tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post8170236392843341391..comments2023-12-28T06:30:48.808-05:00Comments on The Rule of Reason: The New Intolerable ActsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-27968166931095978072009-03-15T19:55:00.000-04:002009-03-15T19:55:00.000-04:00Excellent article. I think you are right in charac...Excellent article. <BR/><BR/>I think you are right in characterizing the incipient anger of the American taxpayer being that of sensing that the tax burden is becoming intolerable and wanting relief, rather than knowing that freedom is the first principle upon which a sensible economy must be built. This "sensing" must become knowing if we are to put up a stubborn resistance sufficient to save the Republic. This is part of the reason that some of those who stand in opposition to TARP and ARRA still caution that the Tea Parties, rousing as they are, may be premature, that we and our children need to first learn and stand firmly on the principles that founded this nation before we can put forth that determined resistance to the destruction of our liberties.Elisheva Hannah Levinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16061377724926154037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-2807857420035720422009-03-12T21:12:00.000-04:002009-03-12T21:12:00.000-04:00Very interesting post! Thanks so much for sending...Very interesting post! Thanks so much for sending it to the Objectivist Round Up this week!Jenn Caseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07849654785544313839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-51942715828068464912009-03-12T12:19:00.000-04:002009-03-12T12:19:00.000-04:00Ed - that was a rousing article. Thanks for your ...Ed - that was a rousing article. Thanks for your fieriness!<BR/><BR/>About the left/right distinction. In The Ominous Parallels, I remember Dr. Peikoff describing Hitler's rise to power as a merge of the socialist left and the nationalist right. Basically, the German people voted for the worst of both parties (distribution of wealth and nationalization of business on the left and nationalistic state-worship mixed with the Lutheran religion on the right). Therefore, the National Socialist German Workers' Party.<BR/><BR/>I agree with Paula's principle that we should not imply in any way that "the right" means freedom or anti-statism. But I don't think Ed intentionally meant this, but was referring to the horrible political continuum diagram taught in schools where the right is on the side of fascism and the left on the side of socialism, and capitalism is somewhere in the middle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrumAmyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15959611659473389454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-58278414423004049532009-03-10T18:01:00.000-04:002009-03-10T18:01:00.000-04:00Mr. Cline's claim that fascism and Nazism are left...Mr. Cline's claim that fascism and Nazism are left-wing is, I believe, an accurate one. I'm assuming Ed is refering to the "economic" left-right spectrum, not the "political" left-right spectrum. The "economic" LRS, which Ayn Rand affirmed, illustrates how capitalist or anti-capitalist a group or economy is. The further left one moves, the less capitalist one gets. The further right one moves, the more capitalist one gets. See Ayn Rand's lexicon definitions of "leftist" and "rightist". She also claimed (in one of her color youtube videos I can't recall with who) that she was somewhat relieved by the "move to the right" some engaged in during the late 60's and 70's as a reaction to the economic left. Surely by "right" she did not mean the religious conservative right.<BR/><BR/>Nazism and fascism are clearly economically left wing. While socialism involves government legal possession and physical control over the means of production, fascism only requires government physical control of productive factors, the most important aspect of ownership. The people at "Simply Capitalism" put it best: socialism is de jure nationalization and fascism is de facto nationalization.<BR/><BR/>The "economic" LRS is not a false dichotomy. A dichotomy refers to the mutual exclusivity between two things. The "economic" LRS recognizes pure socialism, pure capitalism, and everything in between. The essential dichotomy doesn't exist between the economic left (socialism) and the economic right (capitalism). It exists between pure capitalism (the complete absence of initiated force) and everything else (varying degrees of initiated force). <BR/><BR/>I think its about time it is said that fascism indeed is economically left-wing. Imagine the futility of an economic spectrum with socialism and fascism at opposite extremes. What purpose would such a spectrum serve? To illustrate the all important distinction between de jure and de facto nationalization??? And, for those who believe in the socialism- fascism extremes over the socialism-capitalism extremes, where does the U.S. reside on such a spectrum??? Would you say that the U.S. dwells in the middle, i.e., that the U.S. is a product of socialism and fascism??? <BR/><BR/>It may be asked, why do we need a an economic left-right spectrum? I would say, in order to illustrate the essential relationships among social systems. A social system may assume a specific structure, but what they all have in common are certain prescriptions for the use of force. Socialism, at the far economic left, holds that the government may initiate force to seize all productive factors. Capitalism, at the far economic right, holds that government may never initiate force. Fascism is, as shown above, ominously close to socialism.<BR/><BR/>Now - in the U.S. the "political" LRS serves the purpose of merely differentiating Democrats and Republicans, contemporary liberals and conservatives. It is this spectrum that suffers from the all the problems that the Randian (as affirmed by Rand, not used pejoratively) "economic" LRS does not. The "economic" LRS recognizes an essential characteristic of groups and social systems: their view on the initiated force. The "political" LRS, by contrast, does not identify such essentials. The primary difference between modern liberals and conservatives - the fact that the former tend to champion "social" freedom and "economic" control while the latter tend to champion "social" control and "economic" freedom - such differences so not constitute an essential distinction. Stalin sported an exquisite head of hair while I prefer to go "screaming eagle" (army for bald). Yet this is not an essential difference between us. I don't fantasize about raping and axe-murdering people.<BR/><BR/>So, I think we must make a distinction between the "economic" LRS which Ayn Rand positively recognized and the "political" LRS which suffers from focus on non-essentials. Mr. Cline relies upon the "economic" LRS in his piece.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-3093716285607601592009-03-10T10:26:00.000-04:002009-03-10T10:26:00.000-04:00Anonymous is a true detective: He is right about t...Anonymous is a true detective: He is right about the letter I cite in the commentary, which was forwarded to me without a link but signed "Morton Keaton," not by Barnett. And, I've just check the link, and lo and behold, there he is, basking in the sunlight of "fame" (but I wonder how long it will before the IRS hauls him in for interrogation in a bare room and with dim lightbulb). <BR/><BR/>So, I sit corrected!<BR/><BR/>EdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-35534419958688077332009-03-09T18:35:00.000-04:002009-03-09T18:35:00.000-04:00WRT the letter to the editor, I think it was a let...WRT the letter to the editor, I think it was a letter to the editor in the February 5th edition of the Wichita Falls, Texas Times Record News, not the Tennessean. See http://www.timesrecordnews.com/news/2009/mar/07/mans-letter-garners-fame/ for details.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-38177194140462447602009-03-09T13:15:00.000-04:002009-03-09T13:15:00.000-04:00I think that a better way would be to do away with...I think that a better way would be to do away with these sobriquets.As Ayn Rand had shown repeatedly how false alternatives and dichotomies,by permeating a given field, have wreked havoc,we should come out openly in favour of laissez faire capitalism.<BR/>I second anonymous when he says long live ed cline!pomponazzihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15650762047420820104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-37493233848622150512009-03-09T10:28:00.000-04:002009-03-09T10:28:00.000-04:00Paula Hall/Jennings: Right-wing vs. left wing. "Ri...Paula Hall/Jennings: Right-wing vs. left wing. "Right-wing" political systems are usually based on "tradition," religion and an anti-intellectual worldview. <BR/><BR/>For example, the makers of "V for Vendetta" got it right concerning what "right-wing" usually stands for (although by the end of the film it offered no alternative to the fascist government V attacks; as Nick Provenzo noted in his review of it: "Now what?"). Left-wing is wholly collectivist and its ethics is a secular altruism. <BR/><BR/>Still, fascism is just another form of statism, and its followers and proponents are collectivist. Facts of reality contradict the belief that fascism is the progeny of capitalism. Fascism will sooner or later, if allowed to by default, incorporate socialism and/or communism into its establishment. If Obama consistently follows his courses of action re the banks, the auto industry, insurance, etc., for example, he must wind up with communism. This should suprise no one, given his communist family and social background (his mother, William Ayers, and others). <BR/><BR/>The solution to the confusion -- a confusion propagated and perpetuated by our "left-wing" academia for decades, with help from the traditional-bound conservatives, who never offered a moral defense of the capitalism they claim they value -- is to put all three statist systems -- communism, socialism, fascism -- in the same category. Right- and left-wing are false alternatives. <BR/><BR/>The only radical political system is capitalism properly based on individual rights and man living for his own sake.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-89963478977870619212009-03-09T00:33:00.000-04:002009-03-09T00:33:00.000-04:00And long live Ed Cline, one of the most eloquent o...And long live Ed Cline, one of the most eloquent of patriot spokesmen! He's proof that heroes like those in the "Sparrowhawk" series do exist today!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-38404752208555861532009-03-08T21:00:00.000-04:002009-03-08T21:00:00.000-04:00Paula Hall,I believe that Mr. Cline was correct in...Paula Hall,<BR/>I believe that Mr. Cline was correct in his identification of Nazis and Fascism as being "left wing." He did not define "left wing" as the contrast or opposite of "right wing," but rather by the openly anti-capitalist positions of such groups, which seek the abolition of the right to property. I think that was correct, and furthermore, necessary. While the "right wing" may not have a coherent defintition (witness the ongoing inner turmoil of the GOP), I do not think it is proper to identify them as being opposites; the old "left/right" dichotomy is not valid; I forget who said it, but it is more correct to say that, politically, there is the "left, the right, and the rational."<BR/>I think it is important to identify the "left wing" nature of "FNC." In today's culture, people frequently try to avoid identification of fundamentals; if people were to identify Obama et al's ideas by their essentials instead of the new-age doublespeak names (i.e. "private/government partnership" instead of "nationalization," or more properly, "theft," "government reinvestment," etc), they would clearly see the impropriety of the bailout, massive (or any amount of)government involvement in the economy, etc. as mere repeats of previously failed ideas. <BR/>Lastly, allowing the Nazis and Fascists to be characterized as anything but entirely antithetical to capitalism is wrong. Many seek to characterize the Nazis or the Fascists as being "capitalist," nevermind the logic of that position. How many times have you seen WTO protestors carrying signs condemning "fascist" capitalism? This is horribly wrong, and cannot be allowed to stand; you should, whenever possible, correct this mis-identification because it continues to harm actual proponents of capitalism such as yourself and Mr. Cline.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-40748890917761828882009-03-08T11:51:00.000-04:002009-03-08T11:51:00.000-04:00You: "Fascism and Nazism are hardly “right wing” p...You: "Fascism and Nazism are hardly “right wing” political systems, as left-wingers claim; they are left-wing to the core."<BR/><BR/>I am curious -- what kind of system would you characterize as "right-wing," and why?<BR/><BR/>For my part, I think it is conceptually dangerous to criticize Fascism and Nazism on the grounds that they are "left-wing" policies, thereby implying that a policy that is the opposite of Fascism/Nazism/Communism ("FNC") should be referred to as "right-wing". <BR/><BR/>The main philosophy of the Left is nihilism; the main philosophy of the Right is mysticism. Criticizing FNC as "left-wing" implies that policies opposite to FNC are those associated with mysticism.<BR/><BR/>The similarity between Fascism/Nazism and Communism does not, at root, mean that Fascism and Nazism are "left-wing." It means that Fascism, Nazism and Communism are all *statist*.<BR/><BR/>Because FNC are all statist, their opposite is Capitalism, the social system of freedom. As an Objectivist blogger, you forcefully -- and correctly! -- argue that freedom is not justified through mysticism, as by William Buckley, but by reason, as by Ayn Rand. Yet to call Facism/Nazism "left-wing" makes it too easy to mischaracterize Capitalism as "right-wing" -- and to imply that the philosophy behind Capitalism is mysticism.Paula Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02577316743259376841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-42955583761941127862009-03-07T17:52:00.000-05:002009-03-07T17:52:00.000-05:00I believe the snake on the early militia flags has...I believe the snake on the early militia flags has a positive connotation as a guardian of the Goddess Libertas.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com