Subject:
|
Re: National vote on handguns?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Jul 2001 12:42:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
659 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > I have one tiny point of confusion... I had always heard Jefferson, et. al.,
> > referred to as a "classical liberal" rather than a "radical conservative". I
> > suspect your use of the term is getting at the same idea(1), but am curious
> > as to whether it's something you saw used elsewhere, or what the provenance
> > of the term
>
> I made it up myself.
Cool. Some snippage has occured during the posting process.
>
> ::rant mode set at 11::
>
> My point would be that the traditional, and especially current, uses of the
> words "radical," "conservative," "liberal," and etc. are so abused as to no
> longer make any sense at all. They have lost all connection to what might
> have once originally been meant by the use of these terms.
Indeed. We're stuck because we can't make up new words and the old ones are
polluted. At least if you put modifiers on people ask what you mean (some of
the time) instead of just assuming. Hence "classical liberal" offering the
chance to explain that what is meant is Enlightenment style liberalism as
opposed to New Deal style. etc. So you've got a good term there in "radical
conservative".
> I am bent on upholding our original Constitutional republic in a way that I
> think makes most republicans and democrats quake in their boots -- all those
> guys and gals REALLY want is to lick the boots of corporations and sell out
> our political heritage out from under us in the name of globalization (the
> U.N.) and a monetary system that is more easily tracked (Federal Reserve
> Notes, or whatever is coming next) -- all the while stuffing gold into their
> pockets. So I am conservative inasmuch as I want to preserve what is for me
> our ancient common law heritage as seen through the eyes of our nation's
> ideological heroes Jefferson, Madison, (to a far lesser extent) Hamilton,
> etc. Conservative as in: "favoring traditional views and values; tending to
> oppose change." I oppose stupid and pointless Amendments to the
> Constitution like those concerning taxation (The Supreme Court has ruled
> that the 16th Amendment has essentially no force in law) and prohibition
> (drug laws being something I personally believe to be outside the purview of
> the correct purposes of our government -- I mean, I will not tell George
> Washington NOT to smoke hemp if he will look the other way as regards my
> personal habits also!). I applaud changes consistent with some of the
> original intent of the Constitution like the 14th and 15th Amendments (stuff
> that was debated by didn't get in for other political reasons, like keeping
> the south a part of the proposed union). Slow and useful change is good.
> Hurried and stopgap change is bad.
>
> I maintain a dystopic view of the United States as a North American game
> preserve where we, the people, are controlled by our government, rather than
> it serving our needs as individuals. I reject the notion that our government
> has any delegated purpose to safeguard the interests of fictitious persons
> and deathless corporate entities. The sole purpose of our Constitutional
> government is to maintain the civil and substantive property rights of it's
> citizenry -- it's natural born persons. That's about it. That means: no
> standing armies, no welfare, no public school, etc. But it also means
> regulating trade with foreign powers and amongst the states, it also means
> minting money under the U.S. government (fine gold and silver please!), and
> it means settling disputes between persons, states, and persons and states.
> Stuff like that...stuff like we ain't got!
Well said, I too want to "go back" to Federal as not meaning all powerful.
> What we have is admiralty and equity, what we should have is common law.
> That's a huge gap, and I'd really like to take it back to something that
> makes sense for the people rather than for the corporations.
>
> I know you Rand fans like to think of corporations as your friends somehow,
> but just remember that Ann always neoclassically figured her corporations as
> being owned by strong, willful, individual men who held the engine of the
> world in their powerful, private, and naturally born hands -- and not as
> deathless entities like AOL Time-Warner, or whatever...I think it's a big
> difference.
Oh, I agree with that. I'm not such a big fan of corps as some think. I'm OK
with them in concept but would want to see their shielding power cut way
back... you've no doubt seen me advocate that officers of corps have to be
able to be held personally liable for stuff. I see that in and of itself as
a huge check on corp power. Some others are needed as well.
Ayn's idea of sole proprietorships won't work with really huge organizations
though. (although you could argue that there have been some quite
influential corps that were run as if they were sole proprietorships.
Turner, Dell and Microsoft come to mind (none are exactly that of course) )
I'm not as enamoured of Rand as I used to be. I still enjoyed her work (a
rarity, I know, it's not very accessible as a read) and still think the
ideas she gives you to think about are good ones to mull over, but I'm not
keen on chain smoking heros who are opposed to a little herb now and then
either. Too contradictory.
> John Galt did not make an IPO.
No kidding, he never would have had the stomach for THAT!
Great post.
++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
| (...) I made it up myself. ::rant mode set at 11:: My point would be that the traditional, and especially current, uses of the words "radical," "conservative," "liberal," and etc. are so abused as to no longer make any sense at all. They have lost (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
110 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
