tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post146567466281950830..comments2023-12-28T06:30:48.808-05:00Comments on The Rule of Reason: Alias Marx and AlinskyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-66014411784262085402012-05-20T18:41:20.059-04:002012-05-20T18:41:20.059-04:00Tim C: First, don't underestimate your writin...Tim C: First, don't underestimate your writing abilities. You write very well.<br /><br />Second, I could've gone on about the Civil War and slavery and related issues, but they were not the subject of the piece, so I had to satisfy myself with just their mention. To me, the Civil War is a mixed issue. Yes, the war was fought to "free the slaves," but the underlying federal motive for fighting it was to "preserve the Union." Slaves, as you noted, were freed almost as an afterthought, more to cripple the South's fighting ability than as a principled thing to do. And Lincoln has never been a favorite president of mine, chiefly because under his administration he approved the country's first draft and first income tax, precedents in our political history. Both laws expired after a few years after the war ended, but they put a bug in the heads of Democrats and Republicans and other politicians, such as Bryant, the "free silver" advocate.<br /><br /> And both actions were necessary to fight a war which even many of those in the North were doubtful of its legitimacy or practicality. And it was in this period and immediately after the war that many American students, particularly those studying law, came back from European universities, their heads stuffed full of what would become "progressive" political ideas. From that point onward, America merely coasted on the ideas that were responsible for its existence, until there were very few thinkers left who understood them and could fight for them and develop them as Rand did, and they were more or less shut out of all serious debates about the political nature and future of the country. And by the time she was able to articulate and dramatize them, it was just about too late. <br /><br />EdEdward Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12160209827969614964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-46661567783279128922012-05-19T11:02:36.930-04:002012-05-19T11:02:36.930-04:00Mr. Cline,
Another angle that seems lost to histo...Mr. Cline,<br /><br />Another angle that seems lost to history is that the modern conseratives never had small government as a priority anyway. You mention the civil war and slavery briefly; my understanding is the following: the Republican party, while ostensibly formed fundamentally around anti-slavery principles, ended up as a major strengthener of the federal government very quickly (since the civil war actually ended up being fought when states tried to secede, a right which the Founders actually endorsed). <br /><br />The above does leave out the reason for secession in this case being morally unacceptable, but I'd argue this is justified as I don't recall any actual principled reasoning from Lincoln or the North in general saying "we are invading the South specifically to secure the rights of those slaves." In fact, Lincoln famously stated (essentially) that he would free all, or none, or some of the slaves, so long as whatever course taken preserved the Union.<br /><br />I'm not a historian, and unfortunately don't have the time to research my recollections and assertions, nor do I possess your writing abilities; that said, if there's meat to this I'd love to see your take and further exploration of the Republican party's origins and objectives. My gut feel is that they've been (modern) liberals all along.Tim Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06319251326099194934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-72428924710552737012012-05-17T12:47:40.190-04:002012-05-17T12:47:40.190-04:00Great article Ed.
The idea of calling "liber...Great article Ed.<br /><br />The idea of calling "liberals" out on their true ideological colour is the exact same theme of our Freedom Party campaign, here in Ontario, Canada. Our campaign is called "Red Alert". The idea is that we need to push the "red button" and identify the liberals and conservatives for what they are: red. Light red or dark red, they're all red. Red is also the colour of anger. And it's time to take off the kid-gloves in this political-ideological battle.<br /><br />Here is a speech by party founder Robert Metz at a recent dinner I attended where I graciously accepted a pin award for my contribution to the fight for freeom (LTEs, running as candidate in recent election, etc..)<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecrJnFtL6Us<br /><br />AndrewDrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15122129410990551416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-16937163366448191252012-05-15T11:36:21.732-04:002012-05-15T11:36:21.732-04:00"[L]iberals do not advocate liberty. Quite th...<i>"[L]iberals do not advocate liberty. Quite the opposite."</i><br /><br />Indeed. The same goes for conservatives. Ayn Rand, in her essay <i>Conservatism: An Obituary</i>, described the difference between liberals and conservatives thus:<br /><br /><i>We stand for freedom, say both groups—and proceed to declare what kind of controls, regulations, coercions, taxes, and "sacrifices" they would impose, what arbitrary powers they would demand, what "social gains" they would hand out to various groups, without specifying from what other groups these "gains" would be expropriated. Neither of them cares to admit that government control of a country's economy—any kind or degree of such control, by any group, for any purpose whatsoever—rests on the basic principle of statism, the principle that man's life belongs to the state.</i><br /><br />A couple months ago I wrote my "conservative" senator, urging him to support legislation that would thwart further FDA regulation of the tobacco industry. He replied that he shared my desire for smaller, less intrusive government, and then went on to repeat various "public interest" groups' anti-smoking propaganda, concluding that "the public interest" trumped individual freedom, and that individuals who smoked were costing "society" (the collective) billions of dollars a year. He would not support the legislation. My "conservative" senator is, by the modern definition of the term, a liberal.Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06188622297744653212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-80332478640229557342012-05-13T18:32:33.149-04:002012-05-13T18:32:33.149-04:00Slade: Actually, the Founders and many 19th centur...Slade: Actually, the Founders and many 19th century "liberals" are referred to as "classical liberals." And, you're right, the liberals aka "conservatives" wish to preserve the welfare state and all its statist accouterments, while the "Conservatives" wish to preserve or "conserve" the status quo, including "traditional" values, including Jizya for Jesus and non-existent persons aka fetuses. EdEdward Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12160209827969614964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-50267912192939108632012-05-13T11:33:02.099-04:002012-05-13T11:33:02.099-04:00It will no doubt come to gunfights, regardless. A ...It will no doubt come to gunfights, regardless. A great subject, Mr. Cline, one I wish were part of a mainstream dialogue. Well done. I have always thought that conservatives also have a vested interest in the term "liberal" as currently used, to hide the fact that the nation was founded by liberals, not conservatives. It's difficult to discern what the latter are trying to conserve, other than the Jesus/fetus obsession. We now seem to have a choice between slow and fast socialism.Slade Calhounhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01641485044152773832noreply@blogger.com