Progressives believe with all of their heart that government is the engine of growth and that people are just needy little greed backs that suck energy from the collective.
This idea that the government is the engine of growth is ancient ... reaching back to the slave labor that built the pyramids, to ancient Rome and other failed empires.
The progressives who are screeching at the top of their lungs that any cut in government will lead to ruin stand shoulder to shoulder with a tradition that includes Lenin, Mao, King George the Third and the great emperors of Rome that the government is the source of civilization and that the people are parasites to the government.
Haven't you ever noticed the sneers on the faces of the far left. Those sneers form because they see the collective as the body and you as a parasite.
In this view, cutting government cuts the engine of growth and leads to ruin.
If they are wrong and they are the parasite, then the progressives which captured the government and our institutions of higher learning are leading us to ruin.
I would love to make the argument that individuals are the engine of growth. I have a wonderful presentation on free market health care reform ... if anyone wants to see it.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Monday, February 18, 2013
Karl Rove
I was stunned. I watched a bit of Chris Wallace's news show in which Karl Rove lambasted Tea Party candidates because many of the Tea Party candidates were unwilling to sell out to big business.
I am not a Republican. I am independent to the core. Personally, I see Karl Rove as the symbol of all that is wrong with the Republican Party. He is a primary reason that I do not support the Republican Party. Karl Rove is a primary reason that I see four more years of Obama as better than Romney.
Karl Rove was "The Architect" behind the Bush Administration and behind the disastrous Romney campaign.
Before that, Karl Rove was the campaign adviser for Phil Gram. Phil Gram, as I am sure you recall, was the Republican cosponsor the "Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000." This is the bill that created the derivatives that magnified the economic crash of 2008. The Bill was sponsored by Democrats and signed by Clinton, without The Architect and Phil Graham, it would never have passed.
The "Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000" was a huge give away to big finance that wrought havoc in the financial sector and in our communities.
What you may not know is that Karl Rove "shares Utah Values." Yep, like Harry Reid and Mitt Romney, Karl Rove "shares Utah values."
Have you ever noticed, there is almost no difference between the way Harry Reid and Karl Rove go about politics? Harry Reid and Karl Rove are like clones of each other. Both routinely sell out to big money. Both politicians actively suppress debate and have identical visions of America ruled by a top-heavy technocracy. Both Karl Rove and Harry Reid are fully committed to the same top-down health plan. Both seek to impose Health Exchanges on the American public. Both gain power by shutting down public discourse.
If I were a Republican, I personal would be ashamed of the career of Karl Rove. He was the architect behind Phil Gramm which led to the Commodity Futurization Act of 2000. He was the architect behind George Bush and was a primary force of the debt spending and government expansion during the Bush years. George W. Bush brought on government expansion which rival Lyndon Johnson.
Do any of you remember how Karl Rove pushed the Iraq War which killed over 500,000 people without resulting in mideast stability?
I am not a Republican. Personally, I admire the members of the members of the Tea Party who did not sell out to big finance. In my opinion, it is Karl Rove and the Republican establishment that keep wreaking havoc on our nation.
I am not a Republican. I am independent to the core. Personally, I see Karl Rove as the symbol of all that is wrong with the Republican Party. He is a primary reason that I do not support the Republican Party. Karl Rove is a primary reason that I see four more years of Obama as better than Romney.
Karl Rove was "The Architect" behind the Bush Administration and behind the disastrous Romney campaign.
Before that, Karl Rove was the campaign adviser for Phil Gram. Phil Gram, as I am sure you recall, was the Republican cosponsor the "Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000." This is the bill that created the derivatives that magnified the economic crash of 2008. The Bill was sponsored by Democrats and signed by Clinton, without The Architect and Phil Graham, it would never have passed.
The "Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000" was a huge give away to big finance that wrought havoc in the financial sector and in our communities.
What you may not know is that Karl Rove "shares Utah Values." Yep, like Harry Reid and Mitt Romney, Karl Rove "shares Utah values."
Have you ever noticed, there is almost no difference between the way Harry Reid and Karl Rove go about politics? Harry Reid and Karl Rove are like clones of each other. Both routinely sell out to big money. Both politicians actively suppress debate and have identical visions of America ruled by a top-heavy technocracy. Both Karl Rove and Harry Reid are fully committed to the same top-down health plan. Both seek to impose Health Exchanges on the American public. Both gain power by shutting down public discourse.
If I were a Republican, I personal would be ashamed of the career of Karl Rove. He was the architect behind Phil Gramm which led to the Commodity Futurization Act of 2000. He was the architect behind George Bush and was a primary force of the debt spending and government expansion during the Bush years. George W. Bush brought on government expansion which rival Lyndon Johnson.
Do any of you remember how Karl Rove pushed the Iraq War which killed over 500,000 people without resulting in mideast stability?
I am not a Republican. Personally, I admire the members of the members of the Tea Party who did not sell out to big finance. In my opinion, it is Karl Rove and the Republican establishment that keep wreaking havoc on our nation.
Wednesday, February 06, 2013
Regulating Guns Through Insurance
Democrats in California (Mercury News) hope to regulate guns through insurance. They've introduced legislation that requires gun owners to buy liability insurance for their guns.
Juries in liability cases are apt to award huge settlements for any case involving guns; so, the premiums for gun liability insurance would be enormous.
Requiring liability insurance would immediately achieve the objective of eliminating gun ownership among working class families. It would also provide an extremely powerful tool for gun control nuts to regulate the industry.
For example, juries are likely to give a higher award if a shooting involves a scary looking gun with a high capacity magazine; So, the insurance for a scary looking AR gun would be substantially higher than for a small caliber pistol even if the damage done is the same.
The effect of requiring middle class gun owners to buy expensive liability insurance would be to pull hundreds of millions of dollars out of middle class pockets and into big banks and the coffers of the political class.
Lawyers would benefit from huge gun liability pools. However, the biggest winner of gun insurance laws would be gun lobbying groups like the NRA which would sell the insurance.
I would not be surprised to find that the movers and shakers in the NRA were thrilled at the possibility of laws requiring gun insurance, because the NRA would make millions from such a scheme.
I contend that if California adopts legislation requiring insurance, that within a few short years, the NRA would become the chief advocate of gun insurance.
The gun issue is not my bag.
My primary interest is free market health care reform.
I find this fact that the left is seeking to regulate guns through insurance intriguing because this is the same model they used to take control of health care.
Last century, health insurance was introduced by progressives as a means to regulate health care.
Rather than improving health care, insurance has created greater inequities in health care.
For five years, I've been hoping to find a group willing to discuss the effects insurance has on health care and to discuss alternatives to insurance.
Perhaps the proposed legislation that seeks to regulate guns through insurance will open the eyes of Tea Party Groups. If so, I would be more than happy to give my presentation on how insurance adversely affects health care and how we could create a better health care system with free market reforms.
Juries in liability cases are apt to award huge settlements for any case involving guns; so, the premiums for gun liability insurance would be enormous.
Requiring liability insurance would immediately achieve the objective of eliminating gun ownership among working class families. It would also provide an extremely powerful tool for gun control nuts to regulate the industry.
For example, juries are likely to give a higher award if a shooting involves a scary looking gun with a high capacity magazine; So, the insurance for a scary looking AR gun would be substantially higher than for a small caliber pistol even if the damage done is the same.
The effect of requiring middle class gun owners to buy expensive liability insurance would be to pull hundreds of millions of dollars out of middle class pockets and into big banks and the coffers of the political class.
Lawyers would benefit from huge gun liability pools. However, the biggest winner of gun insurance laws would be gun lobbying groups like the NRA which would sell the insurance.
I would not be surprised to find that the movers and shakers in the NRA were thrilled at the possibility of laws requiring gun insurance, because the NRA would make millions from such a scheme.
I contend that if California adopts legislation requiring insurance, that within a few short years, the NRA would become the chief advocate of gun insurance.
The gun issue is not my bag.
My primary interest is free market health care reform.
I find this fact that the left is seeking to regulate guns through insurance intriguing because this is the same model they used to take control of health care.
Last century, health insurance was introduced by progressives as a means to regulate health care.
Rather than improving health care, insurance has created greater inequities in health care.
For five years, I've been hoping to find a group willing to discuss the effects insurance has on health care and to discuss alternatives to insurance.
Perhaps the proposed legislation that seeks to regulate guns through insurance will open the eyes of Tea Party Groups. If so, I would be more than happy to give my presentation on how insurance adversely affects health care and how we could create a better health care system with free market reforms.
Guns and Statists
Politics makes strange bedfellows. Parties routinely swap positions on issues. For example, prior to the advent of radical environmentalism, conservation was a cause of the right. The KKK was a radical leftwing movement akin to OWS.
Because partisans routinely switch positions on issues, one should always ask: What would happen if my beloved political issue is captured by the other party?
Currently, guns are associated with the freedom movement.
Imagine what would happen if statists took control of the issue. A statist gun nut would require everyone to own a gun. Even worse, such people are likely to force people into militias to march up and down the street wearing silly uniforms.
In Idaho, the gun debate has some inspired to build a Walled Medieval village to be called The Citadel. The Citadel is a top-down planned community that will demand conformity to the ideology of the group's leader. The site says:
I've actually read Hegel and Marx. This Kafkaesque community seems to be a nightmare right out of The Material Dialectics. The Citadel appears to be reacting to national tyranny by creating local tyranny.
Anyway, I find the fact that the far right is interested in building medieval fortresses an interesting metaphor. The radical left put America on the road to serfdom. The far right is not the antidote to this crisis. Arch-conservatives, with an unseemly bunker-mantality, are not preventing the destruction of our nation. Conservatives, as they engage in action/reaction politics, actually accelerates the rate of decline.
The Material Dialectics works by creating conflicts. As the left and right wrangle over the conflict, the forces of tyranny move in and take control. Local tyranny is never the answer to national tyranny, however, those who are seeking political power are skilled at turning conflict to their favor.
Meanwhile, those who seek rational, free market approaches to world challenges are shoved to the side. For example, for five years I've had the simple goal of finding a "conservative" group willing to talk about free market health care and have had no success.
Health Care could be the winning issue for the freedom movement; however, the second one mentions alternatives to insurance, the debate is shutdown and people locked out.
Because partisans routinely switch positions on issues, one should always ask: What would happen if my beloved political issue is captured by the other party?
Currently, guns are associated with the freedom movement.
Imagine what would happen if statists took control of the issue. A statist gun nut would require everyone to own a gun. Even worse, such people are likely to force people into militias to march up and down the street wearing silly uniforms.
In Idaho, the gun debate has some inspired to build a Walled Medieval village to be called The Citadel. The Citadel is a top-down planned community that will demand conformity to the ideology of the group's leader. The site says:
Marxists, Socialists, Liberals and Establishment Republicans will likely find that life in our community is incompatible with their existing ideology and preferred lifestyles.
I've actually read Hegel and Marx. This Kafkaesque community seems to be a nightmare right out of The Material Dialectics. The Citadel appears to be reacting to national tyranny by creating local tyranny.
Anyway, I find the fact that the far right is interested in building medieval fortresses an interesting metaphor. The radical left put America on the road to serfdom. The far right is not the antidote to this crisis. Arch-conservatives, with an unseemly bunker-mantality, are not preventing the destruction of our nation. Conservatives, as they engage in action/reaction politics, actually accelerates the rate of decline.
The Material Dialectics works by creating conflicts. As the left and right wrangle over the conflict, the forces of tyranny move in and take control. Local tyranny is never the answer to national tyranny, however, those who are seeking political power are skilled at turning conflict to their favor.
Meanwhile, those who seek rational, free market approaches to world challenges are shoved to the side. For example, for five years I've had the simple goal of finding a "conservative" group willing to talk about free market health care and have had no success.
Health Care could be the winning issue for the freedom movement; however, the second one mentions alternatives to insurance, the debate is shutdown and people locked out.
Snow Shoveling
Granny shoveling the snow. We thought about getting a snow blower, but figure that shoveling snow is good exercise.
Tuesday, February 05, 2013
Health Care Could be the Winning Issue
Obama is successfully using the gun issue to create division and diversion. Although it is highly unlikely that Obama could pass gun prohibitions, Conservatives are likely to react themselves into a corner and alienate the electorate.
The freedom movement would probably win the day if ever there was a group of liberty lovers brave enough to discuss free market health care.
Unfortunately, the Republican Party is so married to the Insurance Industry that it is physically impossible to get a Conservative to sit in a room to discuss free market health care reform.
Insurance is not free market health care. Insurance was a contrivance of progressives to overcome perceived failings of the free market.
Since is is physically impossible for a Republican to actually apply the concepts they principles they preach to the challenges of the day, any attempt to start a conversation on health freedom is doomed.
Health Care could be a winning issue for the freedom movement. All that it would take is for a few brave people to meet to discuss free market health care. Unfortunately, since people have taken to the foolish notion that closed-mindedness and base-reaction can conserve liberty, such a meeting could never take place.
The freedom movement would probably win the day if ever there was a group of liberty lovers brave enough to discuss free market health care.
Unfortunately, the Republican Party is so married to the Insurance Industry that it is physically impossible to get a Conservative to sit in a room to discuss free market health care reform.
Insurance is not free market health care. Insurance was a contrivance of progressives to overcome perceived failings of the free market.
Since is is physically impossible for a Republican to actually apply the concepts they principles they preach to the challenges of the day, any attempt to start a conversation on health freedom is doomed.
Health Care could be a winning issue for the freedom movement. All that it would take is for a few brave people to meet to discuss free market health care. Unfortunately, since people have taken to the foolish notion that closed-mindedness and base-reaction can conserve liberty, such a meeting could never take place.
Monday, February 04, 2013
The Gun Debate as Division and Diversion
Has anyone else noticed that the Obama gun debate is making the gun proliferation worse?
As the debate rages, people are bee-lining it to gun shows to stock up on high magazine assault rifles. The crazy elements of society are digging ever deeper bunkers.
On the political front, Membership in the NRA and other groups is skyrocketing. The debate itself is pulling hundreds of millions of dollars out of our local communities into the pockets of Washington lobbyists.
All of this frantic activity seems bizarre because the president does not have a coherent new gun policy and it appears unlikely that any gun legislation will pass.
Obama is dragging this nation into a screeching loud debate that is unlikely to result in positive improvements in gun laws or enforcement. The debate is positioned to fuel gun sales, but is likely to result nothing but great division.
The Alinsky style of community-organization is about creating division to centralize power.
Sadly, I fear the gun debate is about creating division and diversion. A nonsensical debate about guns squeals on while the Obama administration consolidates power in health care.
Health care workers, above all others, hate guns. Doctors take oaths to do no harm and pull bullets out of crime victims. Insurance actuaries dread the liability associated with guns and violence. Many in the health sector see the very existence of guns as a health crisis and are prone to refer to the debate as the gun problem.
It's pathetic. Obama's gun debate is making the problem worse. Despite that, the debate is creating the division and diversion necessary for Obama to consolidate power in the health sector.
Unfortunately, pundits in the right have fallen for the ruse.
It is sad to see that the right spends more time and effort defending guns than they spent defending health freedom, when health freedom is a more fundamental issue than guns.
I mean, if you do not have control over the care of your body, what point is their in owning a gun?
The political forces for liberty should be engaged in a full scale debate about health freedom. Conservatives refuse to talk about free market health care. I have no idea why.
For those who are drawn into the gun control debate, I believe that the best course of attack is to point to the destructive nature of Obama's approach to the gun control debate.
Obama does not have a list of common sense approaches to reducing violence. What he is doing is fueling a divisive and destructive debate.
Obama's method to debate is typified by the "Fast and Furious" scandal.
Prior to this scandal, the left was promoting the talking point that the gun violence in Mexico was a result of the US gun culture.
At the same time that the left was developing the theme that the violence in Mexico was due to American guns, the Obama Administration was engaged in flooding the Mexican drug war with assault weapons.
Since the Obama Administration does not have a coherent gun policy to promote, my only conclusion is that this shrill debate is about creating division and diversion. The best way to counter such a tactic is to question the debate itself. Unfortunately, the tactic appears to be working because, while the gun debate rages on, there are no voices arguing for health freedom.
ADVERTISEMENT: If you are looking for home defense, I like the non-lethal Taser which incapacitates attackers. You can actually buy a Taser online (after a background check).
As the debate rages, people are bee-lining it to gun shows to stock up on high magazine assault rifles. The crazy elements of society are digging ever deeper bunkers.
On the political front, Membership in the NRA and other groups is skyrocketing. The debate itself is pulling hundreds of millions of dollars out of our local communities into the pockets of Washington lobbyists.
All of this frantic activity seems bizarre because the president does not have a coherent new gun policy and it appears unlikely that any gun legislation will pass.
Obama is dragging this nation into a screeching loud debate that is unlikely to result in positive improvements in gun laws or enforcement. The debate is positioned to fuel gun sales, but is likely to result nothing but great division.
The Alinsky style of community-organization is about creating division to centralize power.
Sadly, I fear the gun debate is about creating division and diversion. A nonsensical debate about guns squeals on while the Obama administration consolidates power in health care.
Health care workers, above all others, hate guns. Doctors take oaths to do no harm and pull bullets out of crime victims. Insurance actuaries dread the liability associated with guns and violence. Many in the health sector see the very existence of guns as a health crisis and are prone to refer to the debate as the gun problem.
It's pathetic. Obama's gun debate is making the problem worse. Despite that, the debate is creating the division and diversion necessary for Obama to consolidate power in the health sector.
Unfortunately, pundits in the right have fallen for the ruse.
It is sad to see that the right spends more time and effort defending guns than they spent defending health freedom, when health freedom is a more fundamental issue than guns.
I mean, if you do not have control over the care of your body, what point is their in owning a gun?
The political forces for liberty should be engaged in a full scale debate about health freedom. Conservatives refuse to talk about free market health care. I have no idea why.
For those who are drawn into the gun control debate, I believe that the best course of attack is to point to the destructive nature of Obama's approach to the gun control debate.
Obama does not have a list of common sense approaches to reducing violence. What he is doing is fueling a divisive and destructive debate.
Obama's method to debate is typified by the "Fast and Furious" scandal.
Prior to this scandal, the left was promoting the talking point that the gun violence in Mexico was a result of the US gun culture.
At the same time that the left was developing the theme that the violence in Mexico was due to American guns, the Obama Administration was engaged in flooding the Mexican drug war with assault weapons.
Since the Obama Administration does not have a coherent gun policy to promote, my only conclusion is that this shrill debate is about creating division and diversion. The best way to counter such a tactic is to question the debate itself. Unfortunately, the tactic appears to be working because, while the gun debate rages on, there are no voices arguing for health freedom.
ADVERTISEMENT: If you are looking for home defense, I like the non-lethal Taser which incapacitates attackers. You can actually buy a Taser online (after a background check).
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Digging Bunkers
An Alabama man spends years digging a doomsday bunker. When things go south in his life, he kills a school bus driver, kidnaps an innocent child then holds him hostage in the bunker.
Sadly, this unfolding drama is a very good analogy for the way that Republicans went about the health care debate.
The free market is better suited for providing health care than a socialized market. If a group engaged in an open conversation about free market health care, the forces of liberty would have won the day.
Instead, the conservative movement took on a bunker mentality. Republicans actively shut down all attempts at discussing alternative to PPACA, and when political dust clears, we are left with a health care system that is severely worse and unjust than the dysfunctional system we had before.
Sadly, this unfolding drama is a very good analogy for the way that Republicans went about the health care debate.
The free market is better suited for providing health care than a socialized market. If a group engaged in an open conversation about free market health care, the forces of liberty would have won the day.
Instead, the conservative movement took on a bunker mentality. Republicans actively shut down all attempts at discussing alternative to PPACA, and when political dust clears, we are left with a health care system that is severely worse and unjust than the dysfunctional system we had before.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
On the Conservative Methodology
The Founding of the United States brought to fruition many beautiful ideas about liberty and self rule.
The American Conservative movement came about last century as an effort to defend these ideals of liberty against the onslaught of radical progressivism.
When the Conservative movement concentrates on the beautiful ideas of the nation's founding, the conservative movement shines.
Unfortunately, pundits (left, right and center) have a tendency of confusing the method to conserve liberty with liberty itself.
Conservatism is a partisan method people have been using to defend the ideals of the American Experiment in Self Rule.
Conservatism is not the set of ideals themselves. It is a methodology used to defend the ideals of the founders.
NOTE: When one separates the ideals of the founders from conservatism, one is left with an extremely ugly and oppressive ideology.
Yesterday I mentioned the plight of Ruby Jessop who was forced to marry her cousin at age 16. As a child bride, she bred babies for a conservative group as if she were cattle. She has 6 in 10 years. I applaud her liberators and deplore the fundamentalists that forced her into a negative situation.
The conservative methodology when applied to preserving the principles of the American Founders is a great thing. The methodology itself is not.
The intelligentsia on the left understands the difference between method and ideals and is skilled at manipulating conflicts to bring out the worst of conservatism.
If people want to succeed at restoring the ideals of the US Founders, the advocates of liberty must be aware of the weaknesses of conservative methodology and avoid the mistake of confusing "conservatism" a method to preserve liberty and the ideals of the founders.
For over fifty years, people have tried to preserve liberty with conservatism. Clearly, this methodology is not working.
My radical suggestion is that, perhaps, the best way of preserving liberty is for people to discuss how liberty solves problems. For five years, I've been wanting to have an informal meeting with people wanting to preserve liberty about free market health care reform.
In five years of actively contacting every conservative group within 700 miles of Salt Lake City, I have not found a single person willing to discuss this issue. In most cases it appears that the groups are unwilling to discuss free market health care reform because my ideals of self-ownership do not fit within the group's concept of "conservative."
I find this fact that conservatives simply will not talk about the most important issue of our generation to be very troubling.
Preserving the US experiment in self rule is far too important an issue to loose on the gamble that the conservative methodology will preserve freedom. All of the evidence seems to indicate that the conservative methodology systematically loses.
The American Conservative movement came about last century as an effort to defend these ideals of liberty against the onslaught of radical progressivism.
When the Conservative movement concentrates on the beautiful ideas of the nation's founding, the conservative movement shines.
Unfortunately, pundits (left, right and center) have a tendency of confusing the method to conserve liberty with liberty itself.
Conservatism is a partisan method people have been using to defend the ideals of the American Experiment in Self Rule.
Conservatism is not the set of ideals themselves. It is a methodology used to defend the ideals of the founders.
NOTE: When one separates the ideals of the founders from conservatism, one is left with an extremely ugly and oppressive ideology.
Yesterday I mentioned the plight of Ruby Jessop who was forced to marry her cousin at age 16. As a child bride, she bred babies for a conservative group as if she were cattle. She has 6 in 10 years. I applaud her liberators and deplore the fundamentalists that forced her into a negative situation.
The conservative methodology when applied to preserving the principles of the American Founders is a great thing. The methodology itself is not.
The intelligentsia on the left understands the difference between method and ideals and is skilled at manipulating conflicts to bring out the worst of conservatism.
If people want to succeed at restoring the ideals of the US Founders, the advocates of liberty must be aware of the weaknesses of conservative methodology and avoid the mistake of confusing "conservatism" a method to preserve liberty and the ideals of the founders.
For over fifty years, people have tried to preserve liberty with conservatism. Clearly, this methodology is not working.
My radical suggestion is that, perhaps, the best way of preserving liberty is for people to discuss how liberty solves problems. For five years, I've been wanting to have an informal meeting with people wanting to preserve liberty about free market health care reform.
In five years of actively contacting every conservative group within 700 miles of Salt Lake City, I have not found a single person willing to discuss this issue. In most cases it appears that the groups are unwilling to discuss free market health care reform because my ideals of self-ownership do not fit within the group's concept of "conservative."
I find this fact that conservatives simply will not talk about the most important issue of our generation to be very troubling.
Preserving the US experiment in self rule is far too important an issue to loose on the gamble that the conservative methodology will preserve freedom. All of the evidence seems to indicate that the conservative methodology systematically loses.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Fundamentalism in Utah
I live in Utah. For the last five years I've had a single goal. of either attending or hosting a meeting that discusses free market health care reform.
The chance to repeal PPACA is past, and I am left in the darkness wondering why these people called "conservatives" failed to stand up for health freedom when it was clearly the single most important issue of our generation.
Utah is by far the most conservative state in the union.
Living in the most conservative state of the union taught me the valuable lesson that, contrary to their claims, conservatives are not the defenders of freedom. They use freedom rhetoric to gain power, but once in power they simply lock everyone out.
To understand the nature of Conservatism, I think it wise to study the most conservative of the conservatives in the most conservative of states. I am talking conservatism on steroids here.
The most conservative group of the most conservative state of Utah, of course, is the fundamentalists.
The Salt Lake Tribune has a typical life story of people living in the wonderland of Fundamentalist Conservative Utah:
At age 16, Ruby Jessop was forced to marry her cousin Harlow Barley. She pumped out 6 kids in ten years. At age 26 she escaped her captivity to a safe house run by Help The Child Brides.
Most people born in cults take to the indoctrination. Those who don't embrace the indoctrination are usually so poorly educated that they fear going out in the real world.
I've met women who cannot read. When conservatism reaches its absurdity, conservatives don't even teach women to read because that might disrupt the social order. Imagine the embarrassment you would face in life if you had to approach strangers to read signs because the conservative leaders who control every aspect of your life prevented you from learning to read.
If you are a conservative, then you really should spend time looking at what the fundamentalists do because fundamentalists are the most conservative of all conservatives.
How can Republicans be so completely blind. The Taliban is a conservative group. Al Qaeda is a conservative group.
Conservatism is not the path to freedom.
IMHO, the Tea Party was an authentic freedom movement. It was quickly infiltrated and captured by conservative activists. The activists stopped the wonderful discussion about freedom and immediately set about grubbing power for conservatives.
These conservatives effectively killed the Tea Party. Because of these conservatives we are forced to deal with 4 more years of a social progressive presidency.
Yes, I know. Pundits like Sean Hannity and Limbaugh play a word game in which "liberal" means "socialist" and "conservative" means "liberal." This game of sublating the term liberal was started by the an arch-conservative named Hegel (1770-1831).
Quite frankly, the argument that Hegel is the father of modern conservatism is stronger than the argument that Marx is the father of the modern liberalism.
I love the ideals of liberty that were at the heart of the American Experiment in self-rule.
Unfortunately, this experiment is coming to an end because fools like Sean Hannity and Riush Limbaugh who drown out rational discourse with the stupid little name game in which "conservative" means "liberal" and "liberal" means "socialist."
The funny thing about this system of argumentation is that "socialism" is far closer to conservative ideals than is the free market established by the US Founders.
If you study the history of ideas, you will find that modern socialism was created by royalists who were seeking to restore the ideals of the monarchy.
The Hanoverian Kings of England were from Hanover Germany. They funded the German Universities that produced Hegel and kin. These philosophers simply sifted through all of the ideals of feudalism in an attempt to reframe the ideals of feudalism as revolutionary and progressive.
The key to the classical liberal ideals of the US Founders is ownership. In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith argued that individual owners seeking to maximize the return of their personal resources would maximize the wealth of the nation.
Feudalism was a power based society. In feudalism, the lords and ladies did not actually own anything. They gained their position by ruling over the land and the landless serfs.
The serfs were just workers who were entitled to the bounties of the land, but did not own anything and were effective slaves.
The arch-conservative Hegel spewed forth with arguments that freedom is slavery and slavery freedom as his way of defending the social order of the monarchy in a time of revolutionary change. The heart of Hegel's argument was a new method of discourse called Modern Logic.
Fox News is probably the best example of Hegelian thought in action.
Karl Marx is from a generation called "The Young Hegelians."
Hegel sought to conserve the social order of the monarchy. Marx used Hegel's modern logic to argue for radical social change.
Hegel is the father of Modern Logic. Modern Conservatism came from Hegel. Modern Liberalism comes from Marx.
Both paths of this modern philosophy lead to a society with dictators and an oppressed people.
(I also need to point out that the dialectical center is also part of the problem).
If you are a conservative, I wish you would take a step back and look at the fate of the people living in the most conservative areas of the world. Ruby Jessop is an American citizen. She was forced to marry her cousin and pound out 6 babies in 10 years before she finally escaped the horrors of living in the most fundamentally conservative area in America.
The Taliban and Al Qaeda are conservative. The faith people keep placing in this stupid word "conservative" is completely misplaced. It is a bankrupt, paradoxical system of thought that leads to oppression.
We need to find a way to restore and promote the ideals of the US Founders. Conservatism leads away from this path.
The chance to repeal PPACA is past, and I am left in the darkness wondering why these people called "conservatives" failed to stand up for health freedom when it was clearly the single most important issue of our generation.
Utah is by far the most conservative state in the union.
Living in the most conservative state of the union taught me the valuable lesson that, contrary to their claims, conservatives are not the defenders of freedom. They use freedom rhetoric to gain power, but once in power they simply lock everyone out.
To understand the nature of Conservatism, I think it wise to study the most conservative of the conservatives in the most conservative of states. I am talking conservatism on steroids here.
The most conservative group of the most conservative state of Utah, of course, is the fundamentalists.
The Salt Lake Tribune has a typical life story of people living in the wonderland of Fundamentalist Conservative Utah:
At age 16, Ruby Jessop was forced to marry her cousin Harlow Barley. She pumped out 6 kids in ten years. At age 26 she escaped her captivity to a safe house run by Help The Child Brides.
Most people born in cults take to the indoctrination. Those who don't embrace the indoctrination are usually so poorly educated that they fear going out in the real world.
I've met women who cannot read. When conservatism reaches its absurdity, conservatives don't even teach women to read because that might disrupt the social order. Imagine the embarrassment you would face in life if you had to approach strangers to read signs because the conservative leaders who control every aspect of your life prevented you from learning to read.
If you are a conservative, then you really should spend time looking at what the fundamentalists do because fundamentalists are the most conservative of all conservatives.
How can Republicans be so completely blind. The Taliban is a conservative group. Al Qaeda is a conservative group.
Conservatism is not the path to freedom.
IMHO, the Tea Party was an authentic freedom movement. It was quickly infiltrated and captured by conservative activists. The activists stopped the wonderful discussion about freedom and immediately set about grubbing power for conservatives.
These conservatives effectively killed the Tea Party. Because of these conservatives we are forced to deal with 4 more years of a social progressive presidency.
Yes, I know. Pundits like Sean Hannity and Limbaugh play a word game in which "liberal" means "socialist" and "conservative" means "liberal." This game of sublating the term liberal was started by the an arch-conservative named Hegel (1770-1831).
Quite frankly, the argument that Hegel is the father of modern conservatism is stronger than the argument that Marx is the father of the modern liberalism.
I love the ideals of liberty that were at the heart of the American Experiment in self-rule.
Unfortunately, this experiment is coming to an end because fools like Sean Hannity and Riush Limbaugh who drown out rational discourse with the stupid little name game in which "conservative" means "liberal" and "liberal" means "socialist."
The funny thing about this system of argumentation is that "socialism" is far closer to conservative ideals than is the free market established by the US Founders.
If you study the history of ideas, you will find that modern socialism was created by royalists who were seeking to restore the ideals of the monarchy.
The Hanoverian Kings of England were from Hanover Germany. They funded the German Universities that produced Hegel and kin. These philosophers simply sifted through all of the ideals of feudalism in an attempt to reframe the ideals of feudalism as revolutionary and progressive.
The key to the classical liberal ideals of the US Founders is ownership. In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith argued that individual owners seeking to maximize the return of their personal resources would maximize the wealth of the nation.
Feudalism was a power based society. In feudalism, the lords and ladies did not actually own anything. They gained their position by ruling over the land and the landless serfs.
The serfs were just workers who were entitled to the bounties of the land, but did not own anything and were effective slaves.
The arch-conservative Hegel spewed forth with arguments that freedom is slavery and slavery freedom as his way of defending the social order of the monarchy in a time of revolutionary change. The heart of Hegel's argument was a new method of discourse called Modern Logic.
Fox News is probably the best example of Hegelian thought in action.
Karl Marx is from a generation called "The Young Hegelians."
Hegel sought to conserve the social order of the monarchy. Marx used Hegel's modern logic to argue for radical social change.
Hegel is the father of Modern Logic. Modern Conservatism came from Hegel. Modern Liberalism comes from Marx.
Both paths of this modern philosophy lead to a society with dictators and an oppressed people.
(I also need to point out that the dialectical center is also part of the problem).
If you are a conservative, I wish you would take a step back and look at the fate of the people living in the most conservative areas of the world. Ruby Jessop is an American citizen. She was forced to marry her cousin and pound out 6 babies in 10 years before she finally escaped the horrors of living in the most fundamentally conservative area in America.
The Taliban and Al Qaeda are conservative. The faith people keep placing in this stupid word "conservative" is completely misplaced. It is a bankrupt, paradoxical system of thought that leads to oppression.
We need to find a way to restore and promote the ideals of the US Founders. Conservatism leads away from this path.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)