NeoNote — Dualism
❝❝There is an assumption underlying American politics and to a certain extent our discussions here. In order for you to win, in order for you to benefit, someone else if not everyone else must lose. Some call it dualism, some call it either/or, and some call it IS or IS NOT. It's The Law of the Excluded Middle (more or less) and it's usually a false premise.NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
Something doesn't have to be black OR white. Sometimes it can be sour. Or fuzzy. Or octagonal. By accepting two and only two qualifying conditions, you eliminate all other possibilities, even if those other possibilities may serve your needs better.
For example, Sarah Waggoner is very much caught up in dualism. Any criticism of Democrats means she must attack Trump or Republicans in general. The idea that someone can be critical of Democrats without being a Republican is outside her expectations and almost outside her world view.
Meanwhile, from my perspective the problem isn't Democrats or Republicans. Accepting either premise ignores the obvious (to me), that too much government is the core problem. As long as the discussion is about either Party Red or Party Blue, we don't talk about an ever expanding technocracy that consumes more and more even as it restricts freedom. You can't talk about the dangers of government until you stop talking about the misdeeds of whichever party. Dealing only with Republicans or Democrats means you never look too closely at the system.
By design
Still, your first reaction to any criticism of Democrats is to attack Trump or Republicans.
You've never seen me "discuss" things like religion, sex, or crony capitalism with Republicans. Not to mention the occasional person who insists that their morality must displace all other choices.
My default is KYFHO. Keep Your F…ing Hands Off!
The fact is (and one of your major issues) that I assume that most people are perfectly capable of making their own choices. I don't think that government should be involved in most things. I don't think that government is first, best, and last solution. I do not trust in the wisdom of government.
Outside of sex and top-down morality, yes, that matches the mainstream "Republican" position. More accurately, the mainstream "Republican" position matches some of the classic liberal position. And yes, there is a vast difference between modern liberals and classic liberals. As I've said, my opinions on religion, sex and top-down morality (and what is dooming our culture) put me outside the Republican mainstream and squarely in with what might be called Democrat positions. Again, more accurately the Democrat positions match some of classic liberal position positions. And since classic liberals had those positions first, well, the Republicans and Democrats stole from their betters.
I could give you a hundred and thirteen things that Trump has done wrong. But I don't see Trump as significantly worse (or better) than his predecessors. At the end of the day (or term), we still have an ever expanding government that is destroying liberty. I don't think we should have a country whose liberty depends on the whims of those "in charge" this week.
Meanwhile Republicans and Democrats both want to expand government, only with their people in charge. The goal is not the government. The goal is not the system. The goal is liberty. Everything else is extra.❞❞
Comments
NeoNote — Save us from the crusaders
❝❝Save us from the crusaders. “Here I come to save the day!”NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
Whatever form WestCiv and America specifically ends up with, you're still going to have to live with people who disagree and hate everything you stand for. You don't build communities by excluding people you don't like.
Crusading just means "your" side will win for a short while. And the the whole cycle starts again.
Unknown today. In his time, his writings were very well known and pretty influential. He wrote Our Enemy, the State among other things
I cited him in the first place is because a top down approach doesn't work for very long, if it works at all. People resent being told what to do, especially if you force them. I don't have a detailed plan because I don't think that any one person or any one group has all the answers. I think a big, big part of the problem is that we usually phrase our social problems in dualities, this or that. Dualities exclude other choices, it's all or nothing. So when I see phases like "save Western Civilization," it tells me that someone is reinforcing the original problem, not finding a solution.
No matter how good their plan may be, anything based on a dual choice and only a dual choice is doomed. That's the point that Nock tried to make in that article. People won't submit to Greater Authority for Their Own Good. The people you might convince won't listen until after the stuff hits the fan.
To start with, we could enforce the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment clearly outlaws most of the Federal government.
Given how little the Federal government pays attention to the Constitution and it's own laws, I don't think additional restrictions would work.
The Constitution was designed to rein in government. I'd encourage anyone interested to read the Federalist papers and the anti-Federalist papers. Unless the power is specifically granted in the Constitution, the Federal government doesn't have it. Or at least it shouldn't.
The one time that the Constitution was amended to restrict the people was a disaster.
It wasn't until the progressive movement of the late 19th and early 20th that the public perception of limited government turned to expecting an activist government with virtually unlimited powers.
I don't care about SCOTUS in the 20th Century, I'm pretty sure that time travel causes unintended consequences.
See, I'm not sure if adding more government is the solution to bad government. Hmm, I might have said something like that before.
And I don't think trading insults is the way to go. Sometimes winning isn't nearly as important as keeping the other guy from reaching the goal.
Isn't adding things like term limits and engineering the constraints adding to government?
I wasn't talking about insulting the voters. Imagine a boxing match. Which shows more skill, the ability to take and dish out punch after punch? Or the ability not to get hit while letting the other guy hurt himself trying to hurt you?
Which leaves you better able to go to work after?
Yes, the Constitution is a restraint device. But it hasn't worked. Why should another work? This is where you lose me.
Whatever Trump may or may not be, what happens next? Trump is rare, most people can't fight dirty for an extended time. If the only structure we can build depends on fighting dirty for every advantage, how are we better off?
No, it hasn't, not for at least 85 years. Although I think a strong case can be made that it hasn't more than a century. What we've been living under is the illusion that the Constitution is working and that more government is a good thing.
I've argued that term limits are meaningless when the major parties control who gets on the ballot. I've also argued that primary elections divert attention away from the real stakes. CGP Grey has a great video explaining why first part the post voting is not a good thing.
I keep returning to this because I think it is critical. We've been indoctrinated for generations to think that the way to fix a corrupt system is through system management. We've moved beyond the black mold stage, the pieces are so radioactive that using them not only risks our health but also could contaminate any new pieces we add. The benefits of "playing the system" and exploiting others and yes, even fighting dirty and ugly so outweigh long term thinking that there are actually severe disincentives to a long term IPD.
Case in point, and this one isn't even a libertarian thing. The US has more military bases in more foreign nations than any other power in history. Our military spending is bigger than the next thirty nations combined. We actively discourage other nations from establishing their own bases. We meddle in their internal affairs and throw hissy fits when people from other nations buy advertising aimed at our own elections. We bully others and tell ourselves that we fight the really bad bullies "for the little guy."
Why?
Do you think that Trump would stand down? Maybe close ten percent of our overseas bases? Do you think that American intervention leads to a safer world? Would you accept it if other nations did the same to the US?
Why is it bad when the deep state does it, but OK when Trump uses the same tools?
You misunderstand. I'm waiting for the system to rip itself apart. I don't have to work actively against it, I just don't have to patch it up or compensate for it's failure.
One area we do disagree is that the right is somehow more moral than the left. Another is that a system controlled by the right is preferable to one controlled by the left. The right gave us the USA PATRIOT Act, and the left gave us Obamacare. Hard to say at this point which has done the most damage. As for Trump, well, trade and tariffs alone are balanced on a knifeblade between what might possibly work if we are extremely lucky and what might cause disaster so epic as to make the Great Depression and World War II look like last Tuesday.
It's not the voters I don't trust. I don't trust the "options" the voters are allowed to have. You can have your left arm or your right leg cut off, but you must choose one.
I'm willing to let my principles compete without the coercion of the state or what is "morally right." That's more than either the right or the left want, they want to hold a gun to people's heads for Your Own Good.
The right is self-limiting? The War on Drugs. Too big to fail. An ongoing overseas war that for the first time in American history, has soldiers fighting who weren't even born when it started.
While I marginally prefer conservatives, no one and certainly no institution gets a pass because of the label. Branding is a horrific way to govern. What have you done for me lately?
The duality is an illusion. More accurately the duality is a condition required for the system to work. But that doesn't mean the system is a good idea or the best idea. Yet that duality by it's nature locks us into either/or and calls it the best choice.
The system wants us to choose the best baseball team when I want to swim.
My problem is that I see statists on "both" sides, and the right is no less threatening than the left. Your premise is that the right is a better choice and my premise is that statists (any statists) threaten freedom.❞❞
We don't agree with each other
Sunday - 19May2019 Filed in: Quotes & Thinkums&Morality & Modern Life
❝❝We don't agree with each other, not entirely. Just because someone is religious doesn't automatically mean that they are defective. If nothing else, that faith gives them a different perspective. It doesn't mean it's right or wrong, more or less, just different. Sometimes that's good, sometimes not. It depends on the individual and circumstances.
Religion is bad is just as big a trap as science is good. There was an author named Isaac Bonewits who wrote on the limitations of dualism. Either/or thinking can trap you. One example is that if something is ACCEPTABLE than everything else is NOT ACCEPTABLE. It becomes easier to define what doesn't work for you as not fitting your worldview instead on it's own characteristics. If all you are looking for is WHITE, than anything else including fuzzy pink becomes NOT WHITE. I'm sure you'll agree that while black and fuzzy pink are NOT WHITE, neither are they the same thing. And we still haven't touched on semi-sweet.❞❞
Fear mongering
Friday - 10May2019 Filed in: Quotes & Thinkums&Politics
❝❝Democrats have been fear mongering too. Especially since Trump announced.
I'm not going to say who is right or wrong, but I am going to point out that both major parties have done fear mongering over decades. If that is one behavior you're questioning, you should ask why is it bad when "They" do it and good when "We" do it?
I too get tired of the dualism. But I don't see it limited to one party.
My blocked follower on this site would tell you that I am oversimplifying. I don't think I am. Both parties do it. Both parties are contributing to the problem. Both have media allies who sing their praises.❞❞— NeoWayland, comments from Pagan Community Notes: Religious harassment at Florida Gathering, Calif. school removes Bible verse, and more!