Reports are that the Chamber of Commerce and big business will be spending hundreds of millions of dollars in the upcoming campaign to diminish the role of independent thinkers in the GOP for the 2014 race.
This strategy is based on one dimensional thinking. The GOP establishment supports the idea that political thinking is a straight line from Left to Right. The GOP establishment considers itself to be the fair and balanced middle between the two extremes.
In the one-dimensional model held by the GOP establishment, independents are moderates who seek establishment candidates, like Mitt Romney, who present themselves as moderates.
This political model is a form of dialectics.
I am going to put forward a different theory.
My theory starts with a belief that world of ideas is more than simple line from left and right.
I propose that the world of ideas is a multidimensional space. I further stipulate that each person develops a unique perspective of this space during their life.
I propose that Independents are not moderates, but independent thinkers.
An independent thinker is a person who takes pride in developing their own personal perspective of the world of ideas. Independents are not simply looking for moderation. I believe that independent thinkers are guided in their political discourse by their unique independent thoughts.
The way to attract independents is to find ways to engage independents in open discourse.
Conservatives have a nasty habit of simply dictating their ideas to others. Conservatives have so thoroughly bought into the view that they are right and liberals wrong, that Conservatives tend to be insufferable. A great example here is the way that Sean Hannity shouts past guests then feigns the role of the victim when people disagree with him.
Independents are turned off by the "conservative style."
While the "conservative style" of debate puts independents off, I suspect that most independents love the ideas the US Founders had about independence.
Hmmm, could it be that independents are attracted to independence?
If this is the case, then the Chamber is Commerce is wrong in its belief that the way to attract independence is through moderation.
I believe that independents are attracted to independence and that the way to attract this element of the population is for the freedom movement to put its conservative style aside for a season or two and actually engage in talks about independence.
For example, I will be hosting a workshop on health freedom on January 2nd in Salt Lake City.
In this workshop I will present a model for funding health care. I will then seek input on the model.
The workshop will start with an hour long presentation. I will then open the floor to a moderated discussion on free market health care reform.
The presentation has a large number of insightful ideas. The goal of the program is to provide insight with an understanding that each person will actually walk away from the presentation with different feelings.
I believe that engaging independent thinkers in conversation will increase the likelihood that they support free market oriented candidates and I am really hoping that some one shows up for the event.
My mantra here is that independents like independence.
The other mistake the Chamber of Commerce is that they belief the current economic mess is a business problem.
If you look at the stock market, business is doing well.
I believe that our problem is in the realm of personal finance. More Americans are on government assistance than ever. Students face an unreal debt level from college and the new ObamaCare legislation and see a dismal future.
By nature, the Chamber of Commerce is run by a group of business insiders. Business insiders see the world from the inside out. Members of the Chamber of Commerce develop a top-down view of the economy.
If one takes a broader view of the economy, one will see that insiders with insider connections are thriving, while the rest of the country is languishing.
The way to solve the economic problems and win the election is for the freedom movement to concentrate on personal finance.
IMHO, the individual mind is the true driving force behind the economy. Improving individual finance will improve the business climate and lead to prosperity.
I believe that the members of the freedom movement need to stand up against the Chamber of Commerce. We need to engage in open discourse with independents. This open discourse should emphasize personal finance over business.
Again, this is the direction that I am taking with my Health Freedom Workshop which will take place on January 2nd at a private residence in Salt Lake City.
I am willing to take this show on the road, but I need to find a way to fund the travel.
Friday, December 27, 2013
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
Freedom to Redefine Terms
I believe in freedom. Discussions of freedom bring up fundamental issues. For example, do we have freedom to redefine terms? Do we have the freedom to stuff words into the mouths of others?
The first question leads immediately to the second question. When one redefines terms, one changes the meanings of the sentences of people used the word.
I believe the my personal freedom stops at my neighbor's door. So, my inclination is to say that I do not have the right to change the meaning of words. I would go further to state that I have an obligation to try to understand the meaning of the words spoken by others.
As I studied classical logic, I realized that logic is more than just the internal process that I use to develop my ideas.
Classical logic gives us the tools to understand others. Because we all have different perspectives on life, we will never share the exact same definitions. But if we strive to understand the definitions used by others, we can have a more complete understanding of others.
Unfortunately, history is full of people who believe that they can confound others and sneak into power by subtly changing definitions. Even worse, there are some intellectuals who like to develop contradictory definitions. When words have contradictory meanings, then dialecticians with clever word play can make sentences mean whatever they want.
Modern logic holds that definitions are in constant flux. Each use of a word changes the meaning of a word. Hegel used the term "sublation" to refer to the process of ever changing definition. Hegel especially loved sublating terms to the point that the terms took on an opposite meaning of the original terms. Hegel presented numerous word games that framed slavery as freedom and freedom slavery.
Modern Logic became popular as a reaction to the US Revolution. Conservatives who wanted to preserve the social order of the ancient regime (including people who wanted to "conserve" slavery) loved Hegelian proofs that slavery was freedom and freedom slavery.
These absurd modern ideologies that keep wreaking havoc started as a Conservative reaction.
Thinkers promoting this new logic came up with carefully parsed and new definitions of "freedom." A great example here is the LDS Church which developed a new term: "Free Agency." The idea behind "free agency" is that the Heavenly Father gave Spirit Babies the ability to make decisions to test the resolve of the spirit babies. You have free agency to join the political hierarchy of the church and follow its commands. Those who do not join the hierarchy and follow its dictates must be cast out.
It actually gets more bizarre. The Book of Mormon appears to most people to be a lie, but it is greatest truth ever told. Believing in something that appears to be a lie hardens Spirit Babies for eternal life in the Heavenly Kingdom.
Young Hegelians, wanting a change in the social order, love using redefined terms and developed "Modern Liberalism" which has people seeking a totalitarian state in a misguided pursuit of freedom.
Conservatives tweak definitions to preserve a social order. Progressives play a game in which words change meaning with each use as they engage in the strugglefor power to change the social order with their leaders on top.
The game of changing definitions, however, destroys the ability of people to communicate. A society with political rogues grubbing for power by changing the definition of terms quickly degenerates.
My observation is that this game of changing definitions to obtain power is generally played out in the ruling class. The Middle Class generally wants definitions to stay the same so that they can understand their society and build in a more stable environment.
The game of changing definitions has had a terrible impact on our efforts to defend freedom because different groups have remarkably different definitions of freedom.
The first question leads immediately to the second question. When one redefines terms, one changes the meanings of the sentences of people used the word.
I believe the my personal freedom stops at my neighbor's door. So, my inclination is to say that I do not have the right to change the meaning of words. I would go further to state that I have an obligation to try to understand the meaning of the words spoken by others.
As I studied classical logic, I realized that logic is more than just the internal process that I use to develop my ideas.
Classical logic gives us the tools to understand others. Because we all have different perspectives on life, we will never share the exact same definitions. But if we strive to understand the definitions used by others, we can have a more complete understanding of others.
Unfortunately, history is full of people who believe that they can confound others and sneak into power by subtly changing definitions. Even worse, there are some intellectuals who like to develop contradictory definitions. When words have contradictory meanings, then dialecticians with clever word play can make sentences mean whatever they want.
Modern logic holds that definitions are in constant flux. Each use of a word changes the meaning of a word. Hegel used the term "sublation" to refer to the process of ever changing definition. Hegel especially loved sublating terms to the point that the terms took on an opposite meaning of the original terms. Hegel presented numerous word games that framed slavery as freedom and freedom slavery.
Modern Logic became popular as a reaction to the US Revolution. Conservatives who wanted to preserve the social order of the ancient regime (including people who wanted to "conserve" slavery) loved Hegelian proofs that slavery was freedom and freedom slavery.
These absurd modern ideologies that keep wreaking havoc started as a Conservative reaction.
Thinkers promoting this new logic came up with carefully parsed and new definitions of "freedom." A great example here is the LDS Church which developed a new term: "Free Agency." The idea behind "free agency" is that the Heavenly Father gave Spirit Babies the ability to make decisions to test the resolve of the spirit babies. You have free agency to join the political hierarchy of the church and follow its commands. Those who do not join the hierarchy and follow its dictates must be cast out.
It actually gets more bizarre. The Book of Mormon appears to most people to be a lie, but it is greatest truth ever told. Believing in something that appears to be a lie hardens Spirit Babies for eternal life in the Heavenly Kingdom.
Young Hegelians, wanting a change in the social order, love using redefined terms and developed "Modern Liberalism" which has people seeking a totalitarian state in a misguided pursuit of freedom.
Conservatives tweak definitions to preserve a social order. Progressives play a game in which words change meaning with each use as they engage in the struggle
The game of changing definitions, however, destroys the ability of people to communicate. A society with political rogues grubbing for power by changing the definition of terms quickly degenerates.
My observation is that this game of changing definitions to obtain power is generally played out in the ruling class. The Middle Class generally wants definitions to stay the same so that they can understand their society and build in a more stable environment.
The game of changing definitions has had a terrible impact on our efforts to defend freedom because different groups have remarkably different definitions of freedom.
Sunday, December 22, 2013
Partisan Dialectics v. Civil Discourse
Modern Conservatism and Modern Liberalism were born of the same dialectical process. This process unfolded in the generations after the US Founders.
The Constitution does mentions neither the Republican nor the Democratic Party. The Left/Right split which dominates every facet of politics did not come into being until the generations after the founders.
This split came as a reactionary movement to the social changes caused by the U.S. Revolution.
This day also saw the rise of a new hyper-partisan form of logical called Modern Logic. Marx called his logical form "Material Dialectics." But I will use the term "Partisan Dialectics."
A partisan has his eyes on the prize: election and power. The methodology of the partisan is to associate his party with positive images and the opposition with negative images.
Partisans often spend more time framing the position of their opposition than in defining their own position. A great example of this is Marx. Marx wrote a huge multi-tomed work called "Das Kapital" which frames the free market in a negative light.
I need to repeat, the partisan dialectics in America started as a reactionary movement after the Revolution. Conservatives in the 1800s were desperate to preserve the social order.
I keep pointing to Hegel because Hegel is a good target to attack. The Hanoverian Kings of England funded the German University and charged it with framing the monarchy as progressive. Hegel was an arch-conservative who adored Napoleon and threw his weight into building up the monarchy in the German States.
There is a Hegelian Right and Hegelian Left. The direct descendants of this ideology (The Hegelian Right) includes Fascism and Naziism. A group called The Young Hegelians created a Leftist interpretation of Hegel. This group includes Ludwig Feuerbach (who is the father of modern Atheism) and Karl Marx (father of Capitalism).
Modern Capitalism is perhaps the best example of ugly effects of Partisan Dialectics. Marx's goal in writing Das Kapital was to project every negative image he could find onto the free market.
Hegelian Conservatives, who were playing the same dialectical games, began arguing for Marx's Capitalism.
Neither Adam Smith nor the Founders of the US argued with the terms of Modern Capitalism. Adam Smith and the Founders argued for the free market from a classical moral perspective.
In classical economics, capital was simply one part of the means of production. Marx's capitalism created a completely imbalanced view of the market with capital controlling people.
Conservative defend Marx's view of Capitalism because Marx's Capitalism creates the top-down social systems that Conservatives crave. Capitalism creates a small but distinct ruling class that owns and the vast majority of mankind is reduced to subsistence as disenfranchised workers.
It blows my mind. Conservatives spend their days labeling their opposition as Marxists, then turn around and defend Marx's Das Kapital.
A true free market should empower, but the Marxian economic vision supported by Conservatives creates a class society with a ruling class of capitalist controlling all facets of being and the vast majority of people reduced to workers.
To defend the free market, one needs to counter both the Far Left which has fallen in love with Marx's undefined vision of a Communist Utopia and right which has fallen in loved with the class society created by Marx's Capitalism.
It is possible to create a free society. Unfortunately, you will find the greatest opposition to freedom coming from conservatives who are infatuated with the class society created my Marx's Capitalism.
Partisan dialectics is a completely irrational system in which in which society evolves through partisan conflict. The partisans engage in a series of thesis/anti-thesis conflict with an occasional catharsis which sets up the next thesis/anti-thesis battle.
The partisan's goal is power. Partisans look at the current mix of conflicts and tries to associate the party with images that poll well and associate their partisan foes with images that poll poorly.
Partisans might switch positions on issue. A great example of this is racism.
The Left from Marx to the Civil Rights Movement used racism to motivate people. The KKK was last century's equivalent of OWS. The KKK used racial fears to unify people and demand greater social. The Jim Crows were based on the idea that we needed a big intrusive government to keep people segregated because people led by natural human behavior tend to integrate.
Scientific Socialism of last century used all sorts of nonsensical racist claims to demand centralized power.
As the racist claims proved false and racism no longer polled well, the Left made the wise decision to stop using racism. Conservatives wanting to preserve the social order courted the people who were put out by this move.
The Left has become dependent on projecting racism on the Right. Neither racism nor tolerance is exclusive to one party.
Partisans, however, do everything they can to project negative images on the opposition and positive images onto themselves.
Now, the partisan game of capturing images and institutions is inherently irrational.
In contrast, the US Founders were actually more committed to reason than the partisans of today.
The US Founders had a Liberal Arts Education based on Classical Logic (The Trivium). They applied Classical Logic to the question of Liberty and came up with the American system with a limited government and unlimited people. I like to call the Founders "Classical Liberals."
The legs of the Trivium are Grammar, Classical Logic and Rhetoric. Grammar is about the structure of the language. Logic refers to the structure of ideas. Rhetoric is art of communicating ideas.
When one jumps into classical logic, one not only learns how to structure his ideas, one learns how to understand the ideas of others.
When you have people who are committed to this classical structure, they learn how to formulate and communicate their ideas and how to understand the ideas of others.
The Founders were weened on classical logic as taught by Arnauld, Isaac Watts and others. They had read the great literature such as Cato at Cicero. Because the founders had a commitment to reason, they could actually gather and communicate ideas.
For example, during the Constitutional Convention, people were able to created and stick with compromises.
I've noted in many blog posts that it is impossible to compromise with a progressive. The Modern Progressive believes that society evolves through conflict. Each compromise sets up the next conflict.
When negotiating with a progressive, one cannot end a conflict with a compromise because the progressive will simply use the compromise to create a new conflict. This problem is inherent in progressive methodology.
After grabbing the short end of multiple compromises, the opposition to the progressives must degenerate in to shrill partisan screeching with the progressive and opposition yelling past each other.
What is happening in America is really quite sad. Modern dialectics began as a reactionary movement with the aim of preserving the social order of the Monarchy. Conservatives started by projecting every negative image that they could on their opponents. A new opposition formed. The new opposition is better at using the dialectical methods pioneered by the reactionary thinkers of the 1800s.
We are now essentially locked into this shrill conflict between the Hegelians (Modern Conservatives) and the Young Hegelians and the result will be a horrible future for America.
The solution to the partisan divide is to realize that the Left/Right split developed as a reaction to the American Experiment in Self Rule.
To preserve the Experiment in Self Rule, we have to rethink things such as Modern Conservatism, Capitalism, hyper partisanship and other creations of this reactionary movement.
For proof that Modern Conservatives and Modern Liberals spend more time projecting images on each other, just look at the most Left and Right tweet streams. Paul Mero of the Sutherland Institute consistently demonstrates shallow thinking. For example example, Paul Mero dislikes Libertarians and so he writes a post claiming Libertarians wantonly kill things.
For proof that Classical Liberals communicated with each other, look at the US Constitution and the Scientific Revolution (which has its roots in classical liberal thought).
I should point out that Modern Libertarians are raised with modern logic and tend to engage in the style of the day. They can get as nasty as the left and right. It is very difficult for people raised on modern dialectics to engage in true civil discourse. This is the fault of modern dialectics and not of the the minority systems of thoughts. A person who is committed to civil discourse today will simply be trammeled down and run out.
The Constitution does mentions neither the Republican nor the Democratic Party. The Left/Right split which dominates every facet of politics did not come into being until the generations after the founders.
This split came as a reactionary movement to the social changes caused by the U.S. Revolution.
This day also saw the rise of a new hyper-partisan form of logical called Modern Logic. Marx called his logical form "Material Dialectics." But I will use the term "Partisan Dialectics."
A partisan has his eyes on the prize: election and power. The methodology of the partisan is to associate his party with positive images and the opposition with negative images.
Partisans often spend more time framing the position of their opposition than in defining their own position. A great example of this is Marx. Marx wrote a huge multi-tomed work called "Das Kapital" which frames the free market in a negative light.
I need to repeat, the partisan dialectics in America started as a reactionary movement after the Revolution. Conservatives in the 1800s were desperate to preserve the social order.
I keep pointing to Hegel because Hegel is a good target to attack. The Hanoverian Kings of England funded the German University and charged it with framing the monarchy as progressive. Hegel was an arch-conservative who adored Napoleon and threw his weight into building up the monarchy in the German States.
There is a Hegelian Right and Hegelian Left. The direct descendants of this ideology (The Hegelian Right) includes Fascism and Naziism. A group called The Young Hegelians created a Leftist interpretation of Hegel. This group includes Ludwig Feuerbach (who is the father of modern Atheism) and Karl Marx (father of Capitalism).
Modern Capitalism is perhaps the best example of ugly effects of Partisan Dialectics. Marx's goal in writing Das Kapital was to project every negative image he could find onto the free market.
Hegelian Conservatives, who were playing the same dialectical games, began arguing for Marx's Capitalism.
Neither Adam Smith nor the Founders of the US argued with the terms of Modern Capitalism. Adam Smith and the Founders argued for the free market from a classical moral perspective.
In classical economics, capital was simply one part of the means of production. Marx's capitalism created a completely imbalanced view of the market with capital controlling people.
Conservative defend Marx's view of Capitalism because Marx's Capitalism creates the top-down social systems that Conservatives crave. Capitalism creates a small but distinct ruling class that owns and the vast majority of mankind is reduced to subsistence as disenfranchised workers.
It blows my mind. Conservatives spend their days labeling their opposition as Marxists, then turn around and defend Marx's Das Kapital.
A true free market should empower, but the Marxian economic vision supported by Conservatives creates a class society with a ruling class of capitalist controlling all facets of being and the vast majority of people reduced to workers.
To defend the free market, one needs to counter both the Far Left which has fallen in love with Marx's undefined vision of a Communist Utopia and right which has fallen in loved with the class society created by Marx's Capitalism.
It is possible to create a free society. Unfortunately, you will find the greatest opposition to freedom coming from conservatives who are infatuated with the class society created my Marx's Capitalism.
Partisan dialectics is a completely irrational system in which in which society evolves through partisan conflict. The partisans engage in a series of thesis/anti-thesis conflict with an occasional catharsis which sets up the next thesis/anti-thesis battle.
The partisan's goal is power. Partisans look at the current mix of conflicts and tries to associate the party with images that poll well and associate their partisan foes with images that poll poorly.
Partisans might switch positions on issue. A great example of this is racism.
The Left from Marx to the Civil Rights Movement used racism to motivate people. The KKK was last century's equivalent of OWS. The KKK used racial fears to unify people and demand greater social. The Jim Crows were based on the idea that we needed a big intrusive government to keep people segregated because people led by natural human behavior tend to integrate.
Scientific Socialism of last century used all sorts of nonsensical racist claims to demand centralized power.
As the racist claims proved false and racism no longer polled well, the Left made the wise decision to stop using racism. Conservatives wanting to preserve the social order courted the people who were put out by this move.
The Left has become dependent on projecting racism on the Right. Neither racism nor tolerance is exclusive to one party.
Partisans, however, do everything they can to project negative images on the opposition and positive images onto themselves.
Now, the partisan game of capturing images and institutions is inherently irrational.
In contrast, the US Founders were actually more committed to reason than the partisans of today.
The US Founders had a Liberal Arts Education based on Classical Logic (The Trivium). They applied Classical Logic to the question of Liberty and came up with the American system with a limited government and unlimited people. I like to call the Founders "Classical Liberals."
The legs of the Trivium are Grammar, Classical Logic and Rhetoric. Grammar is about the structure of the language. Logic refers to the structure of ideas. Rhetoric is art of communicating ideas.
When one jumps into classical logic, one not only learns how to structure his ideas, one learns how to understand the ideas of others.
When you have people who are committed to this classical structure, they learn how to formulate and communicate their ideas and how to understand the ideas of others.
The Founders were weened on classical logic as taught by Arnauld, Isaac Watts and others. They had read the great literature such as Cato at Cicero. Because the founders had a commitment to reason, they could actually gather and communicate ideas.
For example, during the Constitutional Convention, people were able to created and stick with compromises.
I've noted in many blog posts that it is impossible to compromise with a progressive. The Modern Progressive believes that society evolves through conflict. Each compromise sets up the next conflict.
When negotiating with a progressive, one cannot end a conflict with a compromise because the progressive will simply use the compromise to create a new conflict. This problem is inherent in progressive methodology.
After grabbing the short end of multiple compromises, the opposition to the progressives must degenerate in to shrill partisan screeching with the progressive and opposition yelling past each other.
What is happening in America is really quite sad. Modern dialectics began as a reactionary movement with the aim of preserving the social order of the Monarchy. Conservatives started by projecting every negative image that they could on their opponents. A new opposition formed. The new opposition is better at using the dialectical methods pioneered by the reactionary thinkers of the 1800s.
We are now essentially locked into this shrill conflict between the Hegelians (Modern Conservatives) and the Young Hegelians and the result will be a horrible future for America.
The solution to the partisan divide is to realize that the Left/Right split developed as a reaction to the American Experiment in Self Rule.
To preserve the Experiment in Self Rule, we have to rethink things such as Modern Conservatism, Capitalism, hyper partisanship and other creations of this reactionary movement.
For proof that Modern Conservatives and Modern Liberals spend more time projecting images on each other, just look at the most Left and Right tweet streams. Paul Mero of the Sutherland Institute consistently demonstrates shallow thinking. For example example, Paul Mero dislikes Libertarians and so he writes a post claiming Libertarians wantonly kill things.
For proof that Classical Liberals communicated with each other, look at the US Constitution and the Scientific Revolution (which has its roots in classical liberal thought).
I should point out that Modern Libertarians are raised with modern logic and tend to engage in the style of the day. They can get as nasty as the left and right. It is very difficult for people raised on modern dialectics to engage in true civil discourse. This is the fault of modern dialectics and not of the the minority systems of thoughts. A person who is committed to civil discourse today will simply be trammeled down and run out.
Saturday, December 21, 2013
Judicial Activism v. Sanctity of Human Life
I doubt that even one of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment thought that the document they were drafting meant that homosexual marriage should be considered logically, morally and legally equivalent to heterosexual marriage.
Yet, an activist Judge in the Utah Federal Court named Robert J. Shelby just used the Fourteenth Amendment to overturn Utah's Amendment Three that define marriage as an act between a man and women.
A week before, an activist judge declared polygamy legal. These combined rulings have created an ugly structure where we will soon see a society dominated by corrupt clans.
This is what happened with the Mormon experiment with polygamy in the 1800s. The polygamous clan structure is what makes Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan so incredibly backwards.
BTW, one really interesting culture-war point. While the current marriage-equality movement is a left wing issue, polygamy is traditionally a right-wing issue.
The FLDS and radical Islamic groups that support polygamy tend to be on the far right.
Personally, I used to be supportive of monogamous gay-marriage. I have absolutely no problems with monogamous gay couples calling their relation a marriage and I fully support extending employee benefits to gay couples.
I believe gay couples should be allowed to adopt and raise kids. However, I also believe that people giving up children should have say-so on who adopts their children. For example, if a fourteen-year-old girl is giving up a baby for adoption because she wants the baby to have a mom and dad, then we should respect the girl's wishes.
My support for gay-marriage ended when I came across a progressive activist who told me that he didn't give a damn about gay-marriage. His goal was to attack the Christian Church.
The most basic principle of Christianity is the sanctity of human life. The Christian tradition recognizes the sanctity of human life through sacraments.
In the Christian tradition, marriage is not simply a celebration of sex, nor is it about retirement benefits, tax credits, or social security payments. The Christian sacrament of marriage is about procreation. It is a sacrament about the creation of life.
Hetero-sexual marriage is likely, though not guaranteed, to produce children. Our planet is a bit overpopulated so I am thankful that many couples do not have children.
Gay-marriage never does not naturally lead to children. If one member of a FF marriage is pregnant, you can bet a nickel that something happened outside the marriage.
If the law saw gay marriage as something different from marriage, I would still be supportive of the issue.
I turned against gay-marriage when my progressive friend explained that the goal of the marriage-equality movement is to attack the Christian sacrament of marriage.
Marriage equality means that Christian Churches will be forced to extend the sacrament of marriage to gay couples. The same laws apply to polygamy, Christian Churches will be forced to extend the sacrament of marriage to polygamous groups or anything else that activist judges deem to be equal to marriage.
Many of my friends actually believe that Christianity needs to be attacked.
I beg you, please look at the issue being attacked at the history of the people doing the attacking.
The issue being attacked is the Christian belief in the sanctity of human life. Last century the radical ideologues who did this style of attacking committed genocide. Hundreds of millions were killed by this radicalized ideology.
This marriage equality issue being forced upon us by activist judges is setting up America to devolve into a clan society with the powerful clans rejecting traditional ideals about the sanctity of human life.
Yet, an activist Judge in the Utah Federal Court named Robert J. Shelby just used the Fourteenth Amendment to overturn Utah's Amendment Three that define marriage as an act between a man and women.
A week before, an activist judge declared polygamy legal. These combined rulings have created an ugly structure where we will soon see a society dominated by corrupt clans.
This is what happened with the Mormon experiment with polygamy in the 1800s. The polygamous clan structure is what makes Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan so incredibly backwards.
BTW, one really interesting culture-war point. While the current marriage-equality movement is a left wing issue, polygamy is traditionally a right-wing issue.
The FLDS and radical Islamic groups that support polygamy tend to be on the far right.
Personally, I used to be supportive of monogamous gay-marriage. I have absolutely no problems with monogamous gay couples calling their relation a marriage and I fully support extending employee benefits to gay couples.
I believe gay couples should be allowed to adopt and raise kids. However, I also believe that people giving up children should have say-so on who adopts their children. For example, if a fourteen-year-old girl is giving up a baby for adoption because she wants the baby to have a mom and dad, then we should respect the girl's wishes.
My support for gay-marriage ended when I came across a progressive activist who told me that he didn't give a damn about gay-marriage. His goal was to attack the Christian Church.
The most basic principle of Christianity is the sanctity of human life. The Christian tradition recognizes the sanctity of human life through sacraments.
In the Christian tradition, marriage is not simply a celebration of sex, nor is it about retirement benefits, tax credits, or social security payments. The Christian sacrament of marriage is about procreation. It is a sacrament about the creation of life.
Hetero-sexual marriage is likely, though not guaranteed, to produce children. Our planet is a bit overpopulated so I am thankful that many couples do not have children.
Gay-marriage never does not naturally lead to children. If one member of a FF marriage is pregnant, you can bet a nickel that something happened outside the marriage.
If the law saw gay marriage as something different from marriage, I would still be supportive of the issue.
I turned against gay-marriage when my progressive friend explained that the goal of the marriage-equality movement is to attack the Christian sacrament of marriage.
Marriage equality means that Christian Churches will be forced to extend the sacrament of marriage to gay couples. The same laws apply to polygamy, Christian Churches will be forced to extend the sacrament of marriage to polygamous groups or anything else that activist judges deem to be equal to marriage.
Many of my friends actually believe that Christianity needs to be attacked.
I beg you, please look at the issue being attacked at the history of the people doing the attacking.
The issue being attacked is the Christian belief in the sanctity of human life. Last century the radical ideologues who did this style of attacking committed genocide. Hundreds of millions were killed by this radicalized ideology.
This marriage equality issue being forced upon us by activist judges is setting up America to devolve into a clan society with the powerful clans rejecting traditional ideals about the sanctity of human life.
Friday, December 20, 2013
Classical v. Modern Logic
The US Founders had a Classical Liberal Arts Education which they applied to the question of Liberty. They created a system with a limited centralized authority and an unlimited people. This led to prosperity.
I believe that the US Founders should be called "Classical Liberals."
The heart of the Classical Liberal Arts Education is Classical Logic.
I would love to talk about classical logic. But I will focus on the role of paradox. Classical logicians from Aristotle to Kronecker taught students to avoid paradoxes and absolutes.
The heart of Aristotle's work was the golden mean. He taught balanced and realized that any virtue pushed too far creates a paradox. Kronecker tried to enforce an absolute prohibition of the use of paradoxes in mathematical reasoning, which itself is paradoxical, but give the guy a break.
The idea that we should de-emphasize paradox does not mean paradox does not exist.
One can find paradoxes in many different arguments. For example, most people believe that unity is a good thing. If a leader unites one half of a society against the other, the leader has created a deeper division.
Democracy has paradoxes. If a people elect in a tyrant, they no longer have democracy.
Freedom has paradoxes. For example one might ask: "Does my freedom give me the right to own others as slaves?"
Classical Liberalism was created by applying classical logic to the question of liberty. A defining aspect of classical liberalism is a belief that one's individual liberty stops when it encroaches on the liberties of others. This avoids the paradox.
I would go as far as to say that the approach to paradox is one of the most important defining characteristics of classical liberal thought.
The US Founders were in a terrible conflict. They had inherited slavery from the English Colonial system while the conservatives of the day wanted to conserve the socio-economic system of slavery.
The crisis of slavery dramatically impeded the ability of the new found nation to truly develop a society founded on classical liberal ideals.
Anyway, I want to talk about modern logic which came about from a reactionary movement in Europe.
Despite the US Revolution, the European Monarchies were still the most powerful force on the planet and they wanted to find a way to conserve their power.
It just so happens that the Hanoverian Kings of England were from Hanover. Hanover is just North of Hesse. The reason Hessian soldiers fought with the British is because they were beholden to the same King.
The Hanoverian Kings funded the German University System. Notably the University of Gottingen was founded by King George II. The Hanoverian Kings of England charged the German Universities to come up with ways to reframe the monarchy as progressive.
Hegel was a right-wing reactionary thinker who typifies this chain of thought. Hegel realized that the arguments for liberty were logically sound. So, to win the debate, Hegel chose the radical path of denying the laws of classical logic. Hegel created a new paradox infused logic now known as "Modern Logic."
Modern Logic denies basic laws of classical logic such as the law of identity and of the excluded middle. Modern logic goes gaga with paradox. The most common paradox is the reflexive paradox. It can be expressed with the short quip: "This sentence is false."
But if this sentence is true, it must be false which means it's true, which, golly-gee-willickers is one clever sentence.
It turns out that most absolutes lead to this paradox. A claim to absolute freedom would include the freedom to enslave others.
In the classical liberal view, a primary charge of the limited government was to defend the liberty and property of the citizens. The classical liberals leaned heavily on natural law and common law in their system with a limited government and unlimited people.
Modern logic was conceived as part of a right-wing conservative effort to preserve the social structure of the monarchy and to reframe the monarchy as progressive.
The chief tool of Modern Conservative from 1800s onwards was simply to project paradoxes onto the views of the classical liberal.
Conservatives love to construct strawmen; then claim that they are made of straw.
BTW, "Projection" was a favorite topic of Sigmund Freud. It turns out that the projection of absolutes is an extremely powerful rhetorical tool. Modern thinkers have found that when they project absolutism onto their political opponents, they can introduce paradoxical thinking into the dialog while appearing themselves to be rational.
Simply by framing a strawman as an absolutist, I can make absurd arguments that appear to be rational. It is a really powerful trick.
Hegel built a monumental philosophical edifice on his paradoxical thinking. He created a Philosophy of History that claims history evolves through a series of Thesis/Antithesis conflicts that resolve in a Catharsis.
Hegelian thought (aka modern conservatism) has paradox as its foundation and conflict on the surface, and it gets ugly.
Now, I need to repeat, the key to Hegelian thought is projection. One need simply project absolutes onto the mouths' of one's opponents. Projection makes the projector look rational and the opponents fools.
What I've discovered in my life is that projection of absolutism is far more common than actual claims to absolutism.
Very few people are as bold as to say that they possess absolute truth; however it is extremely common to find people who routinely project absolutism onto others.
As mentioned, absolutes tend to create paradoxes. So, projecting absolutes on others introduces paradoxical thought into the conversation moving one from a classical mode of thinking to a modern mode of thought.
Paul Mero of the Sutherland Institute provides a great example of projection in an absurd parable called "The Yellow Bird and the Limits of Liberty."
This article presents an absurd parable in which an unbalanced Russian Libertarian begins killing things to liberate them. The unbalanced thinker then kills himself because Paul Mero believes that wanton slaughter of life is the defining characteristic of Libertarian thought.
Paul Mero then tries to frame the balanced belief systems of the Classical Liberals onto his particular brand of Modern Conservatism.
This is Hegelianism in action. Paul Mero systematically projects false images onto others in an attempt to frame his group as rational.
The Sutherland Institute is one of the most sickening groups I've ever run across. These clowns take money with the claim that they defend liberty then spend their days undermining liberty. They are always the first to sell out liberty in the unending grub for power.
But I would rather focus on good things.
One of the good things I love about classical liberals, like the US Founders, is that the wonderful classical liberal tradition assumes that all people are capable or rational thought, but this is a different blog post.
To recap the argument so far: The US Founders had a Liberal Arts education steeped in classical logic which they applied to the question of Liberty. Avoiding paradox is a hallmark of classical logic.
The Founders, like modern libertarians, realized that individual liberty stops at the doorstep of one's neighbor. Both the Founders and Libertarians believe that defending individual liberty is a primary function of the government. This theme exists in most of the Libertarian reading I've encountered.
I personally have never met a Libertarian who advocated absolutism or anarchy.
The idea that Classical Liberals and Libertarians are absolutists is a false image projected on them.
The idea of projecting false images on Classical Liberals is not new.
During the Revolution, Conservatives of 1776 stood shoulder to shoulder with the crown and leveled their musket fire at the US Founders.
After the revolution, conservatives were desperate to preserve the social order of the colonial system and they began firing invective at the term "liberal."
Please ask yourself these questions: Were the people who were trying to CONSERVE slavery CONSERVATIVE or liberal? Were the people trying to LIBERATE the slaves conservative or LIBERAL?
If you said that "Classical conservatives sought to liberate slaves" and "Classical liberals sought to conserve slavery;" then you might need some counseling.
The goal of the Right Wing Reactionary Thinker of the 1800s was to frame the monarchy as progressive. They also sought to project imbalanced absolutism and paradox on Liberals.
The game of turning the meaning of a word into its opposite is called "sublation." Sublation was another favorite theme of Hegel.
Of course, history did not stop with Hegel.
A group of people called "The Young Hegelians" decided to do the following. The Young Hegelians took to heart the false images projected on liberals by conservatives. They advocated a libertine lifestyle and demanded that the centralized state prove itself progressive by heaping state funded benefits onto the people.
Modern Liberalism was based on the same logic as Modern Conservatism. Keeping to Hegelian dialectics, the Right and Left would simply engage in thesis/anti-thesis arguments as the rogues in charge centralized power.
Modern Liberals hold absurd ideas like "Freedom is slavery; therefore we must seek slavery to realize our freedom."
Modern Liberals captured the term "liberal" and turned "liberalism" into a belief system that is every bit as paradoxical as modern conservatism … and then some.
Modern Liberalism reached its ultimate expression in the form of Communism. Modern Conservatism reached its ultimate expression in the form of Fascism.
Both extreme modern liberalism and extreme modern conservatism resulted in atrocity and genocide.
The Left/Right split and the dialectics behind it are pure poison.
Anyway, once again Paul Mero of the Sutherland Institute demonstrates the tripe that Conservatives mistake for thinking. He projects the absurd notion that "liberals" like to go out and kill things at random for no reason. Mero then claims Conservatives are superior because they don't just go out and kill things at random.
Projecting absolutes on one's opponent is the most common form of absolutism. The person projecting the absolute is the person who is unbalanced.
http://sutherlandinstitute.org/blog/the-yellow-bird-and-the-limits-of-liberty/
Anyway, it is Friday night. I think I will go out and kill something at random for no apparent reason.
I believe that the US Founders should be called "Classical Liberals."
The heart of the Classical Liberal Arts Education is Classical Logic.
I would love to talk about classical logic. But I will focus on the role of paradox. Classical logicians from Aristotle to Kronecker taught students to avoid paradoxes and absolutes.
The heart of Aristotle's work was the golden mean. He taught balanced and realized that any virtue pushed too far creates a paradox. Kronecker tried to enforce an absolute prohibition of the use of paradoxes in mathematical reasoning, which itself is paradoxical, but give the guy a break.
The idea that we should de-emphasize paradox does not mean paradox does not exist.
One can find paradoxes in many different arguments. For example, most people believe that unity is a good thing. If a leader unites one half of a society against the other, the leader has created a deeper division.
Democracy has paradoxes. If a people elect in a tyrant, they no longer have democracy.
Freedom has paradoxes. For example one might ask: "Does my freedom give me the right to own others as slaves?"
Classical Liberalism was created by applying classical logic to the question of liberty. A defining aspect of classical liberalism is a belief that one's individual liberty stops when it encroaches on the liberties of others. This avoids the paradox.
I would go as far as to say that the approach to paradox is one of the most important defining characteristics of classical liberal thought.
The US Founders were in a terrible conflict. They had inherited slavery from the English Colonial system while the conservatives of the day wanted to conserve the socio-economic system of slavery.
The crisis of slavery dramatically impeded the ability of the new found nation to truly develop a society founded on classical liberal ideals.
Anyway, I want to talk about modern logic which came about from a reactionary movement in Europe.
Despite the US Revolution, the European Monarchies were still the most powerful force on the planet and they wanted to find a way to conserve their power.
It just so happens that the Hanoverian Kings of England were from Hanover. Hanover is just North of Hesse. The reason Hessian soldiers fought with the British is because they were beholden to the same King.
The Hanoverian Kings funded the German University System. Notably the University of Gottingen was founded by King George II. The Hanoverian Kings of England charged the German Universities to come up with ways to reframe the monarchy as progressive.
Hegel was a right-wing reactionary thinker who typifies this chain of thought. Hegel realized that the arguments for liberty were logically sound. So, to win the debate, Hegel chose the radical path of denying the laws of classical logic. Hegel created a new paradox infused logic now known as "Modern Logic."
Modern Logic denies basic laws of classical logic such as the law of identity and of the excluded middle. Modern logic goes gaga with paradox. The most common paradox is the reflexive paradox. It can be expressed with the short quip: "This sentence is false."
But if this sentence is true, it must be false which means it's true, which, golly-gee-willickers is one clever sentence.
It turns out that most absolutes lead to this paradox. A claim to absolute freedom would include the freedom to enslave others.
In the classical liberal view, a primary charge of the limited government was to defend the liberty and property of the citizens. The classical liberals leaned heavily on natural law and common law in their system with a limited government and unlimited people.
Modern logic was conceived as part of a right-wing conservative effort to preserve the social structure of the monarchy and to reframe the monarchy as progressive.
The chief tool of Modern Conservative from 1800s onwards was simply to project paradoxes onto the views of the classical liberal.
Conservatives love to construct strawmen; then claim that they are made of straw.
BTW, "Projection" was a favorite topic of Sigmund Freud. It turns out that the projection of absolutes is an extremely powerful rhetorical tool. Modern thinkers have found that when they project absolutism onto their political opponents, they can introduce paradoxical thinking into the dialog while appearing themselves to be rational.
Simply by framing a strawman as an absolutist, I can make absurd arguments that appear to be rational. It is a really powerful trick.
Hegel built a monumental philosophical edifice on his paradoxical thinking. He created a Philosophy of History that claims history evolves through a series of Thesis/Antithesis conflicts that resolve in a Catharsis.
Hegelian thought (aka modern conservatism) has paradox as its foundation and conflict on the surface, and it gets ugly.
Now, I need to repeat, the key to Hegelian thought is projection. One need simply project absolutes onto the mouths' of one's opponents. Projection makes the projector look rational and the opponents fools.
What I've discovered in my life is that projection of absolutism is far more common than actual claims to absolutism.
Very few people are as bold as to say that they possess absolute truth; however it is extremely common to find people who routinely project absolutism onto others.
As mentioned, absolutes tend to create paradoxes. So, projecting absolutes on others introduces paradoxical thought into the conversation moving one from a classical mode of thinking to a modern mode of thought.
Paul Mero of the Sutherland Institute provides a great example of projection in an absurd parable called "The Yellow Bird and the Limits of Liberty."
This article presents an absurd parable in which an unbalanced Russian Libertarian begins killing things to liberate them. The unbalanced thinker then kills himself because Paul Mero believes that wanton slaughter of life is the defining characteristic of Libertarian thought.
Paul Mero then tries to frame the balanced belief systems of the Classical Liberals onto his particular brand of Modern Conservatism.
This is Hegelianism in action. Paul Mero systematically projects false images onto others in an attempt to frame his group as rational.
The Sutherland Institute is one of the most sickening groups I've ever run across. These clowns take money with the claim that they defend liberty then spend their days undermining liberty. They are always the first to sell out liberty in the unending grub for power.
But I would rather focus on good things.
One of the good things I love about classical liberals, like the US Founders, is that the wonderful classical liberal tradition assumes that all people are capable or rational thought, but this is a different blog post.
To recap the argument so far: The US Founders had a Liberal Arts education steeped in classical logic which they applied to the question of Liberty. Avoiding paradox is a hallmark of classical logic.
The Founders, like modern libertarians, realized that individual liberty stops at the doorstep of one's neighbor. Both the Founders and Libertarians believe that defending individual liberty is a primary function of the government. This theme exists in most of the Libertarian reading I've encountered.
I personally have never met a Libertarian who advocated absolutism or anarchy.
The idea that Classical Liberals and Libertarians are absolutists is a false image projected on them.
The idea of projecting false images on Classical Liberals is not new.
During the Revolution, Conservatives of 1776 stood shoulder to shoulder with the crown and leveled their musket fire at the US Founders.
After the revolution, conservatives were desperate to preserve the social order of the colonial system and they began firing invective at the term "liberal."
Please ask yourself these questions: Were the people who were trying to CONSERVE slavery CONSERVATIVE or liberal? Were the people trying to LIBERATE the slaves conservative or LIBERAL?
If you said that "Classical conservatives sought to liberate slaves" and "Classical liberals sought to conserve slavery;" then you might need some counseling.
The goal of the Right Wing Reactionary Thinker of the 1800s was to frame the monarchy as progressive. They also sought to project imbalanced absolutism and paradox on Liberals.
The game of turning the meaning of a word into its opposite is called "sublation." Sublation was another favorite theme of Hegel.
Of course, history did not stop with Hegel.
A group of people called "The Young Hegelians" decided to do the following. The Young Hegelians took to heart the false images projected on liberals by conservatives. They advocated a libertine lifestyle and demanded that the centralized state prove itself progressive by heaping state funded benefits onto the people.
Modern Liberalism was based on the same logic as Modern Conservatism. Keeping to Hegelian dialectics, the Right and Left would simply engage in thesis/anti-thesis arguments as the rogues in charge centralized power.
Modern Liberals hold absurd ideas like "Freedom is slavery; therefore we must seek slavery to realize our freedom."
Modern Liberals captured the term "liberal" and turned "liberalism" into a belief system that is every bit as paradoxical as modern conservatism … and then some.
Modern Liberalism reached its ultimate expression in the form of Communism. Modern Conservatism reached its ultimate expression in the form of Fascism.
Both extreme modern liberalism and extreme modern conservatism resulted in atrocity and genocide.
The Left/Right split and the dialectics behind it are pure poison.
Anyway, once again Paul Mero of the Sutherland Institute demonstrates the tripe that Conservatives mistake for thinking. He projects the absurd notion that "liberals" like to go out and kill things at random for no reason. Mero then claims Conservatives are superior because they don't just go out and kill things at random.
Projecting absolutes on one's opponent is the most common form of absolutism. The person projecting the absolute is the person who is unbalanced.
http://sutherlandinstitute.org/blog/the-yellow-bird-and-the-limits-of-liberty/
Anyway, it is Friday night. I think I will go out and kill something at random for no apparent reason.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Freedom Is Not a Closed Door
Modern Conservatism was created by the same mixed up dialectics as Modern Liberalism. The Left/Right split came from the French Revolution. The philosophical foundation of both the Right and Left came from the likes of Hegel and not the U.S. Founders.
The Right of the 1800s sought to preserve the social structure of the ancient regime and The Left sought radical social change. Neither position serves as a solid foundation for society. Both are intellectually corrupt.
My last posts point out that the polygamous cults of the 1800s were in fact a right wing reaction to the Founding of our Nations. Polygamous cults formed into a top down hierarchy preserve the top-down social order conservatives crave. This structure reduces the majority of the population to serfdom ... which is what the classic conservative craves.
Utah is a closed society that is openly hostile to open inquiry and innovative ideas.
I would be supporting Conservatives. But a closed society set on reactionary thinking is unable to solve problems.
We are a full five years into the health care debate. Conservatives had multiple opportunities to stop the PPACA Legislation. Conservatives fumbled at each opportunity.
The reason Conservatives keep fumbling is because reactionary movements are more inclined to inclined to engage in obstruction than in open inquiry for finding solutions to the problems of the day.
I love the US Founders. They not only supported the cause of liberty and small government. The US Founders were willing to engage in open inquiry.
For the last five years, I've had the single minded goal of simply finding a group of people interested in engaging in open inquiry in regards to the Health Care problem.
I am a mathematician who used to work as a programmer for an insurance company. I wrote and administered programs to track health care claims and calculate premiums for the insurance industry. I realized that that pooled insurance created system faults in both health care and the financial system at large.
I could not, in good conscience, continue working for insurance; So, I left and set forth on a multi-year quest to find an alternative.
I engaged in sound thinking and research about health care, and developed a presentation on the free market financing of health care.
The presentation provides valuable insight into the question of financing health care.
But for five, going on six years, I've been unable to find a single person who is willing to spend time engaged in open inquiry about health care.
I live in the most conservative state of the Union. Salt Lake City is the most conservative area East of Tehran. One has to travel to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to find a people more closed minded and conservative than Provo. The polygamous cults in Colorado City, Utah are even to the right of Mecca!!!!
But, this idea that we should close our minds and concentrate solely on the creation of an entrenched top-down hierarchy that actively oppresses open inquiry and innovative ideas fails.
I simply cannot figure out Conservatism. How is it that people fall for the idea that closing ones mind and stifling innovation will lead to a better society?
Modern Conservatism is as mixed up as Modern Liberalism.
We cannot solve the health care issue simply by closing our minds, obstructing the opposition while refusing to discuss ideas.
The Right of the 1800s sought to preserve the social structure of the ancient regime and The Left sought radical social change. Neither position serves as a solid foundation for society. Both are intellectually corrupt.
My last posts point out that the polygamous cults of the 1800s were in fact a right wing reaction to the Founding of our Nations. Polygamous cults formed into a top down hierarchy preserve the top-down social order conservatives crave. This structure reduces the majority of the population to serfdom ... which is what the classic conservative craves.
Utah is a closed society that is openly hostile to open inquiry and innovative ideas.
I would be supporting Conservatives. But a closed society set on reactionary thinking is unable to solve problems.
We are a full five years into the health care debate. Conservatives had multiple opportunities to stop the PPACA Legislation. Conservatives fumbled at each opportunity.
The reason Conservatives keep fumbling is because reactionary movements are more inclined to inclined to engage in obstruction than in open inquiry for finding solutions to the problems of the day.
I love the US Founders. They not only supported the cause of liberty and small government. The US Founders were willing to engage in open inquiry.
For the last five years, I've had the single minded goal of simply finding a group of people interested in engaging in open inquiry in regards to the Health Care problem.
I am a mathematician who used to work as a programmer for an insurance company. I wrote and administered programs to track health care claims and calculate premiums for the insurance industry. I realized that that pooled insurance created system faults in both health care and the financial system at large.
I could not, in good conscience, continue working for insurance; So, I left and set forth on a multi-year quest to find an alternative.
I engaged in sound thinking and research about health care, and developed a presentation on the free market financing of health care.
The presentation provides valuable insight into the question of financing health care.
But for five, going on six years, I've been unable to find a single person who is willing to spend time engaged in open inquiry about health care.
I live in the most conservative state of the Union. Salt Lake City is the most conservative area East of Tehran. One has to travel to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to find a people more closed minded and conservative than Provo. The polygamous cults in Colorado City, Utah are even to the right of Mecca!!!!
But, this idea that we should close our minds and concentrate solely on the creation of an entrenched top-down hierarchy that actively oppresses open inquiry and innovative ideas fails.
I simply cannot figure out Conservatism. How is it that people fall for the idea that closing ones mind and stifling innovation will lead to a better society?
Modern Conservatism is as mixed up as Modern Liberalism.
We cannot solve the health care issue simply by closing our minds, obstructing the opposition while refusing to discuss ideas.
Monday, December 16, 2013
Conservatism, Clansmanship and Closed Societies
Conservatives do not have a coherent plan to overturn PPACA and restore health freedom.
The only way to .create such a plan is to engage in open inquiry.
As a matter of principle, conservatives do not engage in open inquiry; thus it is impossible for Conservatives to overturn PPACA.
I strongly believe in ideals of the US Founders who were people who engaged in open inquiry. The US Founders were not conservatives. The Conservatives of 1776 stood with the British and leveled their musket fire at the Founders.
I want to engage in the open inquiry process that could lead to repeal of PPACA. Oddly, I am stuck with no money living in the most Conservative State of the Union.
Rather than confronting PPACA, as I would like, I find myself struggling under the leaden boot of Conservatives. I am forced to confront this stupid ideology called "conservatism" before I can take on PPACA.
Modern Conservatism was a creation of the same dialectical process that produced Modern Liberalism. The Left and Right are simply two different sides of the same coin. The two sides of a coin are made of the same medal. This is why the state grows under both Leftist and Rightist regimes.
The partisan ideology of conservatism did not come from the US Founders. The Founders hated the partisanship of England. The Left/Right Split came from the French Revolution. The Left wanted radical social change. The right wanted to preserve the social structure of the monarchy.
The greatest thinker of Modern Conservatism is a German named Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831).
Yes, Hegel was as German as the Kings of England. As you see, the Hanoverian Kings of England funded the German University System and charged the University with reframing the monarchy as progressive.
Hegel comes out and says that he was rewriting the Divine Right of Kings in pseudo-philosophical jargon to make it appear progressive.
The US Founders used open inquiry and sound classical logical to make solid arguments for the rights of the individual. The classical liberals began to develop logical models which showed that allowing people to optimize their personal resources would effectively optimize the resources of the community at large.
The Founders engaged in open inquiry and created the Constitution.
Conservative Reactionaries such as Hegel were losing logical disputations; so they did what rogues always do. If you can't win the argument through reason, then you need to cut at the roots of reason.
Hegel created modern logic which rejected the basic principles of classical logic. He then created a strange philosophy of history claiming the world evolved through a series of thesis/anti-thesis conflicts with nation-states being actors on the world stage.
The Divine Right of Kings claimed that the monarchy was created by a Covenant with God that stretched back to Ancient Israel. Society was organized in a top-down fashion with power flowing from the King through the Lords and Ladies of the Feudal order to the serfs.
Hegel's Philosophy of History claims that history evolves through conflict between nation states organized in a top-down hierarchy. This nation-states act out thesis/antithesis conflicts.
I live in Utah. Utah was founded by an arch-conservative group called the Mormons.
This group appeared in the late 1820s and early 1830s when Hegel was the absolute rage in American.
Hegel's philosophy of history created a fantastical conflict-driven view of European history claiming that the emerging monarchy of Germany was destined to be the primary actor on the world stage.
The Mormons created an even more fantastical conflict-driven history of the New World. This history claimed that Native Americans were descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel who came to the Americas millennia earlier via submarines.
This society had a conflict between two groups. The Nephites were white and delightsome people favored by the Heavenly father. The Lamanites were a dark and loathsome people.
One day, King Benjamin decided to give the people an election. The dark and loathsome Lamanites won the election. This led to a war and genocide.
Covenant Theory holds that history evolves through a series of covenants. This history is written in our very skin. The first covenant was with Adam and Eve. When they broke that covenant, God gave men an Adam's Apple and made childbirth painful.
Their children were Cain and Abel. In a jealous fit, Cain killed Abel. God was displeased and made the descendants of Cain black and the descendants of Abel white. This is why it is okay for whites to enslave blacks for the sin committed by Cain.
Brigham Young revealed that Blacks could not receive the priesthood because they are descendants of Cain and is made clear by dark skin.
The Book of Mormon is about a conflict between "White and Delightsome" Nephites and "Dark and Loathsome" Lamanites.
I am sorry. This ideology makes me disgusted beyond belief. Utah is ruled by a group of people who claim divine authority based on racist observation that people from different regions of the world are of different color.
After presenting a fantastical racist history, Joseph Smith claimed that God revealed a new covenant instructing Joseph Smith to create a new political hierarchy with Joseph Smith at the top.
The Divine Right of Kings, Hegel and Joseph Smith all have the exact same structure. They present a conflict driven view of history guided by a supernatural force that determines one political hierarchy has the right to lord over others.
This is the heart of Modern Conservatism.
Mormonism has a very interesting modern logic. The Book of Mormon appears to be a lie … just as Obama's statement that you get to keep your health care or doctor appears to be a lie. This book that appears to be a lie is in fact a higher truth.
The Mormon epistemology claims that truth flows via revelation through the political hierarchy of the church.
The Church is truth; therefore that which makes The Church stronger is true. That which makes it weaker is false.
Progressives do not see Obama's statement a lie. The cause of socialism is the greatest truth. If telling people they can keep their doctor will advance the progression to socialism, then it is a truth.
In the light of modern logic one can ask: Is Mormonism a racist ideology?
Mormons say, well, racism is an unpopular image. It hurts The Church. Therefore, Mormonism is not a racist ideology.
Gentiles, with their misplaced faith in classical logic, look and see a group claiming divine authority because they are "white and delightsome" and dismissing natives as "dark and loathsome." Applying classical logic to this scenario indicates a racist ideology.
Arguments of classical logic do not hold to people who adhere to modern. Obama did not lie. He simply said what had to be said to progress the cause. Mormonism is not racist, because saying such does not advance the cause.
Mormonism is an arch-conservative ideology set to restore the social order of Feudalism.
The Divine Right of Kings claimed the monarchy had a Covenant with God, and that a great political hierarchy flowed down from the monarchy through the feudal lords to the serfs.
Mormonism claims a new Covenant with God that establishes a new political hierarchy with the Seer Revelator and Prophet (the President of the Church) on the top.
The New Covenant demands that the politically powerful men toward the top of the hierarchy take on multiple wives to seal the power of the new hierarchy.
Polygamy is not simply a lifestyle choice. God commands that the politically powerful start clans with multiple wives. The politically powerful are assigned wives or denied wives on their service to the political hierarchy.
Conservatism appeared in the 1800s as a means to preserve the social hierarchy of feudalism.
One cannot get more Conservative than through the creation of a clan system formed in the shape of a huge political hierarchy.
Utah is the most conservative state in the union. The polygamous clans are the most conservative element of the most conservative state. Polygamist clans formed into a great political hierarchy isn't just a conservative ideal. It is the most severely conservative idea going.
Utah is the most Conservative state West of Tehran. With the restoration of polygamy we will see the rise of great polygamous warlords ruling over swatches of America just as polygamous warlords rule over Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia.
The evil Liberals of Washington DC forced Utah to give up polygamy as a condition of statehood. It appears that this ban will finally fall and the conservative ideal of polygamous warlords ruling vast sections of the United States will be realized within a generation.
America has turned from a land of promise to a nightmare. The Left is seeking to socialize health care, while the buffoons on the Right are supporting the restoration of polygamy and our once beautiful nation is being torn apart.
I listen to all the closed-minded people screaming for "conservatism." They scream for conservatism and don't even thing about what the term means.
The Left/Right split did not come from the Founders. This split came from Europe. It is not in the Constitution.
The Right is an ideology that seeks to preserve the social order of the monarchy in the age of revolution. The Left is an ideology that seeks radical social change.
Modern Conservatism and Modern Liberalism are both part of the same corrupt dialectical process. The Left and Right yell past each other, while rogues on both sides create deeply corrupt social structures that oppress the people.
Please, look at Iran and Saudi Arabia. You cannot get more conservative than Iran. This is the direction that closed-minded conservatism is taking our nation.
The closed FLDS clans, where young girls are traded among rich older men like trading cards, is Modern Conservatism in its rawest true form.
This Left/Right split was the creation of the enemies of freedom.
Neither the Left/Right Split, nor the great partisan divide was written the Constitution.
Why do these people called "conservatives" hold their partisan agitation in higher esteem than the Constitution?
The Founders of this nation were part of a great classical liberal tradition. They engaged in open inquiry and did amazing things.
If we want to give our children a world worth inheriting, I believe we should engage in the same open inquiry that created the Constitution and avoid the New Think of the Modern Age that simply creates entrenched power bases.
So, here I sit in the Most Conservative State of the Union and I am unable to find anyone interested in standing against socialized medicine.
The only way to .create such a plan is to engage in open inquiry.
As a matter of principle, conservatives do not engage in open inquiry; thus it is impossible for Conservatives to overturn PPACA.
I strongly believe in ideals of the US Founders who were people who engaged in open inquiry. The US Founders were not conservatives. The Conservatives of 1776 stood with the British and leveled their musket fire at the Founders.
I want to engage in the open inquiry process that could lead to repeal of PPACA. Oddly, I am stuck with no money living in the most Conservative State of the Union.
Rather than confronting PPACA, as I would like, I find myself struggling under the leaden boot of Conservatives. I am forced to confront this stupid ideology called "conservatism" before I can take on PPACA.
Modern Conservatism was a creation of the same dialectical process that produced Modern Liberalism. The Left and Right are simply two different sides of the same coin. The two sides of a coin are made of the same medal. This is why the state grows under both Leftist and Rightist regimes.
The partisan ideology of conservatism did not come from the US Founders. The Founders hated the partisanship of England. The Left/Right Split came from the French Revolution. The Left wanted radical social change. The right wanted to preserve the social structure of the monarchy.
The greatest thinker of Modern Conservatism is a German named Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831).
Yes, Hegel was as German as the Kings of England. As you see, the Hanoverian Kings of England funded the German University System and charged the University with reframing the monarchy as progressive.
Hegel comes out and says that he was rewriting the Divine Right of Kings in pseudo-philosophical jargon to make it appear progressive.
The US Founders used open inquiry and sound classical logical to make solid arguments for the rights of the individual. The classical liberals began to develop logical models which showed that allowing people to optimize their personal resources would effectively optimize the resources of the community at large.
The Founders engaged in open inquiry and created the Constitution.
Conservative Reactionaries such as Hegel were losing logical disputations; so they did what rogues always do. If you can't win the argument through reason, then you need to cut at the roots of reason.
Hegel created modern logic which rejected the basic principles of classical logic. He then created a strange philosophy of history claiming the world evolved through a series of thesis/anti-thesis conflicts with nation-states being actors on the world stage.
The Divine Right of Kings claimed that the monarchy was created by a Covenant with God that stretched back to Ancient Israel. Society was organized in a top-down fashion with power flowing from the King through the Lords and Ladies of the Feudal order to the serfs.
Hegel's Philosophy of History claims that history evolves through conflict between nation states organized in a top-down hierarchy. This nation-states act out thesis/antithesis conflicts.
I live in Utah. Utah was founded by an arch-conservative group called the Mormons.
This group appeared in the late 1820s and early 1830s when Hegel was the absolute rage in American.
Hegel's philosophy of history created a fantastical conflict-driven view of European history claiming that the emerging monarchy of Germany was destined to be the primary actor on the world stage.
The Mormons created an even more fantastical conflict-driven history of the New World. This history claimed that Native Americans were descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel who came to the Americas millennia earlier via submarines.
This society had a conflict between two groups. The Nephites were white and delightsome people favored by the Heavenly father. The Lamanites were a dark and loathsome people.
One day, King Benjamin decided to give the people an election. The dark and loathsome Lamanites won the election. This led to a war and genocide.
Covenant Theory holds that history evolves through a series of covenants. This history is written in our very skin. The first covenant was with Adam and Eve. When they broke that covenant, God gave men an Adam's Apple and made childbirth painful.
Their children were Cain and Abel. In a jealous fit, Cain killed Abel. God was displeased and made the descendants of Cain black and the descendants of Abel white. This is why it is okay for whites to enslave blacks for the sin committed by Cain.
Brigham Young revealed that Blacks could not receive the priesthood because they are descendants of Cain and is made clear by dark skin.
The Book of Mormon is about a conflict between "White and Delightsome" Nephites and "Dark and Loathsome" Lamanites.
I am sorry. This ideology makes me disgusted beyond belief. Utah is ruled by a group of people who claim divine authority based on racist observation that people from different regions of the world are of different color.
After presenting a fantastical racist history, Joseph Smith claimed that God revealed a new covenant instructing Joseph Smith to create a new political hierarchy with Joseph Smith at the top.
The Divine Right of Kings, Hegel and Joseph Smith all have the exact same structure. They present a conflict driven view of history guided by a supernatural force that determines one political hierarchy has the right to lord over others.
This is the heart of Modern Conservatism.
Mormonism has a very interesting modern logic. The Book of Mormon appears to be a lie … just as Obama's statement that you get to keep your health care or doctor appears to be a lie. This book that appears to be a lie is in fact a higher truth.
The Mormon epistemology claims that truth flows via revelation through the political hierarchy of the church.
The Church is truth; therefore that which makes The Church stronger is true. That which makes it weaker is false.
Progressives do not see Obama's statement a lie. The cause of socialism is the greatest truth. If telling people they can keep their doctor will advance the progression to socialism, then it is a truth.
In the light of modern logic one can ask: Is Mormonism a racist ideology?
Mormons say, well, racism is an unpopular image. It hurts The Church. Therefore, Mormonism is not a racist ideology.
Gentiles, with their misplaced faith in classical logic, look and see a group claiming divine authority because they are "white and delightsome" and dismissing natives as "dark and loathsome." Applying classical logic to this scenario indicates a racist ideology.
Arguments of classical logic do not hold to people who adhere to modern. Obama did not lie. He simply said what had to be said to progress the cause. Mormonism is not racist, because saying such does not advance the cause.
Mormonism is an arch-conservative ideology set to restore the social order of Feudalism.
The Divine Right of Kings claimed the monarchy had a Covenant with God, and that a great political hierarchy flowed down from the monarchy through the feudal lords to the serfs.
Mormonism claims a new Covenant with God that establishes a new political hierarchy with the Seer Revelator and Prophet (the President of the Church) on the top.
The New Covenant demands that the politically powerful men toward the top of the hierarchy take on multiple wives to seal the power of the new hierarchy.
Polygamy is not simply a lifestyle choice. God commands that the politically powerful start clans with multiple wives. The politically powerful are assigned wives or denied wives on their service to the political hierarchy.
Conservatism appeared in the 1800s as a means to preserve the social hierarchy of feudalism.
One cannot get more Conservative than through the creation of a clan system formed in the shape of a huge political hierarchy.
Utah is the most conservative state in the union. The polygamous clans are the most conservative element of the most conservative state. Polygamist clans formed into a great political hierarchy isn't just a conservative ideal. It is the most severely conservative idea going.
Utah is the most Conservative state West of Tehran. With the restoration of polygamy we will see the rise of great polygamous warlords ruling over swatches of America just as polygamous warlords rule over Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia.
The evil Liberals of Washington DC forced Utah to give up polygamy as a condition of statehood. It appears that this ban will finally fall and the conservative ideal of polygamous warlords ruling vast sections of the United States will be realized within a generation.
America has turned from a land of promise to a nightmare. The Left is seeking to socialize health care, while the buffoons on the Right are supporting the restoration of polygamy and our once beautiful nation is being torn apart.
I listen to all the closed-minded people screaming for "conservatism." They scream for conservatism and don't even thing about what the term means.
The Left/Right split did not come from the Founders. This split came from Europe. It is not in the Constitution.
The Right is an ideology that seeks to preserve the social order of the monarchy in the age of revolution. The Left is an ideology that seeks radical social change.
Modern Conservatism and Modern Liberalism are both part of the same corrupt dialectical process. The Left and Right yell past each other, while rogues on both sides create deeply corrupt social structures that oppress the people.
Please, look at Iran and Saudi Arabia. You cannot get more conservative than Iran. This is the direction that closed-minded conservatism is taking our nation.
The closed FLDS clans, where young girls are traded among rich older men like trading cards, is Modern Conservatism in its rawest true form.
This Left/Right split was the creation of the enemies of freedom.
Neither the Left/Right Split, nor the great partisan divide was written the Constitution.
Why do these people called "conservatives" hold their partisan agitation in higher esteem than the Constitution?
The Founders of this nation were part of a great classical liberal tradition. They engaged in open inquiry and did amazing things.
If we want to give our children a world worth inheriting, I believe we should engage in the same open inquiry that created the Constitution and avoid the New Think of the Modern Age that simply creates entrenched power bases.
So, here I sit in the Most Conservative State of the Union and I am unable to find anyone interested in standing against socialized medicine.
Saturday, December 14, 2013
Should Conservatives Embrace Polygamy?
The big news in the Beehive State is that Judge Clark Waddoups of United States District Court in Utah ruled parts Utah's anti-polygamy law Unconstitutional. Anti-polygamy laws were forced on Utah by evil liberals as a criteria for statehood. Striking down polygamy laws would allow a restoration of The LDS Political Hierarchy as it was envisioned by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and should result in a huge conservative revival.
This little crack in the law opens the likelihood that we will see polygamy restored in the up coming years, which begs the question: "Should the Conservative Movement Embrace Polygamy?"
Before answering this question, I should note that I am not a Conservative, nor am I a fan of polygamy.
Conservatism, as anyone who studied history knows, is a reactionary ideology set on preserving the social order of the Monarchy (aka Feudalism). Conservatism appeared in the scene in the early 1800s. Conservatism traces its roots to Hegel, Machiavelli and the Right Wing of the French Parliament. Students of history know that the Left Wing of the French Parliament sought radical social change. The Right Wing sought a preservation of the social structure of the ancient regime.
The Left/Right split that dominates every aspect of modern politics did not come from the US Founders. The split came from Hegel and the French revolution.
I dislike both the Right and Left and prefer the rational and political theories of the US Founders to Conservatism.
I happen to also be an outcast in the most conservative state in the union ... Utah.
I personally have never met a conservative in Utah interested in defending liberty. Conservatism in Utah is all about advancing the church and restoring a top down social order..
But I digress. Mormonism is a reactionary ideology that appeared in the mid 1800s alongside modern conservatism and modern liberalism.
The ideology is loosely based on the covenant from The Divine Right of Kings. The Divine Right of Kings held that the monarchy drew its divine authority from a covenant stretching back to the Patriarchs of Ancient Israel. The Lords and Ladies of Feudalism drew their divine authority over the serfs through a political hierarchy that cascaded down from the monarch.
The LDS Church claims the monarch's covenant is null and void. The LDS Church claims a new covenant and a new political hierarchy with the President (The Seer, Revelator and Prophet) of the LDS Church at the top. Divine authority cascades through the political hierarchy of the church.
Proof that this covenant is true is written in the skin of our brothers. Adam and Eve had a covenant with the Heavenly father that they broke. God punished this transgression by giving men an Adam's Apple and by making childbirth really painful. Their children Cain and Abel had a new covenant which Cain broke when he killed Abel. The Heavenly Father punished the descendants of Cain by giving them a "dark and loathsome" color. (This is what the new scripture revealed to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young says.)
The current president of the United States has the Mark of Cain.
Further proof of the Covenant can be seen in the skin of Native Americans. The Native Americans are really the "Lost Tribes of Israel." As you see, The Nephites and Lamanites were ancient tribes of Israel that traveled by submarine to the new world. They had a covenant with God that they broke when King Benjamin allowed the people an election and the Lamanites won the election. God turned the Lamanites "dark and loathsome."
BTW, if ever you were wondering why the Mormon Pioneers are white and delightsome while the Native Americans are dark and loathsome, the Mormon Church has the answer for you. (The answer is called racism).
People point to different skin color as proof of the Book of Mormon. (Of course, if skin color was really just a result of different climates, then the Book of Mormon would be false, but that is a different blog post).
Anyway, the restored covenant creates a new political hierarchy. The restored covenant demands that the powerful men toward the top of the hierarchy become sealed to multiple wives to cement their position in both this life and in the Heavenly Kingdom. As you see, the Heavenly Kingdom has more than just one god. The Heavenly Kingdom is itself a whole political hierarchy of Gods. The political hierarchy in church mirrors the political hierarchy in heaven. Isn't this stuff exciting?
This whole idea of political hierarchies within political hierarchies is the most Conservative idea since the advent of Islam. Living as a gentile in Zion, I've come to the conclusion that LDS Polygamous clans are on par with Mecca and Tehran in Conservatism.
I repeat, I am not a Conservative. I am just a person who loves the ideals of the US Founders who doing time in the arch conservative state of Utah.
The Conservatives of 1776 stood shoulder to shoulder with the British and level their musket fire at the US Founders.
Modern Conservatism is an ideology that appeared in the 1800s based on the ideals of Hegel and Machiavelli. Modern Conservatism has the goal of preserving the social structure of the ancient regime.
Modern Conservatism is every bit as messed up as modern liberalism, but there are millions of people declaring allegiance to conservatism without even the slightest thought about what conservatism means..
It seems to me that the restoration of polygamy in the politically hierarchy of a massive church will recreate the social structure of feudalism that conservatives so much desire. So it seems to me that conservatives should be embracing the restoration of polygamy.
Of course, it is possible that a large number of people who call themselves "conservative" never gave much thought to where conservatism came from and believe that conservatism is a ideology that values freedom.Such people might look at the clan structure the polygamy would bring with horror. But, then again, are such people really conservative, or do they have their words mixed up?
I am not a conservative. I dislike polygamy. I really dislike hierarchical political structures. But, if you are a conservative, feel free to chime in.
This little crack in the law opens the likelihood that we will see polygamy restored in the up coming years, which begs the question: "Should the Conservative Movement Embrace Polygamy?"
Before answering this question, I should note that I am not a Conservative, nor am I a fan of polygamy.
Conservatism, as anyone who studied history knows, is a reactionary ideology set on preserving the social order of the Monarchy (aka Feudalism). Conservatism appeared in the scene in the early 1800s. Conservatism traces its roots to Hegel, Machiavelli and the Right Wing of the French Parliament. Students of history know that the Left Wing of the French Parliament sought radical social change. The Right Wing sought a preservation of the social structure of the ancient regime.
The Left/Right split that dominates every aspect of modern politics did not come from the US Founders. The split came from Hegel and the French revolution.
I dislike both the Right and Left and prefer the rational and political theories of the US Founders to Conservatism.
I happen to also be an outcast in the most conservative state in the union ... Utah.
I personally have never met a conservative in Utah interested in defending liberty. Conservatism in Utah is all about advancing the church and restoring a top down social order..
But I digress. Mormonism is a reactionary ideology that appeared in the mid 1800s alongside modern conservatism and modern liberalism.
The ideology is loosely based on the covenant from The Divine Right of Kings. The Divine Right of Kings held that the monarchy drew its divine authority from a covenant stretching back to the Patriarchs of Ancient Israel. The Lords and Ladies of Feudalism drew their divine authority over the serfs through a political hierarchy that cascaded down from the monarch.
The LDS Church claims the monarch's covenant is null and void. The LDS Church claims a new covenant and a new political hierarchy with the President (The Seer, Revelator and Prophet) of the LDS Church at the top. Divine authority cascades through the political hierarchy of the church.
Proof that this covenant is true is written in the skin of our brothers. Adam and Eve had a covenant with the Heavenly father that they broke. God punished this transgression by giving men an Adam's Apple and by making childbirth really painful. Their children Cain and Abel had a new covenant which Cain broke when he killed Abel. The Heavenly Father punished the descendants of Cain by giving them a "dark and loathsome" color. (This is what the new scripture revealed to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young says.)
The current president of the United States has the Mark of Cain.
Further proof of the Covenant can be seen in the skin of Native Americans. The Native Americans are really the "Lost Tribes of Israel." As you see, The Nephites and Lamanites were ancient tribes of Israel that traveled by submarine to the new world. They had a covenant with God that they broke when King Benjamin allowed the people an election and the Lamanites won the election. God turned the Lamanites "dark and loathsome."
BTW, if ever you were wondering why the Mormon Pioneers are white and delightsome while the Native Americans are dark and loathsome, the Mormon Church has the answer for you. (The answer is called racism).
People point to different skin color as proof of the Book of Mormon. (Of course, if skin color was really just a result of different climates, then the Book of Mormon would be false, but that is a different blog post).
Anyway, the restored covenant creates a new political hierarchy. The restored covenant demands that the powerful men toward the top of the hierarchy become sealed to multiple wives to cement their position in both this life and in the Heavenly Kingdom. As you see, the Heavenly Kingdom has more than just one god. The Heavenly Kingdom is itself a whole political hierarchy of Gods. The political hierarchy in church mirrors the political hierarchy in heaven. Isn't this stuff exciting?
This whole idea of political hierarchies within political hierarchies is the most Conservative idea since the advent of Islam. Living as a gentile in Zion, I've come to the conclusion that LDS Polygamous clans are on par with Mecca and Tehran in Conservatism.
I repeat, I am not a Conservative. I am just a person who loves the ideals of the US Founders who doing time in the arch conservative state of Utah.
The Conservatives of 1776 stood shoulder to shoulder with the British and level their musket fire at the US Founders.
Modern Conservatism is an ideology that appeared in the 1800s based on the ideals of Hegel and Machiavelli. Modern Conservatism has the goal of preserving the social structure of the ancient regime.
Modern Conservatism is every bit as messed up as modern liberalism, but there are millions of people declaring allegiance to conservatism without even the slightest thought about what conservatism means..
It seems to me that the restoration of polygamy in the politically hierarchy of a massive church will recreate the social structure of feudalism that conservatives so much desire. So it seems to me that conservatives should be embracing the restoration of polygamy.
Of course, it is possible that a large number of people who call themselves "conservative" never gave much thought to where conservatism came from and believe that conservatism is a ideology that values freedom.Such people might look at the clan structure the polygamy would bring with horror. But, then again, are such people really conservative, or do they have their words mixed up?
I am not a conservative. I dislike polygamy. I really dislike hierarchical political structures. But, if you are a conservative, feel free to chime in.
Friday, December 13, 2013
2014 Budget Deal
The US Debt Clock is up about $250B from the dreaded government shutdown that unsuccessfully sought to rein in the uncontrolled Federal Spending. The shutdown and total capitulation of fiscal conservatives during the shut down shows that the fiscally sane simply do not have the clout to stand against Reid and Obama.
I dislike the budget deal, I believe that the best hope for the freedom movement is to skip this battle and concentrate all efforts on educating people on the inherent corruption in state run health care and to concentrate on taking the Senate and unseating Harry Reid as Majority Leader.
Burning up political clout fighting losing battles is a sure fire way to lose the struggle for the future of America. The Tea Party needs to be smart and chose which battles to fight. Above all, people need to use tact and reason in the effort to restore America; otherwise the left will be able to frame us as a lunatic fringe.
Passing on a fight that won't go well shows tact.
We are stuck passing a bad budget because the government shutdown proves that Obama and Reid will neither negotiate or compromise. The forces of sanity must gain power in Congress to stand against Reid.
If the GOP captures the Senate, we can put Reid down.
The issue that would win the say is Health Care Reform.
If there was a group in America brave enough to meet in a room and discuss Free Market Health Care Reform, that group could make an impact.
PS: I would be thrilled to attend a meeting where people discussed free market health care reform. I've been looking for a group to discuss the topic for the last five (going on six years) and have found none. I live in Utah.
I dislike the budget deal, I believe that the best hope for the freedom movement is to skip this battle and concentrate all efforts on educating people on the inherent corruption in state run health care and to concentrate on taking the Senate and unseating Harry Reid as Majority Leader.
Burning up political clout fighting losing battles is a sure fire way to lose the struggle for the future of America. The Tea Party needs to be smart and chose which battles to fight. Above all, people need to use tact and reason in the effort to restore America; otherwise the left will be able to frame us as a lunatic fringe.
Passing on a fight that won't go well shows tact.
We are stuck passing a bad budget because the government shutdown proves that Obama and Reid will neither negotiate or compromise. The forces of sanity must gain power in Congress to stand against Reid.
If the GOP captures the Senate, we can put Reid down.
The issue that would win the say is Health Care Reform.
If there was a group in America brave enough to meet in a room and discuss Free Market Health Care Reform, that group could make an impact.
PS: I would be thrilled to attend a meeting where people discussed free market health care reform. I've been looking for a group to discuss the topic for the last five (going on six years) and have found none. I live in Utah.
Saturday, December 07, 2013
Conservative Virtues and Machiavelli
Conservatives are correct to point out that a strong work ethic and moral values are key to maintaining a free society.
Conservatives fail to acknowledge that such virtues not only exist within communal societies. These same values are key to the success communal societies.
I would contend that "conservative values" are even more important in a communal society than a free society.
A communal society, the people are dependent on the overall willingness of others to bear the burdens of the group. When people stop working or become devious in their behavior communal society develops systemic faults and fails as a whole.
Think of this for a moment: If you owned a plantation full of slaves, would you want your slaves to be slothful and dishonest, or would you want your slaves to be hardworking and honest?
If you owned slaves, you would want to instill conservative values in your slaves so that you can maximize your profits allowing you more luxury.
The best way to train slaves is to promote conservative values among the group, without actually giving them freedom or ownership.
The conservative values of hard work and honesty are as important to maintaining a communal society as a free society.
A command and control society fails when people stop taking their commands.
In Feudalism, slavery, corporatism, socialism, and other forms of communal living, the central authorities devise all sorts of tricks (rewards, and punishments) to coerce people into productive behavior.
The unique aspect of a free society is that in a free society, where people own their personal resources, is that large numbers of people develop Conservative values on their own as a matter of their daily struggle to make the most of their personal resources.
Please understand this argument. Conservative values are key to all societies. The unique aspect of a free society is that people in a society where people own their personal resources develop conservative values on their own.
People in a communal society need to be tricked or coerced into doing the hard work needed by the community.
The reason that free societies outperform communal societies is that people develop conservative values naturally.
Communal societies hate this reality.
The enemies of the American Experiment in Self Rule encourage Americans to be slothful in habit and libertine in values.
But this observation is about the nature of the opposition to freedom. This observation is true for anyone who is seeking to overcome an enemy. If you seek to overcome an enemy, you want that enemy to become slothful and libertine in habit, because it makes them vulnerable.
All of this stuff about destroying enemies was known well before the American Experiment in Self Rule was a dream in our Founder's eyes. One need only read Machiavelli and Sun Tsu to learn of the terrible things people are willing to do to gain and hold power.
Speaking of Machiavelli, have you ever noticed the large number of "Conservative Intellectuals" who are avid fans of Machiavelli and Sun Tsu?
The Conservative Intellectual Harvey Mansfield lauds Machiavelli as being the heart of Modern Conservatism.
I wish the people who use the word "Conservative" as a synonym for the ideals US Founders would take a moment to really sit down and look at this "Conservative" tradition.
Machiavelli taught the prince that one must appear religious without actually being religious. Machiavelli advocates developing an appearance which is opposite of one's actions.
Modern Conservatism appeared in the mid 1800s along with Modern Liberalism. Both of these partisan ideologies took to heart Machiavellian and Dialectical thinking. In this mode of thought one's appearance must be different from one's actions.
The Machiavellian Conservative uses free market rhetoric to gain power. Once in power, he promotes crony-capitalism to consolidate wealth and gain even more power.
Everyone who is legitimately advocating free market reform under the brand "Conservative" is being treated as a useful idiot by the Machiavellian Conservatives who hold the strings of power.
How many times must I say this? The US Founders were not Conservatives.
The Conservatives of 1776 stood shoulder to shoulder with the British. Just as Conservatives today level disdain at Obama, the Conservatives of 1776 leveled there disdain at the Founders who they saw as an unprincipled rabble.
The Conservative Movement in the 1800 sought a preservation of the social order of the monarchy in the newly formed Republic. Conservatism has never been about expanding freedom, it has always been about maintaining social order.
The Machiavellian Conservative (the Republican Establishment) is as intent on reducing Americans to serfdom as the Progressives on the Left. The Machiavellian Conservative desires a world where the people are essentially slaves to a controlled crony-capitalist order but still hold onto the "conservative values" of hard work and integrity.
Hard work and integrity are good things. Hard work and integrity are necessary for all societies.
However, it is wrong to assume that such values are unique to conservatives, and it is wrong to assume that Conservative Values will restore our nation. The Machiavellian Conservative dreams of a world where the people slave away with the conservative values while a ruling class siphons off the rewards for their personal glory.
To restore America, we need to stand up for liberty. We are foolish to continue this path of assuming that "Conservative" is a synonym of liberty and the ideals of the Founders.
Modern Conservatism is a partisan ideology that appeared in the 1800s alongside Modern Liberalism. Both ideologies are inherently anti-freedom and corrupt to the core. Every time I hear a pundit claim that Conservative Values will save America, I want to scream. Because these values are partisan in nature and antithetical to the values of the Founders and a free society.
Conservative values are a good thing, but Conservative Values alone will not restore freedom. When we are duped into thinking that Conservative Values alone will preserve liberty, the Machiavellian Conservatives in power will simply slip economic shackles on our wrists and turn us into slaves with a strong work ethic ... the most desirable of all slaves.
Conservatives fail to acknowledge that such virtues not only exist within communal societies. These same values are key to the success communal societies.
I would contend that "conservative values" are even more important in a communal society than a free society.
A communal society, the people are dependent on the overall willingness of others to bear the burdens of the group. When people stop working or become devious in their behavior communal society develops systemic faults and fails as a whole.
Think of this for a moment: If you owned a plantation full of slaves, would you want your slaves to be slothful and dishonest, or would you want your slaves to be hardworking and honest?
If you owned slaves, you would want to instill conservative values in your slaves so that you can maximize your profits allowing you more luxury.
The best way to train slaves is to promote conservative values among the group, without actually giving them freedom or ownership.
The conservative values of hard work and honesty are as important to maintaining a communal society as a free society.
A command and control society fails when people stop taking their commands.
In Feudalism, slavery, corporatism, socialism, and other forms of communal living, the central authorities devise all sorts of tricks (rewards, and punishments) to coerce people into productive behavior.
The unique aspect of a free society is that in a free society, where people own their personal resources, is that large numbers of people develop Conservative values on their own as a matter of their daily struggle to make the most of their personal resources.
Please understand this argument. Conservative values are key to all societies. The unique aspect of a free society is that people in a society where people own their personal resources develop conservative values on their own.
People in a communal society need to be tricked or coerced into doing the hard work needed by the community.
The reason that free societies outperform communal societies is that people develop conservative values naturally.
Communal societies hate this reality.
The enemies of the American Experiment in Self Rule encourage Americans to be slothful in habit and libertine in values.
But this observation is about the nature of the opposition to freedom. This observation is true for anyone who is seeking to overcome an enemy. If you seek to overcome an enemy, you want that enemy to become slothful and libertine in habit, because it makes them vulnerable.
All of this stuff about destroying enemies was known well before the American Experiment in Self Rule was a dream in our Founder's eyes. One need only read Machiavelli and Sun Tsu to learn of the terrible things people are willing to do to gain and hold power.
The Conservative Intellectual Harvey Mansfield lauds Machiavelli as being the heart of Modern Conservatism.
I wish the people who use the word "Conservative" as a synonym for the ideals US Founders would take a moment to really sit down and look at this "Conservative" tradition.
Machiavelli taught the prince that one must appear religious without actually being religious. Machiavelli advocates developing an appearance which is opposite of one's actions.
Modern Conservatism appeared in the mid 1800s along with Modern Liberalism. Both of these partisan ideologies took to heart Machiavellian and Dialectical thinking. In this mode of thought one's appearance must be different from one's actions.
The Machiavellian Conservative uses free market rhetoric to gain power. Once in power, he promotes crony-capitalism to consolidate wealth and gain even more power.
Everyone who is legitimately advocating free market reform under the brand "Conservative" is being treated as a useful idiot by the Machiavellian Conservatives who hold the strings of power.
How many times must I say this? The US Founders were not Conservatives.
The Conservatives of 1776 stood shoulder to shoulder with the British. Just as Conservatives today level disdain at Obama, the Conservatives of 1776 leveled there disdain at the Founders who they saw as an unprincipled rabble.
The Conservative Movement in the 1800 sought a preservation of the social order of the monarchy in the newly formed Republic. Conservatism has never been about expanding freedom, it has always been about maintaining social order.
The Machiavellian Conservative (the Republican Establishment) is as intent on reducing Americans to serfdom as the Progressives on the Left. The Machiavellian Conservative desires a world where the people are essentially slaves to a controlled crony-capitalist order but still hold onto the "conservative values" of hard work and integrity.
Hard work and integrity are good things. Hard work and integrity are necessary for all societies.
However, it is wrong to assume that such values are unique to conservatives, and it is wrong to assume that Conservative Values will restore our nation. The Machiavellian Conservative dreams of a world where the people slave away with the conservative values while a ruling class siphons off the rewards for their personal glory.
To restore America, we need to stand up for liberty. We are foolish to continue this path of assuming that "Conservative" is a synonym of liberty and the ideals of the Founders.
Modern Conservatism is a partisan ideology that appeared in the 1800s alongside Modern Liberalism. Both ideologies are inherently anti-freedom and corrupt to the core. Every time I hear a pundit claim that Conservative Values will save America, I want to scream. Because these values are partisan in nature and antithetical to the values of the Founders and a free society.
Conservative values are a good thing, but Conservative Values alone will not restore freedom. When we are duped into thinking that Conservative Values alone will preserve liberty, the Machiavellian Conservatives in power will simply slip economic shackles on our wrists and turn us into slaves with a strong work ethic ... the most desirable of all slaves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)