to Hayek
generally when somebody like you then proceeds to omit a list of actual examples I get the impression that you’re just bullshitting me on this.
Progressives are for a clearly defined, very limited role for the central government?
No, we’re for implementing intelligent change when & where necessary. Even Hayek didn’t have much truck with conservatives harking back on a past that wasn’t worth conserving in the first place.
The idea that this nation is an agglomeration of independent states starting sailing away with Hamilton 200+ years ago, took a body blow 150 years ago with the Civil War, and really went away 75 years ago with the ‘Switch in Time that Saved Nine’. The ACA reform is actually pretty decentralized, with states given missions and minimums to meet.
This is probably less efficient than a fully centralized approach like “HillaryCare” but it is also conservative and does pay lip service to allowing state-level innovation.
One advantage the Swedes and Norwegians have over us is that they are nations of 5-10 million people. Perhaps that’s the largest agglomeration where socialism can work, though the German “Central-Socialism” is a counter example that success can come with population in the tens of millions.

Ah yes, Sweden! The refuge of all the enlightned left.

The bastion of just socialism.

The Ideal example, always pointed to by the left.

You are all so SMART for pointing out how great Sweden is....

NOT!

Sweden is a monarchy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden)

Is that your left Utopian society?

Shall I point out other examples of Utopian Left societies, like:

1.) Soviet Union, (50 + Million killed)
2.) China (??? Millions killed)
3.) North Korea (Cannibalism)
4.) Vietnam (Hmm, there's a painful reminder. How's that great utopia doing after 35 years of communist economic development?)
5.) Cuba! (Almost forgot that. Isn't Cuba making painful "layoffs" from the govt. now?)

At one point, 50% of the planet was under ideal progressive govt such as these. I don't see them as bastions of economic, or personal liberty.

Please explain to us toothless, inbred Tea party hicks, how Sweden is an ideal society, AND what could have been done better in these five communist regimes to make them work correctly?

I do it myself, but I still think it's naive to go around talking about 'liberals' and 'conservatives' in the manner that I see in evidence in this thread. May as well clump tomatoes and rocks in one category, with peppers and sand in another.

People's perception of what these terms mean varies (dramatically) depending upon how they classify themselves. Wouldn't it be more meaningful to make judgements about groups of people based upon boundaries that have inherent meaning? Anyone can call themselves anything they want. I would argue that it is self-evident that current (not all) and past (not all) politicians have largely been self-serving individuals - is selfishness the conservative motto, or the liberal motto? Neither, obviously.
Further, as tempting as it is (on both sides), it's unfair to judge the blocks of voters by the actions of the representatives they vote in. To do so completely ignores the huge media conglomerations that *literally* control the flow of information/news. This works both ways, too - you can throw stones at the liberal house all you want, but the conservative one is also built of stone. These 'tea-party' activists have been organized by the Fox news network for transparently partisan political purposes - not for the 'betterment' of our country. Or were they all just too busy to stand up and say something when bush was in office, spreading lies to garner support for a war that (1) endangers our nations safety, when people were calling out for the opposite and (2) looks a whole lot like a war to secure oil, get revenge for a an attempt to murder Daddy, and get fat paychecks for the companies of friends (cough haliburton). Oh, that's right, conservatives will defend these actions using whatever imagined arguments they can to avoid the painful cognitive dissonance. Just like Liberals - when their representatives turn out to be crooked.

My point is not that liberals AND conservatives are a bunch of brainwashed pawns of the corrupt in power, instead it is that our use of these terms is misleading and useless.

Here's what 'liberal' really means: We want equality for people of all races and economic background, we want a stable society where bad luck doesn't mean you die of starvation in the street, where companies don't have a choice about acting ethically ... we force them to.

Here's what 'conservative' really means: We want good moral values instilled in the next generation, we want to cut out the huge mass of corruption in politics that feeds itself with taxes, uses those taxes to grow and suck more taxes, and takes away the freedoms of groups of people (not states - those are lines in the sand and people of all belief systems can, believe it or not, just walk across them. When we drive the transition is even faster), we want to have a say in our society ('state rights', translated: don't let the whims of the majority dictate how we live in bumblefuck nowhere - if we want to drive a truck by god we will!), we want certain rights to be protected, always - the right to bear arms being an important one because it ensures that even if all else goes wrong, at least we'll be equipped to fix it (or die trying).

That's just my take of course, and I'm sure I got a few things wrong. But what I *know* I didn't get wrong is this:
Our politicians aren't aligned, in general, with the goals of either groups. Liberals who voted in Barak wanted to get out of these wars, ASAP ... we wanted Gays to be able to serve (a long time ago, not after we made a stick about his failure in this regard), we want some *real* reform that completely prevents companies, like credit card companies and health insurance companies, from using cartel-like policies (how many health insurance companies do you know of who don't drop coverage based upon BS excuses when the bill gets large? How many credit card companies do you know of who write clear contracts - where it's reasonable to expect the average non-lawyer to understand it?) to screw over the little man, who never gets a break in life (why should it be so easy to earn your second million, if the first is so hard? Add inheritance to the equation and wealth will NEVER reflect contribution to society - is that really what we want, because if it is let's just all go back to being serfs - we can just pick the richest few to be our lords now and skip the long transition period).
The liberals who voted for barak got only watered down versions of what they felt was promised.

And in our last administration, was it any different? Did conservatives ... REALLY want economy-crippling war, premised off of lies (nigerian yellow-cake ... 'we're SURE there are weapons of mass destruction ... trust us we have top secret intel that may look like smoke and mirrors but you should trust us anyway) and DOOMED from the start to endanger more than make safe the lives of americans on american soil (not to mention abroad). What about the HUGE bailout that bush so generously supplied right before leaving office? How does that sit with the tea-party people?

So, to the point: I propose we stop all this redundant rhetoric about left and right politics and start talking about the real problem - the corruption of these politics by individuals and institutions (campaign financiers). We can do this without alienating anyone who we agree with - when you say "liberals are dumb" there's a liberal out that who hears "Let sick children die, I don't give a sh*t as long as I don't have to fix the huge gasoline leak in my double-size truck that I drive to the shooting range when I want to take out my aggression on pictures/targets of people of other religions!" And when that liberal says that 'conservatives are ignorant hillbillies', there's a conservative out there that clutches his gun that much more tightly - because as we all know, liberals want to take away conservative guns and give them to the drug lords who will run the federal government after they abolish all state rights.

If, however, you refer to corruption, greed, and the imposition of terror on people - I think we can all agree on where we want to stand.

Matt

You published two articles today, the “conservative constitution”, and the “Little Red Book”.

Just exercising my constitutionally protected freedom of speech, right?

It is 100% obvious you are a far lefty, dare I say communist / change agent.

Sticks and stones.

There can be no peace, between us, nor the radical left in this country.

I certainly am peaceful, so that just leaves you as the non-peaceful one.

You lefties, are only about lies, and changing the rules, taking other peoples wealth and work, and disagreeing with anything this is just, right or true.

Sticks and stones again. I tell the truth as I see it. We should definitely change corrupt rules imposed by corporate interests, which steal your wealth and work. I agree with everything that is just, right, and true, of course.

This country was founded on resisting people like you, and we, the right will not give up.

No, the country was founded by radical liberals, literally.

"Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom") is the belief in the importance of individual liberty and equal rights."

You yourself are a liberal in that sense, and that's a compliment.

Why is it that you pay 28% on income you actually work for, but the mega-rich pay only 15% on unearned income? Shouldn't it be the other way around, so that you can keep more of the results of your own work?

Tenouncetrout says

Liberals have liberated them selves to being irrelevant. There’s no Crown to over throw.

Sadly its also true of the right, but where liberals begin to recognize they're being outflanked and bitch about it, conservatives go to the gallows happily blissful that they've helped built the steps.

My feeling is that the coming two years will reveal a lot of conservatives waking up to the fact that the 'people power' candidates they've championed and elected don't represent them at all. The problem for all of us is that the vocabulary they've been given over the past several decades and that they'll use to express their growing anger is a violence and extremism.

Look at the statement above:

larrypatrickmaloney says

There can be no peace, between us, nor the radical left in this country.
You lefties, are only about lies, and changing the rules, taking other peoples wealth and work, and disagreeing with anything this is just, right or true.

Nothing but hyperbole and platitudes. Where do you go from there?

Anyway, I suppose you could say that there actually is a crown to overthrow, and its the corporate system that dominates and buys US politics. What do you say about that, you bold freedom fighters? Do you want to liberate yourself and your neighbors to live happier more fulfilling lives, or do you want to continue to help liberate corporations to make even greater profits and to continue to send more local jobs to China while you pay more taxes and hope you have a job and pension next year?