US 2024 Election

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Trump won NH.

Decisively. 

And the counting is not over.

 

Michael

 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Money talks and bullshit walks.

 

Granted, Reid Hoffman manages to be both money and bullshit at the same time. And that's not even mentioning Epstein island.

 

 

As to Haley, I would not advise high-heels right now. Looks like there is some walking in her future...

 

Michael

[Peter]

I saw that President Trump nearly got double the delegates of Nikki Mouse's in her home state of South Carolina.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 1/26/2024 at 12:04 AM, Peter said:

I saw that President Trump nearly got double the delegates of Nikki Mouse's in her home state of South Carolina.

Peter,

What are you referring to?

Past primaries against Trump?

The current GOP presidential primary is on February 24, 2024.

 

Regardless, we all know leftie rabid anti-Trumper Reid Hoffman (owner of Linkedin) is, or was, one of Haley's main funders.

Also, so far, Democrats are a large block of her primary voters when state primaries allow it.

And if that is not bad enough, things are starting to look bad for her on the corruption front. This X post from Matt Wallace is from about 13 hours ago.

The gist is this, from what I understand.

When Haley was ambassador to the UN, the USA donated $500M in fighter jets to Israel. Some corrupt people in the Israeli government petitioned the US so they could sell the jets to Croatia. Haley smoothed the way and got a kickback. It looks like she came up with the idea. Not too long after, she was no longer ambassador.

 

That's just one deal that is known.

Michael

[Peter]

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

What are you referring to?

Sorry. I must have seen "projected' stats for SC.

[Marc]

2 hours ago, Peter said:

Sorry. I must have seen "projected' stats for SC.

I saw the same numbers, projected or polls but eithet way bye bye birdbrain and I have a better chance on Super Tuesday than birdbrain does

[Anti-Communist]

Of interest?

The more important two words: Self-Satisfied

Posting in order to get more votes for Trump.

Bonhoeffer's Theory of Stupidity

.... a short video available on YouTube

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

AC,

I wasn't aware of this. I'm looking it up, but I haven't had time to stop, yet, to do a good job.

Meanwhile, you might like this thread on OL.

Human stupidity

Instead of arguing that stupidity is immoral as I saw on a skim with Bonhoeffer, Cipolla, without using the term, essentially characterizes stupidity non-moral.

In other words, no moral values are involved with stupidity. Not helplessness, not intelligence, not banditry, just easily preventable loss for no reason other than a stupid person did it. And the stupid person does it because he or she is stupid, nothing more.

 

If you want to put up some videos or links about Bonhoeffer or anything else you wish (barring porn, spam, and crap like that), please do.

Michael

[Anti-Communist]

Hello Michael,

Link:

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Laura is right more often than she is wrong.

Will Ronna go bye-bye?

Will we get a worse ass-licker of rich crony RINO donors?

Or will MAGA get into running the GOP?

I, for one, think it will be 50-50 between MAGA and worse ass-licker.

At least Ronna looks like she is on the way out. 

As for the rest, we shall see...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, Anti-Communist said:

Hello Michael,

Link:

 

AC,

I like it.

 

I think Bonhoeffer identified the problem perfectly, but I'm not convinced of his wholesale condemnation of stupid people as immoral, people who cannot be reached without external intervention.

I have been studying story (meaning storytelling, narrative and all those other words) and neuroscience.

One thing has become clear to me over time. There is a huge difference between sensory neurons and motor neurons and how both interact with story. (There are intermediary neurons that connect the two and a few other things like that. But those are beside the point to what I am talking about here.)

When people get scared, they rely more on their motor neurons than on their sensory ones because they feel the urge to act, not analyze. Their amygdala is in overdrive.  

So their analytical brains go out the window when they consider the source of their fear and anxiety (like, say, a growing violent totalitarian regime). They latch onto a story that makes them feel safe, and if that story comes with a group of peers and mirror neurons all saying the same one, even better. That story becomes their truth--self-evident axiomatic truth--despite any evidence to the contrary.

You can see this recently with the way the bad guys sold the jab. They scared the shit out of the whole world. Now, after the disaster, many people the world over today look at the dead bodies piling up, often in public events, from the adverse reactions to the jab and it just doesn't register.

They already solved their fear with the story that Big Pharma would take care of them and keep them safe. It is near impossible to dislodge that story with logic.

What's worse, just from the outside, this story makes them look stupid to people who think different than they do, who look at evidence with different standards, and who do not give into their fear.

I have a lot of thoughts on how to change that story, but that is beyond the scope here. 

 

Bonhoeffer is right, though. Arguing with people who are in this mental state is useless for the most part.

In persuasion, story beats factual truth 99% (or more) most of the time, nay, all of the time. The 1% is that slow spreading truth that manages to flow down through the centuries and catch up to stories. 

I have a lot more I want to say about this and the temptation is sore, but I gotta hang it up right now.

(sigh... life is short and forum discussions are long when you let the leash off...  )

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 1/29/2024 at 8:11 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

At least Ronna looks like she is on the way out. 

Yup.

BREAKING: Embattled RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel to RESIGN | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM

---

In a stunning development, Ronna Romney McDaniel, the embattled Chairwoman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), is set to resign from her position following the February 24th South Carolina GOP primary, as reported by The New York Times.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I copied the posts on stupidity over here.

Also, I cross-posted the image below to here.

(Hat-tip to Dr. Michael Hurd.  )

Here is the text in text for the search engines.

When you're dead, you're dead. The pain is felt by others.

The same thing happens when you're stupid.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Hippy Grandma leaves the game.

Democrat Marianne Williamson Drops Out of 2024 Presidential Race | The Gateway Pundit | by Cassandra MacDonald

WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM

---

Democrat presidential candidate Marianne Williamson suspended her campaign Wednesday.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Trump just announced that all new foreign aid should be in the form of loans, no longer handouts.

QUOTE

FROM THIS POINT FORWARD, ARE YOU LISTENING U.S. SENATE(?), NO MONEY IN THE FORM OF FOREIGN AID SHOULD BE GIVEN TO ANY COUNTRY UNLESS IT IS DONE AS A LOAN, NOT JUST A GIVEAWAY. IT CAN BE LOANED ON EXTRAORDINARILY GOOD TERMS, LIKE NO INTEREST AND AN UNLIMITED LIFE, BUT A LOAN NEVERTHELESS. THE DEAL SHOULD BE (CONTINGENT!) THAT THE U.S. IS HELPING YOU, AS A NATION, BUT IF THE COUNTRY WE ARE HELPING EVER TURNS AGAINST US, OR STRIKES IT RICH SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE, THE LOAN WILL BE PAID OFF AND THE MONEY RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES. WE SHOULD NEVER GIVE MONEY ANYMORE WITHOUT THE HOPE OF A PAYBACK, OR WITHOUT “STRINGS” ATTACHED. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SHOULD BE “STUPID” NO LONGER!

END QUOTE

That alone will get him tons of votes from independents. Heartland people are automatic votes at this point.

I know for a fact Ayn Rand would applaud this were she alive. She constantly bitched about the US government giving away wealth to foreign nations. I read that complaint from her plenty of times over the years.

 

[Anti-Communist]

Well, lets see:

South America falling to the Communists

Most of Europe disarmed, and willing to surrender.

"come to terms".

USA Nuclear Deterrent, perhaps so old as to be un-workable.

A Traitor in the White House.

Ukraine people are fight a Russian Invasion.

And you sweet pea, want the Ukrainian area to fall 

under control of the Soviets.

Anything AT ALL changed since AR was alive?

Tell me more.

ASS.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 2/11/2024 at 8:12 AM, Anti-Communist said:

Anything AT ALL changed since AR was alive?

Yup.

In Ayn Rand's time, it would have been impossible for someone like Donald Trump to be elected, or if elected, to serve his term.

The Deep State was just starting and they would have shot him.

Just like they assassinated many they wanted out of the way to their power-grab.

 

Michael

[Anti-Communist]

The world isn't perfect, and won't be.

If the American people insisted on being Lions

instead of Foxes, we would not be fearing that

thing called the Deep State.

The Russian deep state pre-communism killed 

and imprisoned people, was their system of

control even one-hundredth as bad as the

system under communism in the 20th Century?

 

http://www.jrnyquist.com/lions-and-foxes.html

 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Anti-Communist said:

The world isn't perfect, and won't be.

If the American people insisted on being Lions

instead of Foxes, we would not be fearing that

thing called the Deep State.

The Russian deep state pre-communism killed 

and imprisoned people, was their system of

control even one-hundredth as bad as the

system under communism in the 20th Century?

 

http://www.jrnyquist.com/lions-and-foxes.html

 

 

AC,

I'm getting mixed messages. 

If you are trying to say communism is bad, OK. I agree.

If you are trying to say communist influence is worse than most people think, I agree. (See the discussions on the James Lindsay thread for how to recognize and oppose Marxist dialectic strategies--especially the part about the issue is never the issue, the issue is always the revolution.) James's tactics are not only spot on, they are effective. I've used them myself.

I like the colorful metaphor about Foxes and Lions, but I find the political mess the world is in more complicated than a simple dichotomy. I do not see short term cunning thinkers against bold thinkers as the dichotomy.

In my dichotomy, I find there are those who love power and there are those who love freedom. Among those two groups I see plenty of Foxes and Lions. I also see elitists who imagine they are superior to the rest of mankind and I see salt of the earth people. I even see seekers of wisdom.

I'm not sure what your call to action is to fix the mess. 

Mine is to support Trump's reelection. He has promised to dismantle a good chunk of the administrative state. To stop giving money to other countries, but make loans instead. And so on.

I don't expect him to fix the world like an on-off switch, but I do believe he is going to fix a lot of the problems in the US government. If you want to see a revolution, check out MAGA.

 

btw - I wondered if Nyquist was related to Nyquist. I see he is.  

Gotta run right now.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I want to make something clear here that is normally not clear in these kinds of discussions.

The clarity I want to shine a light on is called... 

Wait for it...

Ta-daa!

CONTEXT

By which I mean reality context.

 

I don't know how many times I have been in discussions where people are pushed to opine on either-or situations when they are not talking in either-or terms, nor do they think that way.

An example is my support of Trump. TDS people would hate Trump even if he cured cancer, ended poverty, and extended human life spans by 500 years.

I don't feel like arguing with such people anymore.

 

But for others who still think things through, here is my own thinking.

I support Trump within the context of doing something today to fix things.

I do not support him in terms of him being the savior come down to earth to represent intellectual purity of principles.

When I look at what others who have a minimum chance to become president do, and I look at what Trump has done and says he will do, within the context--the reality context--of what to do right now, I see no option other than to support him.

None.

Does this mean I fail an intellectual purity test of some kind?

No. I don't take that test, anyway. I'm not into peer pressure, which is the only thing such evaluations are used for in practice. That's been true every time I have seen it deployed.

Are there contexts where I would not support Trump? There are. But I am not going to talk about them much if at all. In today's world, people love to distort what you mean. And it is far more important to me to help get Trump reelected than to worry about what people think of my intellectual purity or corruption.

To use a metaphor, let's see if we can keep this sinking ship afloat in the middle of the storm, and only then can we worry about the best navigation systems.

There's a context for you. It's called dealing with reality. And dealing with it in the hierarchy reality presents, not the hierarchy I think reality should be in.

 

Michael

[Anti-Communist]

Hi Michael,

Intellectual usefulness, is closely twined with the VERIEST BEING of a specific person.

So, which quotation from Ayn Rand would create here-now today X.?

I know which one I would pick.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Lifeboat situation?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I like this one, too.

Quote

... facts cannot be altered by a wish, but they can destroy the wisher...

 

Here is my paraphrase: If one does not exist, one cannot have an intellectual position.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

One more clarification.

And I am going against persuasion's most effective tool by saying this.

I am not afraid.

No fear mongering here.

But no blind stupidity either. My mind is turned on and it is observing reality.

I see a danger, a grave one, and I am acting.

Also, I remember how the ancient Romans used to think the barbarians didn't know the difference between their asses and holes in the ground. And, besides, they were smelly. So the Romans dealt with reality by ignoring it.

Reality won.  

 

There's a simple cure before it's too late, too. Analyze (while there is still time), then act.

I recommend all people do this to the best of their thinking.

Michael

[Peter]

I found a reference or two concerning Machiavelli. I haven’t copied old stuff in a while so I thought it would be OK. The first bit is from me.  

Michael wrote in two places so this is cobbled together: In Tracinski's world, a person cannot ascend anywhere without the gatekeeping approval of him or others like him. He has decided that he must tell everyone what to think. And if they don't accept his pearls of wisdom as innately superior to what is in their own minds and souls, he wants to take his marbles and go home so nobody can play . . . . I believe this is the root of their visceral hatred of Trump. He is everything they should be but they wimped out on doing the hard stuff. And he doesn't even care because he's building something else right now. Something even bigger than before. end quote

That has some truth in it. For a long time Robert was allowed into the ARI inner sanctum. He accepted the hierarchy and the orders given to him. But he revolted.

I was looking up Machiavelli for another project and started with the easy Wikipedia search, looking for insights into Donald Trump. Many people have noticed his expression when giving to speech to that of Mussolini giving a speech. They both somehow purse and jut their lips out in a similar fashion. So I put one and one and one together, two Italians Machiavelli and Mussolini and one American Donald Trump.

From Wikipedia, The Prince, by Machiavelli. Princes who rise to power through their own skill and resources (their "virtue") rather than luck tend to have a hard time rising to the top, but once they reach the top they are very secure in their position. This is because they effectively crush their opponents and earn great respect from everyone else. Because they are strong and more self-sufficient, they have to make fewer compromises with their allies.

Machiavelli writes that reforming an existing order is one of the most dangerous and difficult things a prince can do. Part of the reason is that people are naturally resistant to change and reform. Those who benefited from the old order will resist change very fiercely. By contrast, those who stand to benefit from the new order will be less fierce in their support, because the new order is unfamiliar and they are not certain it will live up to its promises. Moreover, it is impossible for the prince to satisfy everybody's expectations. Inevitably, he will disappoint some of his followers. Therefore, a prince must have the means to force his supporters to keep supporting him even when they start having second thoughts, otherwise he will lose his power. Only armed prophets, like Moses, succeed in bringing lasting change. Machiavelli claims that Moses killed uncountable numbers of his own people in order to enforce his will.

Machiavelli was not the first thinker to notice this pattern. Allan Gilbert wrote: "In wishing new laws and yet seeing danger in them Machiavelli was not himself an innovator,"^[18] because this idea was traditional and could be found in Aristotle's writings. But Machiavelli went much further than any other author in his emphasis on this aim, and Gilbert associates Machiavelli's emphasis upon such drastic aims with the level of corruption to be found in Italy.

From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: An aside with respect to capital punishment Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 01:35:54 -0500

a.d. smith wrote: "Machiavelli had a central role in articulating the central ethical teaching of republicanism, which was centered around his conception of "virtu." Machiavelli's definition of "virtue" as selfless service to state (either on the battlefield or in the council room) was shared by later classical republicanism thinkers. This definition of virtue has had a poisonous effect on Western culture--- almost as bad as the Christian definition of virtue."

Like many Renaissance writers, Machiavelli used the term "virtue" loosely, but in general its meaning was distinguished from "fortune." Those things within our control depend on our virtues (powers, abilities, etc.), whereas those that are beyond our control are a matter of fortune, whether good or bad. Where Machiavelli writes "virtu" modern translators will typically use words like "willpower," "efficiency," etc., depending on the context.

Only occasionally does Machiavelli use the term "virtue" in its traditional sense to mean moral goodness. And I am not aware of him ever using it to mean "selfless service to state" (though there may be some instances of this). On the contrary, Machiavelli often speaks of the "virtues" of the Prince, and here -- in radical contrast to the Republican tradition -- he had a purely instrumentalist conception. The virtues of a ruler consist of his willingness and ability to use whatever means -- however murderous or unjust by conventional standards -- that are necessary to achieve and maintain political power. This was about as far from the Republican conception of virtue as it is possible to get.

Pocock's treatment of Machiavelli stresses the element of time, specifically, the tendency of republics to degenerate and become corrupt over time. (This is found in his *Discourses Upon Livy,* not *The Prince,* and it raises the age-old problem of the relationship between these two books.) And although the problem of republican corruption did indeed become a dominant theme in Radical Republican thinking, Pocock over-emphasizes Machiavelli's influence even here, for Aristotle discussed the same problem in his *Politics.* When 18th century Republicans discussed the virtues that are necessary to maintain a republic and save it from corruption, they relied far more on Montesquieu (*Spirit of the Laws*) than they did on Machiavelli.

The apparent inconsistency (and it is only apparent) between *The Prince* and *Discourses* led some 17th and 18th century philosophers to suppose that *The Prince,* despite its appearance as a handbook on how to achieve and maintain political power by any means necessary, was really intended to be an expose of tyranny, in which the mechanism of brute, unjust  power is revealed for what it truly is. It was partially owing to this mistaken interpretation that Radical Republicans would sometimes speak of Machiavelli in favorable terms. But they certainty did not endorse his conception of political virtue, which was nothing more than a recipe for tyranny.

a.d. smith wrote: "I'm not sure how much of a connection between natural rights theory and seventeenth and eighteenth century republicanism existed. The fact that individual may be found who subscribed to both republican and natural rights ideas does not show that the two are logically connected; in fact, they may simply indicate the contradictory and confused nature of their ideas."

Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, "republicanism" was typically associated with natural rights, social contract, and the rights of resistance and revolution. Today this is often called "Radical Republicanism" or "Real Whiggism."

a.d. smith wrote: "I am not familiar with the term "Radical Republicanism" in this context. So when did Radical Republicanism emerge ? Who were its proponents ?"

I would trace the emergence of Radical Republicanism to early decades of the 17th century, especially to Lilburne, Overton, and other Levellers and (to some extent) to English "Commonwealthmen" like John Milton. Its major spokesmen included Algernon Sidney and John Locke in the 17^th century; and Richard Price, Joseph Priestley, John Cartwright, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, etc., in the18th century. These were proponents of the natural rights philosophy that is expressed in the Declaration of Independence (which Jefferson described as a reflection of the American mind) and in the French Declaration of Rights. In 19^th century England, this  tradition was continued by Thomas Hodgskin, Herbert Spencer, Auberon Herbert and other classical liberals who rejected the liberal utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham and his followers.

a.d. smith wrote: "Note that I said that militarism had derived from aspects of republicanism, not that republicanism was necessarily militarist (though republicanism and other forms of classicism did, in my opinion, contribute to a militarist ethos in early modern Europe). It is true that many forms of republicanism were opposed to standing armies. However, opposition to a standing army does not preclude ideas that can lay the basis for militarism, since the main alternatives to a standing army advanced by republicans (naval power and a citizen militia) can also be instruments of war. More importantly, republicanism's emphasis on the citizen's duty of military service laid the ethical and cultural foundation (patriotism-altruism) for modern day conscription."

I agree with this assessment, or at least parts of it, but it should be pointed out that militias were frequently preferred over standing armies because they could only be used to fight defensive wars, to defend against cases of actual invasion, rather than being used for imperialistic adventures. It is true, however, that militias were sometimes linked to conscription (however lax by modern standards) and that professional armies were often viewed as voluntary (at least prior to the mass conscription of the French Revolution).

a.d. smith wrote: "In looking at the central ethical message of republicanism, let's examine the roots of the term "res publica." What is the closest translation of this term in English ? 'Commonwealth' ? My point is that republicanism was an anti-individualist ideology. (Of course, so were many of contemporary value-systems.) Rather than dwelling on republicanism, present-day individualists should celebrate those who undermined the altruist ethos of republicanism and endorsed commercial society by pointing to the benefits to society that arise when individuals pursue their own self-interest (I am thinking of Adam Smith and the other Scottish Enlightenment  thinkers as well as Mandeville). See: _The passions and the interests: political arguments for capitalism before its triumph_ by  Albert O. Hirschman."

There are a number of complex issues here, but suffice it to say that Radical Republicanism was an intensely individualistic ideology; how it could be called "altruistic" in any fundamental sense escapes me. The purpose of government, according to this ideology, was to protect individual rights so that people could pursue happiness in their own way. When Jefferson, in the Declaration, refers to the unalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" he was using an expression that had become a virtual cliché among Radical Republicans. Indeed, George Mason claimed that Jefferson had copied much of the Declaration from Locke's *Second Treatise,* and there are in fact many verbal similarities.

The term "republic," then as now, was used in various ways. It literally means "the public thing," so a "republic" was generally conceived (at least by its champions) as a form of government in which a ruler's actions are constrained by considerations of the public good -- which, for Radical Republicans, was defined in terms of protecting natural rights. Thus it was not uncommon for "republicans" to favor some kind of constitutional monarchy, so long as the king was limited rather than absolute, i.e., so long as the king was himself subject to the fundamental laws and precedents of a constitution, whether written or unwritten. Any ruler in a "republic" was considered to be bound by the rule of law, not above it. The ultimate authority in a republic flowed from the bottom up, from the people to the rulers, not from the top down. Republicanism was therefore contrasted with the divine right of kings and other forms of political absolutism; it was sometimes characterized as a theory of divided, or mixed, sovereignty.

Later (as we find, e.g., in *The Federalist Papers*) the term "republic" assumed a more specialized meaning; it came to denote a type of indirect and limited democracy -- where the people decide political matters indirectly, by voting for representatives, and where the power of the majority is limited by the constitutionally protected rights of the minority.

One last thing: the merits and influence of Mandeville have been greatly exaggerated by some historians. He was generally disliked by Adam Smith and other figures of the Scottish Enlightenment, and, as a mercantilist, he was not the champion of spontaneous order that he is sometimes made out to be. Ghs

From: Will Murphy To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Republicanism and Natural Rights Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 00:58:01 -0700 (PDT) --- a.d. smith wrote: > I'm not sure how much of a connection between natural rights theory and seventeenth and eighteenth century republicanism existed. The fact that individual may be found who subscribed to both republican and natural rights ideas does not show that the two are logically connected; in fact, they may simply indicate the contradictory and confused nature of their ideas.

Although I believe George has done a fine job correcting the general thrust of what Smith has said, the above merits a few additional strictures.  It unsettles me deeply to see the republicanism of the Radical Whigs spoken of as a "confused" philosophy composed of "contradictory" ideas.  Nothing can be farther from the truth.

I am constantly amazed and delighted to realize just how comprehensive and robust their libertarian vision was.  In my eyes, the works of Algernon Sidney, Robert Molesworth, Trenchard and Gordon, James Burgh, Joseph Priestley, Richard Price, Jefferson, John Taylor of Caroline, et al contain within them the essential ingredients for a consistent, systematic libertarian social philosophy.  Not only does their thought combine republicanism and natural rights, but it does so in such a manner that one is inclined to wonder why anyone would ever wish to cleave the two apart.

Furthermore, I have long held that their thought is more finely and rigorously developed than the vast majority of modern libertarian political philosophers.   The republicanism of Ayn Rand for instance, seems almost puerile in comparison.

As an anarchist, I make no claim to be a republican myself.  Nonetheless, one of the most endearing aspects of "Radical Whig" republicanism is its close proximity to libertarian anarchism.  There is no better illustration of this than the magnificent "Enquiry Concerning Political Justice" by anarchist pioneer William Godwin.

Godwin, despite the fact that his developed philosophy contained many elements alien to and often contrary to the "Whig" philosophy, was nevertheless a man whose early life and education was saturated by the culture, traditions, and ideology of Radical Whiggery.  This is clearly evident in his great masterpiece, in which he pushed many key republican positions to their full anarchic potential.

My own experience is further testament to the anarchic potential of the tradition, as I am now able to discern the direct link between my study of the actual works of 17th & 18th century Whigs/republicans and my gradual development as a full fledged, avowed anarchist.  These works, along with a little help from Lysander Spooner and Albert Nock, allowed me to make the quantum leap from the dark pit of Randian minarchism to the golden fields of anarcho-capitalism.   Even now "Whig" thought permeates my view of the world, and seldom does a day go by when I do not reflect upon its veracity, and all of the pain, indignity, and slavery that mankind could have been saved by its ascendancy. Will Murphy

From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis"Subject: ATL: Re: Republicanism and Natural Rights Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 15:03:17 -0500 a.d. smith wrote: "How is republican discourse (with its emphasis on Cincinatus-like "civic virtue" and devotion to the common good) compatible with the doctrine of natural rights in its individualist form ? I would suggest that it is not (though republicanism might be compatible with the collectivist  variant of natural rights  theory represented by Grotius and other theorist of international law.)

As I have said before, "republicanism" is an ambiguous label, one that has been applied to different political traditions, but there is nothing anti-individualistic about the tradition known as Radical Republicanism. Indeed, a central tenet of Radical Republicanism (as defended by Locke and others) is the insistence that all rights are ultimately the rights of individuals; there are no special rights that pertain only to groups, collectives, or institutions (such as government). This was the point of social contract theory, namely, to trace all governmental authority back to the voluntary consent of individuals. Government, in this tradition, has only those rights that are delegated to it by the governed.

As for "the collectivist variant of natural rights," I'm not sure what Smith is getting at. Although not every proponent of modern natural law theory arrived at libertarian conclusions -- far from it – this approach contained an inner logic of individualism that was bound to emerge in one form or another. As Otto von Gierke noted in his magisterial *Natural Law and the Theory of Society, 1500-1800*:

"[T]he guiding thread of all speculation in the area of [modern] Natural Law was always, from first to last, individualism -- an individualism steadily carried to its logical conclusions. Every attempt to oppose this tendency was necessarily a revolt, on this point or on that, against the idea of Natural Law itself" (p. 96).

a.d. smith wrote: "At heart republicanism was a collectivist discourse grounded in a patriot-altruist ethos of public service. The classical republican dictim "Salus Populi Suprema Lex" is fundamentally anti-individualist -- a modernized variant is Bethamite utilitarianism. The fact that one can point to  republicans in English-speaking countries who also displayed some individualist attitudes suggests that the harsh collectivism of their republican doctrines was modified by their surrounding individualist environment. Keep in mind Rand's belief that utilitarian/consequentialist arguments for freedom were strictly secondary to individualist ones."

I find this very confusing, so perhaps Smith should name a particular theorist who defended the "patriot-altruistic ethos" to which he refers. I can think of no Radical Republican to which this description would apply. On the contrary, self-professed Enlightenment "republicans" like Thomas Paine would often proclaim themselves "citizens of the world," and this cosmopolitan attitude was far removed from the nationalistic patriotism of today. And such republicans argued again and again for the moral propriety of self-interested actions, in contradistinction to blind loyalty and sacrifice to a state or church Smith has repeatedly condemned the supposed "devotion" of Radical Republicans to the "common good," but he seems not to understand what they meant by this phrase. Government, in their view, should promote the "common good" -- i.e., it should protect the rights that humans share in common, and which are necessary for their happiness -- rather than being used to promote the *particular* good of any special person or group. In thus viewing the "common good" in universal and individualistic terms, Radical Republicans revolutionized this traditional concept by merging it with a demand for equal rights and individual liberty. What is soterrible about this?

We should not be misled by terminology. Political theory has traditionally dealt with concepts like "the common good," "virtue," and the like -- but this does not mean that every person who used such terms meant the same thing by them. We must go beneath the surface of words and look for meaning.

Such liberty as the United States has enjoyed in the past is largely owing to the efforts of Radical Republicans. This was no accident, nor was it the result of some altruistic ethos. The moral legitimacy of self-interest -- or "self-love," as it was often called -- was a major theme in 17th and 18th century moral and political philosophy.

Again, since traditions can be rather amorphous, it would help if Smith would mention some specific philosophers to illustrate the points he wishes to make. Then we would at least know whether we are talking about the same people. I have immersed myself in this literature for nearly three decades, and I frankly don't recognize the thinkers Smith is referring to. Ghs

From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Reply to a.d. smith, 1 (was An aside with respect to capital punishment) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 16:39:52 -0500 a.d. smith wrote: "And they [Radical Republicans] almost always define corruption as some form of the pursuit of individual self-interest. This was the major charge republicans levied against the ministry of Walpole --namely that Walpole ruled by appealing to the self-interest of individuals (placemen and the like). Selfishness was far from being a virtue in the eyes of the republicans, was source of all of society's problems. Luxury was a manifestation of this decadence (another key Radical Whig term), as were the growth of banking and international trade.

"Contrast this ethical system with that of Voltaire, who endorsed luxury and economic hedonism, or with Scottish Enlightenment thinkers like Adam Smith, who worked hard to legitimate an ethos of individualism."

This account of self-interest is very misleading. Radical Republicans generally defined a  "tyrant" or "despot" as ruler who betrays his public trust and uses his immense power for personal gain rather than for the common good (i.e., protecting individual rights and liberty). And the Radical Republican critics attacked the  corruption" of the Walpole administration for precisely this reason. Walpole was notorious for appointing friends and relatives to lucrative political offices, thereby stealing (via taxes) from the many in order to benefit these privileged few.  Is the official who grows rich from money coercively expropriated from others to be praised, because he is motivated by self-interest? Is Bill Clinton admirable because he used his high office to further his own financial fortune?

Radical Republicans did not condemn self-interest; they simply believed that self-interest should be pursued within the parameters of justice.

I wrote: "Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, "republicanism" was typically associated with natural rights, social contract, and the rights of resistance and revolution."

And a.d. smith replied: "By whom ?"

Paine, Jefferson, Madison and many of their colleagues frequently called themselves "republicans," and they defended these very doctrines. This usage is common in the literature of the time.

a.d. smith wrote: "I'm not sure to what extent modern secular-minded individualists would want to claim the Levellers of the Cromwellian era as our own. Modern scholars generally associate the Levellers with egalitarianism, hardly a central Objectivist trait. Their religious world-view is striking different than our own. Some  historians associate the Levellers with the moral-economy tradition associated with bread riots and the notion of a just price (I haven't verified this claim myself --but if true, it points to a radically anti-individualist strain in lower-order Anglo-American political though that continues up past the American Revolution to the Luddites of the 19thc.)"

The myth that Lilburne, Overton and other Levellers were egalitarians (in the socialistic sense) has not been defended by any serious scholar for decades. This was a popular view in the mid-20th century, when Marxist historians like Christopher Hill tried to incorporate the Levellers within the socialist tradition, but even Hill later recanted this mistaken interpretation. The libertarian individualism of the Levellers (in contrast to "Diggers" like Winstanley) is evident to anyone who reads their writings, and has been conceded even by  Marxists like C.B. MacPherson in his book, *The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism* (though this book also contains its share of errors). And as other scholars like Richard Ashcraft have suggested, it is very possible that John Locke owed far more to the Levellers than has been previously understood.

a.d. smith wrote: "Locke (I mean the later Locke) was a great thinker who advanced social contract theory and the doctrine of natural rights dramatically. As an aside, I came to anarcho-capitalism partially as a result of my reading of Locke. That being said, I don't think it is fair at all to label Locke as a republican."

When modern historians speak of "Radical Republicanism," they are referring primarily to the tradition associated with John Locke.

a.d. smith wrote: "In the Second Treatise, Locke's central concern was the individual's relationship with the state, rather than the internal workings of the state. By reducing the state to a form of contract, Locke left the English-speaking world a wonderful legacy --an attitude that sees the state as merely one instrument among many for the attainment of individual ends."

This latter is why I admire Radical Republicans so much, for they followed Locke in this respect.

a.d. smith wrote: "Contrast this with the republican idealization of ancient city states, with their (allegedly) altruistic citizenry (the myth of Cincinnatus represents this tradition)."

Many people (including Locke) painted ideal portraits of ancient (or Renaissance) city-states. This appeal to historical ideal types cut across ideological boundaries, and is found in every political tradition.

"John Cartwright (who defended the "rights of Englishmen," as opposed to the "rights of Man," with reference to the pre-Norman Conquest anglo-saxon constitution and who advocated Parliamentary Reform.) is much closer to the Norman-Yoke/Germanist tradition than the more universalistic, natural-rights approach of Thomas Paine."

Paine also spoke eloquently (if inaccurately) of an ideal liberty prior to the conquest of "William the Bastard." The Norman Yoke theory was common fare at the time, and is found in Paine, Jefferson and many of their Radical Republican colleagues.  These theorists did not see the "rights of Englishmen" as *opposed* to the "rights of Man." Although the former tended to constitute a more conservative approach than the latter (as we see in the ideological development of revolutionary opposition to England), the two were often seen as complimentary. Which was appealed to in a particular case was often a matter of strategy -- for to appeal to the rights of man, as they exist in a state of nature, was effectively to renounce allegiance to a sovereign and to institute a state of revolution. This problem was well understood and widely discussed during the early 1770s. It was therefore not at all uncommon for the same writer to appeal to both the traditional rights of Englishmen *and* to the rights of man. [To be continued] Ghs