My Father Is a Terrorist

What practical use do your children serve?

I do not understand the question. You aren't suggesting being a successful parent doesn't produce anything of value are you? Or are you suggesting that my enjoyment of my children and the pleasure of seeing them develop and enjoy their lives is not a real value? Or maybe you are suggesting that now they are grown productive citizens, raising their own families and producing more decent self-sufficient productive citizens has no practical value?

If this is what you are suggesting, I guess I can't answer the question.

Hank

All families that function properly are somewhat socialistic, in a voluntary fashion

Disagree.

All families that function properly are authoritarian.

I wish I had my Keunnelt-Leddihn with me ... I'd quote him on the "experiment in democracy" taking place in American families (c. late 60's) that was such a dismal failure.

The family is the perfect relationship on which to draw the exact distinctions between equality and liberty which confuse so many people who mistakenly equate communism with Christianity or state-enforced altruism with the human virtue that is charity.

Well, because I'm not a materialist, I cannot put a price on or "use" for children, myself. I don't have children of my own but I imagine they'd be of inestimable value to a father or mother.

It was your comments on materialism that confused me ... they didn't quite jibe with your admirable take on your kids.

I was thinking today that any trial attorney worth his salt should take a page from the "non-judgmental latest data" with which our government and their interlock of Experts and Consultants and Advocacy Groups inundates us.

Any parents claiming pain and suffering for the death of their unborn child and able to put a price on that should be confronted with the real economic liability -- much less Pain and Suffering -- that each child poses.

There's no guarantee whatsoever a child's going to repay his parents' economic investment in him. Even a cursory glance at the child support figures for which men with no Choice are tracked like dogs and imprisoned, even, suggests that monetary damages for the loss of a child are ludicrous at best.

Well, because I'm not a materialist, I cannot put a price on or "use" for children, myself. I don't have children of my own but I imagine they'd be of inestimable value to a father or mother.

Your comments are sincere and you have raised my interest. Why do you say you are not a materialist?

Is this a religious conviction, or a philosophical one? I would like to know, because many Christians, for example, believe their religion and materialism are in conflict.

C.S. Lewis said a very wise thing. "God loves matter, else He would not have made so much of it."

I have more to say on this subject, but until I know what your position is, there is not much point. Matter is not an evil thing. There is no possible virtue that can be realized except by material people acting in a material world with material things.

Enough! I really would like to know why you seem to despise matter. (I use despise in the sense of "regard as having no value".)

Hank

Well, I must admit that your staunch (and necessarily singleminded) attitude re: the honoring of your parents is probably the most impressive post I've ever seen you make.

It's no secret we agree very seldom (and it's true I really had no desire to waste my time ever again with you or SoL after the other day) but I suspect much of that's just the breaks of being born when you were.

(I sit exactly on the cusp of Boomers and Gen-X so I relate to both sides but don't exactly claim either ... =)

Take care.

I'm Catholic. I don't despise "matter", private property, personal wealth or even sex!

This earth is a magnificent reminder of God's providence and His desire for us to be happy ... the happiest among us being those, generally, who can live on the same as the sparrows rather than get caught in the trap of materialism.

My faith and my philosophy are never in conflict so long as my philosophy remains in comport with objective truth.

(Another great thing about the material world is that it "fleshes out" or consistently confirms for us certain truths it points to which go well beyond the laws of physics by which the matter of reality is bound. Natural moral rests on what Is, not how you Feel or the fact that on occasion there are Accidents and aberrations in nature.

In fact, it was reading about quantum physics -- the math and the hard science -- what redirected me back toward the Church. The truth generally is staring one right in the face the whole time ... just like my housekeys.)

There's no contradiction between "socialistic" and "authoritarian" structures. In fact, every socialistic structure I can name is authoritarian.

To call the family authoritarian and socialistic is to describe two facets of the same institution. To call the family authoritarian rather than socialistic is to confuse its distribution of power with its economics. There are authoritarian structures that are essentially capitalist -- Pinochet's Chile, Singapore, and organized crime come to mind -- so this is not a necessary association.

However, to be fair, authoritarian capitalisms seem to be unstable in the socialist direction, so there is room to argue the point just on the grounds of stability.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

However, to be fair, authoritarian capitalisms seem to be unstable in the socialist direction, so there is room to argue the point just on the grounds of stability.

Stability? As in some Economic System or another?

How about justice or integrity?

One reason no socialist has genuine authority (other than the jackboot will he can force upon you as a fascist, the utopian dreams with which he'll seduce you as a Christian socialist or the shrill doctrine he'll shove down your throat as communist convert) is that socialism is not premised on tenets of enduring and self evident justice.

(Capitalism does incorporate a few but I think surely it is becoming obvious that it can be every bit as oppressive and unjust in the hands of men with no scruples and too stupid to prevent its inbuilt errors -- the sort the likes of Rand glorify -- from rendering it every bit as useful to the evil state as any socialist regime ... the only difference being the illusion of "choice" or "market" by which folks have the opportunity to will the Greater or the Lesser evil at all times.)

So ... I think you are confusing the imperialistic with the authoritarian.

Socialists, communists AND our current oligarchy of capitalist "leadership" in the west are imperialistic. (Only an imperialistic nation could wage "moral wars" that are absolutely unjust or announce that its executive leadership is now equipped with execution squads -- human and drone -- to assassinate whatever individuals it deems terrorists, at home or abroad.)

Instead, I'm talking about genuine authority ... the sort that naturally flows from a man of integrity and especially from the father in the family.

Of course, sometimes -- when there is no father -- the woman assumes the authority in direct proportion to her assumption of responsibility for the family's welfare.

This is one reason the State seeks to enfold single mothers in its arms and
-- by proclaiming their "right" to abort and/or to have children with or without fathers and lesbian partners, their "rights" to housing and equal pay for unequal work and by offering them some pittance payment from the Welfare State to grease the wheels of self-delusion in all these regards --
manages to usurp essential responsibility for the family.

I think you are confusing the imperialistic with the authoritarian.

Not at all. Authoritarian capitalisms such as the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos degenerate first to "crony capitalisms" -- states in which economic privileges are dispensed by the Authority to its favored friends -- and thence to ever-more-fully State-directed economies, after the Hitlerian pattern. This appears to occur more frequently than not -- and regardless of any expansionist tendency, or lack thereof, on the part of the country concerned. The Philippines were certainly not expansionist.

The propulsion changes over time, of course. The original dictator will die or be unseated, reducing the influence of his cronies. But the cronies will have become a sizable fraction of the economy, with many workers dependent on their continued success. Therefore, "to prevent economic chaos," the succeeding dictator or authority will institute policies that protect categories of companies broadly enough specified to encompass the former cronies. Von Mises and Hayek have described how the process is driven from there by the many ills that State-managed enterprise is heir to, including economic connectedness, divergence of incentives between the market and the government's economic managers, the information problem, and the desire to placate interest groups.

With regard to the rest of your comment, I have nothing to say, as it appears to be mostly about your religious beliefs, and I was talking about economics. I prefer not to argue religion. I have no expertise there, only my personal convictions.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

Gore? I wish he had won. No way those of the GOP too bright to wave their pompons would have sat on their hands as he transformed the essential nature of our government -- empowering execution squads, even, and destroying utterly our Constitution.

You're joking, right? Clinton rode roughshod over the federal government for 8 years while the Republicans looked the other way. Your faith in a "sudden awakening" is amusing, if not strangely ridiculous.

I voted my conscience, of course. Constitution Party. What's not to like?

Well, of course, you're free to vote your conscience. You're also free to be wrong. Especially when you know that no Constitution Party candidate has a chance.

You wouldn't believe how pleasant it is knowing that I had NOTHING whatsoever with whether we ended up with Tweedledee or Tweedledum last election. No way I could go around boasting that I'd the "smarts" to choose the Lesser of the two Evils.

I have to wonder why someone who didn't want to boast about Tweedledum or Tweedledee meanwhile sits on his ass and doesn't work to change either party.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.