This is one of your best statements of fact and action yet. What you say about your beliefs and priorities reflect my own.
What puzzles me the most about our current situation is how the broligarchs, the people who have benefited the most from our liberal, constitutional order by vast orders of magnitude, are the ones funding and cheering on its demise. Brilliant morons, genius idiots like Yarvin, who cannot understand the basics of what makes a society worth living in and defending, confidently spout half-baked concepts (whatever is less than a theory) on the issue. Can the system that allowed and even encouraged them to amass unimaginable wealth be so bad that the only way to save it is to turn it into a reflection of themselves? The hubris and lack of introspection boggles the mind.
As an Australian, I would say the problem is the basic structure of democracy in the US is fatally flawed. I am sure you can name many issues on which the American people are overwhelmingly in favour of addressing, that many other democracies have managed to address, but that have no chance of being progressed in the US. How does the old joke go? If you want to get a functioning democracy, I wouldn't start from here.
Please don't ever stop writing. You have finally given me the words I need to talk to others. You have given me clarity in this jumble of madness. You have given me piece of mind that someone else sees what I see and feels the same I do. I look forward to your continued success. Thank you.
I've been thinking a lot about the place of property in the definition of classic liberalism. It's obviously a big acknowledged part of libertarianism, but I think it's an unacknowledged part of classic liberalism (it was there in Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration, and in Locke). It's not really present in this essay.
Protecting property is fine up to a point, but when wealth disparity grows to gargantuan proportions, it comes into conflict with other values.
Yeah... it seems like the rights of individuals needs to be placed higher than property, otherwise property owners get to have more power than other citizens. Which seems to go against the freedom/democracy ethic, no?
This is an area where I've always appreciated the Marxist distinction between Personal and Private Property. Amassing property and turning it Private is where we start to run into issues. But people having reasonable amounts of property that is their own, but doesn't confer any power to them, is fantastic and necessary.
+1 on the author's use of comas! It is refreshing to see someone who can still write. His punctuation mirrors his political philosophy, with a strict standard forming a framework for the smooth flow of ideas.
The tragedy is that the author's philosophy is not taught and seen as painfully obvious to everyone. It's just true; there is really no arguing against it. The current crisis stems from deviating from the only philosophy of self-government that works.
The outline of the mechanics of self-government nevertheless needs one tweak. The job of leadership is indeed, at times, to educate those represented on what would serve them best. This should not be surprising, since the world often appears differently when seen from different points of view, such as those of the leading and the led.
As an example, Representative Jared Golden of Maine recently commented that his constituents did not care about climate change, so he was not concerned about it. The problem there is that what harms the country and the world harms Golden's constituents, so he needs to show them why and that he could serve them better by being concerned.
Leading the voters does not mean that a rural state of modest means that depends heavily on less expensive, older cars, and that is responsible for a grand total of 0.03% of the greenhouse gases emitted in the United States, ought to focus zealously on the climate; but, it does mean that, when voting on issues that affect the entire nation or world, Golden needs to be able to support his constituents' best interests without arousing their wrath. Protecting fisheries, forests, water supplies, and the cost of heating Maine's homes is not a partisan diversion, whether or not all of his constituents currently understand that. Thus, Golden would serve Maine better if he mixed some teaching into his representing.
This is one of your best statements of fact and action yet. What you say about your beliefs and priorities reflect my own.
What puzzles me the most about our current situation is how the broligarchs, the people who have benefited the most from our liberal, constitutional order by vast orders of magnitude, are the ones funding and cheering on its demise. Brilliant morons, genius idiots like Yarvin, who cannot understand the basics of what makes a society worth living in and defending, confidently spout half-baked concepts (whatever is less than a theory) on the issue. Can the system that allowed and even encouraged them to amass unimaginable wealth be so bad that the only way to save it is to turn it into a reflection of themselves? The hubris and lack of introspection boggles the mind.
This is really good.
As a plus, I noted your use of commas and liked it. They were good too.
Fuck, that's good prose.
You may yet serve, but you will not rule.
As an Australian, I would say the problem is the basic structure of democracy in the US is fatally flawed. I am sure you can name many issues on which the American people are overwhelmingly in favour of addressing, that many other democracies have managed to address, but that have no chance of being progressed in the US. How does the old joke go? If you want to get a functioning democracy, I wouldn't start from here.
Please don't ever stop writing. You have finally given me the words I need to talk to others. You have given me clarity in this jumble of madness. You have given me piece of mind that someone else sees what I see and feels the same I do. I look forward to your continued success. Thank you.
I've been thinking a lot about the place of property in the definition of classic liberalism. It's obviously a big acknowledged part of libertarianism, but I think it's an unacknowledged part of classic liberalism (it was there in Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration, and in Locke). It's not really present in this essay.
Protecting property is fine up to a point, but when wealth disparity grows to gargantuan proportions, it comes into conflict with other values.
Well, you answered your own question there. Our republic does not confer absolute property rights. And I'm fine with that.
Yeah... it seems like the rights of individuals needs to be placed higher than property, otherwise property owners get to have more power than other citizens. Which seems to go against the freedom/democracy ethic, no?
This is an area where I've always appreciated the Marxist distinction between Personal and Private Property. Amassing property and turning it Private is where we start to run into issues. But people having reasonable amounts of property that is their own, but doesn't confer any power to them, is fantastic and necessary.
Power unrestrained by law is just tyranny. Like the actual tyranny you probably should have read about in school.
+1 on the author's use of comas! It is refreshing to see someone who can still write. His punctuation mirrors his political philosophy, with a strict standard forming a framework for the smooth flow of ideas.
The tragedy is that the author's philosophy is not taught and seen as painfully obvious to everyone. It's just true; there is really no arguing against it. The current crisis stems from deviating from the only philosophy of self-government that works.
The outline of the mechanics of self-government nevertheless needs one tweak. The job of leadership is indeed, at times, to educate those represented on what would serve them best. This should not be surprising, since the world often appears differently when seen from different points of view, such as those of the leading and the led.
As an example, Representative Jared Golden of Maine recently commented that his constituents did not care about climate change, so he was not concerned about it. The problem there is that what harms the country and the world harms Golden's constituents, so he needs to show them why and that he could serve them better by being concerned.
Leading the voters does not mean that a rural state of modest means that depends heavily on less expensive, older cars, and that is responsible for a grand total of 0.03% of the greenhouse gases emitted in the United States, ought to focus zealously on the climate; but, it does mean that, when voting on issues that affect the entire nation or world, Golden needs to be able to support his constituents' best interests without arousing their wrath. Protecting fisheries, forests, water supplies, and the cost of heating Maine's homes is not a partisan diversion, whether or not all of his constituents currently understand that. Thus, Golden would serve Maine better if he mixed some teaching into his representing.