Posted on 12/10/2010 8:55:42 AM PST by Sub-Driver
In the atmosphere of the Lying Left, it's a concern that the truth is lost in the shuffle somewhere. I mean one legitimate concern could be a reaction on the right so violent and unrestrained that we don't end up with the Constitutional republic and limited government that we long for, but a Robespierre-like bloodbath followed by who knows what.
For the sake of interest then I will point out that the goals of a movement do not matter concerning tyranny, as much as the means. All utopian movements which avow use of the state as the means of achieving their end, will naturally and logically lead to an oppressive state if taken to the extreme.
Conversely, libertarianism avows the destruction of the use of the state. Taken to its extreme, libertarianism might be said to end in anarchy, but it cannot end in oppression by the state.
It is logical to say over eating and weight loss may both lead to death if taken to the extreme, but it is not only illogical to argue that weight loss will lead to obesity if taken to the extreme, it is completely impossible.
To me this is a fundamental, logical case to instill into the political argument, because one of the Left's few successful propoganda ploys is to scare people with the idea that NAZI control lies just over the horizon from libertarianism.
As I said, an all powerful state is a multi-headed Hydra, but individual liberty is a narrow pathed alternative. What exactly was the difference between living under Hitler or Stalin? Very little except for the fact that the NAZIs hadn't yet had time to build their internal security organs to the same maturity as the Soviets. Now look at the U.S. Constitution as written in 1776 with an eye to how it compared to monarchy, and imagine taking it to the extreme (no central government, or no government at all). Perhaps not good, but certainly not state tyranny.
He’s right. Washington has become incapable of change from within. It will come from without.
I can understand the reaction here to what I said because the Lying Left portrays legitimate conserve/American values as "extreme," because the Left has itself become extreme.
Post #93 and #97 address what we're talking about and summarize the relevance of this subject pretty well for me (even though this has taken us way off the original subject in the article/thread).
In the atmosphere of the Lying Left, it's a concern that the truth is lost in the shuffle somewhere. In the context of Post#97, I think one legitimate concern could be a reaction on the right so violent and unrestrained that we don't end up with the Constitutional republic and limited government that we long for, but a Robespierre-like bloodbath followed by who knows what.
I know huh. Imagine, thinking Reagan was to the left of Nazis and then thinking the Reagan revolution is alive. The nerve of some people.
I would have to call you on facts not being in evidence here.
If by "Right" you simply mean the GOP, then you are correct, but that doesn't say much. If by "Right" you mean the push for the sanctity of individual freedom, then you have no evidence or even imaginable scenario to fall back on. At no time in human history has a push to decrease the power of the state ever directly led to a tyrannical state. Nor, is there an imaginable scenario on how it might. Note how different the French 'Rights of Man' are from our Declaration of Independence. Using the state to create any utopia can and will go astray, but eliminating the means does not result in a bigger means.
You wouldn't suggest that the Amish are going to naturally start driving giant tractors if they take their practices to the extreme? You might argue that they would stop using all tools and live in bushes, but not that they would turn full circle and start monster truck racing. I think one legitimate concern could be a reaction on the right so violent and unrestrained that we don't end up with the Constitutional republic and limited government that we long for, but a Robespierre-like bloodbath followed by who knows what.
If the "Right" is defined by the need to enforce religious morals or economic law using the power of the state, then you are correct. That is why I refuse to allow that to be posed as an alternative to socialism. The true alternative isn't another form of state controlled utopia, it is a small unobtrusive state that meddles as little as possible in as little as possible. Could anarchy be the result if pushed too far? Yes, but anarchy and state tyranny are not the same thing.
I think you are confusing the idea that all things can be taken to a harmful extreme with the notion that all political thought ends in state tyranny if taken to the extreme.
I would have to disagree with you. Two examples would be the Bolshevik Revolution and The French Revolution and what followed each.
anarchy and state tyranny are not the same thing.
No but tyranny may very well follow anarchy and visa-versa. It's like maximum randomness on steroids. The answer is true moderation. Again, not the Leftist relativist version but true middle-of-the-road exemplified by our original political and economic systems and freedoms coupled with individual self-governing, self-discipline and moderation.
Neither one of those was based on individual liberty trumping the power of the state. Both were strongly based on the premise that the power of the state should be used to provide individual happiness. Not surpisingly they both killed a lot of people in order to make them happy.
No but tyranny may very well follow anarchy and visa-versa.
Concur, and its a logical argument that a state that is too weak might lead to a strong fisted backlash or foreign domination. However, those are jumps to the opposite extreme, not natural progressions of the movement to its extreme. An analogy is pacifism, which can result in being killed, but will not result in killing.
So we agree that any extreme can be bad, but very much disagree that the extreme position to the right is fascism. All forms of state domination are firmly on the Left, where an all powerful state does what it must to provide for the "greater good".
You'd have to go back farther .... to the 1980 convention, when Poppy blackmailed his way onto the ticket, and got a power cut of the patronage.
Poppy had so much swing during the Reagan Administration that Reagan himself was on the defensive much of the time, trying to keep from being painted into a corner by Poppy's guys (James Baker, Dick Darman, Nicholas Brady et al.).
Then Poppy's guys ran off all the Reaganauts like Jude Wanniski and Arthur Laffer. The second Reagan Administration was really Poppy's first ..... and in that light, the People can be seen to have voted for Slick Willie as much out of Poppy fatigue as for any other reason.
I share your disdain, and Ross Perot's ("There are lions in the jungle, and there are tigers in the jungle. You're a rabbit."), but George H.W. Bush isn't conservative. He's a Yankee snob who caters for other Yankee snobs. Period.
When I read the writing on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial, I don't see any mention of any party - other than the implicit American one.What I see written there, are core American principles that must be understood and articulated if America is to be restored as per its original specification:"TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS, governments are instituted among men"
"NOTHING IS MORE CERTAINLY WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF FATE THAN THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE TO BE FREE.
ESTABLISH THE LAW FOR EDUCATING THE COMMON PEOPLE.
THIS IT IS THE BUSINESS OF THE FREEPER TO EFFECT AND ON A GENERAL PLAN...."
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.