tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post1880596356985898589..comments2023-10-30T06:31:05.501-07:00Comments on MilPub: Towards a General Line in Regards to US Political RealityFDChiefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comBlogger76125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-40808591555856328492011-02-15T21:49:58.809-08:002011-02-15T21:49:58.809-08:00BRL: No argument re: the notion that corporations ...BRL: No argument re: the notion that corporations are and should not be treated as "persons". Joel Bakan's "The Corporation" makes the point explicitly that if corporations WERE people they would be psychopathic. That doesn't really get around the notion that John Company was pulling the strings in North America between 1776 and 1781. I would be very interested in any primary or solid secondary sources you could cite. If you have this information you should consider publishing it; you would make a considerable stir in Revolutionary Period history circles.<br /><br />Re: Somalia. The comparison here probably needs to be between a <i>functional</i> government and Somalia. Sidi Barre's "government" was many things, but I would not consider functional among them; the fucker was an incompetent Maxist dictatorship. Marxism is bad enough, but incompetent? Yike.<br /><br />Other than that the Leeson article is interesting. It does make several points arguing that a degree of statelessness is preferable to an incompetent state, and makes some good arguments that the degree of government we take for granted in the West isn't all that. I would observe that;<br /><br />1. The Somali appear to have continued to have "governments", just not in the western form. We're not talking anarchy, a genuine libertarian non-state. The clans still functioned as clans, the islamic and xeer courts acted to settle disputes, various markets distributed goods. They didn't have a central government, which, given the venality and viciousness of the former government, was probably to the good. But there were definitely "people in authority".<br /><br />2. The article elides the period between the fall of the Barre' regime in '89 and the equilibrium that more-or-less developed about ten years later. During that period statelessness wasn't a positive but quite the opposite, as various warlords fought over who got what.<br /><br />3. The article also mentions the piracy in SE Puntland but doesn't go into how the lack of an effective government allowed foreign trawlers to rape the Somali territorial waters, dump toxic waste and so forth. So mixed blessings there.<br /><br />But on the whole definately worth the read; good catch.FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-33187206473722595402011-02-13T16:04:31.995-08:002011-02-13T16:04:31.995-08:00Can you point me towards your sources for the crit...<i>Can you point me towards your sources for the criticality of HEIC in British North American policy in the 1770s?</i><br /><br />FDChief - Not really. I can only give my opinion. I will provide this (I realise its not Primary Evidence. Yes, I do remember my training in History ~_^)<br /><br /><i>Jefferson Was Right<br />By: Dr. Michael P. Byron - 05/24/03<br /><br />Most Americans don’t know it but Thomas Jefferson, along with James Madison worked assiduously to have an 11th Amendment included into our nation’s original Bill of Rights. This proposed Amendment would have prohibited “monopolies in commerce.” The amendment would have made it illegal for corporations to own other corporations, or to give money to politicians, or to otherwise try to influence elections. Corporations would be chartered by the states for the primary purpose of “serving the public good.” Corporations would possess the legal status not of natural persons but rather of “artificial persons.” This means that they would have only those legal attributes which the state saw fit to grant to them. They would NOT; and indeed could NOT possess the same bundle of rights which actual flesh and blood persons enjoy. Under this proposed amendment neither the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, nor any provision of that document would protect the artificial entities known of as corporations.</i><br /><br />http://soundingcircle.com/newslog2.php/__show_article/_a000195-000205.htm<br /><br />As for Somalia, I can again offer something that perhaps you haven't seen/read:<br /><br /><i>Better Off Stateless: Somalia Before and After Government Collapse*<br />Peter T. Leeson<br />Department of Economics<br />West Virginia University<br /><br /><b>Abstract</b><br />Could anarchy be good for Somalia’s development? If state predation goes unchecked government may not only fail to add to social welfare, but can actually reduce welfare below its level under statelessness. Such was the case with Somalia’s government, which did more harm to its citizens than good. The government’s collapse and subsequent emergence of statelessness opened the opportunity for Somali progress. This paper uses an “event study” to investigate the impact of anarchy on Somali development. The data suggest that while the state of this development remains low, on nearly all of 18 key indicators that allow pre- and post-stateless welfare comparisons, Somalis are better off under anarchy than they were under government. Renewed vibrancy in critical sectors of Somalia’s economy and public goods in the absence of a predatory state are responsible for this improvement.</i><br /><br />http://namcub.accela-labs.com/pdf/Better_Off_Stateless.pdfBrooklyn Red Leghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02649492866049982193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-40239593124773074432011-02-13T15:48:19.634-08:002011-02-13T15:48:19.634-08:00Andy: The upside of this forum is the quantity and...Andy: The upside of this forum is the quantity and quality of the nuts!<br /><br />One thing to think about re: "crisis"; by their natures, crises tend to break down rational analyses and fracture coalitions. Not for no reasons do the strongman/totalitarian regimes tend to emerge from the crises; Lincoln in the Civil War and FDR in the Depression/WW2, Cromwell from the ECW, Napoleon from the French Revolution, Lenin (and then Stalin) from the Russian.<br /><br />So my concern re: this country is two-headed; in one case I see the possibility of a long slide into imperial twilight, with oligarchic traditions growing every more entrenched, while in the other I see something erupting into a crisis and allowing a Tea Party-type demagogue seizing power by demonizing the Evil Gummint/scary brown people/commie librls under the bed/whatever...<br /><br />What I don't see is the sort of coalition that headed off the oligarchy in the early 20th Century. The "muckrakers" are raking muck for Rupert Murdoch, the financial elites have lost any sense of <i>noblesse oblige</i> - there are few Carnagies left - and the moderate conservatives in both parties are gone, the Republicans just gone, period and the Democrats largely in the pocket of the same financial elites that are benefitting from the current unsustainable course...<br /><br />I agree that there SHOULD be some sort of grounds for a coalition of small-government Right and moderate Left, but the social divisions look too great to overcome.FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-21481997530138483922011-02-13T12:33:19.079-08:002011-02-13T12:33:19.079-08:00Chief,
Thanks for the compliment! I guess even b...Chief,<br /><br />Thanks for the compliment! I guess even blind squirrels sometimes find something that resembles a nut.<br /><br />Seydlitz,<br /><br />I don't think our disagreement is all that large - I agree with you that we're in a crisis, but that crisis hasn't yet materialized into the national consciousness. Most people's everyday lives are not greatly affected and so they can continue to operate as if everything is basically ok. You and I agree that everything isn't ok and it's my opinion that the day is approaching when when the problems in this nation can no longer be papered over. It's at that point that I think the "crisis" will come and, hopefully, enable a broad coalition to rationally and reasonably address our many problems.<br /><br />BRL,<br /><br />I admit I never really got the "good government" meme that some progressives sell as well as the "bad government" meme that you describe. To me, government is like fire - it's value is context-dependent. If fire burns your house down or is used to burn "witches" then fire is bad. But if fire cooks your food and keeps you warm in the cold, dark night, then fire is good. The key to good governance is control of government, not abolition of government. The latter isn't really possible anyway since people are social creatures and will self-organize in the absence of government.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-67906433950170725502011-02-13T10:11:41.666-08:002011-02-13T10:11:41.666-08:00BRL-
Agree with FDChief, the state is simply an a...BRL-<br /><br />Agree with FDChief, the state is simply an apparatus of control by which the rulers administer a political community. Do away with the state and rulers will still need some sort of apparatus, say private contractors/mercenary bands/corporations? And how exactly would these entities be answerable to the people?<br /><br />They wouldn't. <br /><br />If we define politics as a struggle among competing collective entities (mainly mass political parties) over control of the state apparatus, we see that doing away with the state would also do away with mass (or democratic) politics . . . be careful what you wish for.seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-54466998266984351752011-02-13T09:27:22.567-08:002011-02-13T09:27:22.567-08:00BRL: I feel like I'm bashing you, and I'm ...BRL: I feel like I'm bashing you, and I'm not, really.<br /><br />But you made a categorical statement about government, and here you should keep in mind that most of us have been deployed to or dealt with places where there really is no government, or no effective government, and, for the record, if you really think that "statism" (that is, the notion that "governments make people slaves and murder them") is the Ultimate Evil you really need to spend some time in Somalia. Again, I'm not trying to beat up on you or insist that this forum is some sort of rarified academic ivory tower, but we do try and keep our discussions within the bounds of supportable argument. <br /><br />Your assertion is fine as hyperbole but isn't really supportable as argument. Like AK-47s, governments can be used for very great evil if they are organized and run on totalitarian lines. But the difference between, say, the "government" of the Stalinist USSR and the government of modern Belgium is the difference between steel and cheese. And NO government simply means the rule of the strongest; humans have proved that again and again.FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-43250581232853171392011-02-13T09:14:25.753-08:002011-02-13T09:14:25.753-08:00BRL: I'm not trying to pick on you here. But ...BRL: I'm not trying to pick on you here. But your interpretation is widely at variance with both the statements by the participants at the time (that is, the American rebels railed against the King, his ministers, and the Parliament for not providing a voice for the colonies, but complaints against the HEIC and mother country corporate actions are conspicuously absent) and the interpretation of the root causes of the Revolution by historians working on the period since then, and the rule of thumb in any discipline is that unconventional interpretations requires a pretty conclusive level of support. <br /><br />Can you point me towards your sources for the criticality of HEIC in British North American policy in the 1770s?FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-71314371685707429842011-02-12T23:20:59.703-08:002011-02-12T23:20:59.703-08:00Mmmm...bit simplistic, no?
FDChief - I don't ...<i>Mmmm...bit simplistic, no?</i><br /><br />FDChief - I don't think so. Its apparent we're going to have to agree to disagree. <br /><br />:shrugs:<br /><br />As for the dustbin of history, I must say that I hope that Statism in all its evil forms will soon be relegated to it. People want to be free and humans THRIVE when free. Governments make people slaves and murders them. The Century of War taught us Democide (death by ones own government): some 280 million humans were killed for the only crime of being alive. If human beings are incapable of being angels, why is it thought that somehow government (which is made up of humans) will somehow be virtuous?Brooklyn Red Leghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02649492866049982193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-58491990574134326362011-02-12T21:04:33.364-08:002011-02-12T21:04:33.364-08:00basil: Yes the North had lots of racists. Yes, it...basil: Yes the North had lots of racists. Yes, it had lots of slaves (at least until the middle of the 1800s. Yes, the North did lots of Bad Stuff.<br /><br />But.<br /><br />The Southern states decided to break the country rather than stop owning black people like you and I do a box of Froot Loops. The "invasion of the carpet-baggers and the forced imposition of former slaves" was, in fact, an attempt to prevent the Southern slavers to do just exactly what they did, which was return their former property to the status of beings-outside-the-law. The attempt of those people in this country who tried to reverse that in the 20th Century fractured the nation again, this time driving the racists out of the Democratic Party and in to many a Tea Party.<br /><br />We in this country really need to stop trying to put lipstick on this pig, accept that what the South did was the last, desperate gasp of the fucked-up, slaving racism that started out the status-quo in 1776 and lives on in assorted racist prickdom throughout the nation even today, and consign the damn Rebs to the dustbin of history along with all the other wrongheaded morons; the damn apartheid government of South Africa, the damn Chicago Black Sox, and the damn crooks at Enron. Let 'em all rot in hell.FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-92031343243767868892011-02-12T20:55:37.108-08:002011-02-12T20:55:37.108-08:00BRL: Mmmm...bit simplistic, no? Admittedly the HEI...BRL: Mmmm...bit simplistic, no? Admittedly the HEIC was hurting from a loss of sales to North America, but I suspect that the total sales in NA were a fraction of their sales in Britain. Why coerce the Crown to spend that lucre in America (and, more to the point, again - if the HEIC was so freakin' powerful, why the hell didn't it get the "Regulating Act for India" quashed in Parliament in 1773) when they could have just put the jack into beefing up the British Excise and screwed it out of the Brits? Plus you're eliding the effects of the Seven Year's (French & Indian) War in the form of the Sugar, Currency, Stamp, and Quartering Acts, not to mention the resentment generated by the Proclamation of 1763, all of which did little or nothing for John Company.<br /><br />I have no doubt that the HEIC hoped to get as much out of the war as McDonnell-Douglass and FLIR hope to get out of our current wars, but as a major driving force? As the shadowy power behind the North and Germain governments? How the heck could they do that when they couldn't even keep their own Governor-General out of the dock?FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-41754829667236939372011-02-12T16:14:11.948-08:002011-02-12T16:14:11.948-08:00Andy-
Nice. Let me think some about it.Andy-<br /><br />Nice. Let me think some about it.seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-37707537580861892642011-02-12T16:10:45.541-08:002011-02-12T16:10:45.541-08:00Gentlemen-
Notice I have revised my four observat...Gentlemen-<br /><br />Notice I have revised my four observations:<br /><br />* We Americans are in the midst of a profound political crisis, probably the most serious one we have ever faced as a political community.<br /><br />* This crisis consists of a whole series of systemic failures which include the political, the economic, the strategic/intellectual, the moral . . .<br /><br />* The current US elite holding de facto power, call them the "Empire Party" are anti-democratic, anti-intellectual, anti-Enlightenment, and radical in their views and intentions for the future of this country. They attempt to pass themselves off mostly as "conservatives" or even at times as "progressives", but their words are consistently betrayed by their actions. Their actions see the means of US government power as a tool to their own enrichment, they use public funds to enrich themselves and promote their own narrow interests.<br /><br />* The Empire Party has a powerful propaganda instrument in their hands which is used effectively to confuse the citizenry. This propaganda has a significant ideological element which is especially "Libertarian" and Radical Right wing, yet most of those under the influence of this political propaganda do not gain anything through its goals or even benefit from the system in general, rather suffer under it in a variety of ways. The mass of supporters are essentially stooges to be manipulated at will for the interests of the cynical elite. Part of the propaganda mix is a pseudo-religious affiliation with Right-wing Israeli policies, although affiliation with other like-minded foreign interests is assumed.<br /><br />-Essentially the same as the original with some changes to the last point, but only to clarify. <br /><br />I'm very happy with this thread.<br /><br />When I read your thought out and clearly expressed reasoning . . . it quickly becomes apparent that what seemed clear isn't actually so clear at all, but then what else could be expected under 1 & 2 above? We are not imo in any "pre-crisis situation", rather engulfed in the backwash of numerous crises which we attempt feverishly to ignore . . . at least that would be the conclusion of following the four above points in regards their implications . . .seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-20076797074112822672011-02-11T18:36:42.461-08:002011-02-11T18:36:42.461-08:00Brooklyn, I have noticed your posts at RAW and the...<i>Brooklyn, I have noticed your posts at RAW and the wicked way they treat you there!</i><br /><br />Hehe. I truly believe that Gerald Celente was right in 2009: there is going to be a fusion of the Progressives and Libertarians in the near future to try and rein in the rapacity of The State. I dislike Dennis Kucinich for his economic positions, but I will stand with him and others (even people like Michael Moore) when they call for ending things like The USA PATRIOT ACT and such. <br /><br /><i>Kudos to your crowd giving Cheney the finger at CPAC.</i><br /><br />Yea, I'm glad my buddies that went to CPAC did that. Its high time people understand that there is a radical difference between the NeoCons and Libertarian-wings of the Republican Party. Cheney/Rumsfeld deserve nothing but scorn in my opinion. Funny how Cheney in the mid-90s, like Bush in 2000, talked of how Nation-Building was wrong (vis-a-vis Iraq and Operation Desert Storm).Brooklyn Red Leghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02649492866049982193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-10361634457487251542011-02-11T18:06:16.203-08:002011-02-11T18:06:16.203-08:00As per Andy's request, assuming it was to me, ...As per Andy's request, assuming it was to me, a defense of the South.<br /><br />The whole country was slave-owning when we first set foot in the New World, but the North discovered the Joys of the Industrial Revolution while the South ( and by that I refer to the "Powers That Be" at the time ) perpetuated their "Peculiar Situation" by continuing to ship their cotton, tobacco, sugar and rice and pocketing their profits to build their mansions and live the life they wanted in freedom, all supported by dirt-cheap slave labor and share-croppers.<br /><br />I would disagree with yet another Nazi comparison, this time to the ante-bellum South. I'm positive that there were exceptions, but the treatment of the slaves by their Southern master came nowhere near the murderous atrocities committed by the Nazi regime. One may make a valid comparison of Southern "intellectuals" and religious leaders who claimed blacks were not the same race as whites ( many said the apes produced the blacks ) to the Nazi propaganda machine spewing their lies that non-Aryans like the Jews and Poles were sub-human.<br /><br />I don't know, had Lincoln lived, whether or not he could have stopped the CarpetBagger invasion of the South, the bitter Anti-Reconstructionist folk of the North, and the forced imposition of figure-head former slaves in positions of power in the South.<br /><br />Meanwhile, back up North, along with the Joys of the IR, they discovered the joys of legal slavery ( from child labor all the way up to women locked in their fire-hazardous sewing factories ) until the Commie/Socialist version of the late 1800s and early 1900s up to McCarthy started to buck the system.<br /><br />Brooklyn, I have noticed your posts at RAW and the wicked way they treat you there! ( A joke, guys, honest! )<br />Kudos to your crowd giving Cheney the finger at CPAC.<br /><br />But I can never be a Ron Paul Libertarian. Anybody who can create a Rand Paul has to have some screws lose somewhere.<br /><br />I wish I had more time, to be here, but I don't. Miss y'all.<br /><br />Sorry.<br /><br />bbbasilbeastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-66934719499260998152011-02-11T17:24:02.396-08:002011-02-11T17:24:02.396-08:00FDChief - Okay, let me try again. I suppose I'...FDChief - Okay, let me try again. I suppose I'm not being clear: <br /><br />The same thing that Corporations today turn to the government to bail them out at the expense of the poor shmucks like us: market share. What the frell do you think the East India Company was going to do if George III quashed the rebellion? Break up shop and leave? Hell no, they had their monopoly and the Crown was going to win it back for them, over the bodies of thousands of colonists if need be. Incoporation is a legal shield to commit rapine, slaughter in exchange for enhancing The State's coffers. <br /><br />Yes, George III was going to get tax monies from HEIC, but they were going to reap the benefit ultimately. The true enemy in The American Revolution was The East India Company. We threw off one set of tyrants only to have our own homegrown variety in the form of the Mercantilists via Hamilton.Brooklyn Red Leghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02649492866049982193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-26144481017501380492011-02-11T15:38:08.386-08:002011-02-11T15:38:08.386-08:00BRL: What the hell did the HEIC have to gain from ...BRL: What the hell did the HEIC have to gain from wasting a pantsload of cash in North America after 1776? Keep in mind that the East India Company Act had already screwed it for nefarious corporate skulduggery three years earlier.<br /><br />I'll buy that prior to 1773 it might have made sense for the HEIC to try and suppress rebellion so it could make more money on monoploized trade with the Americans. But after '73 any gains were going to go to HM Government, not the Company. Makee no sense.FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-9734495732917257342011-02-11T13:37:03.782-08:002011-02-11T13:37:03.782-08:00Andy: Just wanted to observe that your comment abo...Andy: Just wanted to observe that your comment above is perhaps the most cogent in this thread to date. Well said, man!<br /><br />I will only add that I think you have sussed out the real problem to seydlitz's original argument, which is that we're still in the "pre-crisis" stage and as such still very much in flux. The shape and size of the "crisis" will, I think, matter critically in determining both the kind and the direction of the response.<br /><br />My concern is that the "crisis" may not be a crisis as we understand it; not a Great Depression or Civil War. Instead we may go the way of Imperial Spain; slowly slipping further and further into desuetude but unable to recognize how badly we've slipped. Great powers have enormous resilience, and the shell of the power tends to remain in place for quite some time after the actual power has been lost. How many Britons actually "got" that the imperial era was over in 1945? Hell, Churchill never DID accept that; he was still furious about the loss of India in the mid-Fifties...FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-20299904765110779582011-02-11T10:03:29.859-08:002011-02-11T10:03:29.859-08:00Seydlitz,
After thinking about this a bit more, h...Seydlitz,<br /><br />After thinking about this a bit more, here's how I see things in an historical context. Keep in mind I'm putting this a bit simplistically.<br /><br />Through all of our history, our nation has not been very good at bringing about collective solutions at the national level. The exceptions to this were the result of severe or existential crises of one sort or another. In a crisis environment it becomes easier to build a coalition to deal with whatever problem the country faces. This past century we had the Great Depression which was the crisis that allowed the progressive coalition to gain enough support to implement their agenda. This was continued through WWII with a national-level war economy. After WWII the threat of Communism and the Cold War served as a continuing "crisis" of sorts that allowed nation-level action in a host of areas that, in more typical times, probably could not have happened.<br /><br />It's my sense that the end of the Cold War returned us (or we are in the process of returning to) to a "pre-crisis" state of affairs. In that regard I think Chief is right that circumstances today are similar to the pre-progressive era. The reason, I think, is that there currently is no national-level issue that displaces internal divisions in the political sphere, so those internal divisions become our everyday politics. Absent this kind of national consensus, we've devolved into regional, cultural and ideological politics - a politics of competing values. In short, the various factions in this country not only have different preferences and methods for achieving goals, but different goals altogether. Contrast this to, for example, the Cold War where political factions largely shared major goals (ie. defeat/deter Communism) but perhaps differed in approach.<br /><br />Building a broad movement in the current environment where there isn't a consensus on goals or where we are headed isn't going to be easy. But the more I think about it, the more I think you are right because, as I often assert, we are heading toward another crisis. If that is true or likely, then it makes sense to at least lay the groundwork for a movement in order to be prepared once the crisis comes. In the meantime I think factionalism is a reality that will have to be accounted for.<br /><br />One area where I may disagree is that I think the Empire Party is already a dinosaur on its way to extinction. I don't think it's going to last because I think the next crisis is going to be a domestic economic crisis which will put a nail in the coffin of foreign adventurism and maintenance of Cold War security structures. In short, absent something like an Axis coalition or the USSR, people will choose butter over guns when and if an economic crisis comes.<br /><br />On the question of whether or not Pat Lang could, should or would be a leader in an nascent movement - that is something I cannot answer.Andyhttp://organizingentropy.typepad.com/blog/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-75805924659439845322011-02-11T06:33:57.275-08:002011-02-11T06:33:57.275-08:00FDChief-
The reason the individuals that you ment...FDChief-<br /><br />The reason the individuals that you mention have so little influence is because they are all acting as individuals. A movement - defined by their rejection of Empire - on the other hand could have a completely different dynamic, might actually be able to gain some traction.<br /><br />"But I also think that we don't really see how we're going to get there from here."<br /><br />At this point I think any potential opposition would not be able to see how the whole thing would play out. The Refusniks in the old East Block had no idea that their movement would lead to the Revolutions of 1989, but that didn't stop them. I think it more like an "adventure" in that you realize that you are on an adventure, but you don't know how it is going to develop or how it will turn out in the end, if in fact it will even succeed or lead to disaster. I think the importance is defining an opposition broad enough to be an actual threat to the Empire and then attaining some sort of forward movement. Eisenhower for instance described US history in his farewell address as "America's adventure in free government".<br /><br />"I mean, look at the side-issue of southern hagiography and slavery. Fighting for slavery = bad, yes? Seems straightforward, no? And yet we can't even get beyond the mythology of the old Confederacy to agree on that."<br /><br />Which is my point, there are various "mythologies" involved, which only cloud the actual issues which are contemporary. My larger point is that perhaps the animosities between conservative and progressive/Liberal are simply too great to bridge, which precludes us from establishing an effective movement to oppose the Empire Party. This condition is unprecedented in our history, with the Radicals essentially implementing their new state of affairs against an indifferent and atomized pulp.seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-59609527233955613342011-02-10T20:49:56.094-08:002011-02-10T20:49:56.094-08:00The East India Company was the true enemy, the pup...The East India Company was the true enemy, the puppet pulling the strings of King George III.Brooklyn Red Leghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02649492866049982193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-30211656236333473312011-02-10T15:17:37.402-08:002011-02-10T15:17:37.402-08:00BRL: "They didn't defeat the true enemy i...BRL: <i>"They didn't defeat the true enemy in The American Revolution: The East India Company."</i><br /><br />WTF?FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-82575110536883509112011-02-10T15:15:05.488-08:002011-02-10T15:15:05.488-08:00Andy: I've said it here before and I'll sa...Andy: I've said it here before and I'll say it again; I would give my 401K, what little it's worth right now, to have the Eisenhower Republicans back.<br /><br />But the reality today is that we've returned to the default setting of the pre-1945 U.S.; Jacksonians vs. Jeffersonians, slave-staters vs. freesoilers, Progressives vs. Corporatists (vs. Anarchists!).<br /><br />I don't think that we "can't" solve the problems we're facing so much as we can't agree on how to do it. About a third of us have foresworn taxation altogether. And the hardening of the Right's position is having a similar effect on the Left.<br /><br />The Senate, with it's effective supermajority rule, is nonfunctional. House districts are often so gerrymandered as to make real hope for electoral change a wish. We've worked so hard at divorcing physical choices from fiscal and financial consequences for so long that Dick Cheney can say that deficits don't matter and really believe it...<br /><br />Add to that what I think will become a real significant problem and one that I want us to discuss further in a seperate post;<br /><br />1. We're a wealthy industrial society that no longer controls most of the raw materials we need for our wealth, whilst<br /><br />2. The places we are aquiring our materials from want to and are developing their own industries and don't want to be our supply closet anymore, and<br /><br />3. We're looking at serious, really serious, competition from places like India and China, which can produce much of what we produce while paying their workers a fraction of what ours need to stay anywhere near the middle class, which<br /><br />4. Suggests that we will soon be faced with the possibility that a significantly large chunk of our population will be not just unemployed but unemployABLE at anything but Third World wages.<br /><br />And there ar huge implications for that demographically and politically. But I really do want to think about this more and explore it in a seperate post...FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-19435545998702362702011-02-10T14:56:19.097-08:002011-02-10T14:56:19.097-08:00seydlitz: I think you're letting the byplay ob...seydlitz: I think you're letting the byplay obscure the comments on your main topic, and that goes back to your original choice of Pat Lang as the standard-bearer for your anti-imperial trope.<br /><br />I think that most of us here, having many of us been in harm's way or faced with the probability because of our country's apparent casual indifference to adventuring in foreign climes, would agree that the U.S. would be well served by a government less inclined to see other people's problems as their opportunities.<br /><br />But I also think that we don't really see how we're going to get there from here.<br /><br />The political choices we've had that have offered that as policy have been either ignored or rejected. I'm not sure how, short of a fundamental, multi-generational change in American public opinion, you can change that.<br /><br />I mean, look at the side-issue of southern hagiography and slavery. Fighting for slavery = bad, yes? Seems straightforward, no? And yet we can't even get beyond the mythology of the old Confederacy to agree on that.<br /><br />So I don't think the issue is a matter of agreeing with you - I think most here do. It's the practical questions of "How would you make a concerted push to counter the interventionist received wisdom work if smart people like Lang, Bachevich, Kucinich, and even Ron Paul, can't seem to?"FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-59158325294103843342011-02-10T08:30:12.349-08:002011-02-10T08:30:12.349-08:00BRL,
Welcome.
jimBRL,<br />Welcome.<br />jimjim at rangerhttp://rangeragainstwar.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-74186308858968472952011-02-10T07:30:06.303-08:002011-02-10T07:30:06.303-08:00Brooklyn Red Leg-
Welcome. I think you the first...Brooklyn Red Leg-<br /><br />Welcome. I think you the first reenactment enthusiast we've had comment. I'm not really interested in re-fighting the Civil War, or War Between the States, or whatever. If you're interested please refer to my Nathan Bedford Forrest thread, which you may find interesting . . . Of course it's up to the others as to whether they wish to continue in this vein . . . My questions have been essentially answered.<br /><br />In essence, I find this whole subject a distraction from what should be the important issues addressed on this thread.<br /><br />Admit that I have a soft spot for Ron Paul, as I think most actual conservatives do. Will have to do a thread on von Mises, but be advised I'm very much in Max Weber's corner, so we probably won't see it quite the same way . . .seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.com