Restoring America: Start with distinguishing "government" from "society"

[downzero]

The Project To Restore America

Juicy Quote:

... when Maddow says "America," she means not individual Americans or society but government. And now her fallacy is clear. Frédéric Bastiat identified it in 1850. In his classic, The Law, Bastiat wrote that the "socialist" confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education... We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

This article is among the reasons why I often argue that language does matter. It does matter how we talk about things. We have given up ground to the anti-capitalists by allowing them to convince us that society=government. It doesn't. It's even less true as we have more national policy and less local government and governance.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Good point. Of course a necessary condition to have people support socialism is the belief that nothing beyond one's self can be accomplished within any conditions except under the auspices of a government program and least to fallacies like these:

1. According to the socialist, if you oppose welfare and other public assistance programs, you are heartless, greedy, and do not care about those less fortunate.

Go tell that to the Salvation Army. Go tell that to those who help people in need on their own without any organization needed.

2. According to the socialist, you cannot be safe unless you have police with a free hand to do pretty much anything, lest they be unable to protect you because of technicalities and restrictive laws. (BTW, since you need to rely on the police and not those evil guns of yours, hand them over.)

In truth, the better armed the citizens and more freedom they have to take responsibility for their own safety, the safer they are, even with the most honest and dedicated of police (which is far from universal).

While not really adding anything in principle ot the OP, I couldn't help throwing out two favorite pet peeves.

 

[downzero]

Socialism is perhaps the most terrible idea ever invented, because it steals human dignity. It is premised on making people internalize and believe that they can never be free, because they cannot take care of themselves, nor do they deserve the benefit of their hard work. In consequence, the slaves worship their captors, and they lose sight of any conceivable escape.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Socialism is perhaps the most terrible idea ever invented, because it steals human dignity. It is premised on making people internalize and believe that they can never be free, because they cannot take care of themselves, nor do they deserve the benefit of their hard work. In consequence, the slaves worship their captors, and they lose sight of any conceivable escape.

Maybe next time, I got the 'spread the rep' scold.

 

[steveh_131]

This article is among the reasons why I often argue that language does matter. It does matter how we talk about things. We have given up ground to the anti-capitalists by allowing them to convince us that society=government. It doesn't. It's even less true as we have more national policy and less local government and governance.

Good article. This is a strawman that is constantly propped up by our society, and I think the portion that you quoted is the perfect way to refute it.

 

[Trooper]

The Project To Restore America

Juicy Quote:


This article is among the reasons why I often argue that language does matter. It does matter how we talk about things. We have given up ground to the anti-capitalists by allowing them to convince us that society=government. It doesn't. It's even less true as we have more national policy and less local government and governance.

The left is practiced in using confusing language. IE "progressive", "gay" or even "liberal". Twist the words into new meanings and the fools will follow.

 

[downzero]

The left is practiced in using confusing language. IE "progressive", "gay" or even "liberal". Twist the words into new meanings and the fools will follow.

I think showing so-called "progressives" who call themselves "liberals" just how "illiberal" they really are, is a great way to expose their hypocrisy.

 

[hornadylnl]

And here, if you don't support the republican version of "society" (government), you're an anarchist.

 

[downzero]

And here, if you don't support the republican version of "society" (government), you're an anarchist.

So true, sir. That's why I love this place, though. I view you and my other fellow libertarians like a tag team. We hold our own.

 

[Twangbanger]

Nah, you're not an anarchist. If I may be so bold as to presume these are the wisps of some sort of libertarian motif, you're just part of a geeky 1.7% substrain that, unfortunately, doesn't amount to much in the mainstream political scheme of things.


So perhaps a good subtitle would be, "Start with distinguishing disagreement from persecution." You're not being fed to the lions. Sometimes people just disagree with you, that's all. The faux martyrdom thing doesn't sell & just comes across as self-pitying.


"...the right of free speech means the freedom to advocate one's views and to bear the possible consequences, including disagreement with others, opposition, unpopularity and lack of support. The political function of "the right of free speech" is to protect dissenters and unpopular minorities from forcible suppression - not to guarantee them the support, advantages, and rewards of a popularity they have not gained."


Ayn Rand, "The Virtue of Selfishness"

 

[Trooper]

And here, if you don't support the republican version of "society" (government), you're an anarchist.

You mean that I do not have the right to walk up to you and gun you down just because I disagree with you? I thought that all libertarians believed in that!

or at least in settling disputes by dueling with pistols at 40 paces.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I think you make a very good point, and society is not synonymous with government. Equating the two can lead to disastrous results....

However, our government is a subset of our society.

When it comes down to it, it is not as simple as people confusing the two - even though that does exist.

At the end of the day, it comes down to a difference of opinion about the role we want government to take. Many people that recognize the fine point you are making, still do not always agree on the specifics.

or at least in settling disputes by dueling with pistols at 40 paces.

I, for one, would support duels between consenting adults.

 

[bingley]

The Project To Restore America

The article's interpretation of Maddow's words is untenable. The quote in question is:

"No, no, no. We're not going to build it. No, No, No. America doesn't have any greatness in its future. America has small things in its future. Other countries have great things in their future. China can afford it. We can't"—you're wrong! And it doesn't feel right and it doesn't sound right to us because that's not what America is."

The article goes on to conclude the only reason that Maddow could say America has "small things in its future" is because by "America" Maddow means American government, because, the article goes on to say, obviously American society can do great things. The quote doesn't support this conclusion:

1. There is nothing in the quote that defines what America is.

2. You have to assume that American society has greatness in its future, and that Maddow shares this assumption, in order to argue that Maddow thinks America = American government. There is simply no reason to think Maddow shares this assumption.

Judging from the quote, I'd think Maddow is talking about the economy. "China can afford it," and here "it" in the context means "greatness." What Maddow seems to be saying is that you have to have money to achieve "greatness" (whatever that means), and we just don't have it, and we won't have it for quite a while. I guess this is up to debate. I don't care either way.

I don't have an opinion on Maddow or her opinion one way or the other. I am just pointing out that the article draws conclusions that have little to do with Maddow's words. The article is not logical. In fact, it looks like the author scraped the bottom of the barrel to find attack materials on Maddow.

 

[hornadylnl]

Nah, you're not an anarchist. If I may be so bold as to presume these are the wisps of some sort of libertarian motif, you're just part of a geeky 1.7% substrain that, unfortunately, doesn't amount to much in the mainstream political scheme of things.


So perhaps a good subtitle would be, "Start with distinguishing disagreement from persecution." You're not being fed to the lions. Sometimes people just disagree with you, that's all. The faux martyrdom thing doesn't sell & just comes across as self-pitying.


"...the right of free speech means the freedom to advocate one's views and to bear the possible consequences, including disagreement with others, opposition, unpopularity and lack of support. The political function of "the right of free speech" is to protect dissenters and unpopular minorities from forcible suppression - not to guarantee them the support, advantages, and rewards of a popularity they have not gained."


Ayn Rand, "The Virtue of Selfishness"

For years on this board, so called "conservatives" have tried to paint anyone who isn't a Romney ball washer as a liberal or anarchist. This subset values true freedom no more than the left. They just want different kinds of control. The war on drugs, banning gay marriage, legislating morality, etc.

I'm not playing the martyr at all. Just pointing out those walking around with logs in their eyes that love to complain about the specks in the eyes of the liberals.

 

[beararms1776]

One common characteristic in everyone (no matter who we are or what we're labeled) is "control".
Deciding what to control makes all the difference. Some prefer to control others and some prefer to control themselves, aka Independence.

 

[hornadylnl]

One common characteristic in everyone (no matter who we are or what we're labeled) is "control".
Deciding what to control makes all the difference. Some prefer to control others and some prefer to control themselves, aka Independence.

This. I learned awhile ago that forced morality is not morality at all.

 

[downzero]

Nah, you're not an anarchist. If I may be so bold as to presume these are the wisps of some sort of libertarian motif, you're just part of a geeky 1.7% substrain that, unfortunately, doesn't amount to much in the mainstream political scheme of things.

This couldn't be more wrong. We are an absolutely critical part of the electorate and I very much caution you from equating "libertarians" with "Libertarians." Bush's warrantless wiretapping and torture in Gitmo cost his party any hope of getting our votes. Even if Obama hadn't run two amazing campaigns, alienating civil libertarians is a good way to lose a hell of a lot more votes than 1.7%.

Libertarianism is quite common and quite politically popular. Both mainstream parties should and do try to get our vote. Freedom sells itself.

For years on this board, so called "conservatives" have tried to paint anyone who isn't a Romney ball washer as a liberal or anarchist. This subset values true freedom no more than the left. They just want different kinds of control. The war on drugs, banning gay marriage, legislating morality, etc.

I'm not playing the martyr at all. Just pointing out those walking around with logs in their eyes that love to complain about the specks in the eyes of the liberals.

I don't know about you, but I'm happy to be a liberal. That is what libertarianism is. Your points about "forced morality" couldn't be more liberal at their core--based on the idea that individuals can direct their own life. That is the essence of liberalism.

 

[hornadylnl]

This couldn't be more wrong. We are an absolutely critical part of the electorate and I very much caution you from equating "libertarians" with "Libertarians." Bush's warrantless wiretapping and torture in Gitmo cost his party any hope of getting our votes. Even if Obama hadn't run two amazing campaigns, alienating civil libertarians is a good way to lose a hell of a lot more votes than 1.7%.

Libertarianism is quite common and quite politically popular. Both mainstream parties should and do try to get our vote. Freedom sells itself.



I don't know about you, but I'm happy to be a liberal. That is what libertarianism is. Your points about "forced morality" couldn't be more liberal at their core--based on the idea that individuals can direct their own life. That is the essence of liberalism.

I was referring to the common definition of liberal used here.

 

[Liberty1911]

For years on this board, so called "conservatives" have tried to paint anyone who isn't a Romney ball washer as a liberal or anarchist. This subset values true freedom no more than the left. They just want different kinds of control. The war on drugs, banning gay marriage, legislating morality, etc.

I'm not playing the martyr at all. Just pointing out those walking around with logs in their eyes that love to complain about the specks in the eyes of the liberals.

Interesting POV because I consider myself a Libertarian.

However, in a true libertarian world where everyone determines their own freedom, they would also be 100% accountable and responsible for the consequences of their own decisions.

I have yet to meet a "Libertarian" who would agree with that as practically applied.

My take on it is, first make people 100% accountable and responsible for their decisions, and then we can talk about complete freedom to make those decisions.

Since that will never happen, you're left with people, whom I suppose you would call Conservatives, trying to mitigate the consequences forced upon them by other peoples decisions.

 

[downzero]

My take on it is, first make people 100% accountable and responsible for their decisions, and then we can talk about complete freedom to make those decisions.

So until we have fascism, we can never be free.

You, sir, are a libertarian who would put us all in chains, just to allow us to prove that we deserve to be free.

We have no such obligation.