It seems on the right, some will at least criticize a right controlled govt for not living up to the US constitutuion while I have yet to see anyone on the left do the same (at least for the reason of defending the Constitution for the sake of defending the Constitution). To me it seems the left is only concerned with a leftist agenda AND is a lot more eager and willing to digest any propaganda the left throws out for its supporters to eat.
So to with Righist. Propagandizing that the Founding Fathers created the Constitution so therefore it is scared in and of itself. It is truly a useless document that can so easily be neglected. This indirectly vexes me because Mark Levin has been skulking my television talking about how he believes in liberty and freedom in his new book Liberty and Tyranny [ as if he could distingish the difference between the two ]. The American Conservative movement is just as contradictory as the Progressive Liberal movement. Both are statists of a differing flavor.
divide et impera
tu ne cede malis
Funny you should mention this…
I belong to a book club that recently posted this as the current read, I read it already (They have trouble keeping up)
My review of the book was not much to their liking…
This is why Minarchism can’t work, the (as noted) Divide and Conquer aspect of the left right issue only works to increase government power…
Neither have any love for the Constitution…
there aren’t any rightists in american politics. there are extreme leftists and moderate leftists. “american rightists” don’t respect private property and don’t respect international sovereignty.
Conservatism is the right. Anarchism is an extreme left position.
Mises once wrote something to the effect that left and right, conservative and liberal, are all pretty dumb and vague terms. I totally agree with him.
Wasting trilliions on pointless wars is not a “conservative” quality. Hiding torture photos is being conservative, though.
I agree, and so would Ron Paul I would guess, given that he runs as a Republican. Not that Ron Paul holds much weight on these boards.
You mean anarcho-communism?
While I think it is useless to really place austrian ancap thought in the political spectrum, where I have seen it classified it is always right of the right.
No I mean Laissez-Faire liberalism.
All this terminology is still meaningless since it depends on who you’re talking to. If Mises called these terms “dumb and vague”, that sounds about right. I think they’re terms that have been hijacked by political groups which obfuscated and redefined their meanings to match their party platform. I don’t even use the terms anymore if it can be avoided.
I think without definitions to pronounce what we believe then we are all deduced to nihilism or what I like to call political dark matter. Having no consistency, just merely filling between gaps.
Yea I’m worried that if I read Levin’s book then I will somehow lose faith in all mankind or suffer a stroke from the idiocy inflicted on me. If it is anything like his radio broadcasts then I can only tolerate it for 5 minutes before I go into a fit of rage and break something. Him, Sean Hannity, all these radio broadcasters lack any intellectual thought processes and merely say ‘Oh your are Socialist!’ then cut them off the air.
The “left wing” “right wing” disctinction, even when trying to remodel it the JBS model = is fundamentally retarded.
The proper dichotomy is individualism vs collectivism.
And it is FORWARDS towards Liberty, or BACKWARDS towards Tyranny.
That is it, as simple as that.
What about voluntary communes? I certainly wouldn’t join one but your dichotomy assumes it would be tyrannical when in face it would be voluntarily entered into.
No, you assumed. The parameters on the scale are non aggression axiom (principle) & Lockean/ Rothbardian private property rights. Natural law essentially. No violations of these or natural law = individualism, at the top - anarcho-capitalism. Any inferences, the further down you go on the scale (like a rung of a ladder).
Within the model, voluntary communes are part of**:**
Human Action - X. EXCHANGE WITHIN SOCIETY
1. Autistic Exchange and Interpersonal Exchange
There are leftist statists that discuss the Constitution. I heard this professor on the radio about three weeks ago give a speech to the public in a town hall meeting style. I was traveling through central Pennsylvania and I was very surprised to hear somebody on the radio go on and on about the Constitution and liberty. I had never heard a leftist statists discuss the Constitution so much. This was the first time. The audience was clapping and loved what the man had to say so there is an audience for this leftist statism. His emphasis was about the freedom of speech and press, and mainly about the press. And he discussed the founding fathers and gave historical background on how important the press was considered vital to liberty. He gave quotes from these early Americans stating that a free press gives the transparency and the counter force to tyranny. Without a free press a country cannot oppose a growing tyrannical government. He gave quotes from the early Americans stating how the free press actually could keep a government in check, ask hard questions, and is not to go along with what the government’s agenda is but is to question it every step of the way. It was all quite interesting with tones of liberty throughout up to a certain point, which I’ll get to. He gave historical accounts of when the press began to switch over to printing more and more of whatever political party was in office and stopped asking them challenging questions. Woodrow Wilsons Alien and Sedition Act was a nail in the coffin of a free press. Then another component was logical positivism and the scientific perspective being used in trying to get a story. Instead of the press looking for a story and providing a view based on liberty or protecting the freedoms of citizens more and more in the 20th century the press tried to appear objective, unbiased, and tried to appear as if they were only giving the facts. He tied this connection up with logical positivism very nicely in my opinion. The only way to get the facts about the government, though, is to asked the governmental officials direct questions about what the government is doing without asking any challenging questions. The press began and still does for the most part not question government motives, but asks questions and simply reports on what the government is doing. It became more descriptive than actually challenging the government. The press therefore became more the arm of the government instead of a skeptical view questioning what the government is doing.
So why was this guy a statist still even though he wanted a free press that would challenge and question the government and he discussed at length the Constitution, protecting liberty, and gave numerous founding father quotes?
Well he was afraid with the economy going the way it is that there would be no more newspapers. He said the press needed a bailout from the government. There also needs to be free newspapers to every American so they can get the news and be informed on their governments actions. He didn’t like the internet giving out free news and competing with newspapers. He thought how terrible it was that Wall Street got bailouts, but freedom of the press was a Constitutional Amendment so it should take priority and get the bailouts instead. His ideas are being pushed in D.C. he said, so, this might be something on the horizon in America if Obama goes for it. Free newspapers for everybody paid for by tax dollars of course.
traditional news outlets =/= free press
the free press is embodied by wikileaks.
Levin does tone it down for the book, just asserts falsehoods…