http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-21/unique-evil-left

A very interesting article by Lew Rockwell; enjoy, you as well Bot.

Is it too much to say that since the French Revolution, the left has been the source of virtually all political evils,and continues to be so in our day?
There can be no doubt that great cruelty and violence can be and have been inflicted in the name of preserving the existing order.

Given that the left has sought the complete transformation of society, and given that such wholesale change is bound to come up against the resistance of ordinary people who don’t care for having their routines and patterns of life overturned, we should not be surprised that the instrument of mass terror has been the weapon of choice. The people must be terrified into submission, and so broken and demoralized that resistance comes to seem impossible.

Leftists have long been engaged in a bait-and-switch operation. First, they said they wanted nothing but liberty for all. Liberalism was supposed to be neutral between competing worldviews, seeking only an open marketplace of ideas in which rational people could discuss important questions. It did not aim to impose any particular vision of the good.
And it is not simply that dissent is not tolerated. Dissent cannot be acknowledged. What happens is not that the offender is debated until a satisfactory resolution is achieved. He is drummed out of polite society without further ado. There can be no opinion apart from what the left has decided.

Leftism is, in short, a recipe for permanent revolution, and of a distinctly anti-libertarian kind. Not just anti-libertarian. Anti-human.   And yet all the hatred these days is directed at the right.

Best regards,

Well,.. I did read it...

But it was about this time that some liberals decided to try to solve their public relations problem by “rebranding” themselves as “progressives.” The apotheosis of this effort came in 2007, when Hillary Clinton, gearing up for her unsuccessful White House run, gave a curious answer when asked to define liberalism: “You know, it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual.” She went on to admit that contemporary liberalism had become associated with “big government,” “contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.”

But instead of calling for a return to the older liberalism of individual freedom against “big power,” she said she preferred to think of herself as a “progressive.” “Progressive,” Hillary explained, “has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.” This is highly significant, for more reasons than Hillary admitted, but which she privately knows well. A return to the older liberalism of individual freedom against “big power” would involve reducing the power of big government—the greatest power center in the nation these days. And the key architects of transforming the older liberal tradition into a doctrine of big centralized power were—the Progressives. Hillary’s comment

ADVERTISING

inRead invented by Teads

Those old Progressives were quite open in their disdain for the classical liberal tradition, denigrating the constitutional limits on government and the Founding principles of individual rights. Woodrow Wilson openly attacked both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution—the first president ever to do so. Along with his theoretical critique of American government (which he said failed to be “Darwinian” enough—Wilson and the Progressives were the true “social Darwinists” in American intellectual life), Wilson and other Progressives advocated an aggressive paternalism from modern government. Here’s Wilson’s money quote: “If I saw my way to it as a practical politician, I should be willing to go farther and superintend every man’s use of his chance.” (The best short treatment of how Progressivism played out in American political history over the last century is Charles R. Kesler’s I Am the Change: Barack Obama and the Future of Liberalism. Highly recommended.)

More recent “Progressives” like Hillary and President Obama have disguised their essential contempt for the American Founding. Obama speaks of how the truths of the Declaration of Independence “may” be self-evident, which means he thinks they are relative to time and place and the “felt needs of our time”—the weasel words of every good Progressive claim to acquire more political power. This explains why people who formerly were thought of as “liberals” have no regard for individual freedom any more, and why a new bumper strip captures the essence of modern liberalism: “Ideas so good we have to make them mandatory.” Things like requiring individuals to buy health insurance with features they don’t want and don’t need, or banning your choice to consume 20-ounce sodas.



This is what wants to tell you how to live.

I wanna PUKE.

Isn't that what our government is supposed to do? Make everyone happy????

No. It's supposed to protect our Rights and provide for the security of the nation.
You're responsible for pursuing the goals of your heart.
Protecting Your interests from aggressive and greedy people is reasonable and, I expect, Constitutional. Protecting the irreplaceable and desirable, like the National Parks, though not Constitutional that I can see, but then, I don't see how the Louisiana Purchase was, either,, but some things are done that are for the Common Good, if sometimes Not so good for an individual or even a group. But generally, no, the Government is not tasked with
Making everyone happy..
The constitution is not unreadable. It's not All necessary to read and understand in order to understand the general thrust.
It's been ignored since the beginning. It's just getting so much of a daily event that it's almost irrelevant. The Peace Prize Winner recently signed Another EO, allowing UN forces in to
Restore Order, protecting the people, from the people...

Now, why would they do that?

I remember when the NDAA was signed. I Told people that That included Us. All but one or two laughed. All but one or two were Wrong.
I have been pointing out that the way certain things are handled and reported have been incendiary. I see ulterior motives. I Know I Know, it's just that media, trying to get attention... And Yet, they are all reporting identical stories, often using identical language, down to the commas.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jH8dejYGa5A

Exactly who is orchestrating this, IDK. Why, IDK, but SINCE the Easter Bunnies woes are Demonstrably cared for Exactly Equally by all reporting agencies, I have Exactly Zero reason to believe that the way the hot button issues are reported aren't also being Handled.. The president was able to inject himself into the Treyvon Martin thing, making it worse, he came out in SUPPORT of Mike Brown, stirring up more trouble. Rather Than provide the public with the Information that would eventually clear the cop, information that was available from the first minute, rather Than calm things down, they Worked to stir things up.

Look at the sidebar on the right after that video. There are others. Folks, our attitudes towards things are being Molded.
Or, do any of you see Gadhafi differently Now than you did when they were Telling us just how horrible it was living in Libya? I do..

I guess I'm being a lazy brain today. Fuzzy brained... I need a walk.

It makes sense that a libertarian would answer me that way. When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I'll be back when I can properly respond to that...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism

Quote:



Note the supposed concepts of "balance" and "harmony" between individual and public good here.

Any comments?

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 07/24/16 at 09:42:47:


You're relatively correct. I agree. However, I think you're taking my words a little out of context. Look at them again. I was referring to the government's decisions satisfying the political aspirations of all sides, whether that be the liberties of the right or the "make the world a better place" pipedreams of the left. The government's decisions should ideally harm it's citizen's as little as possible and benefit them as much as possible. If it increases taxes; removes more individual rights; or makes the world a more unpleasant place in which to live, then it could be said to cause harm. The government's decisions very well can and do affect one's happiness. War, tyranny, dumb laws, bad management... you name it, can affect your happiness.  As far as supporting the poor, one will complain about paying for supporting the poor and then he'll hit rock bottom and change his mind.   Question is... Are people happy with what they've got? Are they happy with what services the government has provided for them? Are these services necessary? Can they be better provided by someone else?

What do people really want? What do you really want, JOG?

As the Preamble says "promote the general welfare." While it is commonly known that this does not refer to giving the poor money. It refers to seeking the public good, everyone's good, not just individual rights.  Am I wrong? Am I right?

Is it possible that libertarian ideas, when taken to an extreme, could themselves be considered unconstitutional?

Now, this fuzzy brain is just bringing up ideas. You're welcome to point out how those ideas are flawed.

Bot's a liberal, Mark's a traditional Republican, JOG's a Libertarian. I wonder where I fit in.   I guess I'm kinda floating out there in space.  

I feel like I lean libertarian, but going all the way and cutting the safety net...   The "common good" is useful for something.

Maybe it's good that I'm not quite so bound by political philosophies. A man should have his own ideas. I need to get better at thinking for myself, if I don't already do that.   Well, I'm stubborn enough... Maybe that's a sign I think for myself?  

Well, Justin, at least you support Trump instead of Gary Johnson. Trump actually has a chance of winning the election, and he'll try get rid of some of this liberal crap.


And, on the head, we both had a hand in the mess. I broke the ez out, and we both beat on it. He torched it. I was the one to do most of the drilling.

A lot of good points you've made in your last post. I will consider them.