Articles for November 2013

To David Horowtiz: Is Communism or Authoritarianism the Real Problem

I just read an article over at Breitbart discussing David Horowitz’s recent comments at a Heritage Foundation function where he, in no uncertain terms, labeled the entire Democrat Party a bunch of “communists”.

“My parents called themselves progressives,” Horowitz explained with regard to his communist parents. “The agenda was a Soviet America…the slogan of the communist party in those days was peace, jobs, democracy. Sound familiar?”

He continued:

“The communist party is the Democratic Party.”

Having watched Horowitz come out of the closet as a conservative in the early 1990s, I found Horowitz’s positioning and timing interesting.  The Heritage Foundation is influential among many conservatives who cling onto the GOP because they continue to believe that it somehow will throw them more than bones when it comes to liberty.  And, here we find many democrats and independents joining republicans in questioning the whole idea of Obamacare, with many critics of Obama using the “communism” and “socialism” to describe what Obama and D’s really want / intend.

I also found it to be a GOP-centric attempt at focusing Republicans on a legitimate foe, while avoiding the real issue at hand when it comes to communism.

Lets be clear: You or I really would not care one ounce about communism if communists just went off and bought some property on their own someplace in order to create a voluntary communist enclave that is populated by those who voluntarily choose to join and remain part of such a commune, while leaving the rest of us alone.

The problem is, most all communists want to foist their ideology on the rest of us without giving us a choice in the matter. THAT is the problem with communism, but for the few on the fringe who simply joined communes and were done with it: It is inherently authoritarian. (Authoritarian meaning “The State has the Authority to Do as It Pleases regardless of individual liberty / consent”, keeping in mind that democracy can be fully authoritarian at the expense of minorities.)

That said, I don’t care about communism per say, but I do care about the means people choose to implement it.

That in mind, we need to run ALL politicians through the lens of individual LIBERTY. There we quickly discover that Communism itself is not a danger, but rather AUTHORITARIAN communism (albeit a redundant phrase in practice, since 99.5% of communists wish to force their fellow humans into their ideology, even if it means nearly 100 million deaths, as we have previously witnessed in the 20th century).

In other words, we would have rooted-out / exposed Obama’s true problem — he’s an authoritarian at heart – and not gotten gummed up in the debate over if he’s a communist (socialist, etc) or not, a debate many still find themselves sucked into today.

That said, when we use the Lens of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, we can most assuredly discover that all progressives and most all democrats a quasi-authoritarian to full-blown authoritarian types, believing that, while some liberty should be protected,  Government should ultimately decide and may, when convenient, void whatever liberties it so chooses — ala, once again, Obamacare.    (Notice now how the whole “is Obamacare Socialist or not” debate similarly distracts from the real point: We’re all chained to it!)

However, we also discover the hypocrisy of many of those who shout loudly about the bogeyman of communism. While they have fingered a dangerous foe, they often promote a different, authoritarian-method-enforced philosophy or set of priorities which is similarly dismissive or dangerous to Individual liberty. In this we find most all progressives and a ton of liberty-lip-service GOPers.

What we will find, if we are honest and not hypocritical, is that most elections argue over various shades of authoritarian behaviors laundered through the ballot box,

JFK’s “Ask Not” used to enable big government and liberty violations

With all the JFK hubbub in the wake of the 50th anniversary of his assassination, I keep seeing, hearing, etc. the famous soundbite from his Inaugural Address:

…And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.

I’d feel a lot better about that JFK speech if he’d not hung out in the gray area of what the Democrats now clearly promote at their Conventions: “We all belong to our Government”.

In other words, I’d have preferred something more along the lines “ask not what your government can do for you. Ask what you can do for your fellow man and the economy so there’s no excuse for politicians to try to make every little thing the job of the government.” Not a great soundbite, and I’m in too much of a hurry to edit, but I think the point is there: The JFK soundbite has been used to make noble the idea that we should give up our liberty and wealth, rights, etc. for the “good of the country”, which implies, by Government Means and authority. e.g. — give up your liberty.

The speech mentions the “L” word only once:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Indeed. Including engaging Vietnam, in which his VP cum President forced young men into a war in Vietnam regardless of their views on the subject, liberty, etc.  “… do for your country” or else, is what it came to, and is what we’re always presented with election after election.

Conversation: If you don’t want big government, you want Somalian Chaos (etc.)

MrTouchShriek

11/6/23

Bigger picture here — the Tea Party managing to lose in ALABAMA of all places is probably the nail-in-the-coffin for their political viability down the road.

Blake Adams MrTouchShriek

11/6/23

I think the main lesson is that you cannot discount the effect of money in elections. The Chamber of Commerce support behind the establishment candidate helped. This goes to prove that Citizens United decision of the SC will have repercussions (irrespective of whether you agree with it or not). All who care about this great democracy need to understand the fact that money in electoral politics is a distorting factor. Unlimited spending by unknown groups simply is not healthy.

Leopold B. Scotch to  Blake Adams

Let’s not blame the money. It’s what’s for sale that will always be the problem. So long as each election is an advance auction sale of loot in the forms of confiscated wealth via taxes and confiscated liberty via regulations, to the benefit of special interests, the power elite and special interests will run the show at everyone else’s expense.

 

Blake Adams to Leopold B. Scotch

11/6/2013

You can always elect to move a country with no taxes and no regulations. Example: Somalia! Check it out. Absolute FREEDOM and LIBERTY.

Civilization requires a balancing act between each member of the society. Do you want to go out on a road where there are no rules, speed limits, stop signs, drivers licenses?

Do you want to live in a society where might is right?

Do you want to live in a society where there are no air quality standards nor any standards for water quality, food, etc.

Throwing the terms liberty and freedom as if they have no relation or context to the times we live in, and using the terms regulation and special interests as if they are dirty words.

The problem with the current GOP/T-party is that they thrive on slogans, bumper stickers, innuendos, flimsy conjecture and mostly driven by fear and have this 18th century wild west as their utopia!

Leopold B. Scotch Blake Adams

Says blake:

“You can always elect to move a country with no taxes and no regulations. Example: Somalia! “

This is a tired strawman of the progressives and other big govt types (GOP, etc.) –“If you don’t let us bend you over with our countless ways of pushing you around, you must want Somalian chaos, because that’s the only other option to our know-it-all progressive ways.”

I call B.S.

Somalia’s situation  is all about mini-authoritarian tyrants and killers banding together and violating the freedom and liberty of others.

Liberty is about consent and voluntary association. Government is nothing more than a claim of some to a monopoly on force and the violence necessary to enforce laws to achieve specific ends. Your Somalian war-lords define themselves as “governors” of their territory and claim authority to violate liberty to achieve their goals.

“Check it out. Absolute FREEDOM and LIBERTY. “

ME: Freedom to violate liberty for those with a monopoly on power, more like it. Using your logic, pre Wilson, FDR, LBJ and the modern regulatory state we had Somalia in the U.S. (I hope you’re not a teacher.)