NeoNote — Not right or left
❝❝Rather than citing examples of "rightness" being a mental illness, I think I will just cite the old idiom Moderation in all things.NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
I will say that from my perspective it's not "right" or "left" that is wrong per se, but the desire to control others while avoiding the consequences of your own actions. The reasons and the justifications change, not the actions.
Just where do you think the "left" learned the self-righteous, sanctimonious posturing?
Frankly, I don't care who did it first, second, or most recently. Or what the scoreboard says.
You're playing the game, perpetuating the problem. And I have absolutely no assurance that if "your guys" win, my life will be better. Just your promises, which are worth exactly nothing based on past experience.
After all, you've just admitted that you can't stand dissent and disagreement.
If I've no investment in the ideology and your side "breaks the rules" to suppress dissent, then there is no benefit for me to support "the system" no matter which side "wins."
I'd be better off bringing down the whole mess and helping people pick up the pieces afterwards.
That's the stakes you're playing for. Not if your side wins, but if there will be a game left to play, or even if there will be recognizable sides.
So thought experiments aside, are you willing to play with these stakes?
The rules of the game mean you can't win. Neither can they. Oh, each side trades advantage with the other, but the conflict goes on and feeds on itself.
That's not being heroic, that's being damn stupid. What good does it do to protect the widows and orphans when there is no safe place to go?
Of course there are rules of the game, number one being winner take all. Number two being that the "truth" of the argument is determined by the winner of the conflict. Number three is that winning the conflict grants the power to silence dissent. Number four is that the conflict is far too important to allow ordinary people to ask questions.
This isn't Darwin, this isn't the nature of man, this is an artificial construct.
Should I go on?
I never claimed that I didn't answer. I implied you were asking the wrong questions. When anyone reduces things to an either/or premise, that is usually the case.
There you go again, assuming the only response is either/or.
You think winning is the answer.
I want to remove the possibility of either side winning and starting the conflict all over again.
Because after you win, after you put down your sword and gun, after you take a deep breath on the field of battle, I and those like me will be there.
Pointing at you.
Laughing.
And you won't be able to touch us.
Sometimes you don't have to win. Sometimes it's enough to keep the other guys from crossing the finish line and claiming their bloodstained glory.
If you think the socialists winning means that the President, Congress, and the courts have unrestrained power, then you already lost.
And they have exactly as much power over you as you choose to give them.
Either/or is a self-imposed trap. It presupposes that there are two and only two alternatives.
The greatest single expansion of the Deep State was signed into law by a Republican.
Would it help you understand my point if I (truthfully) told you that since a month or two after the handoff, I've said that Hong Kong will be remembered in history as the City That Ate A Country?
It's not a matter of free market DNA. It's the fact that Hong Kong has the most capitalist and competitive society on the face of the planet.
I agree we're talking at cross purposes. You see it as all wrapped up and I see a Gordian knot. In the case of Hong Kong, a free Hong Kong has a greater value than the Chinese military.
But for now, let's agree that we do disagree and move on.
And that is when you change the game.
Did you accept the rule set before you started playing?
Well, that is a interesting philosophical premise.
I'd agree that for most purposes, there appears to be an objective reality. From my purely subjective perspective of course. But pursuing that goes way beyond our conversation here.
Are the units autonomous? Well, that's another philosophical bit. For example, is the planet aware? Restricting our conversation to humans, are humans autonomous? I'd have to say that most individuals are not. No matter what the politics.
Are humans and specifically "leftists" dangerous? They can be, and mostly want to be. Are they more dangerous than "rightists?"
No.
As I said political orientation isn't the problem. Politics is.
I prefer Nolan's chart to the right-left dichotomy.
Politics is controlling the other.
I've spent a lifetime dealing with those who want to control others. Some do in the name of environmentalism, some do in the name of Divine moral authority, some do it for the "greater good." The justification changes, but the methods don't.
One of my biggest frustrations in today's politics is that people overlook what "their" side does even as they denounce the "other" side for doing the exact same thing.
We've reached the point where what is done is not nearly as important as who did it.
Meanwhile liberty takes a hit.
*shrugs*
My problem here is once you've won, then what? Especially if in victory you claim power and authority that you never should have had.
Earlier you told me that if the socialists won in 2020, I'll personally lose. My response was to point out that if the EEEEEVVVIIILLLL forces of government already had power to screw me on some technocrat's or politico's whim, then there is no point in me supporting your side because freedom is already gone.
Sure, you promise to fix it, you promise to Do The Right Thing, and I should believe that why?““The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.””
Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan between them escalated the "War On Drugs" and enabled the narco-state. Mandatory minimum sentences were made possible by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Wide scale civil forfeiture including sharing funds and proceeds with local police agencies was made legal by the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. The 1208 program and the militarization of local police dates to 1990, although it was changed to the 1033 program and was expanded in 1996. The USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law by Bush League.
This is only a small portion of things that have happened on a Federal level.
I ask for nothing except the freedom to live my life as I choose while accepting responsibility for my choices.
Who is the "right" to deny me those things?
I'm going to point out again that you're willing to overlook the abuses of "your guys" while going after the "other guys."
I want less government than absolutely necessary. What I see is a long history of Republicans and conservatives who want to expand government, regulation, and spending. The Deep State owes just as much to Republicans than to Democrats.
I don't care who is "in charge." I don't care who is to blame.
I want less government than absolutely necessary.
I gave specific examples of Republicans abusing power in ways that rival anything that Democrats have done or will do.
You are stuck on the label when you should be looking at the institution.
“Nothing R's have done in your lifetime can compare to the damage of the D's.”
Watergate.
Ford's pardoning of Nixon.
Ford's "Hail Mary" pass to save the CIA and his nomination of George H.W. Bush to director. Since it was before my birth, we'll ignore the rumors about Bush's CIA related activities between 1959 and 1964. Also before my time but I'm doing extra credit, the question remains why Bush was pretty much the one American in his generation who could not "remember" where he was on November 22, 1963.
Iran-Contra.
Changing of banking laws and regulations during the early 1980s, leading to the savings and loan crisis, the eradication of regional banks, and the consolidation of American banks and investment firms into selected giants.
The USA PATRIOT Act, literally the climax of decades old Deep State wet dreams. Start with Inslaw and PROMIS, look at the Danny Casolaro murder, and then look at what has happened the last twenty years.
I could go on and on. I haven't even touched on what happened with the Contract With America, or how the leaders of both major parties colluded and conspired against the Tea Party.
The vice or virtue is not in the label. Democrats and the left are not especially evil. Republicans and conservatives don't get a free pass because they are doing the wrong thing for the "right" reasons.
I wanted to make this about government, the abuse of power and politics in general. You were the one making the case that Democrats and the left were irredeemably evil while Republicans and conservatives were mostly good.
First, stop blaming "leftists" for the evils of government.
Second, accept that the label Republican, conservative, or "rightist" doesn't make you saints or even the best qualified.
When you've done that, I'm ready to talk about the next bit.
I gave you examples, including Republicans who actively broke the law.
As for Republicans being the lesser evil, is there a one of them since Eisenhower who did anything other than go through the motions?
Start by admitting it is a government problem and not a Republican or Democrat situation.
Stop making excuses because some of your interests happen to line up at the time.
Until you do that, you're not ready to have this conversation.
You're treating a premise as an Article of Faith Not To Be Questioned.
As long as you hold onto that, you won't believe what I say or accept any solution that I propose. Because under that premise, it's absolute nonsense and can't possibly be anything else.
Or the premise is invalid.
That is not true.
There has to be a commonality to build on, especially for deeply held beliefs.
For example, I don't think humans need to be saved. So talking to me about a guy nailed to a cross isn't really going to resonate. Likewise, unless you accept anthropogenic climate change, the notion of a climate crisis won't make sense.
As for giving my views and the solutions, I have.
“There has to be rationality.”
Since when? Empires have risen and fallen without rationality. Trade agreements have been negotiated without rationality. Probably fewer than ten percent of Americans living right now are rational by any definition except they obey the rules they've been given.
Just to point it out again, I have stated the problem and the solution repeatedly. You reject the premise and therefore don't believe me. Government is the problem, even if it is a "friendly" government controlled by people you like. As long as you look to government for solutions, you make the problem worse.
Case in point, you've mentioned several times that we need to remove the left ideology from public schools and universities. Our public school system was created in part so that government could control what was taught. Did it never occur to you that as long as schools were publicly funded and government controlled, you can never remove the ideas that you don't like? Rather than taking control of schools and universities, maybe the answer is let the schools compete in a free market. The schools that can deliver value will thrive, the others won't. It's worked for everything from rye flour to smartphones, there is no reason to think it wouldn't work incredibly well for schools.
I haven't said anything about moral equivalence.
I just don't think that we should trust politicos to store and transport nuclear sludge in Hefty bags.
Don't tell me about the "virtues" of Republicans. Tell me why, despite their claimed support of smaller government, they haven't done anything substantial since JFK.
And he was a Democrat.
You've been telling me how virtuous the Republicans are. I'm telling you that based on their behavior, they aren't. There's less than a handful of effective Republican politicos on a national level who demonstrate honor and character. It's not because they are Republicans, it's because they have honor and character.
I gave you specific, catastrophic, and freedom destroying examples of highly placed Republicans turning government against the people. Some were felonies, and some weren't felonies only because no one had enacted laws against them yet.
I have offered solutions, you just don't like what I offered since it doesn't give conservatives legal and "moral" advantages that can be exploited against "leftists" because they are leftists.
“Just as we don't want other ideals imposed on us, we shouldn't impose our ideals on others. No matter how convinced we are that we are right.”
“The only thing they are really giving up is the power to compel behavior in others.”
You can't depend on government to do it for you.
Before Trump, who was doing it?
After Trump, who will continue doing it?
And that is assuming that Trump is a net benefit, something I do not believe.
All I've said is that Republicans aren't saints or "the better choice" because they are Republicans. The evidence supports my claims.
You've said that Democrats are more inherently more evil than Republicans. The evidence doesn't support your claims.
Show me people of honor and character and I will consider supporting them.
Show me Republicans and I will insist on honor and character. Show me Democrats and I will insist on honor and character. The label doesn't get a pass.
A man is measured in the lives he touched.
BTW, mandatory minimums, civil forfeiture of property without criminal convictions, and the militarization of police are hardly minor, superficial issues.
Your entire argument boils down to government is worse with Democrats in charge.
My argument is that government threatens liberty and rights no matter who is "calling the shots."
I gave you specific examples during Republican presidencies that have led to massive abuse of power.
I am not saying that Republicans are as bad as Democrats. I am saying that government is bad and it's time we reduced it's power and scope.
Otherwise we're fighting over who gets to be in charge with no evidence that Republicans are better or Democrats are better.
As long as we have government, let's make it too small to screw up our lives.
We have conditioned generations to believe that government is all wise and mostly benevolent. That government is the first, best, and last solution. That any problem can be fixed with more money and government expertise.
Provided no one asks inconvenient questions.
Me, I think government is radioactive and corrosive. I think it is occasionally useful in extreme circumstances but only if it is behind thirteen layers of protection. I think the risks of invoking government outweigh the benefits by several orders of magnitude.
And I do not trust anyone to use it wisely.
As far as the criminal abuse of the alphabet agencies, why do you think it began with Obama against Trump?❞❞
Comments