Politics 101

What utter idiotic and self-serving horseshit.

It helps to demonize your opponent, no? Make out the liberals to all be godless commies and any measures to repress or eliminate them become plausible. You are just sickening--not some of the time, but most of the time.

What utter idiotic and self-serving horseshit. - a quote from earlier.

I had some hope that this thread that Amigo started might lead to an interesting discussion of what the fundamental role of "government" was/is, with the space between was and is being the 250 years, for example, of the US experience. I enjoyed Asherman's always long but informative posts.
But here we are on page 3 and it has disintegrated into espousing yall's own ideologies and disparaging, strongly, anyone who dares to disagree.
I hate to say it, but A2K is starting to resemble the old ABUZZ. I am sad about that.

It shouldn't be the government's job to decide what is and is not "proper behavior." The government's sole purpose should be to protect people's property rights.



Interesting. You say that government is neccessary because "people are imperfect" knowing full well that government's are comprised of *gasp* people. I smell nonsense.

There's no reason to assume that chaos would take over in the absence of government.

The founders were all deists who vociferously opposed Christianity. "Endowed by thier creator" is justa turn of phrase - the idea of inherent rights goes back to Locke, Hobbes, and even earlier.

I was going to debate Ashram on the efficacy and intent of government going forward, but from your post I might assume that is out of context?

Very well, carry on then. Actually, I agree with Amigo about the rights endowed by God, not government. I think it was a key component of this country, and I agree it is key to the rights and responsibilities of individuals. This is a very important conservative principle, believed and followed by conservatives. The liberal philosophy is to subjucate the rights and responsibilities of individuals to the overall welfare of the overall group. I was also pointing out the battle over God being part of the foundation of our government here, whereas the liberals seem to usually deny any direct connection and conservatives maintain it is part of our tradition and key to our framework of laws. Understanding this struck me as being pretty basic to the subject as initiated, so I was simply pointing it out in admittedly a very sarcastic manner.

But go ahead and carry on. Sorry to interrupt.

Ironlion,

The Founders were not all Deists, most were church-going Christians, and thats a fact Jack.

The most primitive societies have government. Even bands of outlaws and pirates submit themselves to a set of rules, a heirarchy and are directed in their endeavors by someone. We are herd animals, and there is always some governing system to our associations. Where is there in human history a time, or group that lived togehter in anarchy?

Chumly,

We did stray from the topic, and should not go further than we have. For what it's worth, I think most Americans are satisfied with the Fed's control of inflation rates. It is a balancing act, but has worked pretty well since we went off of the gold standard, in spite of the dire predictions of the "gold-bugs". For the control of the currency to go out of the hands of the government, would be an economic disaster in our world.

If they were inherent they they were not "granted" by either. If you can be "granted" something it is not inherent. By definition.

The reference to inherent rights in the Declaration of Rights was a nod to social contract theory. Basically, they believed that a man has an inherent right to anything - the right to murder, the right to not wipe your ass, the right of free speech - until he eneters into a government, and voluntarily gives up some of those rights for the benefit of living under a government.



Uh....

"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ."
---Thomas Jefferson

"Every person, of whatever religious denomination he may be, is a DEIST in the first article of his Creed. Deism, from the Latin word Deus, God, is the belief of a God, and this belief is the first article of every man's creed.

It is on this article, universally consented to by all mankind, that the Deist builds his church, and here he rests. Whenever we step aside from this article, by mixing it with articles of human invention, we wander into a labyrinth of uncertainty and fable, and become exposed to every kind of imposition by pretenders to revelation."
---Thomas Paine

"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it."
---Benjamin Franklin

"I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity."
---ibid

"Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion."
---George Washington

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"
---John Adams

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."
---ibid

"Religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions. I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
---Thomas Jefferson

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."
---James Madison

"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
---ibid

"The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
---John Adams

Okay, MOST of them were desists (virtually all of the important one's wre definitely deists.) How do you figure that most were Christians?

Going to church means nothing.

Sir, Washington was a Deist."

-- The Reverend Doctor James Abercrombie, rector of the church Washington had attended with his wife, to The Reverend Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, upon Wilson's having inquired of Abercrombie regarding Washington's religious beliefs, quoted from John E. Remsberg, Six Historic Americans





Anarchy is not neccessarily the absence of government in the way you seem to be using the word. In an anarchist society, people would be free to live with no government, or to form a voluntary social co-op of some kind. Likely, most people would choose to live in some such co-op.

Chumly,

... and oh BTW, I'm not really into debating or arguing over these matters. I think its much more useful to think about issues and then try to communicate our best understanding in as clear and complete a manner as possible. From that sort of posting, we should be able to hold a frank exchange of views. We should be open to discovering the flaws in our thinking, and not be so concerned with "winning" or "losing". Generally I believe many of our participants are so emotionally wedded to their partisan belief that they have totally abandoned rationality along with the most fundamental civility one expects of gentlemen and ladies.

Ironlion,

Read the biographies of the Founders and you will find that MOST were affilated with one or another of the mainline Christian churches of the time and refered to themselves as Christians. Only a few, Jefferson prominently among them, described themselves as Deists.

Anarchy is by definition the absence of government. In your second sentence you also speak of anarchist society as being without government. "In an anarchist society, people would be free to live with no government, or to form a voluntary social co-op of some kind. Likely, most people would choose to live in some such co-op."

Once people form voluntary social groups, they will have a government to regulate behavior, virtues and taboos. Anarchy is ultimately a zero-sum game. It is seductive, but no more realistic than Utiopia.

Most Americans do not have a clue about what the Fed even does. There is no consequential mertible evidence to support the contention that the Fed can control inflation (at least without causes problem that are in effect equal if not much worse than the underlying inflation itself) and much to discredit that perspective. I am not saying that the Fed does not have a place but as a day over day, preemptive inflationary hawk, via the manipulation of short term rates; forget-about-it. But you're right wrong place for such.

Uh, I have read up on the Founders. Most of them were deists (the most important ones were definitely deists.) I provided some quotes on the last page. Franklin, Washington, Adams, Madison, Paine, etc.



Yes, but that depends on how you define "government." You even went so far as to call the pirates' code a form of government, which flies in the face of most definitions. Virtually all anarchists thinkers recognize that in the absence of government, some people would voluntarily form social co-ops. If you think anarchism is about some kind of every man for himself wild west scenario then I'm afraid you simply don't know what you're talking about.


What? Not neccessarily. I have absolutely no idea why you think this.

In an anarchist society some people may choose to live in some kind of co-op that regulates behavior, virtues, and taboos, as is thier right. Others may not. Anarchy is about maximizing liberty, including the liberty to form organization with like-minded individuals under a set of commonly agreed upon rules.

Alright Ironlion. if you insist, you are smarter, better informed and educated than I am. You win. Now do you feel any better? That doesn't change the facts, the definition of terms, or the history of the founding of the United States. I'm 65 have a degree in History and have been studying it for a big part of my life. I've read biographies and specialized histories on most Presidents and eras in American History. But you are right, and I must therefore be wrong and have wasted much of my time thinking and learning about these matters.

This is a fallacious appeal to authority. Lots of people with degrees beleive things that are wrong. I posted actual, you know, evidence, that several of the Founding Fathers were deist. All you've done is patronizingly told me to read some books, blanketly asserted I was wrong, and then made some very poor arguments against anarchism.

Good show.

I like debate and I like communicating understanding. Both are OK with me. I will abide by your sensibilities. I have always maintained a goodly level of civility and congruency in my posts to you irrelative of debate / communicate.

It's great neither of us are bound to partisan beliefs, me because I am (in essence) an apolitical outsider and you for equally good reasons no doubt. The Fed does fascinate me and I would be happy to share my views on its pros ad cons & how it ties in with the B.O.C. et al.

dys wrote:
all forms of government, by definition, are pernicious.

Sounds to me like religion. Perhaps it's because they are sometimes one and the same. The US is leaning towards that goal as we speak. LOL

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okie, God is not the church. The founing fathers were deist and the seperation of church and state is an American idea and a liberal idea because the country is based on liberal ideas. here is your title post from one of your topics from another thread. You share the same destructive, dangerous, oppressive views as the people you criticize. What do you think a proper theocracy should do to the non-Judeo-Christian? Is a good mass blood atonement in order?

The non-believer is immoral heathen sub-human. We have a sickness we don't understand, Yes?. Your list of histories evil men is not very long and they all seem to be selected to support the findings of your "research"; Intolerance and justified persecution by the divine -Amigo

************************************************************


Okie writes in his topic on another thread;

Rating the worst dictators in history would be a debate and a subject by itself. I've selected the following: Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, and Saddam Hussein. There are plenty more to choose from. Hussein and Castro were included even though they are probably not be as bad as some others, but I think that they qualify for the list because they are bad guys, and dictators, and they are fresh in our minds as being part of current history.

This was a study of the childhood environments, conditions, and personality types, and it turned out from my research that there were indeed common characteristics and environments that produced such dictators, from their childhood on. I've categorized these factors as follows:

1 - Dysfunctional family and troubled childhood that extends into adulthood. This includes troubled spousal relationships and other relationships as adults.
2 - Rejection and/or hate for religious belief, sometimes despite training as a child. As they grow into adulthood, they have a hatred or unresolved resentment toward certain groups, races, or religion.
3 - They perceive injustice from childhood and develop a burning desire to dominate, gain power, and right the wrongs toward society and to them as they view it. Typically there is a hate for business and private enterprise, as it is viewed as unfair and the cause of much injustice and suffering, and religion is also viewed as a failure, so government and they are the hope of righting the wrongs and creating their vision of utopia on earth.

I've summarized the main points of each of their lives to illustrate the above. I've tried to capture the main point without including much detail. Obviously, there is much more supporting information available for anyone wishing to research the subjects.

HITLER - Hitler's mother was his father's third wife and 23 years younger than his father. Hitler's father was very strict and evidently beat Adolph. He did okay in early years of school, but later quit trying, did poorly, and portrayed a generally rebellious attitude. He tried being an artist, was rejected by art schools, and never excelled at anything much until becoming involved in political movements. As an adult, he was a womanizer, with Eva Braun becoming his main girlfriend and eventually his wife. She once attempted suicide in jealosy of the other women in his life. Although described in primary school as deeply religious and even a prospect to become a monk, he obviously made a U-turn by the time he was an adult. He acquired a hatred for Jews and other groups that he felt did not fit in with his scheme of developing a superior race, which was based on evolutionary theory known as "eugenics," an idea founded by Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton.

STALIN - Stalin was his mother's 4th child in less than 4 years, with the previous 3 dying. Stalin contracted smallpox at the age of seven, survived, but the scarring caused other kids to call him "pocky." Stalin was expelled from school once. A half brother had experienced prison time. Stalin himself was of course later arrested several times for his political activities. Included in Stalin's troubled personal life, Stalin's second wife committed suicide following an argument with Stalin during a party, and left him a scathing personal note. Stalin's mother was deeply religious and sent Joseph to a local church school. Later, he attended a theological seminary, but while there began his involvement into his revolutionary activities and organizations. He studied the works of Charles Darwin, became an atheist, and one could say his approach to life and political power followed the "survival of the fittest" theory.

MAO TSE-TUNG - Mao was a rebellious teenager; his father wanted him to be a farmer as he was, but Mao rebelled and left home at age 13 for more advanced schools. A look at Mao as an adult shows a very demanding personality, who had several wives and mistresses and displayed abnormal personal traits. Mao could be described as non-religious to atheistic. His faith was completely placed in the state, and as the leader of the state, he was the final arbitor of all things for everyone, bar none, so religion was highly suppressed, disallowed, or eliminated from public life.

POL POT - Childhood not well documented, but for much of the time, did not live with his parents. At the early age of six, he was sent to the city for school and later to a boarding school. He was apparently only a mediocre student and was failed and held back from advancement at least once. He did win a scholarship to study radio engineering in Paris, but never proceeded with it, and instead pursued his political activities. Pol Pot's first wife spent much time in a hospital due to some mental condition. His second wife was about 30 years younger than him. Pol Pot himself was a paranoid personality, understandable given his elimination of enemies and political opponents. At one point in his childhood, his parents sent him to a large Buddhist monastery. He also attended a Catholic primary school, but there is no evidence he had any religious belief later in life. In fact, he along with the Kmer Rouge aggessively attempted to stamp out any opposition to his regime, his plan for utopia, including any religion.

CASTRO - Fidel was an illegitimate son of a sugar plantation owner, was rebellious in childhood, and at only 13 years old, he helped organize a strike of sugar workers against his own father's plantation. A former classmate described him as "different," and was called "loco" by some. He had an interest in politics and read alot about Stalin, Napoleon, and Mussolini. His first marriage did not go well, and a custody dispute spurred him to kidnap his son from his divorced wife so that he could be raised as a model communist (interesting parallel with the Elian Gonzales case). An illegitimate daughter of Castro fled Cuba and is one of his most avid opponents. Castro threatened his parents that he would burn the house down if they wouldn't send him to school, so Fidel attended a Jesuit boarding school in Havana. Later in life, he was described as indifferent to religion and actually was excommunicated by the Catholic Church for political acts against Cuban priests.

HUSSEIN - Hussein was born into a family in a small village and lived in a mud hut. Not much is known, but his father either died or abandoned the family. His step-father turned out to be abusive and a thief. At age 10, Hussein moved in with his mother's brother. Poor school grades hindered him getting into a military academy, and he then became involved in radical movements. The shadowy personal life of Hussein as an adult is no secret. He had a wife that was apparently selected by parents when he was young, but had mistresses, one of which came to be regarded as his "second wife," even though perhaps not officially with a marriage certificate. Under Hussein's rule, any religions or leaders that defied his absolute rule were denied rights, imprisoned, or eliminated.

One observation I would like to make here. Such personalities can be found in abundance in every culture, but obviously there must be conditions whereby such people can gain an audience and eventually gain political power. I think such potential dictators with their inherent politics can only gain traction in a society that also has more of a preponderence of the mindset similar to that of the potential dictator. This mindset would include a general feeling of failure and personal feeling of powerlessness, unfairness, and resentment, coupled with an increased lack of faith in God or religion. Such a collective mindset then takes on an increased hope that "government" can right the wrongs and create some kind of system that is more fair. Business and free enterprise becomes more demonized and viewed more as unfair, thus something needs to be done to correct it. An important component in this cultural mindset is the condition of the family unit, whereby children grow up in happy, balanced conditions, so that they can grow into being happy adults without some axe to grind, and they are happy to work and bear the fruits of their own labors. Also a belief in God rather than a belief in government is important in keeping a culture away from dictators, at least that has been true for the first 200 years of this country. If too many people in our culture begin to have more axes to grind, then the seeds of some ruthless dictator or government gaining traction becomes a very real danger.

What prompted my little study was the current political climate, with many extremists rejecting the norm of past generations, even going so far as leftist liberals calling George Bush a Nazi. It aroused a curiosity to see if history had shown certain personality types to be more prone to becoming ruthless dictators if they gained power. Of course, I think Bush being compared to Hitler is utterly preposterous and in fact I think the opposite political scenario is more likely, and I think my study into the subject strongly supports my view. It is my firm belief that the extreme leftist mindset presents by far the most dangerous fertile ground to produce another ruthless dictator. It is the unhinged personalities with dysfunctional backgrounds, commonly with poor and immoral personal relationships, coupled with a lack of religious faith, then add to this an acquired strong belief that government can and should solve all problems, perhaps even creating some kind of utopia. As I've said before, the dangerous dictators have big axes to grind. And when I say a lack of religious faith, I would include the Osama Bin Ladens of the world and perhaps even certain hardline Muslim rulers because they may appear to use religion, but their true faith is in a governments power, not God. Some people may not be truly religious at all, but may want to appear to be religious in order to fool and use other people. Usually the nature of their own personal lives betray their true natures.

One final observation. I would assert here that when people vote for a candidate, a look at their "personal" lives, their family relationships, their moral beliefs, is not only good and proper, but it is paramount to making good choices in our leaders. It is at least as important as their public stances on issues, probably more so. Usually one follows the other, but not always. The troubling part to this subject is when cultural morality is on the downward slide and families are increasingly dysfunctional, the risk of electing dysfunctional and dangerous personalities increases accordingly.

Jefferson on religious freedom;

Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible to restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; ... that our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; ... that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy [sic], which at once destroys all religious liberty ... ; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them. We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities ... (Thomas Jefferson, "Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia," 1779; those parts shown above in italics were, according to Edwin S. Gaustad, written by Jefferson but not included in the statute as passed by the General Assembly of Virginia. The bill became law on January 16, 1786. From Edwin S. Gaustad, ed., A Documentary History of Religion in America, Vol. I

Amigo, you have some good points I agree with and some I don't. And it seems Asherman has a very good understanding of history and I generally agree with his assessment. My observation is that some of the founders were not overly thrilled with organized religion, and it is quite true that much bad stuff has been done in the name of religion. I recognize that and agree with that. The argument over whether most of them were deists or not, I can't add anything to that. All of this does not change the fact that most, if not all, believed in a one Creator, and their moral grounding sprung out of a Judeo-Christian tradition. Some may have criticized the hypocrisy of some of the religious, which I also agree with, but I think most recognized that government was not the answer to the world's problems, as communism tends to do. They believed in the rights and responsibilities of individuals as endowed by the Creator, and as endorsed by our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. They also believed that a basic moral standard and personal morality was necessary for such a culture to thrive within the framework of our type of government.

Conservatism recognizes that some problems cannot be solved by government, that utopia is not possible, and that many things are best left to people. People, by nature, want to believe in something. If they don't believe in a God, they will tend to look for somebody else to cure their ills and the ills of society, and often that turns out to be government. I personally think this is a dangerous direction in which to go, because history has shown this to end up with the infringement of personal rights and even the deaths of millions of people.