← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Stanley
Thread ID: 16900 | Posts: 81 | Started: 2005-02-22
2005-02-22 22:22 | User Profile
A little historical revisionism from the hard-shelled anarchists at The Last Ditch. I myself think Abraham Lincoln was the worst President -- and the worst American -- ever, but how much of the disaster of the 1860s can be traced back to the Federalist machinations of the 1780s?
by Henry Gallagher Fields
No, this is not going to be a salacious soap opera about George Washington's fondness for femmes of a sable hue; I leave that to the licensed fabulists of African American History and Legend Month. Instead I'm going to tackle a more serious topic: G.W. as the father of American tyranny. Now, libertarians and conservatives, even those of the paleo ilk, are willing to express negative views about many other presidents, but they tend to revere old Washington as a veritable icon. However, in the presidential pantheon of horrors — which includes such obvious thugs as Dishonest Abe, Tee Are, Woody Wilson, Efdee Are, Elbee Jay, Tricky Dicky, and the Bushmen — it can reasonably be said that Washington contributed the most in the devolution of America from freedom to slavery.
[url=www.thornwalker.com/ditch/fields_wash.htm]Rest of the article.[/url]
2005-02-22 22:53 | User Profile
Gary North would actually agree with much of this - see his book "[I]Conspiracy in Philadelphia[/I]".
According to him, Washington was one of the Masonic conspirators who consciously turned the 1787 Constitution into a secularist document.
Petr
2005-02-22 22:59 | User Profile
Stanley,
Though I disagree with your allegiances, I admire your internal consistency. You're one of the few people who gets his political ideologies straight.
Many haters of Lincoln speak admiringly of George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, without noticing that there's a clear ideological path from Hamilton's Federalism (that Washington and Adams shared) to Abraham Lincoln via Henry Clay. There is no doubt in my mind that Washington or Hamilton would not have allowed the South to secede either, and this is doubly true on the trade issue (the question that sparked the conflict to begin with).
2005-02-22 23:06 | User Profile
Yggdrasil has also had written some quite uncomplimentary things about Thomas Jefferson - he finds him a hypocrite for spouting egalitarian rhetoric while owning slaves.
(Yggdrasil's motivation for this criticism is naturally different from that of left-wingers - he sees in Jefferson a prototype for hypocritical upper-class liberalism)
Petr
2005-02-22 23:17 | User Profile
Ah, here it is: Yggdrasil's putdown of Thomas Jefferson.
[url]http://home.ddc.net/ygg/cwar/pillar1.htm[/url]
...
[COLOR=Blue][B]In contrast, examine the statement authored by Thomas Jefferson and placed in our Declaration of Independence - it is the very premise upon which the American nation is founded: "[I]We hold these truths to be self evident - that all men are created equal[/I]."[/B]
It is obviously and self evidently false.
Our own eyes tell us the contrary - that all men are profoundly unequal in their abilities and aptitudes, and that the groups to which they attach themselves display average inequalities as well.
[B]It is clear that the slave owning Jefferson knew his statement was false at the time he made it.[/B]
So then the question is, why did he say it?
[B]The personal driver behind Jefferson's statement was, of course, that all educated property owners were equal to their competitors, the hereditary aristocrats in Europe, and should share power with them.[/B]
But when we hear the straight forward declaration of self-interest, we recognize instantly that educated property owners are few in number and are utterly powerless without the support of the millions who are not educated and do not own property, but are forced to sell their labor. Thus, the educated property owners - the gentleman rentiers - have no claim to political legitimacy unless they can enlist the support of those who are propertyless and uneducated.
[B]The gentlemen rentiers of America's founding must fight a war against the Universalist Empire of Britain and cannot do it alone. And as the gentleman is inherently manipulative and deceptive, he makes an open ended promise that he knows is based on a wildly and obviously false notion that all men are created equal. It results in an implied promise that Jefferson knows will be utterly impossible to keep. But Jefferson makes the deceptive and manipulative promise anyway, because it is in his individual interest to make it.[/B]
The problem with his statement, and the proof of its essential deceptive nature is the boundless potential for destruction held within it.
If all men are created equal, then why should Jefferson and the other founders be rich while most of their countrymen are poor?
At bottom, the statement that all men are created equal justifies the conquest of the entire world under a single empire, with the imposition of a single language and laws. After all, if all men are created equal, then the numerous local hues and divisions between us are all irrational and should be repressed by force. Ultimately those differences should be blended out of existence.
It is a doctrine that gives rise to endless opportunities to profit from deception and manipulation, setting set one tribe against another with appeals to equality, while allowing confiscation of the produce of the hardworking and productive by appeals to equality interests of the less productive and less hardworking.
[B]Of course, the Inner Party would spot the opportunities immediately upon their emancipation in the 19th Century, and exploit them with devastating effect in the 20th.[/B]
...[/COLOR]
Petr
2005-02-22 23:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Though I disagree with your allegiances, I admire your internal consistency.[/QUOTE] I'm not an anarchist, AntiYuppie, but yes, I do wish the Confederacy had won its independence. It might have stopped, or at least delayed, the march of leviathan. As it is, I do not glamorize the Constitution as some conservatives do.
I admit this is "sterile antiquarianism" to borrow a phrase from Francis.
2005-02-23 03:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Stanley,
Though I disagree with your allegiances, I admire your internal consistency. You're one of the few people who gets his political ideologies straight.
Many haters of Lincoln speak admiringly of George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, without noticing that there's a clear ideological path from Hamilton's Federalism (that Washington and Adams shared) to Abraham Lincoln via Henry Clay. There is no doubt in my mind that Washington or Hamilton would not have allowed the South to secede either, and this is doubly true on the trade issue (the question that sparked the conflict to begin with).[/QUOTE]Com'mon AY, would YOU have allowed the South to secede? Especially if it had been, not on slavery, but the tariff or nullification question?
You might note that besides many paleo's, Yockey was a big fan of Hamilton and a big opponent of Jefferson.
Jeffersonian anti-Federalism is a big thing with libertarians, but to nationalists I think we must realize its antithetical.
2005-02-23 04:07 | User Profile
Petr,
George Washington doesn't make the list of Nicholas Strakon's [url=http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/lights94.htm]Twelve Worst Presidents[/url] but Jefferson does. (Strakon is editor of the Last Ditch.)
2005-02-23 06:10 | User Profile
Conversations like this always remind me of the time-travel paradox: change one itty-bitty, teeny-tiny component of past history.... and who knows [I]what [/I] the present would resemble. We might be wandering through a recaptured Eden, of course, but....somehow I doubt it.
I'm also reminded of that old maxim [I]when the facts contradict the legend, print the legend[/I]. White people, particularly right now, need myth-figures and heroes, particularly from the past (which has been snatched away from us for extensive Talmudic remodelling). It may well be true that GW was a bloodthirsty statist, and Jefferson a pants-round-ankles mammy-jammer, but the net result of wide public dissemination of these 'revelations' is likely to manifest in an even deeper aimless malaise - the kind that makes Dubya and Chertoff seem not so bad by comparison.
2005-02-23 06:29 | User Profile
If George Washington isn't first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen- forevermore- our national identity is truly shattered- even among reactionaries such as myself. All of us require a hero - who will it be? What is the point of this debunking? Happy Birthday indeed most noble George Washington. May you inspire my son's sons as long as we live in this splendid land.....
SatherGate ....[I]for my purpose holds To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths Of all the western stars, until I die.[/I]
2005-02-23 06:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Conversations like this always remind me of the time-travel paradox: change one itty-bitty, teeny-tiny component of past history.... and who knows [I]what [/I] the present would resemble. We might be wandering through a recaptured Eden, of course, but....somehow I doubt it.[/QUOTE]
That butterfly crushed by the time-traveling dinosaur hunter in Bradbury's "Sound of Thunder" comes to mind...
[QUOTE=il ragno]I'm also reminded of that old maxim [I]when the facts contradict the legend, print the legend[/I]. White people, particularly right now, need myth-figures and heroes, particularly from the past (which has been snatched away from us for extensive Talmudic remodelling). It may well be true that GW was a bloodthirsty statist, and Jefferson a pants-round-ankles mammy-jammer, but the net result of wide public dissemination of these 'revelations' is likely to manifest in an even deeper aimless malaise - the kind that makes Dubya and Chertoff seem not so bad by comparison.[/QUOTE]
All History is Biography. Even Revisionisim is open to revision...
2005-02-23 09:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Stanley,
Though I disagree with your allegiances, I admire your internal consistency. You're one of the few people who gets his political ideologies straight.
Many haters of Lincoln speak admiringly of George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, without noticing that there's a clear ideological path from Hamilton's Federalism (that Washington and Adams shared) to Abraham Lincoln via Henry Clay. There is no doubt in my mind that Washington or Hamilton would not have allowed the South to secede either, and this is doubly true on the trade issue (the question that sparked the conflict to begin with).[/QUOTE]
Good point.
Washington didn't have any qualms about putting down the [URL=http://www.nps.gov/frhi/whiskreb.htm]Whiskey Rebellion[/URL], did he? Old George wasn't squeamish about using force when the federal government's interests were at stake.
And that was about enforcing a federal excise tax on whiskey, and not the much weightier issue of a state leaving the federal union.
2005-02-23 17:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Com'mon AY, would YOU have allowed the South to secede? Especially if it had been, not on slavery, but the tariff or nullification question?
You might note that besides many paleo's, Yockey was a big fan of Hamilton and a big opponent of Jefferson.
Jeffersonian anti-Federalism is a big thing with libertarians, but to nationalists I think we must realize its antithetical.[/QUOTE]
No, I would not allow states to secede if I were President. Not only do I agree with Lincoln on the trade issue, but I also whole-heartedly approve of his proposal to free the slaves and repatriate them in Africa and the Caribbean.
I thought it was clear that my post was a defense of Lincoln, not a condemnation of Washington. My point was just that I don't understand people who attack Lincoln while praising Washington and Hamilton, when it's patently obvious that Washington was Lincoln's precursor.
Furthermore, I never understood why so many white racialists feel the need to defend slavery. Slavery was a disaster for white Americans for two reasons: first, it brought the negro here to begin with. Second, the main reason for such miserable poverty among whites in the South (a problem that persisted well into the 20th century) is that slavery created a huge, unemployed white underclass. It's ironic that descendants of the very white men who were disenfranchised by the institution of slavery now feel the need to defend it.
2005-02-23 18:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] Washington didn't have any qualms about putting down the [URL=http://www.nps.gov/frhi/whiskreb.htm]Whiskey Rebellion[/URL], did he? Old George wasn't squeamish about using force when the federal government's interests were at stake.
And that was about enforcing a federal excise tax on whiskey, and not the much weightier issue of a state leaving the federal union.[/QUOTE] The Whiskey Rebellion was actually more complex than a simple tax revolt, and yes, Washington did put it down. He was convinced to do so by Hamilton, who may in fact have exacerbated the situation on purpose, to create a situation in which the federal government could demonstrate its power. That said, however, a minority uprising is hardly the same thing as the legitimate government of a state electing to dissolve an existing association with a group of other states, into which it entered voluntarily in the first place.
2005-02-23 19:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Jeffersonian anti-Federalism is a big thing with libertarians, but to nationalists I think we must realize its antithetical.[/QUOTE]
How so, Okie?
To my mind 'nation' does not equate with the tyranny and despotism of a centralized, federal government.
2005-02-23 19:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] To my mind 'nation' does not equate with the tyranny and despotism of a centralized, federal government.[/QUOTE] I agree. Equating 'nation' with 'the government' is one of the linguistic sleights-of-hand of the modernists. A true nation is das Volk, or the tribe. The system of government is merely incidental.
2005-02-23 21:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie] Furthermore, I never understood why so many white racialists feel the need to defend slavery. Slavery was a disaster for white Americans for two reasons: first, it brought the negro here to begin with. Second, the main reason for such miserable poverty among whites in the South (a problem that persisted well into the 20th century) is that slavery created a huge, unemployed white underclass. It's ironic that descendants of the very white men who were disenfranchised by the institution of slavery now feel the need to defend it.[/QUOTE]
Could cotton have been harvested on any large scale other than through slavery? Given its high labor intensity, I mean. And cotton was the economic foundation of the region. That doesn't justify slavery but what other cash crop did the south have? Maybe a little rice or, of course, tobacco. This is what Seward told Lincoln: "They only have two crops. Let them secede and they'll beg to come back with the first bad harvest."
And some people don't realize the revolutionary impact cotton had. It was durable, light, breathable, colorable, etc. It could keep you either warm or cool. With slavery, average people could afford it, and they wanted it, European women especially. As someone said, it turned the boulevards of Europe into fields of flowers. It had all the advantages of silk, which was only available to the wealthy.
None of this goes to the moral question, but just to show economic facts of the time.
2005-02-23 22:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Conversations like this always remind me of the time-travel paradox: change one itty-bitty, teeny-tiny component of past history.... and who knows [I]what [/I] the present would resemble.[/QUOTE]I'm reminded of the novels of L. Neil Smith, where the Whiskey Rebellion succeeded, the Constitution was scrapped, and Washington was executed.
As to the question whether Washington would have prevented secession, it brings to mind the threads at Free Republic that went on for hundreds of posts without ever settling the issue. I will point out that
the Articles of Confederation formed a perpetual union that could only be altered by the unanimous consent of the states. When the Constitution was adopted, the Articles were simply ignored.
When New York, Virginia and Rhode Island ratified the Constitution, they did so with the explicit proviso that they could secede if necessary.
Sobran has pointed out that Andrew Jackson was the first President to threaten military force against a seceding state, and Lincoln used Jackson, not Washington, as a precedent in justifying his actions.
Even if Washington was willing to use force to keep the Union together, I doubt he could have succeeded. The Federal government wasn't that strong in the 1790s.
Now, what relevance does this have for us today? I think secession provides the ultimate check against a centralized government usurping power, but the power has been usurped, the government is not going away, and no one but a handful of cranks wants it to go away. At present, the history of the antebellum republic is more relevant to the Europeans, who seem intent on making the same mistakes.
2005-02-24 00:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]No, I would not allow states to secede if I were President. Not only do I agree with Lincoln on the trade issue, but I also whole-heartedly approve of his proposal to free the slaves and repatriate them in Africa and the Caribbean.
I thought it was clear that my post was a defense of Lincoln, not a condemnation of Washington. My point was just that I don't understand people who attack Lincoln while praising Washington and Hamilton, when it's patently obvious that Washington was Lincoln's precursor. Lincoln's legacy is complex actually, if you get into the fine points. Even Buchanan in his essay on Lincoln points it out. While me may have started out in office sounding like a Nationalist "who just wanted to save the Union" not abolish slavery, by his second inaugeral address he sounded like the most extreme Black Republican (those who specifically thought we should fight a war to free the slaves, and continue to use martial law until their full political equality was assurred, like we finally did in the 60's).
Take what Lincoln said with some grains of salt, remember he was a politician, dealing with that reality foremost.
Also count me among those who admire Washington and Hamilton while strongly disagreeing with Lincoln, and even Jefferson. Then add to that the Southerners before the war, by and large. You'll see these equations are entirely logical, if you look carefully at the historical record. But you need to read some good books. I'd recomend "Alexander Hamilton" by Forrest MacDonald" and "The Long Affair - Thomas Jefferson and the French Revolution" by Conor Cruise O'Brien
Furthermore, I never understood why so many white racialists feel the need to defend slavery. Slavery was a disaster for white Americans for two reasons: first, it brought the negro here to begin with. Second, the main reason for such miserable poverty among whites in the South (a problem that persisted well into the 20th century) is that slavery created a huge, unemployed white underclass. It's ironic that descendants of the very white men who were disenfranchised by the institution of slavery now feel the need to defend it.[/QUOTE]Well these fine points are understood by a lot of racialists, especially educated ones, albeit not too loudly. The reason southern racialists defended, and to some extent still defend, slavery is that it was at the time of the civil war the only possible method to deal with the black population without the south descending the third world status. The horrible civil war (aka War of Northern Aggression) did in fact reduce the rural south to third war colonial status, something from which it never recovered.
It may have some theoretical weaknesses, but for people who lived in areas of the Deep South like the Delta Country, it was a matter foremost of survival, not of abstract philosophizing. As it is to some extent to those who stil must deal with the problem first hand. Next time you're mugged by a black you may see the light slightly differently.
2005-02-24 01:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]How so, Okie?
To my mind 'nation' does not equate with the tyranny and despotism of a centralized, federal government.[/QUOTE]Just checking my encyclopedia, it defines "Nationalism" as a peoples belonging together as a nation, and note that it basically occurred along with the development of a political unit called "the nation-state".
You may claim to differentiate the two, but few political theorists would agree with you. Most of all libertarians by and large, even the paleo-libertarians it would seem to some extent. I.e. opposition to the nation-state is pretty much practically equivalent to opposition to nationalism in general.
2005-02-24 04:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]I agree. Equating 'nation' with 'the government' is one of the linguistic sleights-of-hand of the modernists. A true nation is das Volk, or the tribe. The system of government is merely incidental.[/QUOTE]
Yes. A nation is a group of people, or a tribe.
2005-02-24 06:28 | User Profile
The common root of "nation" with "nativity" (from the Latin natus)suggests that such political entities were originally extended families of common blood.
Even the hyphenated term Nation-State is a post-tribal qualifier.
2005-02-24 08:48 | User Profile
[quote=Quantrill]I agree. Equating 'nation' with 'the government' is one of the linguistic sleights-of-hand of the modernists. A true nation is das Volk, or the tribe. The system of government is merely incidental.[QUOTE=Franco]Yes. A nation is a group of people, or a tribe.
---------[/QUOTE] It's true regarding the etymology of the word nation. But practically in the modern area political nationalism has referred to the drive to unite nationalities under their own nation-state against those who would resist such reunification.
In Europe those who resisted such reunification of the nation, say those Germans who opposed the unification of Germany under Bismarck or Italians who opposed the reunification efforts of Garibaldi, were prettty much dismissed as just nigggling theoreticions or pursuers of their own narrow interests. (Such as the Catholic absolutists). It was pretty much after all the history there that for a nation to avoid domination by outsoide interests, imperialists etc,, such as was the case for Poland etc, it required its own nation-state.
The anti-federalists in America as such were pretty much arguing for a defunct historical notion. That's why I think they were defeated. Even afterwards when Americans had a chance of course to maintan their own local independence, such as in Texas, they invariably chose reunification, did they not?
2005-02-24 13:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]I agree. Equating 'nation' with 'the government' is one of the linguistic sleights-of-hand of the modernists. A true nation is das Volk, or the tribe. The system of government is merely incidental.[/QUOTE]
The Biblical definition of "nation" encompasses not only genetic kinship, but also commonality of language/culture and a distinct, sovereign territory.
From the Cathechism:
[QUOTE]56. "After the unity of the human race was shattered by sin God at once sought to save humanity part by part. The covenant with Noah after the flood gives expression to the principle of the divine economy toward the 'nations', in other words, towards men grouped 'in their lands, each with (its) own language, by their families, in their nations'.[Gen 10:5 ; cf. Gen 9:9-10, 16 ; Gen 10:20-31 .]"
This is the point guys like Franco go astray. They see only the genetic element of "nation," and therefore feel free to disregard 1700 years of Christian culture in defining the borders of our American nation.
2005-02-24 14:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]The Biblical definition of "nation" encompasses not only genetic kinship, but also commonality of language/culture and a distinct, sovereign territory.[/QUOTE] I agree with that, but those things are all wrapped up together. Kinship, language, culture, and religion are seamlessly interwoven into a 'nation', and it is impossible to alter any one of those components without altering the others. A nation can do without its own sovereign territory for a period of time, but eventually, this will lead to its destruction. So, yes, as Okie pointed out, having a state is quite useful for defending the existence and identity of a nation, e. g. the nation-state. However, my original point still stands -- the nation and the state are not the same thing. In a perfectly realized nation-state, they may be coterminous, but they are not identical.
2005-02-24 15:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]. However, my original point still stands -- the nation and the state are not the same thing. In a perfectly realized nation-state, they may be coterminous, but they are not identical.[/QUOTE]
I agree with that.
My point was directed at Franco.
Nation and race are not coterminous.
Indeed, race is but one component of the seamless web of relations that make up the organisms known as the "nations."
2005-02-24 16:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I agree with that.
My point was directed at Franco.
Nation and race are not coterminous.
Indeed, race is but one component of the seamless web of relations that make up the organisms known as the "nations."[/QUOTE] Race should not be the sole focus to the exclusion of other factors. That said, however, since it is part of the seamless web of what comprises a nation, once you start denying the reality and/or importance of race, you are well on your way to denying the importance of culture, religion, sovereignty, et al. I think we're on the same page here.
2005-02-25 06:32 | User Profile
The United States is lost. I have no idea why it is even a topic of conversation. Hillary Clinton vs Condoleeza Rice. It's over. Cry me a river , the river Tiberius.
2005-02-25 06:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo]The United States is lost. I have no idea why it is even a topic of conversation. Hillary Clinton vs Condoleeza Rice. It's over. Cry me a river , the river Tiberius.[/QUOTE]
Oh, lighten up, ED.
We're broke, the dollar is about to tank but good, we're involved in a no-win war in the interests of a foreign power, we're being invaded by aliens, we are legally discriminated against in our own country, and it looks like all of that is about to be multiplied times ten with an attack on Iran and/or Syria.
Great!
Things are looking up, ED, precisely because they're looking down.
Worse is better, man!
Buck up!!
2005-02-25 09:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Oh, lighten up, ED.
We're broke, the dollar is about to tank but good, we're involved in a no-win war in the interests of a foreign power, we're being invaded by aliens, we are legally discriminated against in our own country, and it looks like all of that is about to be multiplied times ten with an attack on Iran and/or Syria.
Great!
Things are looking up, ED, precisely because they're looking down.
Worse is better, man!
Buck up!![/QUOTE]
:thumbsup:
We may be surrounded by enemies, aliens and traitors--ever closing in...but look at our shortening supply lines!
2005-02-25 11:19 | User Profile
Yeah. By the time we're all lying in ditches with bullet holes in the back of our heads - we'll have [I]won![/I]
Must be the New New Math.
2005-02-25 14:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Yeah. By the time we're all lying in ditches with bullet holes in he back off our heads - we'll have [I]won![/I]
Must be the New New Math.[/QUOTE]
You gotta ac-cent-you-ate the POSITIVE!
Eeee - LIM-IN-ATE the NEG-a-TEEV.
2005-02-25 16:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]You gotta ac-cent-you-ate the POSITIVE!
Eeee - LIM-IN-ATE the NEG-a-TEEV.[/QUOTE]
Latch onto the Affirmative--and DON'T (ah say do not) mess with Mistah In-Between... :thumbsup:
2005-02-25 16:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Howard Campbell, Jr.]Latch onto the Affirmative--and DON'T (ah say do not) mess with Mistah In-Between... :thumbsup:[/QUOTE] Oh, yeah.
2005-02-25 17:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Furthermore, I never understood why so many white racialists feel the need to defend slavery. Slavery was a disaster for white Americans for two reasons....[/QUOTE] Isn't it ironic, then, that you advocate slavery -- not chattel slavery, but public slavery? Secessionists are those who will not willingly participate in the projects of that from which they wish to secede. The whole point of enforcing a prohibition of secession is to force individuals or groups to do things against their will for the benefit of the anti-secessionists.
2005-02-25 18:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sather_Gate]If George Washington isn't first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen- forevermore- our national identity is truly shattered- even among reactionaries such as myself. All of us require a hero - who will it be? What is the point of this debunking? Happy Birthday indeed most noble George Washington. May you inspire my son's sons as long as we live in this splendid land..... [/QUOTE]Proving that there is a Simpsons quote for any occasion:
[url]http://www.snpp.com/episodes/3F13.html[/url]
Lisa tries Moe's Tavern, with the help of her dad.
Homer: Hear ye, hear ye. My daughter has something to say about Jebediah Springfield.
Moe: Aw, look. That cutie wants to say something cute.
[barflies murmur]
Shut up, you bums, shut up!
Go ahead, angel.
Lisa: Ahem. Jebediah Springfield was nothing more than a murderous pirate who hated this town!
[barflies and Moe's jaws drop]
Moe: Good God! Homer, I support, you know, any prejudice you can name, but this hero-phobia sickens me. All right, you and your daughter ain't welcome here no more. Barney, show them the exit.
Barney: There's an exit?!
2005-02-25 18:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]Isn't it ironic, then, that you advocate slavery -- not chattel slavery, but public slavery? Secessionists are those who will not willingly participate in the projects of that from which they wish to secede. The whole point of enforcing a prohibition of secession is to force individuals or groups to do things against their will for the benefit of the anti-secessionists.[/QUOTE] If that is "slavery" then it is simply the slavery inherent in Man - that he must live in a Society in order to survive. The nature of that Society - or State - is always going to be open to contention, but not the fact that Man is a social animal and his fellows have claims upon him that he cannot ignore.
Using your logic, there would be not only no Union, but no States, and, inevitably, no Society, no family, no bonds of any kind - because all of these social bonds impose claims of some kind upon our freedom of action - in a word, Slavery, as you call it.
Doesn't everyone who wants to "get out from under" obligations to others - social claims on his "freedom" to do whatever he wants without consequences - invent an ideology of some kind to justifiy his actions - libertarianism, objectivism, etc., just as those who want to do the opposite, and make such claims, also invent "opposite" ideologies, and are not these opposing ideologies all part of the same game?
Didn't your parents want to enforce prohibitions on you and to force you to do things against your will, for their benefit?
Is it not time to clean your room, take out the garbage, and eat your vegetables? :hitler:
2005-02-25 18:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]This is the point guys like Franco go astray. They see only the genetic element of "nation," and therefore feel free to disregard 1700 years of Christian culture in defining the borders of our American nation.[/QUOTE]Just as others want to disregard the thousands of years of non-Christian culture that existed before, during, and after the dominance of the Christian elements in our tradition.
Just because the Christians managed to do a deal with Constantine and write everyone else out of the history books and out of power, does not mean that they were going to get to hold on to those reigns of power forever.
You are correct that race by itself - race understood only, and exclusively, as a genetic inheritence - is not enough to define us. But, that's not the traditional understanding of "race" which has always included more than just the obvious physical traits.
In any case, our race/culture/nation/ethnicity/whatever has always been defined by more than just race and religion, and our religion has always been defined by more than just Christianity, and by more than just the kind of Christianity espoused by many people here.
There's a difference between respecting Christianity as part of our common cultural inheritance, and trying to reimpose a form of Christianity that hasn't been viable in the West for many centuries now. That boat has sailed, gentlemen. A successful Western nationalist movement of the future will recognize these facts and work with them.
2005-02-25 20:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]There's a difference between respecting Christianity as part of our common cultural inheritance, and trying to reimpose a form of Christianity that hasn't been viable in the West for many centuries now. That boat has sailed, gentlemen. A successful Western nationalist movement of the future will recognize these facts and work with them.[/QUOTE]
From where I stand, that's just not the case. The great majority of whites who have children in my neck of the woods are in church on Sundays and placing their kids in private, Christian schools or homeschooling with greater and greater frequency. By and large, I suspect that Christian couples simply out-breed non-Christians, so the future may not look exactly as you forsee, grep.
2005-02-25 20:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]Isn't it ironic, then, that you advocate slavery -- not chattel slavery, but public slavery? Secessionists are those who will not willingly participate in the projects of that from which they wish to secede. The whole point of enforcing a prohibition of secession is to force individuals or groups to do things against their will for the benefit of the anti-secessionists.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Forcing people to things against their will is always a recipe for social and cultural pathology. Even if a 'state' is a necessary evil, which I believe it is, then it should be as widely accepted and supported, devolved and local as is possible.
2005-02-25 22:07 | User Profile
Well, like it or not, there are some things that only a Federal government can do with any degree of success.
I think AY's example of national defense is the biggie. The problem we have is the monster has outgrown the underside of the bed and is doing all sorts of things not related and is in fact not even bothering to to pretend when it comes to national defense, as any resident of a border state can tell you.
That being said, there are numerous examples where local control would be the way to go, which have been hashed out here as well as being a fetish subject at places like LewRockwell, etc.
Biggest mistake Texas ever made was giving up its status as a sovereign nation and joining the Union. :thumbd:
2005-02-26 00:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=MadScienceType]Biggest mistake Texas ever made was giving up its status as a sovereign nation and joining the Union. :thumbd:[/QUOTE]Sorry. I know you Texans don't like to hear this, but Texas was never really able to secure truly sovereign (i.e., truly safe and independent) status on its own. That's why Texans were so eager for annexation.
2005-02-26 02:51 | User Profile
The mode of slavery was changed in this country after the Civil War.
Instead of chattel slavery, everyone was to become a debt slave to the banking establishment. Even if you are debt free yourself, the Fed, State and Local governments contract for debt in your name. I.E. Bonding for public expenditures, infrastucture, ect.
Read what is known as "The Hazard Circular", a letter passed around durring the Civil War to promote this concept.
The Hazard Circular - Near bottom of first page: [url]http://65.40.245.240/money/rfc1a.htm[/url]
This is explained in the book "Honest Money" by Charles Norburn. Book: [url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0932050190/qid=1109386807/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-4656046-3835963?v=glance&s=books[/url]
Abebooks: [url]http://dogbert.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=127318234[/url]
2005-02-26 04:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE]There's a difference between respecting Christianity as part of our common cultural inheritance, and trying to reimpose a form of Christianity that hasn't been viable in the West for many centuries now. That boat has sailed, gentlemen. A successful Western nationalist movement of the future will recognize these facts and work with them.[/QUOTE]
Bless you, my son.
2005-02-26 04:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Oh, lighten up, ED.
We're broke, the dollar is about to tank but good, we're involved in a no-win war in the interests of a foreign power, we're being invaded by aliens, we are legally discriminated against in our own country, and it looks like all of that is about to be multiplied times ten with an attack on Iran and/or Syria.
Great!
Things are looking up, ED, precisely because they're looking down.
Worse is better, man!
Buck up!![/QUOTE]\ Yea, you're right Walter.. after all, what else could we expect .. btw good post Blonde Knight on the IRS and its unlawfulness. Walter, as you are, I am a Catholic first and foremost. I have no allegiance to the United States of America. To do so is Sin. We just happen to live here. Fact is. The World is moving into a Communist/Fascist State. Communist regarding State owenership, which is now 50 % in the USA, and Fascist meaning that the People have no control over wars that Empire will wage. I firmly believe that we have no power at all. God Bless You, and let us Remember that Love is the Only Gift.
2005-02-26 06:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]Just as others want to disregard the thousands of years of non-Christian culture that existed before, during, and after the dominance of the Christian elements in our tradition.
Just because the Christians managed to do a deal with Constantine and write everyone else out of the history books and out of power, does not mean that they were going to get to hold on to those reigns of power forever.[/QUOTE]
You're creating a strawman argument here.
If it were true that the Church "wrote out" of history the great Pagans, then you'd be quite justified in condemning the Church's actions.
But the simple fact is that [U]nothing could be further from the truth[/U]. The Church venerated the great Pagans of antiquity, and consciously and painstakingly incorporated the best of their thought into that synthesis known as Christendom.
In fact, we would know precisely nothing of Aristotle and Plato had it not been for Christian monks copying and re-copying their works. Indeed, many of the ancient authors were lost, in whole or in part. The part that was saved after the great collapse of the fifth century was due to the Church's great salvaging operation.
Both Plato and Aristotle are part of the canon precisely because the Augusting and Thomas respectively "canonized" them.
Christendom is a synthesis of the best of the ancient world, and it is that great heritage that I seek to preserve. And that means all of it.
2005-02-26 08:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]Isn't it ironic, then, that you advocate slavery -- not chattel slavery, but public slavery? Secessionists are those who will not willingly participate in the projects of that from which they wish to secede. The whole point of enforcing a prohibition of secession is to force individuals or groups to do things against their will for the benefit of the anti-secessionists.[/QUOTE]
This seems to be at odds with the organismic view of human societies we both subscribe to.
If society is an organism (and it is) then surely it has an interest in ensuring the integrity of its various parts in a single whole.
Any organism has an interest in ensuring that it's borders - bodily and territorial - are preserved.
I freely admit that the desire for parts of the organism to break away and form a new one (Sir Arthur Kieth goes into this, and if memory serves calls it the engine of evolution itself) but that said breaking away to form a new human organism is a major decision that involves the fate of the entire organism and all its parts. There are thus two moral sides to that equation.
You seem to recognize only one.
2005-02-26 14:30 | User Profile
The level of conversation here has been outstanding. Reading this thread has provoked a plethora of thoughts in my own mind. There are a few comments which stand out for me.
ED said:
[QUOTE]Fact is. The World is moving into a Communist/Fascist State. Communist regarding State ownership, which is now 50% in the USA, and Fascist meaning that the People have no control over wars that Empire will wage. I firmly believe that we have no power at all.[/QUOTE] I tend to agree. I'm not holding out much hope.
Tex said:
[QUOTE]Forcing people to things against their will is always a recipe for social and cultural pathology. Even if a 'state' is a necessary evil, which I believe it is, then it should be as widely accepted and supported, devolved and local as is possible.[/QUOTE] Absolutely. The American Empire has become Leviathan. States' rights, local control rooted in counties and municipalities were the means of preventing this.
Emphasis on nationalism is a grave mistake. White Christian people do not need a single nation. We live best when we live in freedom. The nation state is the enemy of liberty. The union of American states should have never concerned itself with anything more than the protection of our borders.
We've got to admit one indisputable fact; human nature is evil. Not only are Jews, blacks and Mexicans evil, but whites are evil. When we unite under a Nimrod, we grow drunk with our power and abuse others.
Let us as white peoples defend ourselves, our culture and our heritage. Let us cast out the multi-culturalist enemy. Let us stop the invasion of our borders. Let us put an end to black on white violence. But let us not surrender our liberty to a great and powerful nation state. Let us live as free men who freely bow the knee to the Lord Jesus Christ. Rugged individualism? Yes, as long as it is tempered with humility before God and a concern for the welfare of our community. A powerful nation state? No stinking way.
2005-02-26 18:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robert] Absolutely. The American Empire has become Leviathan. States' rights, local control rooted in counties and municipalities were the means of preventing this. Robert, I agree with much of what you said (especially the above) but I would like to point something out. I think you are still conflating the idea of 'nation' and of 'state' in your mind. For example, you state -- [quote=Robert] Emphasis on nationalism is a grave mistake. White Christian people do not need a single nation. We live best when we live in freedom. But then you state -- [quote=Robert]Let us as white peoples defend ourselves, our culture and our heritage. What you have just described -- 'ourselves [white people], our culture and our heritage' -- is a nation. What you really object to is the 'state,' which is the sovereign government of an area, not to the nation. It is possible to have a nation without a state, a state without a nation, or a nation-state, in which the nation and state are coterminous. Without a nation, you just have a bunch of atomistic, disconnected, rootless individuals, which is not the white, Christian civilization I think we both wish to defend. The desirability of a state is a separate question.
2005-02-26 19:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]But then you state -- What you have just described -- 'ourselves [white people], our culture and our heritage' -- is a nation.
[I]touche'[/I] [QUOTE]What you really object to is the 'state,' which is the sovereign government of an area, not to the nation. [QUOTE]It is possible to have a nation without a state,[/QUOTE]Examples? The modern example is of course the Kurds. Historically you also had Germany and Italy.
Note a common thread? Nations without their own state are whomped upon by nations that do, and lag far behind.
As I think Moeller said "those that denied the state gave liberalism its opportunity."
a state without a nation, or a nation-state, in which the nation and state are coterminous.[/QUOTE]
Without a nation, you just have a bunch of atomistic, disconnected, rootless individuals, which is not the white, Christian civilization I think we both wish to defend. The desirability of a state is a separate question.[/QUOTE]No, without a state you cannot maintain a viable nation.
You yourself of all people of course have pointed out the need for Christians to have their own state (i.e. the Catholic Church - a form of religious state) even defending the need for the Inquisition. If religious groups must have states to survive, surely ethnic groups must even more so.
2005-02-26 19:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust] No, without a state you cannot maintain a viable nation.
You yourself of all people of course have pointed out the need for Christians to have their own state (i.e. the Catholic Church - a form of religious state) even defending the need for the Inquisition. If religious groups must have states to survive, surely ethnic groups must even more so.[/QUOTE] Okie, I think you misunderstood the point of my last post. I was merely trying to point out to Robert that a nation and a state (while often coinciding) are not the same thing. Whether or not a nation should have a state is a separate issue. For the record, as you have correctly surmised, I am in favor of a nation having its own state.
2005-02-26 22:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]What you have just described -- 'ourselves [white people], our culture and our heritage' -- is a nation. What you really object to is the 'state,' which is the sovereign government of an area, not to the nation. It is possible to have a nation without a state, a state without a nation, or a nation-state, in which the nation and state are coterminous. Without a nation, you just have a bunch of atomistic, disconnected, rootless individuals, which is not the white, Christian civilization I think we both wish to defend. The desirability of a state is a separate question.[/QUOTE]
Excellent.
I've come to believe that a nation-state is a necessary (but not sufficient) precondition for liberty. Nation-states hold together because of the shared kinship of its citizens, the nation being an extension of the family. Multinational states are held together by naked coercion, and they blast apart when the rulers lose their grip. Witness Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union.
As our country becomes more polynational, we become subject to increasing coercion from our rulers. The instrument of that coercion is politcal correctness.
The "Chink's Cheesesteak" controversy in Philadelphia seems trivial, but it tells us a lot. Some guy, nicknamed "Chink", opened up a steak shop in 1948. Chink's thrived for decades without complaint from anyone. But now, a bunch of Asians have shown up in our country, and suddenly we can't say anything anymore.
I have heard it credibly argued that there never really was an American nation, as evidenced by our long history of strong state governments and regionalism. But I believe there was a time when, having endured (for better or worse) the shared experience of World War II, nationhood was within our grasp. But the opportunity is gone forever. Thomas Chittum seems more credible with each passing year.
2005-02-26 23:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Okie, I think you misunderstood the point of my last post.... For the record, as you have correctly surmised, I am in favor of a nation having its own state.[/QUOTE]No I understand it. I was just trying to get you to comment on its implications, which you did. Merci
2005-02-26 23:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE]No, without a state you cannot maintain a viable nation.[/QUOTE] The Jewish nation has done just fine without one.
2005-02-26 23:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]The Jewish nation has done just fine without one.[/QUOTE] Yes, the Jews and the Gypsies are the two stateless nations that immediately spring to mind. Although I would point out, that both of these nations survived by attaching themselves to existing states.
2005-02-26 23:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Yes, the Jews and the Gypsies are the two stateless nations that immediately spring to mind. Although I would point out, that both of these nations survived by attaching themselves to existing states.[/QUOTE] Jews and other diaspora people are special cases. The Jewish nation can survive without a state for the same reason that a virus can survive without a metabolism: they recruit the state and infra-structure apparatus of their hosts to work for them so that they do not have to.
2005-02-27 00:42 | User Profile
I'm probably using the word "nation" more in the popular sense. But I'm not sure that you can practically distinguish nation from state. I know that we use the term "nationality" apart from the state. And, for instance, say the Confederacy had won its freedom from the empire. Would citizens of the CSA consider themselves a different nationality than subjects of the northern empire? Is an American of English descent the same nationality as a Canadian of English descent?
I'm not much interested in debating this. What I'm concerned about is that our nation-state-empire has grown too large, too powerful, and has become a threat not only to the world, but to its own citizens.
I do not want a unified white man's nation-state. If I don't like the laws in my state, Missouri, I would like the option of moving to Kansas or Arkansas. Because even if the unified white man's state were totally homogenous, it would still pose a threat to the individual. Let us never forget that whites are fallen, depraved sinners just like everyone else. We are quite capable of commiting horrendous evil without Jews around to manipulate us.
Humanity, being evil, cannot allow power to be concentrated. Anarchy would give too much powerful to the biggest bully on the block. Government cuts the bully down to size. But then government can become a far worse bully. Power must be decentralized, and there must be an effective system of checks and balances. Even then civilization may not endure. And, personally, I have little hope. I believe that America is evolving into the revived Roman Empire of Daniel and Revelation. And I don't see this being stopped.
2005-02-27 09:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Yes, the Jews and the Gypsies are the two stateless nations that immediately spring to mind. Although I would point out, that both of these nations survived by attaching themselves to existing states.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Jews and other diaspora people are special cases. The Jewish nation can survive without a state for the same reason that a virus can survive without a metabolism: they recruit the state and infra-structure apparatus of their hosts to work for them so that they do not have to.[/QUOTE]
That's an important point.
Benjamin Ginsberg wrote all about how Jews thrive in the context of a powerful state in his "Fatal Embrace."
The Jewish nation needs a strong state just like any other, it's just that its tactics in the diaspora were purely parasitic, hijacking the machinery of the gentile state to serve Jewish ends.
2005-02-27 22:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Jews and other diaspora people are special cases. The Jewish nation can survive without a state for the same reason that a virus can survive without a metabolism: they recruit the state and infra-structure apparatus of their hosts to work for them so that they do not have to.[/QUOTE] You are confusing the Jewish community's external relations with its internal relations. The Jewish community hijacks and use a pre-existing instrument of parasitism for their own ends, but they do not use the state to govern themselves. They are a nation that is not subject to a coercive state.
2005-02-28 00:30 | User Profile
From a discussion of "Communitarianism":
[url]http://www.friesian.com/rights.htm[/url]
[QUOTE]No "community" worth the name is founded on anything other than voluntary association. An interesting example is the mediaeval Jewish community. Most Jews in the middle ages lived in countries with Christian or Moslem majorities and governments. No Jew could be forced to remain a Jew, because all that a gentile government needed was the slightest hit that a Jew wanted to convert to Christianity or Islam and it would use, literally, all means necessary to "rescue" that potential convert. Such governments also provided various incentives for conversion, including greater freedom and security and more moderate taxation. Nevertheless, not only did the Jewish community survive (though there were many conversions), but the community also assessed contributions from its members to take care of its own. Such contributions, then, could only be enforced by persuasion. But that was a very effective means of enforcement, since the Jewish community mostly succeeded in taking care of its less fortunate members. Certainly nobody else was going to. [/QUOTE]
2005-02-28 01:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE]This seems to be at odds with the organismic view of human societies we both subscribe to. [/QUOTE] Not really, Walter.
To the extent a portion of the putative community (or organism) is not consensual, that portion is better understood as a separate organism. I can't cite chapter and verse, but Wilson's discussion of human groups as adaptive units supports this distinction.
2005-02-28 02:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]You are confusing the Jewish community's external relations with its internal relations. The Jewish community hijacks and use a pre-existing instrument of parasitism for their own ends, but they do not use the state to govern themselves. They are a nation that is not subject to a coercive state.[/QUOTE] Actually, as Israel Shahak discusses in Jewish History, Jewish Religion, the Jewish religious hierarchy did function as the governing body for the Jewish nation. Furthermore, as part of their relationship with the host state, the state would often grant the rabbis the use of the state's coercive mechanisms, such as the police and soldiers, in order to enforce Jewish laws upon the Jewish community. Thus, the Jewish nation basically 'outsourced' the enforcement function of the state, while retaining most of the governing functions.
2005-02-28 18:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]You are confusing the Jewish community's external relations with its internal relations. The Jewish community hijacks and use a pre-existing instrument of parasitism for their own ends, but they do not use the state to govern themselves. They are a nation that is not subject to a coercive state.[/QUOTE]
I'm not confusing anything. Rejecting libertarian dogmas about "parasitic states" and other flowery rhetoric is not "confusion."
I didn't realize that Israel was a stateless society. I could have sworn that they have a government, military, courts, of law, public works, etc. Sure, it's usually on America's dime, but that doesn't change the fact that when diaspora people live among themselves rather than among hosts, they have a state apparatus just as the hosts do. Funny how the reality principle trumps ideology and rhetoric every time. The Israeli state is not parasitic on Jews because it serves Jewish interests. The only thing that makes the US government (and for that matter, most of our private institutions as well) parasitic is that they serve the interests of non-whites at the expense of whites..
Jews as diaspora do make use of the institutions provided by the state of their host nation. The last time I checked, Jews in America drive on our roads, are protected by our law enforcement apparatus and national defense, and take their grievances to American courts of law. The reason that Jews do not provide these institutions for themselves and are a stateless nation (at least prior to the restoration of Israel) is that they make use of the state apparatus of the host nation.
Finally, let's get back on topic. You never explained to me how in your libertarian fantasy the following services would be provided barring the existence of a state:
1) National Defense and Foreign Diplomacy. Not just military defense, but negotiation of alliances, trade agreements, etc.
2) Law enforcement : including police and courts of law. Should private individuals break the law or breach contracts, how will the laws and contracts be enforced, and by whom?
3) Public works - i.e. roads, bridges, etc.
Do you A) Have some utopian vision that says that these things will just magically take care of themselves and that people will "play fair" or B ) Are you a realist who recognizes that rule by private warlords and plutocrats is the inevitable outcome of a stateless society, and consider that preferable to any other workable state of affairs.
2005-02-28 19:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I didn't realize that Israel was a stateless society.[/QUOTE] But the present-day state of Israel is not co-extentensive with the Jewish community, either now or historically.
2005-02-28 19:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I'm not confusing anything. [/QUOTE] When you say the following:[QUOTE]Jews and other diaspora people are special cases. The Jewish nation can survive without a state for the same reason that a virus can survive without a metabolism: they recruit the state and infra-structure apparatus of their hosts to work for them so that they do not have to. [/QUOTE] ...you conflate Jewish self-government with Jewish government of host nations.
2005-02-28 19:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Jews as diaspora do make use of the institutions provided by the state of their host nation. The last time I checked, Jews in America drive on our roads, are protected by our law enforcement apparatus and national defense, and take their grievances to American courts of law. [/QUOTE] Roads are not a "state", nor are the benefits of national defense or courts. Those may be products of a coercive state (or of a self-governing community), but the use of such products is not the same thing as being subjected to the predation of a coercive state.
2005-02-28 20:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Finally, let's get back on topic. You never explained to me how in your libertarian fantasy the following services would be provided barring the existence of a state:[/QUOTE] Your responses are calculated to refute arguments presented by others on other occasions.
My position here is that consensual government is preferable to government by coercion. I have repeatedly stated that fully consensual government is difficult if not impossible to achieve (though multilevel selection theory holds that human societies will evolve in that direction). Thus the charge that I am engaging in a libertarian fantasy is unwarranted. The point is that, as in other scopes of human endeavor in which perfection is difficult or impossible to achieve, we should identify the ideal that is to be approached and use that ideal as a model.
You have disagreed with the conceptualization of the [I]ideal[/I] and have staked out the a remarkable position that I will illustrate by reference to a basketball game. Three scenarios:
The players agree to call the game themselves.
The players select and perhaps even agree to pay a third party to referee the game.
A third party shows up to referee the game (uninvited) and charges the players a fee that they must pay (at gunpoint if it comes to that) irrespective of whether they are satisfied with the identity of the referee or the fee.
I have argued that scenarios 1 and 2 are preferable to 3. Amazingly, you have disagreed.
2005-02-28 20:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Finally, let's get back on topic. You never explained to me how in your libertarian fantasy the following services would be provided barring the existence of a state:
1) National Defense and Foreign Diplomacy. Not just military defense, but negotiation of alliances, trade agreements, etc.
2) Law enforcement : including police and courts of law. Should private individuals break the law or breach contracts, how will the laws and contracts be enforced, and by whom?
3) Public works - i.e. roads, bridges, etc. [/QUOTE] Obviously, if not tautologically, these things would be provided by the community itself.
2005-02-28 20:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]I have argued that scenarios 1 and 2 are preferable to 3. Amazingly, you have disagreed.[/QUOTE]
One question -- is the game in Lubbock?
2005-03-01 04:26 | User Profile
I prefer option 3, Tex. I know whole heart and mind that so-called Israel is a stain on the globe, and I despise their presence. I know that they have no right at all to live there, and that their presence is an affront to God. That being said, ok, we can still have Peace !!
2005-03-01 04:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]Obviously, if not tautologically, these things would be provided by the community itself.[/QUOTE]And presumably a "non-coercive" community.
It seems to me libertarians always in the end get hung up on communitarian rights. Their uneasiness with communitarian rights is basically what drives them to libertarianism in the first place, and while they may try to work communitarian rights in with libertarianism, eventually they see the contridiction and abandon libertarianism. This was the route taken by Annalex.
Of course part of the problem is the difficulty in finding a "concensul" communitarian tradition, especially in the absense of religion. Its hard for me to find a unified one in biology, although you may try to put bits and pieces together.
2005-03-02 23:21 | User Profile
Obviously, if not tautologically, these things would be provided by the community itself.
How?
Perhaps if it's so "obvious," you could give us a historical example of a "community" providing national defense, law enforcement, and public works without an entity that you would call a "state." Or at least outline how this would theoretically work in libertarian never-never land.
In fact you can't, because any institution that is responsible for these things is by definition a "state."
2005-03-02 23:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]Roads are not a "state", nor are the benefits of national defense or courts. Those may be products of a coercive state (or of a self-governing community), but the use of such products is not the same thing as being subjected to the predation of a coercive state.[/QUOTE]
Since "self-governing communities" (understood as those where the functions of law enforcement and defense are not institutionalized as separate entities) exist only in your imagination and in the imaginations of a handful of like-minded individuals, this scenario is about is relevant as a "what if" discussion about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.
The fact remains that diaspora people make use of the services provided by the state governing their host nations, hence they have no need to provide such services for themselves. When left to their own devices (more or less), surprise, surprise, they too institutionalize these things into a state apparatus. State and government are equivalent in everything but hunter-gatherer societies (and even there the chief is the de facto "state" in embryo). If you want to call institutions responsible for defense and law enforcement by some other name than "state," it amounts to yet another semantic game that libertarians, like all ideologues, are so adept at.
My position here is that consensual government is preferable to government by coercion. I have repeatedly stated that fully consensual government is difficult if not impossible to achieve (though multilevel selection theory holds that human societies will evolve in that direction). .
What you call "ideally desirable" I call "irrelevant fantasy" and what you call "necessary evil" I call "desirable in the real world." What only matters in politics is what is desirable given reality, not what dreamers desire.
I don't see "coercion" as a problem per se. A certain amount of coercion is necessary for a society to function. Do you really believe that people will voluntarily pay their taxes to fund law enforcement and national defense, or that they won't take advantage of a lack of coercion (i.e. threat of prison, perhaps even death) to defraud others and make alliances with enemy nations for personal benefit? People are often selfish and dishonest, and you will have conflicts of interest between individuals as long as societies do not consist of identical clones. Having an ethnically and culturally homogeneous society makes these conflicts less prevalent, but they will always be there. Even siblings and parents/children may have irreconcileable differences that need outside entities to mediate them (often making compromises that are unsatisfactory and "coercive" to both parties involved).
2005-03-03 00:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE]The fact remains that diaspora people make use of the services provided by the state governing their host nations, hence they have no need to provide such services for themselves. [/QUOTE] Services have nothing to do with government. How is it determined how the Jewish community (or those governing that community) will use those instruments? That is the relevant question for purposes of an analysis of the extent to which diaspora Jewry has used a coercive state to govern itself.
2005-03-03 00:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE]How? Perhaps if it's so "obvious," you could give us a historical example of a "community" providing national defense, law enforcement, and public works without an entity that you would call a "state." [/QUOTE] The activities of a community can quite easily be coordinated without coercion, just as the activities of other groups and organizations that do not presume the "right" to commit crimes (aggression) are coordinated without aggression against participants. Your request for an historical example is disingenuous, as I have freely conceded that in large-scale societies criminal intervention has been the norm, apparently without exception.
But let's look at law enforcement. Where's the coercion? Punishing criminals involves no coercion.
And why would you expect national defense to require coercion? People will volunteer to fight and will quite willingly pay the costs of national defense.
2005-03-03 00:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Do you really believe that people will voluntarily pay their taxes to fund law enforcement and national defense[/QUOTE] Absolutely. Wouldn't you?
Even if you're innately parasitic, would you really want to be an outlaw whom the police would not protect? Would you want to be isolated from your erstwhile community for refusing to contribute to the defense effort? The recalcitrance of individuals is easy to deal with; it's a renegade gang with control of coordinating and potentially coercive mechanisms that is hard to rein in -- not least because intelligent people like you think it's good for them to be committing crimes against their community.
And what about my basketball example? You seem to have taken a wide berth around that one....
2005-03-03 01:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE]State and government are equivalent in everything but hunter-gatherer societies (and even there the chief is the de facto "state" in embryo).[/QUOTE] First, the chief is not a "state in embryo", if you mean by that a [I]coercive[/I] state in embryo, as he has no coercive powers. He is kept in check by a "reverse dominance hierarchy". See Boehm's "Hierarchy in the Forest".
Second, I would point you to the Greek [I]poleis[/I], which historians -- perhaps idealistically -- recount as functioning as self-governing communities, for which government and the Weberian "state" were not synonymous.
2005-03-03 01:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]Absolutely. Wouldn't you?
Even if you're innately parasitic, would you really want to be an outlaw whom the police would not protect? Would you want to be isolated from your erstwhile community for refusing to contribute to the defense effort?
Sounds like coercion to me - through the back door. Do you really believe this loony-lib stuff, or are you just going through this as an exercise?
Regardless, I voluntarily pay my taxes. No agent has ever had to threaten me with legal sanctions cause I didn't pay. I think you're grasping at libertarian nats. If someone doesn't want to pay though, that's his right, but I think its my right also to have someone ensre that such deadbeats don't live in my community and sponge off it. And I don't see why I can't use paid professionals funded by this tax money to enforce such, rather than have to organize my own vigilante committee.
2005-03-03 04:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Regardless, I voluntarily pay my taxes.
Do you really? Really in truly?
Or do you not make much of a fuss beyond some grumbling because at bottom you know that if you did not, then sooner or later the gestapo IRS is gonna come-a-knockin'.
Think about it.
2005-03-03 04:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]If someone doesn't want to pay though, that's his right, but I think its my right also to have someone ensre that such deadbeats don't live in my community and sponge off it. And I don't see why I can't use paid professionals funded by this tax money to enforce such, rather than have to organize my own vigilante committee.[/QUOTE]
Except now your problem is that the deadbeats have the paid professionals making sure you're paying through the nose to ensure they can keep sponging. Even better, because true political and state power has centralized and consolidated as remotely away from you as is possible, there aint a dang thing you can do about it.
There's your 'state' in all its glory.
2005-03-03 05:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Except now your problem is that the deadbeats have the paid professionals making sure you're paying through the nose to ensure they can keep sponging. Even better, because true political and state power has centralized and consolidated as remotely away from you as is possible, there aint a dang thing you can do about it.
There's your 'state' in all its glory.[/QUOTE]Sounds like a man getting ready to pay his April 15 return :lol: