Using the State for Good?

[Dglgmut]

As far as I've experienced, most Libertarians and AnCaps believe in minimizing government at basically any opportunity. Sometimes they defend the actions of corporations based on the principles of capitalism, even though those actions are ostensibly intended to unfairly promote leftist ideology.

The premise seems to be that the smaller the state gets, the better off the people, and the more (the part that Ayn Rand loved) ethical behavior would be naturally incentivized. Simply, the right social system will allow for a proper culture.

Unfortunately, I believe, Andrew Breitbart is correct: politics is DOWNSTREAM of culture. So while leftists are trying to use the state to create the culture they want (if they even know what that is), people to the right (at this point in history, at least) are more interested in freedom and liberty, with the hope that a healthy culture would follow. It's not just putting the cart before the horse, it's trying to build the best cart the world has ever seen while the left is stealing the horse.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe holds that a libertarian society cannot tolerate communists and they must be physically removed to sustain the social system. This may sound extreme... but their is an implied threat of violence in leftist ideology. People are less likely to commit violence directly than indirectly, there have been many studies evidencing this I am sure. Leftism is the least direct (most cowardly) form of violence there is; not only are you only sanctioning the violence and not participating in it yourself, but you are anonymous in the group, as well as not even having a defined victim... Anyone with repressed aggression would naturally be drawn to this ideology. You mean I can hurt people under the auspice of compassion?!

Since it is in fact violence that is being threatened, and enacted, we are not truly at a time of peace. We are essentially living in a war zone and different rules apply. There are people who want to turn the culture violent, at which point it would be impossible to utilize reason to make any meaningful progress.

I believe that using the state, in the type of ad hoc way that the left constantly does, is justified and productive as far as it is necessary to preserve and promote a healthy culture, which is more important than the political system itself. A people who love freedom is more valuable than freedom itself.

How can you use force to promote non-violence? How do parents raise independent kids? They use force when necessary, and no more than that. More than anything I think this is about classifying violence... because it's going under the radar. If a verbal threat is considered violence, then think about how many threats are floating around when you include violence that is once or twice removed...

[Peter]

Most small state governments or anarchic, lack of government theories are about rural life in my opinion. You could not have a city without government. Peter

[Dglgmut]

I don't know about that. It's hard to delimit what human beings can and can't do... But I do stand by the idea that culture comes first, and until people learn how to act, the system is secondary.

Why is it okay to force children to behave? Why doesn't freedom teach them the way freedom would teach society? You could argue, "Who says what is 'behaving'?" But Rand did a good job discrediting the "Who says?" argument.

[Dglgmut]

I'd like to add to this, because the theme is more or less fighting fire with fire.

Using the state to promote a healthy culture is one thing, but arguing, and persuading is another. Why is reason so impotent when dealing with leftists? Most of them cannot be convinced that their ideal is immoral and/or impractical. Why?

The psychology of leftism values destruction. Most people are drawn to destruction because of its simplicity and its quantity of change. Most people cannot produce to the level that would be valued by a modern society... and so the quantity of change they can create is extremely limited on the production side.

When you start with the premise that they want violence and destruction, you can apply reason differently. Instead of criticizing their proposed social order, criticize their motives. The same they use words like "racist" and "homophobic," and you wonder how and why they came to that conclusion...? Because they are projecting! They behave as if you reason the same way they do! Why else would you want to keep illegal immigrants out, for example???

Call out their true value: destruction, violence. Point out what they are doing to achieve that goal, causing discord, division, and even lying to themselves about the state of things. They say there are concentration camps on the border to compare the US to 1943 Germany. Why? Because they want a war. Tell them that. Shame them.

I just saw a video of a British kid in a shirt and tie saying that if Trump announced that all the adult men caught coming over the border were to be executed, millions of Americans would agree with the decision. His audience is very small, but there are a lot of people out there who think like this. Reasonably intelligent people...

Of course their reasoning always come back to justifying violence. It's not an honest mistake. But they aren't fully conscious of it either. They do it because they want to be USEFUL. They want to effect CHANGE... destruction is the only thing they think they're capable of, but they haven't thought things through.

[anthony]

20 hours ago, Dglgmut said:

Reasonably intelligent people...

Of course there reasoning always come back to justifying violence. It's not an honest mistake. But they aren't fully conscious of it either. They do it because they want to be USEFUL. They want to effect CHANGE... destruction is the only thing they think they're capable of, but they haven't thought things through.

Showing that "intelligent people" are pretty lost without the efforts of reason and rationality. Evidently the desire for destruction is the childish wish for simplification. Leftists, almost by definition, are skeptics of the mind and cynics about values. An increasingly *very* complicated world requires difficult conceptualism to get one's mind around. So subvert the immense gains made by others' minds, blame civilized progress by picking out man's past faults, etc., in order to break down or destroy whatever's good and reduce "reality" itself, in the abstract or concrete. What's left behind will be simpler to absorb, in their reckoning.

Another thing. The Left's religion, a deified and transcendent State which giveth blessings and rules all mankind under its power, also forcing under any freedom-seeking apostates, is similarly an escape from and substitute for individual reasoning, judging and action. Therefore, the great simplifier, too. One or the other, a supreme, global state or destruction, seems to me all that Leftists can perceive of. Beneath it all they are driven by fear, of existence and independent minds.  Thought provoking, Dglgmut.

[Dglgmut]

Also note that when debating politics they have tied to it their version of morality. Their accusations are always attacking the morals of their opposition. Violence is not that important of a subject to them, probably because it is not part of the school curriculum the same way systemic racism and sexism are.

This is why it's important to point out that they are violent. They want to be seen as moral people, that's why they are so obsessed with victims and villains. They are addicted to this narrative because of the simplicity, as you (Anthony) theorized.

The fulcrum, I believe, between someone who can be reasoned with on these issues and someone who is lost, is whether they value the minimization of violence (which is truly what "Liberty" is all about).

[Peter]

I can’t remember how to spell your name so I will just type DG. DG wrote: Violence is not that important of a subject to them, probably because it is not part of the school curriculum the same way systemic racism and sexism are. end quote

Good point, but in the earlier grades, non-violence is taught, (as well as no running in the hallways, joke) while racism and sexism may be on a high school to college levels. I used to be accredited to teach grades five to twelve in Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia but that was a long time ago. You get more serious violence in high school, but in grade school you have hitting, threatening, name calling, overturning of desks in anger, etc. Kids need to be taught the basics that used to be taught at home. One of my daughters teaches 4^th grade now, and I think it is tougher for teachers because of a lack of good parenting, but I will stop there so as to not divulge anything said to me in confidence.

My wife and I were talking about this subject recently and I mentioned how I loved school on military bases because the kids were always so much better behaved, though when I was in the 8^th grade at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, it did get a bit unruly at times. And every time I changed to a civilian school when we moved I was a year ahead. And that is no joke. Peter         

[Brant Gaede]

Well, if Peter moved five times he graduated from high school when he was 12?

--Brant

[anthony]

16 hours ago, Dglgmut said:

Also note that when debating politics they have tied to it their version of morality. Their accusations are always attacking the morals of their opposition. Violence is not that important of a subject to them, probably because it is not part of the school curriculum the same way systemic racism and sexism are.

This is why it's important to point out that they are violent. They want to be seen as moral people, that's why they are so obsessed with victims and villains. They are addicted to this narrative because of the simplicity, as you (Anthony) theorized.

The fulcrum, I believe, between someone who can be reasoned with on these issues and someone who is lost, is whether they value the minimization of violence (which is truly what "Liberty" is all about).

I guess, as it's said: By their actions you will know them. I don't think a propensity for violence can be actually *taught*, as people can be regularly exposed to violent acts and many strongly react in the opposite direction by their free will.  But what is often taught is a "social metaphysics" (yup, victim/oppressor, for one) which is authoritatively held up as true and right, and those weaker minds take this 'morality' on board, without question. Only to point out the acts of violence doesn't go far enough since violence is self-evident to everyone, anyway. 'Shaming' them can't work with those who can't know shame - the violent themselves rationalize their acts as the necessary means to a 'moral' end. 

Violence is the consequence mostly of no (volitional) thinking capability at all, human consciousness replaced by mere sensation-ism. Rightly then, one can ascribe to violent actors a sheer animalist behavior that can't rise above a perceptual level: i.e. judging you by your appearance, the 'herd' you belong to, your uttered slogans and displayed emotions - all which prove you are "with us" or "against us". The feelings automatically follow: mass approval - or mob hatred (hate and anger, covering their fundamental fear of anyone who thinks for him/herself and stands outside the mob).

A "minimization of violence" of course should be the preserve of government - which I agree is what "liberty is all about" -- to be free from men's acts - but that alone would be like treating the symptoms rather than the disease.

[Peter]

16 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Well, if Peter moved five times he graduated from high school when he was 12?

--Brant

Every two or three years. Sometimes we would move to naval housing then to another naval house then to a private house on one assignment. I counted 14 places we had lived in California alone. Kindergarten in San Diego, Park Air force base, Kamandorski Village, a naval base inside Fort Campbell, but I went to the Army Junior High, Burlingame, San Mateo, Vallejo, Warwick R.I., etc. It was tough leaving friends. I graduated from Radford H.S. in Honolulu, when I was 17 but close to 18.  

[Wolf DeVoon]

Didn't understand a single word of the foregoing discussion. There is no divine right of incorporation, whether as a sovereign state or CBS, Inc.

[Dglgmut]

On 7/7/2019 at 11:46 AM, anthony said:

But what is often taught is a "social metaphysics" (yup, victim/oppressor, for one) which is authoritatively held up as true and right, and those weaker minds take this 'morality' on board, without question. Only to point out the acts of violence doesn't go far enough since violence is self-evident to everyone, anyway. 'Shaming' them can't work with those who can't know shame - the violent themselves rationalize their acts as the necessary means to a 'moral' end.

I guess the topic of this thread has changed, but to respond to your quoted text: I don't mean "point out their violent acts," if I did, you'd have a good point. I mean, point out their lust for violence, the way they point out whatever depravity they think they can get away with accusing you of.

This is how they see the other side: Racism -> convoluted justification to act on that racism -> racist acts. They think you started with the emotion, and built the rest from there. They look at a system they see as racially imbalanced and extrapolate the process that would lead someone to defending that system. This is their projection... it reveals how they think. Apply it to them and see what you get.

Their professed ideal, the end to their means, is tolerance and love. Of course the standards to which this end must be realized are ever changing... meaning the VIOLENCE used to achieve that end is perpetual. So what is their true end? How much good faith do they extend when they interpret the system you propose?

This is what I think is happening from their end: __________ > convoluted justification for violence > perpetual violence.

When they point out a FEELING they think you have, from which you derived all of your "reasoning," they are telling you what to point out in themselves: REPRESSED AGGRESSION. And to reply further to the quoted text above, schools don't teach that violence is inherently wrong. They do teach that racism is inherently wrong. What about racism against whites? They redefined the word to avoid that issue.

You need to use reason to expose someone to a truth, but more importantly you need to be talking to a person who is EMOTIONALLY capable of reasoning. If someone thinks they are morally superior... they're not going to listen.

Narcissism has a huge roll to play here, and that's why shame is so important. Shame them, then show them the fault in their logic.

[anthony]

7 hours ago, Dglgmut said:

I guess the topic of this thread has changed, but to respond to your quoted text: I don't mean "point out their violent acts," if I did, you'd have a good point. I mean, point out their lust for violence, the way they point out whatever depravity they think they can get away with accusing you of.

This is how they see the other side: Racism -> convoluted justification to act on that racism -> racist acts. They think you started with the emotion, and built the rest from there. They look at a system they see as racially imbalanced and extrapolate the process that would lead someone to defending that system. This is their projection... it reveals how they think. Apply it to them and see what you get.

Their professed ideal, the end to their means, is tolerance and love. Of course that has to be realized in a very specific way to satisfy them, and to achieve that end they will have to use VIOLENCE. So when they point out a FEELING they think you have, from which you derived all of your "reasoning," they are telling you what to point out in themselves: REPRESSED AGGRESSION.

You need to use reason to expose someone to a truth, but more importantly you need to be talking to a person who is EMOTIONALLY capable of reasoning. If someone thinks they are morally superior... they're not going to listen.

Narcissism has a huge roll to play here, and that's why shame is so important. Shame them, then show them the fault in their logic.

You have some accurate psychological insights. Still, remember, we are talking specifically about the violent ones, those who are not only hysterically outraged... but feel free to act out their anger, physically, against others. They feel justified. You can't deal with them, reasonably, you should not. By doing so you lend them your 'authority'. In one way or other, they'll get their comeuppance.

Yes, how often we see the "professed ideal" of the non-physically-violent ones, 'tolerance and love" - playing itself out in total intolerance and hate. Surely, their intention is to see others picking up and running with their emotions and carrying out violence. What they won't do themselves. This lot, who are smarter, are the lowest of all. They verbally attack any (e.g.)perceived racial imbalance (often false) - because they are deeply racialist, themselves. Everything comes down to race (and other, select, "groups") for them. One man at odds with another man, who happen to be of different races, *has* to be "racially motivated". Perhaps, some could be shamed if you point out this recognition to them. Maybe not: anti-individualism and "Society" run too deep in their ideological veins.

Forced love  -I  call it - is no love at all, but will naturally turn to resentment, to ugly feelings. "Love" has become the societal replacement for one's personal, chosen values, but such despised "judgmentalism" is far too rational and selfish, to many. A person can't love what or whom he does not know nor find value in.This is beyond our conscious capacity. The high value and attendant emotions which love is, as we know it, can't be given to more than a few, at once. (I notice that seldom is basic respect for all others, mentioned and recommended. That's also too individualist/value-oriented for these people).

 

[Dglgmut]

3 hours ago, anthony said:

we are talking specifically about the violent ones, those who are not only hysterically outraged... but feel free to act out their anger, physically, against others. They feel justified. You can't deal with them, reasonably

 

Absolutely. I did mention that some were beyond reason, those are the ones who consciously choose violence.

The ones who are not conscious of it, those are the ones I am talking about.

Quote

Yes, how often we see the "professed ideal" of the non-physically-violent ones, 'tolerance and love" - playing out in total intolerance and hate.

I edited my last post. I had to rethink one of the later paragraphs... Tolerance and love are not even what they want. That is not their end. That is the "convoluted justification" part. The real end is to get out their aggression. That's the whole thing. Look at their end the way they look at your end: they see racism, so what do you see? Of course we've already seen it... Pure brutality.