Thursday, June 19, 2014

There is a Way Out

The Left/Right split that dominates American politics was created by a reactionary movement that came after the founding of the US.

This split was created through a dialectical process (modern logic) in which the two parties scream past each other in a shrill shouting match. The dialectical process creates that are simply mirror images of each other on issues while sharing the same underlying partisan structure.

The partisan structure itself concentrates wealth and power in the hands of a few.

The Left professes to be advocates of social change through economic centralization and big government. The right claims to be champion freedom by preserving the current social order and entrenched institutions.

Neither side advances liberty. They simply differ in how they concentrate power.

NOTE: The dialectical center (moderates) advocate a compromise between the Left and Right, but a compromise on a false dichotomy is as irrational as the extremes.

All three positions on this false dichotomy (the radical left, reactionary right and dialectical center) lead our ruin.

But, there is a way out.

The way out is simple:

REJECT THE FALSE DICHOTOMY. We need to reject all three positions: Left, Right and Center and attack the roots of the false dichotomy.

It just so happens that the United States was founded by people who were looking for a way to break from the partisanship of Europe.

The US Founders had a refined classical education. I use the word "refined" because the settlers in the new world brought only the books the found most valuable. They read logic as presented by Arnauld and Watts. They read Xenophon and not Plato.

This education was founded on the Trivium. The three legs of the Trivium are: Grammar, Classical Logic and Rhetoric.

Grammar is the study of structure of language. Logic is the study of the structure of ideas and Rhetoric is the art of communication.

The US Founders (and others in Europe including Locke, Smith, Addison and Steele) applied classical logic to the question of liberty. The result was the creation of a Constitutionally Limited Government.

Governance is a limit on the people. By limiting government one creates an unlimited people.

Because the founders had a classical liberal arts education and applied and applied classical logic to liberty, I like to call the founders "classical liberals."

Classical liberals made a strong argument for liberty.

The monarchy did not sit still.

Classical Conservatives, eg The Right Side of the French Parliament, argued for the conservation of the social structure of ancient regime. They were losing the argument.

In a classic act of diversion, the monarchy sought to change the undermine the debate.

I must point out that the Hanoverian Kings of England were from Germany. King George I, II, and III  funded they German University System and charged it with the task of framing the monarchy as progressive.

The task is simple. If the monarchist view is shown to be illogical, one must change the laws of logic.

Germany philosophers such as Hegel, Schopenhauer, Fueurbach, etc., sat forth on framing the monarchist view as progressive. Hegel loved word games that framed freedom as slavery and slavery as freedom. Hegel adored Napoleon and saw the state as the primary actor on the world stage.

Rather than arguing for the restoration of the monarchy outright, Hegel created a game in which one centralizes power by attacking the very foundations of reason. Hegel created a modern logic with rejected the laws of classical logic. This new logic is often called Modern Logic or Modern Dialectics. Marx called his version of Hegelian logic Material Dialectics.

Modern Liberalism (aka Progressivism) holds this modern dialectics at its foundation.

When one applies classical logic to the question of liberty, one gets a philosophy similar to the US Founders.

When one perverts classical liberal arguments with modern logic, one ends up with the twisted form of thought called "modern liberalism" or progressivism. Modern logic holds paradoxical arguments that freedom is slavery and slavery freedom. The modern liberal says we should pursue totalitarian government to advance individual liberty.

Conservatives loved the new modern logic as it provided both a path toward economic centralization and allows conservatives to project horrible images on liberals.

Hasn't anyone else noticed that conservatives spend more time defining the position defining the position of liberals than they spend defining their own position?

Modern Conservatism has accepted, lock, stock and barrel, the underlying structure of modern liberalism.

On Restoring America

This left/right split that dominates modern politics was created by the enemies of freedom. If one pursues the left one ends up with the a totalitarian state. If one pursues the right they end up with a restoration of the monarchy. Both the left and right are roads to serfdom. The moderate position ends up with a mix of the two. The moderate position on a false dichotomy is as irrational as the extremes.

To restore America, we need to challenge the left/right split itself.

The best way to do that is to can the debate between conservatives and progressives (modern liberals) and to start a new debate that contrasts classical liberalism (the liberalism of the US Founders) with modern liberalism (the liberalism of the monarchy and Hegel).

If there was a national debate about the distinction between classical liberalism and modern liberalism, I suspect that most the people who liked the tea party and the few sane people in the Democratic Party would find that they are classical liberals.

Classical liberalism comes from the application of classical logic to the question of liberty.  It is a very reasoned and disciplined approach to liberty. The best example of classical liberalism in action is the founding of the United States. The Founders had a classical education which they applied to the question of liberty.

In contrast, both sides of the left/right split trace to partisan positions in England. Both sides of this split have accepted the dialectical framework of the Hegelian/Marxian new dialectics.

Just as the two sides of a coin are made of the same metal, both sides of the left/right split are made of the same corrupt world view which is why we see our liberties deteriorate under both Democratic and Republican rule.

No comments: