Is it me, or does it seem like many “attacks” on “liberals” these days are coming not exclusively from bitter clinging Jesusfluffers, as the left would have you believe (and mark my words: this administration is looking for better ways to silence the opposition, now that the cries of “racism” and “hate” have become diluted by overuse and so have lost much of their power), but rather from libertarians and classical liberals who structure their arguments around appeals to law, founding principles, and intent? (And by libertarians and classical liberals I mean the real kind — not the Mahers or the Julian Sanchezes of the world, whose idea of freedom begins and ends at their zippers and bongs, and whose idea of an intellectual argument is a quip or a prolix exercise in question begging.)
To wit: having cited criticism of the Obama administration by a senior fellow at Cato earlier today, next up is Cato chairman and director of the Institute for Justice, Robert A. Levy, who offers his own very pointed criticisms of ObamaLot:
The litigation battle has begun. While the legal arguments are technical, the basic issue is straightforward: Can the federal government force people to buy a product — in this instance, health insurance — from a private company?
Advocates of Obamacare claim that the mandate to purchase health insurance is authorized under the Commerce Clause. But constitutional experts note that this expansion of power is unprecedented. The only way for the Supreme Court to find Obamacare constitutional via the Commerce Clause would be for it to announce, for the first time in 221 years, that there are essentially no structural limits on the federal government’s power to regulate interstate commerce.
I’ve already discussed how Scalia, among others, opened the door for just such an argument — though in this case I suspect he’ll have reason to walk back his previous ruling a bit. Which only goes to show that some “conservative” justices can become judicial activists themselves.
No worries, though. The adminstration’s lawyers are prepared to be rebuffed on this point:
[…] That’s why the administration had to devise a fallback position: that the penalty for not buying health insurance is authorized under Congress’s power “to lay and collect Taxes.” But that argument fails on three counts.
First, the penalty is not a tax; it’s a fine. The president said as much when confronted with the argument that it violated his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class.
“For an exaction to be a true tax,” writes the Institute for Justice, “it has to be a genuine revenue-raising measure.” IJ attorneys Jeff Rowes and Robert McNamara looked at 95 categories of state and federal taxes. Each of them had an obvious revenue-generating purpose. […] By contrast, Rowes and McNamara point out, the individual mandate “exists solely to coerce people into acquiring healthcare coverage. If the mandate were to work perfectly, it would raise literally no revenue.” The individual mandate is a civil regulation with a civil fine for noncompliance. Thus, the taxing power is irrelevant.
Second, even if the penalty for noncompliance is deemed to be a tax rather than a fine, it does not meet the constitutional requirements for income, excise, or direct taxes. The type of tax is determined by the event that triggers its incidence. In this case, the trigger is the non-purchase of health insurance.
Although the amount of the tax depends on income, it also depends on age, family size, geographic location, and smoking status. The penalty is no more an income tax than it is a smoking tax. In fact, higher income sometimes results in a lower penalty.
Certain taxes, such as the Social Security payroll tax, have been classified as excises, which are levied on the performance of an act or the enjoyment of a privilege. In current usage, “excise” covers virtually every internal revenue tax except the income tax. Maybe, in principle, the insurance penalty — imposed on the non-performance of an act — qualifies. But if so, the Constitution requires that “excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,” whereas the insurance penalty varies with location: Households in some areas are taxed while identical households in other areas are exempt.
The penalty may be closest to a direct tax, which can be either a capitation (imposed on each person) or an assessment on property. Arguably, the penalty is a negative tax on property — i.e., the non-ownership of the property (health insurance) triggers the tax. Yet it fails to satisfy the constitutional command that “direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States” by population.
The apportionment provision means that Congress must: first, decide the total revenue to be raised; second, allocate that amount among the states according to population; and third, divide each state’s allocation by its tax base to compute the rate. The insurance penalty is not apportioned. Indeed, because the purpose is not to raise revenue (the desired revenue is zero) and the tax base depends on how many residents of each state fail to purchase health insurance in a given year, the penalty cannot be apportioned.
[…]
The third reason the power to tax cannot justify an insurance mandate is that, even if the penalty is considered a tax and somehow survives the test for apportionment or uniformity, Congress cannot use the taxing power as a backdoor means of regulating an activity, unless the regulation is authorized elsewhere in the Constitution. That’s what the Supreme Court held in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. (1922). The IRS had penalized Drexel for employing an underage worker. The company asserted, successfully, that the penalty was actually a regulation of child labor, which at that time was considered to be an exclusive state prerogative. The law’s “prohibitory and regulatory effect and purpose are palpable,” wrote the Court. Ditto for the insurance mandate, a regulatory scheme explicitly designed to compel the purchase of health insurance.
Here’s the counterargument from the administration: Penalties are merely the flip side of credits, which are sprinkled throughout the tax code. If it’s constitutional to offer a tax credit for those who have health insurance, how could it be unconstitutional to impose a penalty on those who don’t? In both instances, insured persons pay less tax than uninsured persons.
That may sound plausible on its face, but there’s a big difference between credits and penalties. When Congress enacts a credit, it reduces the impact of a pre-existing, legitimate tax. Judicial scrutiny is then limited to ensuring that the rights of disfavored parties are adequately protected. In contrast, tax penalties imposed for a regulatory purpose must be authorized under an enumerated power independent of the taxing power. When Congress regulates, as in Drexel Furniture, the Constitution is implicated both to ensure that rights are protected and that Congress has not exceeded its authority.
To put it bluntly, the taxing power will not help the government defend the insurance mandate. Only the Commerce Clause remains as a potential source of authority, and this argument too is under vigorous attack in pending lawsuits.
Legal refinements aside, the insurance mandate is an affront to personal liberty that will exacerbate our health-care problems. For those who care, it’s unconstitutional as well.
Of course, affronts to personal liberty are being reframed as righteous attacks on the greedy and insular from the perspective of the greater good — with the concomitant idea, implied thereby, being that “liberty” can only be truly achieved through a kind of government enforcement of social consensus (which in the case of Obamacare is reduced even further to the suggestion that a legislative consensus amounts to the same thing).
Such an idea — much like the left’s reframing of “liberal” or “tolerance” — represents a complete inversion of traditional usage, even as it attempts to benefit from the historical usages it seeks actively to subvert.
What we are witnessing is a culmination of the long march through the institutions. The Obama administration — along with progressive legislators and an activist left-leaning media — have decided that now is their best opportunity to overthrow the classical liberal form of governance on which this country was founded in order to replace it with the postmodern, post-Enlightenment vision favored by progressives. Language means what the ascendant political class says is means; identity groups compete for government largess in an ever-growing client state, while simultaneously bracketing identity dissenters as inauthentic and so not qualified to speak on identity issues; the biggest businesses invite corporatism and liberal fascism if doing so means destroying their competition and having instant access to the corridors of power; “meritocracy” is the order of the day, with merit being determined by who best mouths leftist orthodoxy; and as federal government grows in size and reach, more and more it will find justifications to intrude on antiquated ideas of individual freedom in order to enforce the “freedoms” it attributes not as a byproduct of natural rights, but rather as government-granted — with the “greater good” taking social precedence over the whim of the individual (who is now seen as a kind of ungrateful outlier).
In the 80’s and ’90s, the revolt against such overreach was cast as “angry white men” throwing “temper tantrums.” During the Clinton years, we had the “vast rightwing conspiracy.” Today, resistance to a frighteningly expanded federal government is being cast as the “paranoid” “frothing” of racists, xenophobes, and two-digit redneck Bible thumpers — and a movement is afoot to shut down such opposition, mostly (for now) by trying to shame citizens into distancing themselves from fringe elements within the movement proper.
Don’t let it happen. Keep resisting. Laugh at charges of “racism.” And when you’re called a “bitter clinger” — patiently remind your accuser that clinging to the founding documents and the liberal principles of a free country makes much more sense then rushing headlong behind opportunistic leftists who have been busy removing institutional impediments set up precisely to problematize the kinds of overreach they are now engaging in.
Then show them your pickup truck.
So the mojo isn’t working. Democrats and their media oligarchy (i.e. The Man) can’t convince enough people that the underdog oppostion is really The Man. The false accusations have gotten more and more shrill and ridiculous. (“Seditious,” forsooth. Jesus H. Christ.)
The opposition is growing. The chasm of November beckons.
So, what are they going to pull next? How far are they willing to go? I mean, as far as merely running their mouths, they seem just about out of options. What is the next level, and will they go to it?
I hope the linguistic engineers are busy coming up with reframings of such terms as ‘bankrupt,’ ‘broke,’ ‘insolvent,’ and ‘Big Al and Louie the Mole would like to have a word with you.’
In the meantime, I’ll show ’em a lot more than just my pickup.
And do I ask too many goddamn questions?
“How far are they willing to go?”
As far as ever they suffer no consequence they cannot stomach.
Sanchezes? That’s how I’d plural Julian Sanchez, but hopefully there’s only one of him.
Julian Sanchez’s article on epistemic closure is, itself, epistemically closed.
Discuss.
There is a difference – a hair’s breadth, but still there – between “regulation” and “control.” The Congress and US gummit, et al, are not interested in regulating anything. They want absolute control over what I do.
Is there a Commerce Clause for that?
there have been so many vile and dishonest slams against the Taxed Enough Already Party movement, but one particularly slap-forehead one was advanced by Barry himself…
that why should anyone be out protesting taxes when they haven’t gone up…. (yet)
It’s as if dissenters should never be allowed to look forward OR backwards but, like good little sheep, only deal with the “now”
so when Obama’s minions change the past so 2 million jobs saved or created is reported NOW that is the new reality, biotches!
“They want absolute control over what I do.”
Maybe, but I doubt it, at least on the evidence we have so far. That their policies might lead to such a position could be the case, but I’d guess they’d be content if you (or we) would simply comply with their “nudgery” for now. Absolute is way messy, not just for us, but for lazy fucks like Obama.
There is a difference – a hair’s breadth, but still there – between “regulation” and “control.”
That’s actually another one you can put on the board, next to “liberal” and “tolerance.” Anyone who has studied the historical records enough will recognize that “to regulate” meant “to make regular.” A well-regulated militia was a militia that performed enough drills to make it reliable. Well-regulated commerce between the states meant that contracts would be upheld, making commerce reliable.
Today, you need an army of lawyers if you want to do any serious commerce, because the regulation that was supposed to make commerce reliable has been perverted into making it unreliable. The government that was supposed to be limited to ensuring a reliable business environment is now so domineering and fickle that businesses refuse to make further investment.
Yet another example of the reasons why Jeff’s fight against the perversion of meaning is so important.
I’m not going to put up with little griefer quips. Make an argument or go away.
“Maybe, but I doubt it, at least on the evidence we have so far. ”
Evidence like, say, how you season your food?
What’s your point Lee?
“Make an argument or go away”
And the crowd said YAY!
That is a lie and you are a liar, lambskin.
That there is evidence the proggs want absolute control of our lives.
Squid
The EPA press release annoucing their video contest was quite revealing
No horror film made quite matches that …
Unless the rhetoric of the nanny state enslaving us a tad overblown and should be condemned.
The governmental justification to force a purchase is right next to the paragraph on salt regulations, nutritional info signs and the necessity of licensing nail salons. Our mistake is in looking for this language in the Constitution. Maybe The Nation or TNR would be a better bet.
Darleen,
It is enough to keep one up at night. Though I’ll admit I’m looking forward to some awesomely cheeky videos from those who understand that “The government controls your life from pre-kindergarten until death” isn’t the wonderful advertising message the EPA wishes it was.
Jeff, did you get my mail?
“That there is evidence the proggs want absolute control of our lives.”
So, have they abolished elections already? And if not, why not? They must believe that they can have absolute control while they leave us a voting opportunity? Something about that does seem to me to fit.
Fail. “doesn’t seem to fit” was what I intended there, sorry.
OMG, Darleen, if I had more time, and was a bit more creative, I’d have a ball with that. That site (regulations.gov) is a fine example of everything wrong with the federal government. OYE.
Of course they think this is their best chance, they only get weaker after 2010.
“… “liberty” can only be truly achieved through a kind of government enforcement of social consensus (which in the case of Obamacare is reduced even further to the suggestion that a legislative consensus amounts to the same thing).”
So personal liberty can only be achieved by government enforcement of social concensus…Wow. Just/Wow…
It is truly a brave new world they want to institute.
It’s easy to see now why the talking point, “the will of the people, and the consent of the governed, is realized and satisfied by the very election of any given politician”, appeared so quickly in the wake of the House’s shameful Obamacare vote that actually countermanded the will of most of their constituents. It’s because legislative consesus can be relativistically equated to social consesus and then be said to be a perfect representation of the “democracy” that the US is.
More moral relativism, revisionism, and perversion of the language…
You are correct Jeff, it’s the culmination of the long march through the institutions. And, because of Obama’s personal arrogane, the progressives “in your face” style, and the unexpected and widespread resistance among the regular folks, they realize that this is there one chance to ram through stuff they’ve waited years for; issues, agendas, and policy aims that could never stand the light of day of any real debate nor would achieve any popular appeal among rank and file Americans-and as such would be doomed to failure.
That’s why I almost think this bunch may become more kamikaze like, especially as it becomes clear what a bloodbath the mid-terms truly will be. We worry about what they’ll do now, but imagine what might occur during the lame duck session folowing those elections?
Stuff could be rammed through that could not easily be overturned with Obama still in office to veto any legislation that did so.
Electorally suicidal? Yes. But if the legislation has the effect they desire, that you describe abovem well then what’s it matter in the short term?
You have to break a few eggs to make omeletes-right? Which is why we all need to keep our pitchforks handy.
Go buy a truck…a Toyota, just to piss them off.
The governmental justification to force a purchase is right next to the paragraph on salt regulations, nutritional info signs and the necessity of licensing nail salons.
My parents have a swimming pool. Dad thinks the diving board is getting a little long-in-the-tooth and asks the pool guy about getting a new board. Pool guy says, “I’d love to, but I don’t have a license to install it.” (it is one of several contractor’s licenses in CA)
Dad figures, screw this, I’ll just get some paint made for diving boards and spruce it up myself. A quick trip to the Pool Supplies place but he can’t find the paint. Why? Because, the manager explains, they would have to have a special license to sell paint. !!!
Dad goes to Home Depot and buys a paint that will adhere to plastics and figures if it lasts a couple of seasons that will be fine.
The will to save is the will to rule. It’s exactly that simple.
Sdferr, I didn’t say they had it (yet), I said they want it. And strive daily to achieve it.
Just reading that anecdote raises my blood pressure, Darleen. Heaven forbid an adult would like to work on his swimming pool without proper supervision.
Those licenses reflect laws that are there to protect you from bad, bad things. You should be happy.
BE HAPPY, DAMMIT!!!
Well, maybe somewhere in their black little hearts they do want it Lee, but that’s a case you’ld have to make, beyond just attributing it to them. Leaving elections intact seems to me a dumb way for them to go about it. On the other hand, so long as our electoral choices helps them out, so long they can afford to conceal their longer term black-hearted purpose, eh?
OMG SUPPRESSION OF DISSENT WTFBBQ!!!!1!!!!!!!!!
Darleen, for the next time, suggest to your Dad that he check out sign painters paint. Time was, though it probably is no more, that sign paints (like 1-Shot) still had lead in ’em when lead had been removed from all other paints. In any event, they’re made to hold up well in the elements.
This is a soft takeover. They won’t abolish elections; they’ll work to keep them stacked in their favor.
Leaving elections intact gives the illusion of freedom. As does their use of words like “liberty,” “tolerance,” “equality,” and “fairness.”
You are underestimating what is happening for the chance to appear more nuanced, I fear.
They desire control. Their method is to nudge in places where control would be noticeable, and take control of places where it is not.
“that’s a case you’ld have to make, beyond just attributing it to them”
*Yawn*
Whatever dude. Convincing you of the obvious is at the bottom of my list of things to do today.
Fuck a chance to appear. If we vote the bastards out and demand a return to sensible interpretation, they don’t get absolute anything. Or is that simply an impossibility?
Darleen, I am surprised the State of California is not mandating that your parents, being too old, cannot safely use a pool, and that it should be drained and either made into a mini wetland or a place where kids can come uninvited to use their skateboards.
And if they get hurt they can sue your parents.
“Language means what the ascendant political class says is means…”
Every time I think Orwellian is an overused adjective I find that I have not yet become cynical enough.
And do you think I don’t know that it’s a soft takeover, seeing as how I’ve made precisely that argument before myself? But that such a “benign” tyranny does differ in important respects from full blown absolutist or totalitarian tyranny? Any difference, it seems to me, is still worth distinguishing, if such a difference exists, if only for the sake of staying square with ourselves and how we account for such things. But hey, if we’re supposed to muddy absolutely everything into unintelligibility, let’s get to it then!
The final stage of dictatorship is usually put up to plebiscite. Napoleon thrived on them, as did Saddam Hussein.
Darleen
How long before some federal regulatory agency “fixes” that loophole?
I am literally surprised that California still allows diving boards.
OK, I’m pretty sure VDH reads PW.
There are so many things that are illegal, a good portion of us are probably felons and don’t know it.
sdferr,
The lead had nothing to do with durability; lead oxide was the white color base. It has been replaced with titanium dioxide, which is just as white, but non-toxic. Older paints that were very durable, but no longer available, may have had higher VOC (volatile organic compounds – hydrocarbon) content that are no longer allowed because of “causing air pollution”.
“But hey, if we’re supposed to muddy absolutely everything into unintelligibility, let’s get to it then!”
Muddy? Like conflating desire with accomplishment?
Darleen, I am surprised the State of California is not mandating that your parents, being too old, cannot safely use a pool
Actually, this is the second diving board at my parents’ home. The pool was first built in 1965 and up until about the late 80’s it had this really fun spring board. You could really launch yourself off it.
When it came time to replace, guess what? Spring boards were now outlawed for residential pools as too “dangerous”. The diving board now is just a rigid fixed board over the water.
:::sigh::::
No Lee, like at the point that one is persuaded one is facing an absolutist, one is faced with the appropriate response, which, it seems to me, will involve a great deal of killing going in both directions. Are we there yet? I think not.
Older paints that were very durable, but no longer available, may have had higher VOC (volatile organic compounds – hydrocarbon) content that are no longer allowed because of “causing air pollution”.
Which explains why one has to have their house painted more often.
I remember when using swings it was fun to really get going and then jump off while moving forward and fly out and land in the sand. I would not be surprised if swings were outlawed on that basis. Someone could get a boo-boo.
“Are we there yet? I think not.”
Me neither.
But then quit worrying about moving towards tyranny. You can still vote, right?
Did I suggest we should cease with worry? Anywhere? That’s just stupid. Then are you stupid Lee?
If a swastika wearing Buddhist walks in the forest without anyone seeing him, but then someone finds out and questions his intent, is he he still a racist?
If you say so sdferr.
And why the lines on the street have to be repainted several times a year… Seriously, I’m not effing kidding, the older oil-based (high VOC) paint was replaced with a water-based one, and the lines are faded/worn off in a couple of months. Not years like before.
Yeah, well I don’t think you are stupid Lee. So then I ask myself, what’s got into Lee, that he seems to think I’ve placed worry about the onslaught of tyranny aside? And I land back at our differences on questions of religion. Is that what motivates your attribution to me things I do not believe? Or what?
This way we need more people to paint lines in the street, which creates more jobs. Why are you against people working, Spiny?
That’s not the point. The point is, that’s the goal of those who only appear to be nudging.
It’s a game of chess. If you wish to nitpick the use of “absolute control,” that’s fine, I guess; there will always be, of course, some latitude given for “freedoms.” But once the government can legitimately claim it has a vested interest in controlling behavior — under the rubric of paying for healthcare, or providing for safety, etc. — they will move inexorably in that direction. Until we are constrained on all sides. At which point, checkmate.
I see no reason to make such a distinction here, when we all know what it is we’re talking about is of yet a potentiality — albeit one that has the preconditions increasingly in place.
Smoking (tobacco) is just the start of it. They will likely lighten up on dope, however, because it is easy to control people who are high. Just offer them cheap tasty munchies.
Mr Victor needs to be careful saying such things. He’ll rile up the cumsluts that way and will destroy the road to most staunchness.
Plus weed cures all ailments, but Big Pharm does not want you to find that out.
The munchies aren’t going to be very tasty when all the salt is removed.
It seems to me that we’re always standing in the presence of the confrontation of force or coercion with our liberties, but that we’ve a choice to take it up in each and every instance. Take the reporters pushed back in Lafayette Park yesterday. They could have stood their ground and been arrested. They chose to back up instead.
We always have to bear the calculation in mind: it seems to me inescapable, though not necessarily something to be foregrounded. Yet it is this calculation, when do we take the stance, no, not here, no farther, that the time has finally come that we have had to conclude, this is a demand for an absolute decision. It isn’t a nitpick. It lies at the root of every political situation imaginable.
“And I land back at our differences on questions of religion”
Well…that’s odd.
And kinda insulting.
If insulting then, I apologize for that, as I had no intention to insult you. But I’m at a loss to understand what the problem is then. Though you could help by throwing light on it rather than take offense at my error.
Are LBascom and sdferr quibbling about Obamunist soft totalitarianism vs hard leftism? Are they not the same?
Perhaps read back through our exchange, and include Jeffs comments, as he is basically saying the same things as I, only better of course.
Again, I was talking about the proggs desire to control, not that they already have complete control. It seems at times you are contrary just for the sport of it.
Again, I was talking about the proggs desire to control, not that they already have complete control.
They are certainly heading that way. And too many people are cheering them on. I shudder.
Sometimes resolutions are very difficult be resolute towards. I endeavor.
When viewing in toto the ever expanding regulatory state the phrase evinces a design springs to mind. What matter are elections when the elected have no hope of ever undoing this morass of infinite scope and control? Consent of the governed is thus rendered moot.
Guns and Gawd. Whites united to bring down the negro muslim president.
That is not even a good attempt at Moby-ism. Now, run back to your little place and high five all your buddies, little liar boy.
“It seems at times you are contrary just for the sport of it.”
So, frivolous then, and that I don’t mean what I write? Or that taking up a hypothetical, ever, for whatever purpose, means the very act of that taking up is only sport, rather than a means to learn something? Or I don’t know.
I saw Beck yesterday approaching his strategic recommendations in this fight as a return to the means and tactics employed by Martin Luther King in the fight for civil rights, though Beck hasn’t filled in the picture he will draw quite yet. So, against the soft tyrant (I’m guessing), the opponents will gather in protest, to heighten the contradictions with the soft tyrant’s will and their freedoms, and through suffering non-violently at the hands of the “authorities”, bring the sympathies of the bystanding masses to bear on the Government, as the sympathetic masses realize the justice of the cause of liberty. And of course, the vote. But a vote isn’t enough. Minds have to change, radically I’d suggest, to return to a better interpretation of the charters we’ve been bequeathed.
Pot is often a fine example of the ultimate difference. Many of my progressive friends are in favor of legalization. When I agree and argue that this is a fine example of someplace the Federal government simply has no business being involved in they lose all interest in the discussion.
They are quite happy substituting government permission for personal freedom, so long as what is permitted is what they may prefer.
“Comment by cranky-d on 4/21 @ 11:43 am #
There are so many things that are illegal, a good portion of us are probably felons and don’t know it.”
Here you go, cranky…..
“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers – then you cash in on the guilt”
-Ayn Rand
Guns and Gawd. Whites united to bring down the negro muslim president.
And of course, the troll cites the Commiecrat News Network. After quoting DeMint’s likening of the Tea Parties to another Great Awakening, the Commiecrat News Network suddenly drops this non-sequitur in:
“The National Humanities Center describes the Great Awakening as a reaffirmation of the view that “being truly religious meant trusting the heart rather than the head, prizing feeling more than thinking, and relying on biblical revelation rather than human reason.”
Yeah, because it’s just such a fine example of human reason for the Obamunists to declare that Bush’s $200-billion shortfall was a terrible deficit, yet their 2 trillion-dollar shortfall is “stimulus.”
The lamestream media isn’t even trying anymore.
As you pointed out ThomasD, all turns on whether “can legitimately claim” loses any tincture of “the consent of the governed”. Once that’s gone, game over. But the going of or disappearance of that “consent” as the ultimate source of any and all authority is the question of will at hand. Do the governed will it or no? And at root, I guess, my challenge to the suggestion of an absolute control falls finally to a question of coercion in the starkest terms, live or die?
Guns n’ Gawd is one of Barry’s cumsluts, riled up by Mr. Victor no doubt.
They are quite happy substituting government permission for personal freedom, so long as what is permitted is what they may prefer.
They define “freedom” as “the ability to put anything in their mouths or up their anuses without consequence, and then the ability to have someone else pay to bail them out when the consequences occur.”
“Comment by lambchop on 4/21 @ 12:54 pm #
Is it a “greifer quip” to point out that the Republicans increased the size of the federal government 50% under Bush?”
You miss a LOT, don’t you, moron?
Regarding some posts also on the page today, once the government can legitimately claim it has a vested interest in controlling the entire monetary system — under the rubric of too big to fail — they will move inexorably in that direction.
And as they considered the ramifications, the voters nodded, appreciatively.
Oh.
The Bush administration spent like drinken sailors.
The Obama regime spends like an Armada on crack.
Yup.
“What the government is good at is collecting taxes, taking away your freedoms and killing people. It’s not good at much else.”
-Tom Clancy
http://www.regulations.gov ?
.gov? WTF government agency runs that??
No. We don’t what a greifer is.
Don’t have time to look for it now, but didn’t some alphabet nework stiff ask a Tea Partier “what did freedom get us with the financial meltdown?”
They radio shows were playing it all day yesterday.
Freedom is bad. It allow people to do bad things.
Wow, I preempted the lambchop troll, 4 posts ahead.
You can go back to riding the Sybian, lambchop, with an obama dildo dong in your mouth at the same time.
sdferr,
The initial disagreement seems to be over whether or not we have evidence that the Proggs would like control over every part of our lives. Given that over the past 70 years we’ve seen them take over the schools, the universities, the bureaucracy, the media, retirement planning, half the health care system and 30% of everything we earn, and that over the last two years we’ve seen them grab manufacturing, finance, the rest of the health care system, and pile trillions in debt on our children, I’d say that there is sufficient evidence for such a claim. Recently reported proposals regarding nutritional strictures and taxes on energy and added value provide evidence that the Proggs aren’t done yet.
I agree that we still hold regular elections, and I agree that nonviolent protest and civil disobedience are still good options. But I don’t see how you can’t see that there’s nothing the Left considers off-limits any more, when it comes to controlling how you live your life.
“And if the Tea Partys had started while Bush was in office they’d have much more “small government” cred.”
It kinda did. Ever hear of “Porkulus”?
Congress didn’t change hands in 2006 so much because the Dems earned it, it was lost by the Repubs crazy spending and the base being disgusted with same.
0 results for keyword “rules for bitch-slapping regulation-making homos”
there’s work to be done
No. The question in not the presence of any tincture, the question is one of a pattern that points inexorably in one direction.
The Founders did not face a decision of life or death until it was time to sign the document, prior to that it was merely a matter of accepting subordinate political status in perpetuity.
Out foul sock puppet
This “That their policies might lead to such a position could be the case, but I’d guess they’d be content if you (or we) would simply comply with their “nudgery” for now. Absolute is way messy, not just for us, but for lazy fucks like Obama.” didn’t cover it then, I guess, eh Squid?
Is it a queefer grip to point out that the Republicans were cast into the wilderness for their fiscal profligacy, and that the Tea Parties began only after people realized that their options were “really terrible” and “so abysmally horrible we can scarce believe it’s happening?”
Yes, that is a dishonest quip, you liar.
But that such a “benign” tyranny does differ in important respects from full blown absolutist or totalitarian tyranny? Any difference, it seems to me, is still worth distinguishing, if such a difference exists, if only for the sake of staying square with ourselves and how we account for such things.
This is how I account for the differences:
Stalin & Hitler and their ilk were “bad father” dictators who controlled the populace through punishment, death, and fear of same. They were militaristic, dedicated to “direct action” and other forms of violence.
The newer version of tyranny is “bad mother,” who controls through dependence and guilt (shunning) and other forms of emasculating the population to the point where it can’t survive without Big Mother providing the means for living.
The Bad Mother tyrant is not scary like Bad Father. Bad Mother lulls you into complacency. Bad Mother loves you.
I don’t know the degree to which we can compare Bad Mother to Bad Father. Europe’s Bad Mother has emasculated and ennervated the population much more than ours has; I don’t know if there’s any historical analog to show us how to get rid of Bad Mother.
I imagine we’ll have internal collapse, wherein Bad Mother runs out of heroin-dipped pacifiers for her screaming children. And then Bad Father comes along to restore order.
That’s when the violence starts.
“but I’d guess they’d be content if you (or we) would simply comply with their “nudgery” for now.”
Like the gay community was happy when they achieved civil unions?
That is the base of my argument. Proggs will never be content with their current “nudgery”
As of tomorrow, contractors can’t work on a pre-1978 house without going through elaborate training, certification, and EPA required procedures to test for lead paint in any area to be renovated. I had heard that this only applied if there were kids living in the house, but I am not sure about that. There are all manner of expensive compliance requirements in the event that lead is detected, and the whole thing is a crushing burden for the contractors. The EPA has done little to notify the industry about the new requirements, but the fines for failure to comply are hefty.
Needless to say, all of your projects just got a lot more expensive, unless you plan to do the work for yourself. So much for that industry. NEXT!
Isn’t it great to have a million little fiefdoms out there regulating our lives away?
“The Founders did not face a decision of life or death until it was time to sign the document, prior to that it was merely a matter of accepting subordinate political status in perpetuity.”
So let me put this another way, if I may. The founders did face that position once they signed the document. When do the beneficiaries take up that position themselves? When they go to war against an outside agency once again (I think they do)? When they go to war with one another over eliminating slavery (I think they do)? When they face the disappearance of the meaning of the charter by slovenly intellectual means?
Comment by Squid on 4/21 @ 1:11 pm #
Is it a queefer quip to point out that the Republicans were cast into the wilderness for their fiscal profligacy, and that the Tea Parties began only after people realized that their options were “really terrible” and “so abysmally horrible we can scarce believe it’s happening?”
Comment by JD on 4/21 @ 1:11 pm #
Yes, that is a dishonest quip, you liar.
Whoa. I think we all understand that by 2006 too many “republicans” in congress had become the bloated, tone-deaf toads that were repudiated in 1994. Didn’t amnesty prove that? Obviously, to vote in the Commiecrats was even worse and foolish, but when the GOP stopped making a real difference, why is it a “lie” to understand this?
Why do I get the feeling there is some nasty infighting going on about issues with which we are 99% together?
That was just bad timing. I was referring to nipplenut/lambskin. Not Squid, who is far from dishonest.
Curmudgeon, I think JD was attempting humor.
I know…;-)
Remember, the readers of this site never complained about GOP pork, Medicare D, etc… oh, wait, they did.
Pick a fight with the imaginary GOP rah-rah crowd in your head, but you shan’t find them here.
sdferr,
Speaking only for myself, I found your assertion that (paraphrasing) “absolute control is way too messy for the lazy Proggs” to be less convincing than the evidence that they’re still moving in that direction. And even if you’re right, and they can’t or don’t want to achieve complete control over us, does that mean we should be content to see our liberties continue to erode?
“Like the gay community was happy when they achieved civil unions?
That is the base of my argument. Proggs will never be content with their current “nudgery” ”
Achieved!
Ah, I see. So where I see gay people wanting a family, you see a progg busy at nudgery. That does help some, I think.
This is why the TEA parties didn’t start under Bush:
(1) The topic of discussion at the time was the Iraq war: to be there or not to be there. All of our energy on the blogosphere and elsewhere was concentrated on fighting THAT fight.
(2) If we’d taken to the streets with STOP SPENDING signs, we’d have been barely distinguishable from Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink and the anti-war crowd. No WAY were we going to give them the slightest bit of aid or comfort.
(3) Conservatives are not stirred to action easily. Almost all of the people in the TEA parties have never protested openly before.
(4) We still felt like our reps in the gubmint more or less listened to us. When they tried the comprehensive immigration reform, we melted the phone lines and they backed down. No need to take to the streets when you feel that your peeps in the beltway can still be reasoned with.
(5) The impetus for the TEA parties came from the Stimulus, which we knew from experience would do NOTHING to stimulate the economy. We also saw the enormous price tag and connected the dots: big debt and big deficit equals huge tax burdens down the road. Then when that duud on MSNBC ranted about the economic insanity of the Stimulus and said “we need to hold a new tea party,” a movement was born.
(6) We’re a center-right country and Obama is a man of the Left. We knew that he and Reid and Pelosi would not listen to us and we have been utterly correct. We’re worried about the long-term effects of this obscene debt and deficit Obama has single-handedly incurred.
“…does that mean we should be content to see our liberties continue to erode?”
Please. Where, please, again, have I suggested any such thing? I mean really. Content?
Rick Santelli of CNBC.
Like I even care what a twodigit racist like JD thinks of me in the first place…
“Ah, I see. So where I see gay people wanting a family, you see a progg
busy at nudgerytactic of incrementalism. That does help some, I think.”And with that, you’ve exhausted my patience. Think what you want.
. The founders did face that position once they signed the document.
Exactly. The encroachments and coercions they faced were not a yet a matter of life and death, and may never have even reached that level. Yet surely they felt the reasons for signing what could prove to be their own death warrant were worthy of being described as ‘absolute despotism.’
Okay then, sdferr, spell it out for me, because I’m grasping at straws here: what was your point in stating that the Proggs would stop short of total control? You pushed back on that assertion, and you pushed back when presented with evidence (“seasoning our food”) to back it up. To what end?
Ah, I see. So where I see gay people wanting a family, you see a progg busy at nudgery. That does help some, I think.
Ok, if we are goinig to quibble about the 1%, then LBascom is right and you don’t get it. The Commiecrat “proggs” just want to render the definitions of marriage and family meaningless, as that means one less structure to resist the socialist nanny-state.
Tocqueville set out a definition of the soft despotism early on, perhaps first among men even. He uses the term absolute, sure enough, just before he describes a relationship of government to governed as akin to parent to child. And then speaks of perpetual childhood. Which, isn’t like what happens with parents and children at all, or at least for the most part. A perpetual childhood would have to be (again, for the most part) an extremely artificial thing. No parent would desire that for their child, would they? Again, mostly I mean? They want their children to grow up, get out, become parents themselves so they can be grandparents or great-grandparents even.
how does letting some fraction of “the 1%” marry each other “render the definitions of marriage and family meaningless” exactry?
“Ok, if we are goinig to quibble about the 1%, then LBascom is right and you don’t get it. The Commiecrat “proggs” just want to render the definitions of marriage and family meaningless, as that means one less structure to resist the socialist nanny-state.”
So, I am unable to differentiate between some gay guy or girl wanting a civil union and some political actor somewhere using those gay’s desires to “to render the definitions of marriage and family meaningless”.
Sheesh.
Tocqueville doesn’t equivocate between government and parenting so much as contrast between the two, saying, “It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood.”
I think his “on the contrary” phrase is important.
The parenthood analogy ultimately fails as all rational parents must recognize their own eventual mortality.
Governments, not so much.
So the employee read the note and then … smelled the ticket?
WIN!
“Yet surely they felt the reasons for signing what could prove to be their own death warrant were worthy of being described as ‘absolute despotism.’”
So we don’t disagree on that, which I thought obvious anyhow. But what of the latter question? When do we take up their position. I mean, if we’ve decided that there is no choice but an inexorable march to absolute control, what stops us from thinking, well fuck it, why wait for further depredations that we’ve already decided will certainly come? Or are we not in fact so certain? And that’s the rub, isn’t it? I mean in the game of chess, when we see our king’s a goner, we pitch him over, don’t we?
And if not (which in this case would stand as certainty of the absolute posited) we keep playing for the victory, or stalemate at worst.
Or are we not in fact so certain?
Not sure who this ‘we’ is.
Speaking solely for myself I’m certain.
A big part of the complaint, sdferr, is that for generations, we’ve allowed our chess opponent to get away with redefining how the pieces move. What’s worse, when we complain about such arbitrary rule changes, the chess press writes that we’re cheating, or that we’re sore losers.
They can only win if we let them keep cheating. The premise of this post — hell, the premise of PW in its entirety — is that we shouldn’t let them get away with it any more.
“Speaking solely for myself I’m certain.”
Which is fine ThomasD because you may have it right and I have it wrong. What follows then? Time to sign? Or time to write again as they wrote? And then sign?
“how does letting some fraction of “the 1%” marry each other “render the definitions of marriage and family meaningless” exactry?”
Marriage has a meaning. Marriage has a purpose. Gay marriage perverts both. You don’t really need this viewpoint explained yet again, do you?
Another Progg tactic: When a large majority reject your attempts to change one of the things that made America strong, try again. Then again. Then again. Then again. Eventually you will wear down the resistance through fatigue, and you will get what you want, regardless the desire of the majority and the consequences to the fabric of society. Immediately move on to your next cause, and repeat until tha barbarians breach the gate.
Well yes, it is apparent that was the gist of your argument – ‘so what are you prepared to do about it?’
So?
It would be premature and foolish to speak of any limits as to what I am prepared to do. Suffice to say that at this time I am ready and willing to ‘patiently remind (my) accuser that clinging to the founding documents and the liberal principles of a free country makes much more sense then rushing headlong behind opportunistic leftists who have been busy removing institutional impediments set up precisely to problematize the kinds of overreach they are now engaging in.’
We would also do well to remember that by the time Patrick Henry gave his famous speech, and in the following year when the document was signed, the shooting had already long since commenced.
“[…]the postmodern, post-Enlightenment vision favored by progressives.”
Upon re-reading, this sticks out to me. It’s a “in a nutshell” sort of thing much like the also referenced inversion of liberalism.
I imagine we’ll have internal collapse, wherein Bad Mother runs out of heroin-dipped pacifiers for her screaming children. And then Bad Father comes along to restore order.
If you correct, and I do not see it as escapable, then there is ample historical precedence that shows just that.
Many tyrannies, almost all, will at least start off trying to manipulate you and get you to consent to being controlled for your own good. Only when that fails do they turn to ‘or else’. I can think of very few that started off from the get go with “You’re mine, I own you” and rose to power on that.
Hitler and Stalin were both very keen on redefining language, on manipulation, on the revision of history, etc, to the end of making people believe all these acts were in their best interest. Giving them true freedom. Not exploiting them like the capitalist oligarchs did.
Hitler was popularly elected you know.
In which case there is no difference. They are merely two tactics.
First rule of progressive club: implicitly assert that the Enlightenment was like totally overrated.
Hitler was popularly elected you know.
That’s been argued a bit here in the past. About the closest Hitler ever came to a popular election was his election as head of the NSDAP. After that everything was a combination of parliamentary maneuvering, and ‘extra-legal’ if not frankly illegal acts.
The key being that all those over-reaches were tolerated if not necessarily celebrated. They too evinced a design, but people were unwilling to step forward.
“…when we complain about such arbitrary rule changes, the chess press writes that we’re cheating, or that we’re sore losers.”
Ok, so no more complaining then, or at least less of it, since that’s apparently mostly useless for stopping the cheating. Which, hey, good.
And now stopping the cheating will consist of: 1) better voting choices by the mis-educated children-like objects of the parental authoritarian government’s attentions (it’s hard to be for that)? 2) Better educations for the children in the schools, so they will understand what generations now have not understood about our politics (all for that!)? 3) Chiding ourselves and our peers when presented with the opportunities to stand up for our liberties (stand up non-violently, we hastily append) we or they fail to do so, as the press did yesterday in Lafayette Park, saying to ourselves: “For shame! Do better next time.”? 4) Follow bh down the memory trip to the origins of the Enlightenment and the more distant memories those creating the Enlightenment had of the pre-Enlightenment they were aiming to escape (which, yay!)? 5) ?
Off-topic, or on topic ;-) this post provides a great vivisection of the abject BS and contempt for the Constitution that the modern Left has. One can only hope that the Courts do not share that view, though I suspect they do.
hello this would be fun to map over election results I think but I’d also bet someone somewhere’s already doing it
I wonder, as the Enlightenment was very much about telling kings and popes to back off, could we not view its continued success as fully contingent upon the everyman never really considering that being a king or a pope was also a group option?
It’s always amazed me that Hitler’s primary beef with Communists (and he did seem to truly loathe communists) was that they were not communist enough.
His main criticism was that the revolution of Communism had been co-opted by formlerly capitalist oligarchs and bourgeois, and it was simply now the new rhetorical method to oppress the proles same as ever. So like Communist rhetorical as well, it was all about freedom from oppression for the workin’ man. In that, Hitler and Lenin and Stalin might all call themselves liberals.
Hitler was big on smoking bans (the link between tobacco and lung cancer was originally drawn by NaZi scientists), education, affordable automobiles and housing, full employment, payed vacations, free screening for breast cancer, first to ban asbestos and compensate asbestos workers for damages, and ban lead and mercury from use in consumer products.
If he’s the archetype ‘hard tyrant’ he’s a bit soft.
Now Qin Shi Huang, there was a guy that just said ‘Shut up or I kill you.’
“I wonder, as the Enlightenment was very much about telling kings and popes to back off, could we not view its continued success as fully contingent upon the everyman never really considering that being a king or a pope was also a group option?”
That’s a tough parse bh. Never considered as like just never even noticed to have a consideration, or never as never bothered to go any further after noticing because groupy king-popes were shite in their minds already or never because king-popes aren’t really a group option under the necessary dynamics of human interaction as demonstrated by Uncle Joe?
I’d say the pushback is already happening. The whole “racist redneck” thing is already played out; more people are speaking out against government expansion no matter that it’s for their own good; more of the criminals in Congress are realizing that their days are numbered; more of the electorate is getting involved in taking over their local party apparatus; more people are questioning the usefulness and veracity of the traditional media.
As LTC John noted in the other thread, we have an opportunity to pull the pendulum back this fall. To that, I would add that it isn’t enough just to slow down the descent, or to minimize the damage. We need to continue pressing for a restoration of our traditional liberty, and a reduction of the federal government’s scope.
We may be able to undo some of the ratcheting we’ve seen since WWII (or at least since the Great Society). To be honest, I’m not holding out a lot of hope that we’ll be so successful. I think limited government will come when the money runs out, and there’s no way to pay back the Chinese. Hence, continuing preparations for when the shit hits the fan. But in the meantime, it doesn’t cost much to keep advocating that we steer away from the approaching cliff.
Oh, muttonhead, have ye no comprehension of metaphor?
“We need to continue pressing for a restoration of our traditional liberty, and a reduction of the federal government’s scope.”
So agree with this position Squid. And it is the key, I think. For if a large majority takes up this position, undoing the dreck that’s been done athwart the original understanding would be more or less straightforward. And not too contentious, I’d guess. It’s the getting to that restoration that’s the hard part.
Well, one reason why the Enlightenment was popular was because of the perception of the ruler. A king or pope. He’s one person and you can’t be him. Someone else can be him, some duke or cardinal but never you. So, screw that guy and yay for all political philosophies that tell him to shove it.
Because of this dynamic, the feudal system was then slowly replaced by representative governments. And it makes me wonder, does the emotional attachment to the Enlightenment ideals almost automatically lose strength when a) you could actually join government or b) your “team” can take over government and king/pope the ever-loving shit out of your opponents?
Viewed as such, classical liberals simply decide that they’d rather never let anyone be a king/pope collectively in exchange for never being on the receiving end of those injustices and progressives are happy to let people be a king/pope collectively in exchange for occasionally being on the giving end of those injustices.
bh, I’m still puzzling over the question whether the world of the pre-Enlightenment has been banished for good and aye (as I think some people believe, Prof. Davies among them if I don’t misunderstand him) or has not been banished at all, as I believe VDH insists over and again when he calls us to think of the world in war or to the elites of San Francisco to think of the struggles that take place on the farms that produce their food. To the extent that the contentions over this question are real contentions of any worth at all, I think I stand over with VDH a little bit more, but that is largely a product of the violent world of building stuff I’ve inhabited most of my life, and as such, may be too anecdotal a thing to trust.
And if the Tea Partys had started while Bush was in office they’d have much more “small government” cred.
I’ve been here the whole time as a Classical Liberal, lambchop, a standpoint from which I’ll then also ask your argument validly, though inversely,”When are the so-called Progressives going to admit to the infiltration and takeover of the Democrat Party by Communists? When are non-Progressive Democrats going to admit it and make the call? Especially now that the Communist thug, Obama, and his Commiecrats are standing right in front of you and them, in effect as you and them.”
I was always visible as a Classical Liberal, lambchop. Why do you always dissemble? No cred?
Thanks for the link to de Tocqueville, sdferr. It’s been a while since I read him.
It is in vain to summon a people who have been rendered so dependent on the central power to choose from time to time the representatives of that power; this rare and brief exercise of their free choice, however important it may be, will not prevent them from gradually losing the faculties of thinking, feeling, and acting for themselves, and thus gradually falling below the level of humanity….
…To manage those minor affairs in which good sense is all that is wanted, the people are held to be unequal to the task; but when the government of the country is at stake, the people are invested with immense powers; they are alternately made the play things of their ruler, and his masters, more than kings and less than men.
I read de Tocqueville’s observations, and his analyses, and I am amazed and humbled. And then I realize that I’m reading it all in translation, and I wonder all the more.
Oh, I’d say the pre-Enlightenment world is actually The World most places on the planet at this very moment. Including the US.
Work calls. Later.
Yeah, I think like that too sometimes, though I am forced to admit I know very little of it at all but what I hear told.
Why are you letting the revived virus “lambchop” back in here?
You know it’s just the latest mutation of the “alphie/monkeyboy” pustular pestulance.
Considering he bought those votes with 35 million in illegal donations (FEC estimate — about which they did nothing, because “he won”), yes, he did cheat to win.
I know my observations are extremely obvious but I can’t help but puzzle over the intentional rejection of a movement that has been so damn successful in granting liberty and prosperity.
It’s like someone wanting to outlaw antibiotics simply in the hopes that that annoying neighbor down the street might die of an infection.
Okay, now work is using my middle name while calling. That’s how you can tell it’s pissed.
He didn’t have to cheat to win, though. The deck was stacked in his favor: inspirational biography; unpopular war; economic upheaval; incompetent opponent; technological advantage.
The Dems didn’t cheat to win. They cheated because they knew they could.
…whose idea of an intellectual argument is a quip…
Hey! I resemble that remark!
“I know my observations are extremely obvious but I can’t help but puzzle over the intentional rejection of a movement that has been so damn successful in granting liberty and prosperity.”
I think much of the time my own simple question, or possible observation, if I may call it that, is this:
“Who understands the Declaration and Constitution, the purposes or objects of these political framings, better, the men who wrote them or me and my fellows today?”
And if we answer “Well, they do, those writers of old” then my next question is, “How did they come to the mind they were of and would that path of arrival help us better understand the founding as well?” To which I think, it can’t hurt to try.
Laz
you create a nation of law-breakers – then you cash in on the guilt
aka “sanction of the victim”
And if the Tea Partys had started while Bush was in office they’d have much more “small government” cred.
frakkin christ, if that dishonest line doesn’t YET AGAIN prove Proggs are nothing else but petulant teens …
“fuck you, dad, you can’t bust my chops for smokin meth…YOU did pot in high school!”
my tea party all by myself I run it
lambsnot
In the words of Sean Thornton, “That’s a lie.”
I jus’ lurvs me when the group that worships
Josef GeobblesDavid “Astroturf” Axelrod’s Riefenstahl-esque creation, the dark lord, and progressive mesiah, Obamus accuses other people of faux-grassroots chicanery…lawl
Squid, where Tocqueville says:
isn’t he hearkening back (at least a little) to the paradox of the philosopher-king? We’ve built our puzzle in so well, we can’t find it for tripping over it.
lambsnot
Freedom works is but one organization out of THOUSANDS.
Like all Leftists, you project and you accuse others of what you are or have already done.
That’s right, muttonhead. A government group established an astroturf organization that demands government relinquish its powers.
It makes so much sense now. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
snotty
why is it so important for you to ignore that 40% of TEA Partiers are NOT Republican?
Hey, I can see November from my house!
sdferr,
I think he was lamenting that an electorate which allows itself to be managed in all things short of elections renders itself incapable of executing elections in a reasonable way. In other words, giving up all of your minor responsibilities leaves you in a poor position to exercise good judgment on the major ones.
I afeared it’s something more than that Squid. And worse. In casting about for a way out of the soft despotism he finds no relief in the construction of the very constitution that puts the despotism in play. Which, argggh.
“lambchop on 4/21 @ 4:07 pm”
No cred. QED
Sdferr, I think the reading of that passage depends greatly on the usage and meaning of the term ‘constitution.’ We are predisposed to see that term in the context of something of a defined and limited scope.
I do not think his usage carries any of that freight. Particularly as it pertains to the ‘constitution of the country.’ I read him as using the term to describe the inherent make-up or character of the body that affects control of the government. In that sense the problem he describes is more that of tyranny of the majority. Where ‘freedom into their political constitution’ means allowing greater expression of the popular will, while ‘augmenting the despotism of their administrative constitution’ describes the expanding reach and power of the central authority. Both of which form a truly dangerous combination when not checked by what we tend to see as a ‘constitution.’
Looks like muttonchop got sent to the glue factory.
To lambchop quitting smoking is for suckers and chumps. If they were really serious about it they never would have started in the first place.
It’s all about the SHUT UP with this one.
ThomasD, the argument flows back up his page to “Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions: they want to be led, and they wish to remain free. As they cannot destroy either the one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite: they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large who hold the end of his chain.”
The fundamental contradiction lays in “…they want to be led, and they wish to remain free.” which isn’t far, if apart at all from, it seems to me, the form devised at our founding.
Couldn’t agree more, that is why a written document imposing specific limits on the expression of governmental authority (and some semblance of adherence to said document) is so pivotal. Without it we are nothing more than slaves to ‘the people at large.’
Then show them your pickup truck.
Can I show them my convertible instead? Because that is really unsafely radical – so not safe from rollovers and exposing me to harmful ultra-violet radiation.
Sammy is an OUTLAW ride!*
*Samantha the Sebring – yes it is silly. No – I do not care.
“…some semblance of adherence to said document…”
That is the crux, I think, but where more than semblance is required: rather, I think, what’s required is that at no time, not even once, when asked “What would you will?” can the supposed sovereign, “the people”, wave the question off with an “I’m too busy to deal with this right now, you take care of it.” Once done, done for all it appears.
“…they want to be led, and they wish to remain free.”
These two propositions are more akin to starting conditions asked prior to the writing of a constitutional document of political ordering, like “What do you want to do? What’s the object you wish to achieve with the ordering we are to make?” If that’s so, then the contradiction is present from the beginning and can’t be escaped, unless it’s overwritten by another objective altogether, eliminating either one or the other of the conditions and retaining one, or eliminating both to be replaced by something else.
Kinda like that job order joke, “X: We want it done well, done fast and done cheap. Y: you can have any two pairings of your demands, but not all three.”
Or is that a poor reading of Tocqueville’s intent?
Not really sdferr, I’d say that was a tension that the founders, and de Tocqueville, rightly recognized as needing balancing if the vision of our founders was ever to be achieved. And it should be the primary consideration when weighing any subsequent legislation, and especially measured closely in an interpretive exercise.
Like, you know, in SCOTUS cases. Measure how it effects that zero-sum equation, and not any “emanations of penumbras”.
I’ve got a copy of Democracy in America on my shelf. I’ve probably read most all of it, never cover to cover though, and would hardly want to speak to his overall intent.
I think it safe to say he rightly recognizes the inherent dichotomy, as did the Founders among many others. What he also recognized is that there is no escape from that truism, but there can be reconciliation. One where the search is for a mechanism whereby the greatest freedom can be achieved while still retaining a leadership strong enough to protect and maintain those freedoms. And that’s the real rub – freedom must also mean being forever enslaved to the protection of your freedom, or surely someone will come along to take it. Where that meeting point will be will vary based upon the will of the people and their understanding of what best describes a free existence.
What I think he marveled most at was the fact that this new nation was one of the rare instances where a people chose their means of governance, not merely tweaked a pre-existing state, but created a substantially new one. A patchwork quilt to be sure, using much of what was deemed desirable from the old, but one that also included much new cloth.
He says though, “two conflicting passions” and focuses on the contradiction, as though in a dichotomized worm one half turns to eat the other. It’s still a puzzle for him, I think.
Wow, feets. NOT ONE of those movies in in my queue. And my queue is over 100 long.
Did you never see Slumdog?
Anyone what gets “spiritually renewed” by a tea party is doing it wrong and is likely gay. Are we clear?
Depends on the spirit you’re talking about happyfeet.
While I know what DeMint’s alluding to, one could be discussing a spirit of civic involbement, or of the Constitution, or something along those lines.
But I will say that DeMint must not be listening too well if he hasn’t heard about fiscal issues at all.
Pat Robertson network (CBN) interview. I think this is just your basic narrowcast pandering.
“But I will say that DeMint must not be listening too well if he hasn’t heard about fiscal issues at all.”
Amen. ;-)
On the bright side, we have Steele saying there is no reason for Black people to vote for Republicans.
*sigh*
lol Jeff.
even conservatives are beginning to see the nakedness.
and Darleen….the interesting social marker is not political affilitaion……it is religiousity.
Protestant 61% Catholic 22% Jewish 1% Other 5% None 7% dk/na 3%
Do you see a problem?
Where are the mormons who represent 2% of the electorate? Not in the democratic party.
Here is my first revision…christian including mormons and other non-catholic non-protestant christians.
Christian 88% non-christian 12%.
Wish i had access to the cross-tabs….i think % christian is actually much higher.
The survey question should been binary, christian or non-christian.
My hypothesis is for full sample response (no dk/na, which means refusal to answer)…..that 1% jewish and 7% none would hold….the Paulites prolly do have an atheist cohort.
92% christian and 8% non-christian.
And that is TPM SUPPORTERS.
What do you think the %christian is of tea party attendees? how about tea party activists?
If an entire movement is homogeneous on religion…..doesnt that make it a religious movement?
TTP TRIGGER ALERT
Oh and Jeff?
B O H I C A
Roger that, #185. TTP Trigger Alert acknowledged. Mikey NTH out.
Or ‘Mikey November Tango Hotel out’.
Here is a post that made me think of nishi. Transhumanism, PsyWar and B.E.P.’s “Imma Be”
It’s got it all, eugenics, Psychological warfare (propaganda), and culture.
I loved this the BEST.
haha, AllahP…….Jews, hispanics, democrats ALL reject Tea Party Jesus!!!!!
Christian democrats are liberal christians, like Obama.
There are two basic kinds of christianity in America (70% christian)……….Tea Party Jesus christianity and everyone else.
;)
:)
ProteinWisdom….
Standing athwart history shouting “Cut it the fuck out!”
Hey, the fascist twat is back.
Work release or did she make bail?
“Do you see a problem?”
Yes, in fact, I do.
You’re a fucking window licking short bus riding twat.
Didn’t you write a review of Levin’s book, Jeff?
hahahahaha
“Didn’t you write a review of Levin’s book, Jeff?
hahahahaha”
Could someone translate that from Retardese into English?
Thanks in advance.
LL
well…..jus’ sayin’.
if the TPM gets branded as the purely christian party, its gonna be lot harder to shed than the racist party.
You do know everyone hates christians.
<3
“well…..jus’ sayin’.
if the TPM gets branded as the purely christian party, its gonna be lot harder to shed than the racist party.
You do know everyone hates christians.
<3"
There it is again.
WTF is the fascist twat talking baout?
Anyone?
Buehler?
Buehler?
Buehler?
Ignore the fatuous comments of the tango tango peter.
Mikey November Tango Hotel out.
Aye aye, sir.
But I do so kmuch like batting the moron around like a cat with a catnip mouse.
But I promise.
Kate Mengele
One’s politics are informed by their principles, and principles are informed by basic philosophy whether religious or not.
So what if TEA Partiers are “Christian”? As I stated before, 58% of people do NOT believe it is the government’s duty to enforce a person’s moral obligations of charity.
UNLIKE statist Leftists and eugenists like you.
You do know everyone hates christians
Coming from a moslem like you, that’s no surprise.
Anyone noticed that nishi, herself, could be pictured next to “epistemic closure” as an exemplar?
Slart
the weirdness of the phrase “epistemic closure” suddenly popping up all over ..you’d think it was “word of the day” and everyone has to work it into a conversation …
ORDERLY! Clean up on Aisle Genocidal Krazy Bitch! Pronto!
if the TPM gets branded as the purely christian party, its gonna be lot harder to shed than the racist party.
Yes.
Jim DeMint?
Not helping.
It finally dawned on me. Darleen is the internet Reader’s Digest large print version. Well done.
If an entire movement is homogeneous on religion…..doesnt that make it a religious movement?
No. But the Teapartiers are 100% Americans.
You do know everyone hates christians.
No, but that does express both a religiously based and directed bigotry. In this kind of case, being an a priori anti-Christian is no different from being the hypothesized Christian. They’re both religious and probably both confined solely to the mental life of the bigots.
From my link @189:
Nishi:
Is why you feel creepy when nishi comments. You know she is off, you just don’t know how off…
hahahahahaha
mumble mumble incorrectly used elipses mumble mumble useless unsourced stat emoticon!
Is this the same Obama that remains opposed to gay marriage and just had DADT protesters arrested?
That Obama?
mumble mumble tiger baby white and fuzzy! mumble and also mumble
Here’s the bit happyfeet and nishi left out from Allah’s post:
One of the ways to keep the Tea Party movement from being branded as religious? Don’t excerpt the bits of a post that, taken alone, suggest as much — especially when the bulk of the post is spent disclaiming that very idea.
At least, that’s how I might do my part.
hey I did my part all by myself it was my own thing all alone solitaire-like
Why does Obama hate gay people?
I think I put this comment in the wrong thread, so I am going to repeat it here:
I have been thinking about the Lafayette Park deal and trying to figure why the seeming over-reaction by the White House, and I think I may have come up with one. As Nishi is so fond of pointing out, the Democrats are playing heavily into the upcoming demographic shifts in the racial make-up of the US, only problem is the brown people and the black people are pretty heavy god-botherers, and tend to be of the significantly less tolerant of gays god-bothering variety. Which means if Obama is seen as pandering to gays he is going to lose a bunch of their votes, but if he doesn’t, he loses a big chunk of his Progressive white base.
Interesting spot he has found himself.
At bottom, he’s making a sociological point that people who have lost faith in one deity will transfer their faith to another.
this is a nutty and insane nutty insane thing to say … you should listen to what Brother DeMint says… he says that when people lose faith in government they will turn to God… and he burbles this burbling in the context of the Tea Party.
The Tea Party is NOT looking for a new god baby a new god yeah yeah yeah. It’s not about that at all not even a little.
Mr. Allah is walking on eggshells over there to some extent I think since they got bought by Team Jesus.
Do that same break down on the American black community and Latin American immigrants.
You really need to put the old girl into dry dock and have that rudder checked, hf. It seems to be a bit loose.
Break out the cross-tabs!
Whether you think Allah’s point is crazy or not, it’s his point. You excerpted something that made it seem his point was something else.
If you believe that Demint wants the social cons to coopt the TEA party movement, say so. Don’t link a piece that argues otherwise.
Me I wasn’t excerpting any of Mr. Allah’s post by the way… all I excerpted was Mr. DeMint’s actual words, which Mr. Allah didn’t have in his post he just has the video.
I linked to the post to invite people to make up their own minds cause of I am fair and balanced.
Why does Obama hate gay people?
They keep dressing Michelle funny. That would be my guess.
The part I though was so whaaaa? was the “I don’t hear a lot about fiscal issues. I hear people saying “we’re praying for you.” part.
He’s saying not this, that.
He’s full of shit is what he is.
Mr. DeMint is full of shit to be clear so if you’re starting at the bottom you don’t have to go back and see who the referent was.
And just so I’m on the record here, yes, if the social cons begin to take over the TEA Party movement and turn it into some sort of revival of the moral majority, it will hurt conservatives and classical liberals, who the press has routinely tarred as the Jesus thumpers — this despite the fact that, as Allah points out, many on the left identity as quite religious.
The Tea Party’s message should be about smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and the loss of freedoms under an ever-growing nanny-state. They should be talking about the crushing debt we’re bestowing on future generations. About the loss of liberty that comes with such debt.
But one can be religious and hold civic convictions simultaneously. Just because you believe in Jesus doesn’t mean you’re barefoot and frothing, pining for the Rapture.
If 70% of the country is Christian, it stands to reason that, since we don’t live in theocracy, many many Christians are able to separate church and state.
Unlike some of those who hear “religious” and immediately make the leap to the worst kinds of stereotypes.
An attempted narrowcast pander. That’s all. Politics.
I think we’re on the same page Mr. G.
I’m glad you’re back by the way.
You excerpted his words from a post that provided the context for quoting those words.
Whatever. I’m not going to do this any more. I’ve said my piece.
narrowcasting panders have long tails
that is not what happened Mr. G… I googled for the words and the only place there was a transcript already done was at Kos so I linked to Hot Air so as not to link to Kos…
simple as that.
Unless it is a religious Democrat. then the leap is to the best kinds of stereotypes.
I’m not sure why Allah is giving it that tail to be honest.
here – see? – that’s the only p[lace you can get it and you have to click through to Kos
*place* I mean…
Allah, I cannot say what is in his heart Mr. bh.
The tea Party people I’ve been around are pretty focused on the fiscal thing. We aren’t even interested in branching out to immigration issues, school problems, or energy, for example, except as they pertain to government spending.
Taxed Enough Already, don’t tread on me.
I see the same thing as Lee.
Is some of this about intentionally trying to turn heathens like me against coalition partners? If so, it isn’t working.
what AllahP is trying to obscure…..is that christianity falls into two camps….Sarah Palin christians, aka tea party christians, and liberal christians…..ie christians that vote democratic.
The tea party christians (sarahpalin is their voice) are conservative christians….mormons, WECs, K-Lo catholics, focus on the family bots, etc.
and Jews don’t vote for conservatives anyways….it is the collateral reek of stormfront and Alex Jones and John Hagee that warns them off.
Science!
“Is some of this about intentionally trying to turn heathens like me against coalition partners? ”
I think that is the aim of some (like nishi), as well as those trying to brand the Tea Parties as something they aren’t (everyone that isn’t in them, including politicians from both parties).
And it won’t work. The movement has been besieged by those wanting to shape it since they became significant, and we are all aware and wary.
” christianity falls into two camps”
Indeed. believers and unbelievers.
funny Kate Mengele trying to speak for Jews
Why does Obama hate the Jews?
Is that a serious question?
Why do the Jews hate the Jews when they vote for Obama?
*, yeah, it sorta feels on topic.
Nishi, I’m still not really convinced by your association Tea Party Movement = Conservative Christian
Correlation doesn’t prove causation.
I can think of other possible causal chains, that might explain what you think you’re seeing.
e.g. What if TPM is just a middle class, and middle class aspirational, protest movement.
So you could be seeing the self-selecting effect of Protestant Work Ethic here.
And remember, bourgeois doesn’t have to be high-IQ;
It just has to be hard-working, self-reliant, and thrifty.
The magic of capital accumulation, compound growth, and time does the rest.
It might make more sense to characterise the TPM members by their savings-rates or average working-hours.
I’d speculate these are hard-working, high-saving people.
There’s no doubt that reason does tend to “obscure” a bigot’s bigotry.
So there we go, pick just the right Weberian pigeon hole, brush hands and we’re done, no more to explain. Science!
Nishdolt makes Bill Maher look like an expert political analyst.
A funnier man than I could have fun mimicking the griefer on the mock draft thread.
lawl
d-lines hate Christians…
like all dfenses
1to1 correlation of bad throwing motion and non-aborting mothers
empirical fact
emoticon
And non-partisan in a glorious ” multi-faith, multi-ethnic, multi-political, multi-cultural” way that only occurs in those who organize to the Left.
sdferr,
I’m not sure I’d characterise it as a “pigeon hole”, so much as a shared, economic survival-strategy.
feets is an American original. But the Tea Party is about taxes and the size of government eating up our lives, like termites eat up a house. Obama is a big assed termite eating at the wooden foundation of America.
Yes, I noticed that as well. It’s as if the entire left-of-center universe suddenly cried out as one in relief that here was yet another intelligent-sounding reason (that, ironically, they don’t have to work too hard to understand) why We Are Better Than Them.
Without, of course, looking behind the curtain. Because some things that sound too good to be true really are.
Kind of like “mobile biolabs”, really.
No Keid, the problem is that there are two populations of tea partiers with some overlap……..one population selfselects to attend rallies…the CNN poll is of tea party “supporters”.
The tea party attendees and activists I suspect are homogeneously tea party christian and homogeneously non-hispanic cauc.
That is why it is impossible to push back on accusations of racism because the visual tea party IS all white and all conservative christian.
Apparently tea party christians endorse the formation of a christian theocracy, reject the separation of church and state..
cite “Palin ….and DeMint.
That is why Goldberg’s book is such a rich joke……american conservatism has degenerated into religious fascism…..christofascists.
lawl.
Another American original is George C. Parker.
What the Genocidal Krazy Bitch “suspects” rarely has any semblance to reality. And precious few things that are apparent to her actual exist in the real world.
Someone needs to look up the meaning of “all”, and readjust accordingly.
Slarti – You know damn good and well that this one just makes shit up as she goes along. Meaning is meaningless, she uses words as she pleases. SCIENCE, bitches!
Ten thousand people rallying with signs about personal freedom and responsibility, government spending, high taxes, destruction of jobs & businesses, and crippling debt being passed to their children, and the only thing Eugenia can see is “conservative Christians.” Yep, ol’ Eugenia can spot them Xtianists from miles away. Our resident Goofy Sufi has the state of the art in Praydar installed.
None so blind as she who will not see.
Black is white, after all.
Squid – I like how she differentiates between Christians. Amazingly enough, those that agree with her and vote like her are good xianists. All the others are obviously evil.
Credit where credit is due, at least she added the new theocracy wrinkle, which while abject bullshit, is at least new.
Bertha sees dookie.
What Mr. Rove sees in the Tea Party and a couple of suggestions for the future. That Army of Davids thing is sticking pretty well.
Nishi, I am not living in USA, but remember we have very good access to US media.
If I had to judge your country’s biggest problem, it certainly wouldn’t be that conservatism has degenerated into religious fascism.
That’s silly. The TPM conservatives are seeking to roll back state power.
Also I don’t see Palin as a leader of the TPM.
I see her as one of the social conservatives who are trying to co-opt the TPM.
With all your gloating about the new majorities, you forgot the following quote, often attibuted to Alexander Tytler:
A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
Kate Mengele doesn’t mind (because she naïvely assumes she’ll have a seat at that table). There’s a reason she’s been dubbed “Mengele” when she turns up here.
She thinks her dicktater will be a benevolent one …
I don’t see Palin as a leader of the TPM either.
happyfeet – I don’t see Nishit the Eugenecist as part of the human race.
Since we have long since been off topic, I found this interesting … I guess shitting on our allies does not work out so well when trying to implement the supersmart diplomacy the Left had yammered on and on and on about. Also appears that Netanyahu essetially told Barcky to get lost and they will continue to *gasp* build apartments.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/22/poll-obama-gets-thumbs-down-on-israel/
Mr. Netanyahu is very staunch i think.
Kind of like “mobile biolabs”, really.
LOFL.
I was recently treated to a discussion on why nobody will use the ‘mobile labs’ everyone wants.
It’s an odd thing, how this crap pops up all cascading hive-mind style. I’m always perplexed when 4 or 5 different TV stations suddenly have their whole line up spouting the same buzzwords or catchphrases.
I was thinking about this kind, Entropy, but any sort of popularly believable buzzword will do as a replacement.
I don’t see Palin as a leader of the TPM either.
YOU don’t but THEY do.
In the straw poll at the SRLC palin got 15 to pauls 14.
This is the problem……there are two tea parties.
It’s just that the one that shows up for rallies is the Palin/DeMint Christian Fascist Party of the Confederacy……
selfselection by crazy? or selfselection by rage.
you pick.
<3
I are disheartened by the whole dealio.
but I don’t think the Tea party has been co-opted
yet.
“Also I don’t see Palin as a leader of the TPM.
I see her as one of the social conservatives who are trying to co-opt the TPM.”
Oh bullshit. Palin isn’t trying to co-op the Tea Parties for social Con ends. She is part of the tea parties for the tea Parties ends.
Funny how a fledgling political movement is in danger of being rent asunder by internal divisions that haven’t really caused any schism (yet), while the Progressive Coalition of a dozen self-interested identity groups, many of which make contradictory demands, is just a sign of healthy give-and-take within the movement.
None so blind as she who refuses to see.
None so blind as a lying eugenecist bitch who pulls shit out of her ass.
Nishi,
This CNN poll shows the demographics of the supporters and confirms the middle class bias, I’d say.
But putting the two studies together would suggest to me that the movement is being successfully absorbed by the GOP, but perhaps only because Sarah Palin has moved her own position to be significantly closer to the econo-conservatives.
The Paulites look to me to be more influential among the TPM than they are among the GOP.
Perhaps it just shows there’s a lot of overlap between so-cons and econo-cons.
That is why Goldberg’s book is such a rich joke……
And the fact that you have never even read Goldberg’s book is what makes your argument such a joke, nishi.
This otter might be attempting to co-opt the Tea Party. Be wary.
But putting the two studies together would suggest to me that the movement is being successfully absorbed by the GOP, but perhaps only because Sarah Palin has moved her own position to be significantly closer to the econo-conservatives.
Compared to the reality:
Which party has the best ideas for reforming and fixing government?
Republicans 38%
Democrats 9
Neither can be trusted to fix government. 51
Doing a bang up job there at 38% are they?
Makewi,
I was thinking that might be more a repudiation of the Bush-era GOP.
I am more surprised how well Palin polled among the TPM attendees compared to Ron Paul. That suggests a real potential for convergence with mainstream GOP.
The right candidate, not necessarily Palin, might draw it together.
The fascists in Nishi’s head sound colorful and dramatic, worthy of at least a Movie of the Week.
I am more surprised how well Palin polled among the TPM attendees compared to Ron Paul. That suggests a real potential for convergence with mainstream GOP.
The right candidate, not necessarily Palin, might draw it together.
While not necessarily disagreeing with you, I’ll observe that the GOP will need to move a lot further. The Tea Partiers ain’t giving up their small-government demands even if it means waiting another couple of election cycles before they see results.
So far, the GOP seems more amenable that the Dems when it comes to fiscal responsibility, but neither group has a lot of cred at this point. I’m hoping that the next two to four years sees fiscal conservatives infiltrate both parties, making fiscal restraint part of any winning platform. But I’ll be content with taking over just one.
Look ‘feets……the reason you can’t push back on the charges of racism is that there are TWO tea parties.
And the one that shows up on the terebi IS white and racist.
worthy of at least a Movie of the Week.
I’m thinking nishi’s more worthy of a “very special Blossom.”
And the one that shows up on the terebi IS white and racist.
You lie, bakayaro.
Oh, I know that word. I asked my brother what the worst thing you could call someone in Japanese, and after some thought, that’s the word he spoke.
Japanese not being a good language for any direct-translation cussing, it just means something like “stupid”. Or maybe “fool”.
We cannot push back on the charges of racism? That is abject dishonesty. You assume your conclusion.
Japanese not being a good language for any direct-translation cussing, it just means something like “stupid”. Or maybe “fool”.
That’s right, and it was one of the first words I learned back when I lived there many years back.
Keid A
A convenient way to allow yourself to think that the GOP has done well absorbing the TP. That 51% is talking about the past, but only are it relates to that one question.
racism is just a cartoon now though… I don’t think anybody takes racism seriously and won’t unless we see for reals violence… what would work better is painting them stupid I would think…
speaking of the party of the tea…
isn’t it maybe time to take a look at the nice mormon man in Nevada as opposed to the weird chicken lady?
I think it might be time.
Yep, the Tea Party is the entity in trouble.*
Cocooning! (Or is that epistemic closure now?)
The left keeps shouting “racism”, ‘cos like what else have they got?
If they face the implications of the deficits, they’ve got to unwind everything they want to do. Or admit they’re going to tax hike to the moon.