When Glenn Beck first arrived on the national scene a few years ago, I, along with many Latter-day Saints cheered as a member of our Church gained national prominence and might shine a little positive light on our faith. 
Little did I know, as he gained more national attention with a radio and TV show, he would also go stark raving mad in the process.
I bought the Glenn Beck conversion story DVD and frankly I was quite impressed. It seemed a sincere, heart-felt conversion from a pretty wretched life. I’m truly glad he found the Church has helped him and his family so much.
Then along comes the election of Barack Obama and with it, went the sanity of Mr. Beck.
Not only does he call the President a Racist (for which he later apologized, sort of), a Marxist and a socialist, but also makes fun of his wife, Michelle and her campaign to help our kids eat healthier.
While he is ranting and raving about the Obama administration, he is aligning himself with Sarah Palin and the so-called Tea Party Movement. The funny thing about the Tea Party movement is that it totally misrepresents what the original Boston Tea Party was all about. The Boston Tea Party was not so much a protest about government and taxes as it was about “Taxation without Representation.” That is, paying taxes and getting nothing in return. The modern Tea Party Movement is actually about the opposite, No Taxation and still all the services and representation they have to come to deserve. In other words, they don’t want to pay for roads, police and fire protection, the military , schools, parks, etc. and especially, social programs which lend help to those in need. These folks are clearly against the re-distribution of wealth unless of course, it goes back to them.
But, I digress.
One of the strangest things about Glenn Beck is his use of mid-1800s Mormon feelings about the US Government and in particular, an obscure so-called Mormon prophesy, to scare the country. The Prophesy, known in church circles as the “White Horse Prophesy” declares that the Constitution (of the United States) will be hanging by a thread and the Elders of Israel (Translation: LDS Church members) will rescue it. This Prophesy is attributed to Joseph Smith, but no proof exists that he actually said it. However, he is quoted as saying something very similar by a number of people including:
“in 1871 Eliza R. Snow said:
“I heard the prophet say, ‘The time will come when the government of these United States will be so nearly overthrown through its corruption, that the Constitution will hang as it were by a single hair, and the Latter-day Saints—the Elders of Israel—will step forward to its rescue and save it.'” (Journal History of the Church.24 July 1871;)
Elder Parley P. Pratt, quoted as saying the following in 1841 regarding the United States government:
“The government is fallen and needs redeeming. It is guilty of Blood and cannot stand as it now is but will come so near desolation as to hang as it were by a single hair!!!!!” (George A. Smith Papers, LDS Church Archives, 21 January 1841)
On July 4, 1854, President Brigham Young said:
“Will the Constitution be destroyed? No: it will be held inviolate by this people; and, as Joseph Smith said, ‘The time will come when the destiny of the nation will hang upon a single thread. At that critical juncture, this people will step forth and save it from the threatened destruction.’ It will be so.” (Journal of Discourses, 7:15.)
President Young spoke again of a future threat to the constitutional government of the United States:
“Brethren and sisters, our friends wish to know our feelings towards the Government. I answer, they are first-rate, and we will prove it too, as you will see if you only live long enough, for that we shall live to prove it is certain; and when the Constitution of the United States hangs, as it were, upon a single thread, they will have to call for the ‘Mormon’ Elders to save it from utter destruction; and they will step forth and do it.” (JD, 2:182;.)
And then finally, Elder Orson Hyde recalled a slightly different wording of Joseph Smith’s alleged statement regarding the Constitution than did some of his contemporaries:
“It is said that brother Joseph in his lifetime declared that the Elders of this Church should step forth at a particular time when the Constitution should be in danger, and rescue it, and save it. This may be so; but I do not recollect that he said exactly so. I believe he said something like this—that the time would come when the Constitution and the country would be in danger of an overthrow; and said he, If the Constitution be saved at all, it will be by the Elders of this Church. I believe this is about the language, as nearly as I can recollect it.
The question is whether it will be saved at all, or not. I do not know that it matters to us whether it is or not: the Lord will provide for and take care of his people, if we do every duty, and fear and honour him, and keep his commandments; and he will not leave us without a Constitution. (JD, 6:152.)” All quotes found in Hoyt W. Brewster, “Behold, I Come Quickly: The Last Days and Beyond “ 1994, Deseret book Company
So, According to an article by Dana Milbank, Political Reporter for the Washington Post, Beck is using this quote, “The constitution is hanging by a thread” in many different ways and in a number of different venues. And he is using it as though it were his own.
So, what are we to make of Mr. Beck and the White Horse Prophesy. He is an alarmist, a provocateur, and most of all, a showman. He does this for attention, ratings and to enrich himself. And, of course, like any good self-promoter, he has to be persecuted and afflicted, first it was his eyes and now, his hands and feet. According to him, his physical wounds ( in his hands and feet?, no allusion there) are caused by his spiritual wounds. What’s next, bleeding from every pore?
He is by some, viewed as a religious leader rather than a talk show host. However a recent poll, less than 1 in 5 support Beck as a religious leader. As much as he invokes the name of the Lord in his presentations. His LDS faith clearly hampers his ability to lead a religious movement, according to the poll analysis.
But that didn’t stop one pundit, Bob Cesca, from calling him a “multimillionaire celebrity televangelist.”
I realize that some in and out of our faith like and admire Glenn Beck and what he seems to stand for. I welcome your comments, but I, for one cannot be counted among you.
Wheat & Tares 
I liked it when he was doing an ad for buying gold and asked the you pray about it. Nice touch.
Beck along with Romney think they can use the force of 6 million US Mormons to back up whatever crazy things they say. The problem is is that are plenty of LDS people who agree with the bigotry that everyone else in the country assumes all Mormons agree with Beck and all will vote for Romney. Here is 1 northeasterner who will not be voting for Romney is 2012.
Given you’ve read the tea party wrong, I expect you’ve got Beck wrong as well. The tea party types who spam me, started complaining about George Bush and spending. They seem much more upset about unsupported spending than taxes.
Beck is an entertainer. He has admitted as such in various interviews. It is much like Kiss or Ozzy. If you read interviews with them, they have absolutely NOTHING to do with devil worship or anything like that, it is merely marketing. The provide a product to the public to make money. Beck is the exact same thing. The downside is that Beck’s rants can potentially have real consequences.
Regarding all of the “hanging by a thread” quotes – things can certainly get out of hand when people want to “out-quote” each other. There is an oft-quoted statement by Orson Hyde about the transfiguration of BY and how miraculous he appeared like Joseph Smith, etc. Unfortunately for the quote, Hyde wasn’t back from a mission when the meeting actually occurred, so it would have been impossible for him to be there. He was merely embellishing things he hear others say.
For many, political feeling inspires more religious fervor than actual religion. Glenn Beck’s rhetoric on both religion and politics is entertaining (to his target audience anyway who already feel more or less the same way). He can dredge up ideas like this (and the Moroni promise applied to buying gold of all things!) and sound fresh and prophetic. Funny how that works. It’s new to non-LDS, but it’s familiar to those of us raised in the church. I guess an entertainer uses what’s at his ready disposal.
He sure doesn’t help the church, I now have to regularly explain that is not the way all members think.
After his rally I had to explain that our prophet would get a revelation for America, not Glenn Beck
I feel embarrassment when I watch or listen to him more than anything. Obviously he’s been fantastically successful, but I don’t know how anyone can represent himself the way he does.
On this I stand with Stephen and not Jeff.
Taxation without REPRESENTATION has nothing to do with the level of taxes. It has to do with the level of taxes and to who the services and benefits are provided being decided according to the will of the people, not rammed through by political elites using self-serving deals despite clear evidence that the majority of the people do not consent.
I knew nothing about the white horse prophecy until I started visiting the blogosphere; it is not part of the RLDS/CofChrist tradition. But any church that is not ashamed of believing in Book of Mormon historicity or an actual angel Moroni or that refers to itself as “Latter Day” Saints has the notion of future historical disaster embedded in its culture from D&C 1 onward. The Book of Mormon is filled with stories of American civilizations walking a continuous tightrope between moral progress and moral destruction. And there were always prophets (plural) other than the leader of the church sent to warn the people.
It’s tough to tell a self-consistent story of the Restoration, give up the notion of apocalyptic overtones, and end up much to the right of the Community of Christ.
If you think that the world is not accepting the gospel of Jesus Christ sufficiently rapidly, the implications Beck is drawing are pretty consistent with your own core teachings, as they are with the beliefs of many evangelicals.
Beck, good or bad, is IMPORTANT. On 8/28, I have personal witnesses who stood in line to get in to the Shady Grove Metro station hub for nearly two hours just to buy fare cards from the machines before Metro gave up and just let everyone ride for free. There are 8-10 stations like Shady Grove at the end of the metro; this was a phenomenon of people seeking to be responsible for the future of their country.
They should not be mocked.
I’ve lost count of all of the blog posts where liberal Mormons say “Glenn Beck doesn’t speak for me,” but this is certainly one of them. It’s less shrill than most, which I appreciate, but I end it the same place I end the others: asking “So, what?” What do you want? I don’t understand what all of these posts are accomplishing, other than giving other liberal Mormons a chance to say “Yeah, me too.”
I like Beck. I love his conversion story. I don’t often watch/listen to him, because I find him a little too ADHD for me. I don’t think he’s got the inside track to truth. I am a bit concerned when I see so much hatred directed at him (not in this post, admittedly) for being such a hating guy — I’ve not seen nearly as much hatred from him as I have toward him.
When I do watch him, I see him talking a lot about relationships between individuals and groups on the left. Some of his chains of reasoning seem a bit strained to me, but things at high levels of power involve such relationships, and that doesn’t make them sinister. Coalition building makes for odd bedfellows, and always has. My political activity put me into contact with people whose views differed from mine rather substantially in some ways, but we were able to work together in the areas where our cause was common, and that happens all over the place. You have to take the support you can get, not, necessarily, the support you want, and that can make things confusing.
But I don’t see that kind of analysis of Beck from the left. I just see rejection of Beck because he’s conservative, popular and loud, and because he gores their sacred cattle and tells them things they don’t like to hear. He’s goofy and silly sometimes — he doesn’t take himself very seriously, and finds it humorous that others do. He sincerely believes what he believes, and wants to talk about that with his audience.
Just last week, I saw voices on the right criticizing Beck for not getting serious about opposing SSM, because he was on O’Reilly’s show and laughed off the idea that this was a threat with “Will the gays come and get us?” He is not part of some vast right-wing conspiracy trying to spread hate and build fascism. He’s a humorous guy with a weird sense of humor who loves God, loves the Gospel and what it’s brought his life and family, and who talks about political thing he believes in because it’s his job and he’s good at it. He says things a lot of grass-roots conservatives agree with and say, and it would be good for more people to listen and understand these folks instead of just attacking them for not being liberal.
They feel alienated, used lied to and betrayed by those who paid lip-service to them in the past, and then did things they were opposed to. They’re fed up, and don’t want to be fooled again. They want to see their ideas implemented, because they think they have solutions that will fix the problems the country is facing, and those ideas have not been used, even though they’ve been spoken about at length. And they’re tired of being lied about, but they’re rather used to being called racist, bigots, homophobes, and aren’t going to be silenced by these labels anymore.
I digress, but it’s about what you digressed about, so I don’t feel too bad.
So, what do you want from/about Beck to happen? Seriously.
I am here to say that I do not want Glen Beck speaking for me, or acting as a representative of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. He has acted as a representative because he has a lot of money and the use of the nations air waves to spew his bigotry.
I wish the Prophet would put a statement out thru the LDS press room stating that Glen Beck does not have the right to speak on behalf of the church as he does. While all of us who are LDS understand this, people who are not of this faith are probably thinking that he is teaching correct doctrine, which he is not, he is only giving his opinion. There is a difference.
I just feel like he’s a bully and everyone is just standing around letting him have his way.
Can we have comment numbers, please? This is annoying.
diane — I find your response pretty common, but wonder who this “everyone” is that you’re talking about. I see Mormons all over the place getting their undies knotted publicly about “Beck doesn’t speak for the Church, and he doesn’t speak for me.” Joanna Brooks said just that on the HuffPo, so it’s certainly been made known in liberal circles. I’ve never seen him claim that he speaks for the Church — can you show me where he has?
Is it that you’re not hearing these people, or that you’re looking for someone to actually shut him down and take his audience away before you’ll be happy?
Stupid people who don’t investigate things will most often come to false conclusions. That can’t be avoided, and doesn’t justify taking away someone’s right to speak.
I agree with others on here. You do misread the Tea Party, probably with the help of the Huffington Post. Read what they say about themselves. As far as Glenn Beck goes, I’ve never heard him pretend to represent the Church. He has a particular apocalyptic view–which is reflective of how many feel today. Trees don’t grow to the moon and increased centralized power corrupts eventually be it left or right. Intellectual progressives or even moderates, on the other hand, see past trends as indicative of future trends. It’s a good hypothesis, but it isn’t fool-proof. For example, 100 years of trending maybe different than 2000 years of trending. Seasons do change–our scriptures indicate it.
Glenn Beck is a different kind of Mormon, he’s Catholic, a convert, not sure how steeped he is in Mormon theology. He comes across as someone who is in the process of developing it. Recently he has discovered Clean Skousen and Ezra Taft Benson–good for him, it may cost him his life. You ridicule him for his histrionics about his maladies, and I hope that it is a publicity stunt. If he is being targeted, I expect a full mea culpa from you, Jeff.
Finally, the Constitution “handing by a thread” prophecy has been repeated sixteen million times in conference talks. No need to go to the White Horse Prophecy.
I am not sure what you mean that I read the Tea Party wrong. I have no real idea what the Tea Party movement officially stands for. All i see are complaints about high taxes, Obama Socialism/Marxism and other things that make no sense to me. they have Sarah Palin as their chief spokesperson, which loses it right there for me. I am against the massive spending that goes on in Washington as well, but the Tea Party bunch does not speak to me. they only want to pay no taxes and complain. No real answers there.
I am not sure how to respond to a majority of your post. I don’t quite get it. But i will say that the will of the people is “exercised” by those they vote into office and the system under which the government operates. If it is to be changed, the people who control it need to be changed. Unfortunately, we have a political machine that relies on corporate and special interests to feed and nourish it. When that stops, the government of the people, by the people and for the people might actually get restored. Until that time, the majority of Americans have little real representation.
comment numbers coming, asap. I know it’s annoying. Sorry!!
My post is mainly about Beck co-opting old Mormon rhetoric about the US government in the mid 1800s and using it as his own. I just so happen to be reading the Mountain Meadows Massacre book now and it is very enlightening how Beck as used the same sentiment that Brigham Young and the others had about the US government at that time and applied it to today. The White Horse Prophesy is just one example of that.
I do not reject Beck strictly for being conservative. I mistrust him for the reason I stated above and his alarmist tactics.
What do I want from him?
a. Tone it down.
b. Admit where he gets his material
c. Stop mixing LDS philosophy with his brand of politics and not admit where he gets it from.
“If he is being targeted, I expect a full mea culpa from you, Jeff.”
Is he a target? of course he is. When you act the way he does, you make yourself one.
Why would I mea culpa on that?
I know a number of them, none of them are for no taxes, many of them are upset about spending and about the exclusion of blue collar thought from acceptable discourse.
To the extent you have people who like Sarah Palin, it is because of her voice. I had a boss, a senior litigator, who loved Palin, but they had similar social backgrounds.
Any group has it strange types and those who only coast along on it.
The Tea Party, being anything that anyone who wants to appropriate the name and can get others to listen to, is kind of broad at the moment. Kind of like the word Christian.
Whether it becomes more than a group started by those who disliked George Bush and his wars and spending and that is not happy to see the spending going on remains to be seen.
First I was trying to point out that the Mormon origins of Beck’s thinking are a lot more orthodox than the white-horse-prophecy. And people are finding independent confirmation of his assertions in the open non-religious literature. It’s unclear whether Beck or Oprah can more quickly move a book up the best-seller lists by recommending it. And Oprah’s books are a lot easier reads.
If there is a hesitancy to acknowledge the Mormon connections of his thought (and Beck speaks of his church quite often — simply without Restoration buzzwords, and asserting it is the one and only true church), that, unfortunately, says more about the regard with which orthodox Mormon leaders are held by the American public than it does about Beck.
Second, in order for a government “political machine that relies on corporate and special interests to feed and nourish it” to be changed, other voices must rally and organize the people to do so.
It seems perverse to let yourself be so distracted by the imperfections of the messenger that you don’t evaluate the message itself. Every Mormon prophet has had imperfections. Showmanship isn’t a disqualification or a requirement. Daring the priests of Baal to call down fire from heaven and then soaking the altar of God was pretty showy, for that matter.
Some people get past the showiness; some don’t. A lot of people are getting past it and being called to repentance. Where this goes from here bears close watching to be sure it evolves into a good thing, not a corrupted thing.
If you believe an alarm needs to be raised, being alarmist is something of an occupational hazard. 😀
I go back to the old physicist’s joke: His ideas are crazy, but are they crazy enough?
Oh, and I should also note, if he’s sincerely Mormon, he ought to let his Mormon understanding guide every part of his life, shouldn’t he?
“Stupid people”
You don’t know me but your calling me stupid?
Boy I wish I had a million dollars so I could have my own radio show to spew the crap he does and have the backing of people like you to support me in actively fighting his special kind of biogtry.
He gets to spew his crap, only because he has the money to do so, but I’m the one (and people like me ) are stupid because we don’t have our own radio show to speak back and out against the crap that he talks about.
How did Blaines’ comment make it pass the moderators. I thought comments that belittled what people feel and write were not suppose to happen?
This is the response my dad routinely gives when he hears criticisms of the Tea Party, and it seems a little empty to me. It seems pretty clear that the organized movement is run, controlled, funded and represented by fringe, far right-wingers. I don’t really see how this is debatable. They’re backing candidates like Angle and O’Donnell, who are not only spectacularly unqualified for national office, but who are arguably lunatics. Sarah Palin is a fringe figure, and she’s the de facto, if not official leader of the Tea Party movement. The argument that “I know lots of people who consider themselves Tea Partiers” just doesn’t seem to mean much. I’m sure there are lots of moderate and level headed democrats in Congress, but as long as the party is led and controlled by Nancy Pelosi and crew, it’s inaccurate to call it a party of moderation. If the Tea Party is indeed really moderate and reasonable at its core, then I would argue it has sold its soul to Beck and Palin in exchange for publicity and funding. They can’t have it both ways.
I think this is a reasonable position, but I don’t think Beck is harmless. He’s ultimately a fearmonger. I don’t appreciate anyone trying to convince the masses that revolution is on the horizon or the end of the world is nigh. In times as uncertain as these, I would appreciate a more tempered and calming message, not one that riles people up who are already frustrated and afraid. This is especially disconcerting when Beck turns around and hawks products aimed at people who coincidentally have heightened concerns about things like the apocalypse and revolution. My concerns about Beck have nothing whatever to do with his connection to the mormon church.
I don’t want to speak for Blain, Diane, but I didn’t think he was calling you stupid. In fact, I got the impression he was calling the sheep who line up to believe everything they hear from people like Glenn Beck potentially stupid. I thought his point was that just because lots of people are stupid enough to believe everything a person with a microphone says, doesn’t mean that person should be prevented from speaking.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, Blain.
Sentence should read “I know lots of moderate, reasonable people who consider themselves Tea Partiers”.
Brjones,
First, I agree with what you’ve said here. And Second, I also do not know any Tea Partyers that are in the least moderate and reasonable. They are all far right, anti-government, anti-tax folks who all hate Obama, non-American Muslim.
Yes, he should.
I would never call those folks stupid, but hopelessly ill-informed. they are not well versed in American history, unfamiliar with the political process and lastly have virtually no clue what the Constitution actually says.
of course, I just described about 80% of the US population.
Diane, this isn’t the press statement you wished for, but there’s enough of a connection that I thought it might be worth a quick mention:
http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/blog/church-statement-on–white-horse-prophecy–and-political-neutrality
I don’t have a TV so I don’t watch Beck (granted, if I did, I still wouldn’t watch – he’s not extreme enough). Just so you know when I was living in UT I was part of the 10% that didn’t vote for Romney (Romney is an elitist).
From what I understand about the Tea Party movement it started with supporters of Ron Paul. And it has been pretty loose organization (of course the neo-cons are co-opting it).
I think we should be focusing our efforts on more important critiques of Beck like his war mongering. Question: When you go to DC and other eastern states you see many monuments and statues, what are they for? Most seem to be in praise of man and war. I say we are an idolatrous nation worshiping the war state. I say we have taken the Lord’s name in vain by saying we are going to war in his name. These are the important questions about Beck.
Questions: How much taxes are too much? Do you believe that property is sacred to the owner of it? Why do I have a problem with high taxes? For that matter why do I have problem with taxes period? Maybe because the scriptures say that “Thou shalt not steal.”? How can an entity claim moral authority over me when it has shown no moral backing? An entity that steals, maims, and kills its own who it proclaims to protect? No, I cannot support such a system. No modern liberal thinker has been able to answer these questions for me. They are always ignored.
I think we should be looking at the core principles and then extrapolate from there.
“And he is using it as though it were his own.”
Given that the church has rejected this ‘prophesy’ thousands of times before, it probably is correct to say now that it is Beck’s own!
Um, taxation is not theft. Jesus gave Caesar that which was Caesar’s, and he did not consider it a stolen item. This “tea party” movement better improve its discourse, because right now, my four year old says wiser things than members of the tea party. The stupidity is mind boggling. (for the record, I don’t call Jon or anyone who believes this crap stupid. I call the crap stupid).
Jeff’s point is very accurate regarding the Tea Party. Their antics are funded by billionaries (Koch brothers), spoon fed their diatribe propaganda by other billionaires (Murdoch), and enflamed by millionaires (Beck and Palin). They support members of the Republican party who voted for Medicare Part D (like Paul Ryan, who we are supposed to believe is some new fiscal savior—no one bothers to ask him why he voted for the unfunded Medicare Part D). 80% of the Tea Party are ideologically in line with the Republican brand, will vote Republican, and keep their mouths shut when Republicans spend like drunken sailors (George W Bush and his ilk). They love their war against Islam but refuse to increase their taxes in order to pay for their crusade, choosing instead to send that bill to their children to pay.
But really, the kicker of the Tea Party is that they are spoiled brats, sore losers who simply cannot believe that they lost the 2008 election to a liberal black man with a Muslim sounding name. They are sore losers who need a good spanking. Spoiled brats.
Thank you for the response. I might believe it, if I could go for one fast Sunday without hearing some one get up and sing the accolades of Glen Beck. I wish when they did that a member of the bishopric would get up and say political endorsements are to be left outside the ward building on Sunday mornings. I believe President U gave a talk about the very subject last spring.
I might also believe it if there hadn’t have been the Prop 8 debacle. To be told how to vote from a church and then have your worthiness called into question if you don’t agree leaves a bad taste in my mouth
Is that a genuine photo of Beck crying?
Why would anyone pose for such a photo? :s
Dan, you are really painting with a broad brush, the same that would justify saying that the Democrats in the United States are really just disaffected socialists ….
The core of the Tea Party types I’ve met are people who started being upset with George Bush. Every time someone says keep their mouths shut when Republicans spend like drunken sailors (George W Bush and his ilk) they portray a profound ignorance of the people they are talking about.
For some perspective, read: http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/444433.html
I get spammed by these people regularly. They oppose the war in Iraq and hector me about it all the time. I was against it, so being hectored doesn’t do much for me.
Now, people who do not understand how government works, who really need to go to the government free anarchist utopia of Albania (the government fell apart after a huge multi-level conspiracy), think taxes are theft and that government, which preserves markets and trust, is useless.
No kidding, they are idiots and clueless.
And no doubt, there are a number of people who have tried to get channel or direct or take advantage of the spontaneous populism that is the Tea Party movement.
But that is like saying that because the MBLA supports gay marriage, hoping it will aid their agenda that gay marriage is nothing but MBLA propaganda.
/Sigh. You should know better Dan.
Jeff et al,
Beck is a complicated soul. It is hard for me to like or dislike his style. However, I do admire his research.
It appears to me that no one has shown his research to be suspect. He uses peoples own words to show their leanings to the extreme left (communism).
One might not like his interpretation of his research, but one thing for certain out of all this is that there are a lot of people in government and the news media who think the US Constitution is an antiquated dying document and needs to be scraped.
Regarding the White Horse Prophecy, you lost me there. I don’t have cable and watch only selected programs on TV, so I’m not in touch with Beck on a daily basis, I watch him when I’m at the gym. I’ve never heard him refer to the White Horse Prophecy.
Jared,
His research is terrible. He claims the Founding Fathers were not deists, but full on religionists who disliked the idea of a separation of church and state. The historical revisionism is astounding. Since I find it highly unlikely that you, Jared, would go to mediamatters.org, I won’t even bother showing you the evidence to debunk your claim that “no one has shown his research to be suspect.” If you truly wish evidence, let me know. His research is bunk.
I believe any pose would be “self-mocking” (he does that a lot) or it’s a freeze frame of actual crying done to intentionally be mocking.
Take your pock.
How do I put this delicately? Perhaps by paraphrasing your own words?
“But really, the kicker of the PROFESSIONAL LEFT is that they are spoiled brats, sore losers who simply cannot believe that they ARE ABOUT TO LOSE the 2010 election to a BUNCH OF NORMAL FOLKS WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN EITHER THE INTELLECTUAL OR MORAL SUPERIORITY OF THE PROFESSIONAL LEFT. They are sore losers who NEEDED a good spanking. Spoiled brats.”
Does that add anything to the level of discourse? Does it convince the other side of anything?
Stephen,
Is this before the 2004 election or after? Because these “disaffected” types voted for Bush even after the unfunded tax cut of 2001, the unfunded war in Iraq, the unfunded Medicare Part D, the unfunded war in Afghanistan, and the unfunded tax cut of 2003. Surely you’re not going to tell me that these guys were so utterly disgusted by runaway spending under the first term of George W Bush that they decided not to give him a second term. Having paid close attention to politics since the late 1990s, I do not recall tea partiers in American politics pre-2008, except the fringe types. Sorry that it hurts, Stephen, but maybe they need to work on their message. This is what comes across. Maybe they need to moderate their tone if they wish to have someone like me (I am a moderate guy) even consider them close to moderate. They wish to remove a lot of things in this country which I find quite useful for the nation (Social Security, Medicare, Dept of Ed, and so on). They refuse to even consider cutting spending on defense, while at the same time not even give a thought to increasing their taxes to pay for wars of their choosing. Utterly reprehensible and utterly irresponsible. Why should I take them seriously? Especially when it is quite clear they are being led by established Republican powers (Dick Armey, Koch brothers, Rupert Murdoch).
(I am a moderate guy)
LOL.
You suggest you’re to the left of Obama in many of your other writings!!!
Beck is like many commentators. He has his premise and then uses things to support it. His research is no better nor worse than that. he knows no more than anyone else. His puts put his thoughts into the minds of the founding fathers and has them come out any equal to his interpretation.
His socialist/marxist rant is one of many of his ideas that are totally off base.
He has embraced old world and “red scare” Mormon ideas and made a business out of it. And he’s coming to town with it in a few weeks on his next “book” tour.
He cries a lot on his show.
I found it on the net. I just fit the post really well.
Indeed. That should tell you where Obama is ideologically. He’s no leftist. He’s certainly not a socialist, and you have to laugh at anyone who claims he’s a communist.
Why is my comment in moderation? I guess this isn’t like Mormon Matters.
Easy Dan. It’s a new site, stuff’s getting caught in the spam filter. I released your comment. Give us some credit eh!
Dan–
I hope it wouldn’t surprise you that I am interested in the truth. I’m not devoted to Beck, but I am to the truth, whatever the source.
Regarding Beck’s research. Much of it is the words, written and spoken, by the individuals Beck is reporting on. When people of influence in our government say that they admire the wisdom of Mao Zedong I find that worthwhile to know. Also, when the white house Christmas tree has Mao Zedong ornaments hanging on it, I find that surprising.
This kind of stuff is irrefutable; what is there to argue about?
I just mentioned a couple of instances. Things that link White house czars with extreme left wing thinking in their own words keep emerging. I don’t know about you but I find that disturbing.
Regarding the the Founding Fathers. Beck’s research on them comes from current authors who have credibility as historians. Beck has them come on his program and relate their findings. To my knowledge no one as questioned the credentials of these men and women.
Lastly, I’ll check out mediamattes.org because I realize there are at least two sides to issue. I interested in the truth.
Good Lord, this is annoying! BiV — thanks for the update, but, dang! Want me some comment numbers yesterday. God bless anybody who can figure out what I’m talking about here. I’ll try:
Jeff — I think others have spoken to the version of Mormon thought Beck is digging into, and it’s not necessarily as old as what you’re referring to, and I don’t find that portion of the topic of Beck as interesting, but I did want to at least touch at it since it is your point and your thread and all. There are reasons to distrust centralized government power that are a lot more recent than MMM, although I do think some of those threads of reasoning go well back through the MMM and the trends that led up to it. They’re deeply embedded, and I don’t think they’ll be going away, nor do I think they’re entirely wrong. But it’s definitely good to pull them up into plain view and talk about them clearly, so people can see them and more consciously choose what to do with them.
I think your requests of Beck are interesting. Three quick follow ups:
1. How is he supposed to know of your desires?
2. Why should he care about them if he should learn about them? And
3. What do you offer him in return, should he do any or all of them?
diane — If the “stupid people” comment you’re referring to is mine, I haven’t yet called you stupid. brjones is along the right lines in his attempt to clarify for me (thanks brjones, that was very kind). There are way too many people who will take statements at face value without any investigation to see what’s behind them. If anybody thinks Beck is speaking for the Church, they’re doing so despite his saying other wise, and the voices of many in the Church saying otherwise, and I don’t know how you fix that. It’s hardly Beck’s fault that people are that stupid, even for the portion of them who are in his audience. I do see him encouraging people to investigate things for themselves and not just take his word, and he makes an effort to distinguish between the facts he is presenting and his analysis of them — that’s not a bad thing IMO.
I am less impressed with your characterization of him and what he says as being nothing but crap. He gets to say what he says to who he says it to because he has done what it takes to build an audience and keep their interest in a highly competitive business. If you wish to do the same, be my guest, but you’ll find it’s harder than it looks.
Past that, we have a standard right/left debate, and it’s no more interesting this time than the list bazillion times I’ve seen it.
Dan, do tell me what theft is then? Do I not own anything? Is everything owned by the government? I thought it was owned by God and no other?
As for the scripture I’ve always taken it as “Let government, for the most part, do what it will, the gospel is more important and to bicker over politics is a waste of my time, I’m here to share the good news, not say if a government is good or bad.” At least that’s what I got out of it.
So, what is theft? Do I get to own anything?
Well, at least two of the founding fathers were not deists. 😉
Dan, for what it is worth, my comments got caught in the spam filter too. Still getting adjusted.
There is Dan again supporting his tax and spend Obama, the man who has spend more than any other president in the history of this nation. Dan again with his inaccurate description of the founding fathers, who the Lord said were “wise men raised up by his hand” — men who appeared in the Saint George Temple to receive their endowments—men who were prophesied of in the Book of Mormon. Dan, quit trying to make them sound like men they weren’t. You are wrong. Your tax and spend liberal democrats are wrong. They have destroyed this nation and put us so far in debt we won’t be able to get out. So please, take your liberal non-sense elsewhere.
Dan, I’m in favor of cutting defense spending, I was against the unfunded war in Iraq, the unfunded Medicare Part D, and the unfunded tax cut of 2003 and I knew people who were.
The problem, of course, is that disquiet on those points did not build into unease, and then into real concern for many people any where near as fast as it could.
You probably remember the guys touring the country on their own nickle stating that the biggest threat to American security was the burgeoning debt the Republican party picked up for us.
BTW, did you read the Brad Hicks link? He’s a full throttled Democrat.
Ouch Will, that really does not add to the discussion, the tone or to the original post.
Please moderate yourself.
Thank you.
Blaine:
I am highly intelligent. I read the newspapers, listen to the radio shows the same as you, unlike you I allow people to come to their own conclusions and I don’t label them as being stupid. You may not have personally called me stupid, but you alluded to the fact that because I don’t see things the same as you that I am.
I will Echo what Stephen Marsh stated in his response to Dan. I believe you need to moderate yourself. I have a right to my feelings, thoughts and opinions the same as you do.
I like Glen Beck because he keeps Jon Stewart in business.
jmb,
#49,
My deepest apologies.
I’ll agree that Beck’s conversion story seems very sincere. But I strongly disagree with all of the outrageous comments he makes that seem simply intended to get attention and shock. I was put off a few weeks ago when our Bishop talked about Glenn Beck during his talk in Sacrament meeting (did not focus on his conversion story, rather emphasized Becks’ admonition to make America Strong etc). No one even batted an eye. I struggle with this knowing that if someone were to quote Hillary Clinton in Sacrament meeting (ie her “it takes a village” mantra), many would come unglued. Personally I think Beck is just another “shock jock” using politics as his arena for outrageous comments (as opposed to someone like Howard Stern who uses the arena of sex).
jon,
#52,
If you wish to go by the words of Christ, then go by the words of Christ. He said: “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.” It seems quite clear what the Savior thinks about who owns what. He, the Creator of this world, says that the coin in His hand does not belong to Him, but to Caesar. Thus, it would be you who would be stealing from Caesar if you do not render that which belongs to Caesar back to Caesar. Of course, we live in a representative democracy these days, and our government represents us. However, note on your American coin or currency. Whose image is on the currency? Is it your image? Is your name on the currency? If it is, then you are definitely right. That money belongs to you and no one else. He who demands it and takes it from you is stealing from you. But if your name and your image is NOT on that currency, then it belongs to who is ON the currency. That would be representatives of the United States of America. Render unto the United States of America that which belongs to the United States of America. That is, if you wish to go by the words of Christ.
I think you’re reading far too much into that line. The question was over taxation, not government policy. The answer was on the topic of the question at hand, not government policy. Don’t read into the scriptures more than is there, otherwise you might pervert the scriptures and come under condemnation, as John the Revelator warned in Revelations. 🙂
Jared,
Actually it’s quite refutable. Not sure what’s wrong with admiring the wisdom of Mao Zedong. He made some tremendously horrible decisions, but before he became chairman, and was a guerrilla, his tactics and policies to unite the Chinese behind him were phenomenal. Also not sure what’s wrong with Christmas ornaments that happen to hang on the White House Christmas tree. Those ornaments were created by children from across the country. I know, I know, it’s sad that the White House didn’t vet the ornaments to ensure political correctness….they’re trying.
What is “extreme left wing thinking?”
Well, you need to get out more, dude. Those authors’ credentials have definitely been questioned. Once again, I’ll let Media Matters do the leg work for me.
Stephen,
#56,
How much time did you need? The tax cut was passed in 2001. The war in Afghanistan began in the fall of 2001. The war in Iraq began in 2003. Medicare Part D was passed in December 2003. Maybe you can show me some evidence of this disquietness from, say 2003, because, having paid very close attention to politics during that time, I cannot recall such discontent from conservatives. I’ll happily say I’m wrong if you show me several credible examples. I mean, I can’t tell you how many conservatives, since 2008, have said they’ve always been against Bush’s spending. But yet, you guys will still vote for Boehner and Ryan and McConnell even though they are the very same Republicans who have been in charge of this very terrible spending the whole time. In some ways, I appreciate the tea party surge which is purging some of these Republicans from office. I shed no tear for Senator Bennett or Murkowski. I won’t even shed a tear if Senator Reid loses….well, maybe I’ll shed a tear for just how terrible his possible replacement is. In any case, almost every single person I’ve talked to who belongs to, or says they are, the tea party, I’ve heard pretty much the same thing as you say. They were against Bush’s spending. That’s nice.
Let me ask you, Stephen, seeing that Bush’s policies are still currently adding to our deficit, are you willing to have your taxes raised in order to back your rhetoric of fiscal responsibility? Are you willing to have the 2001 tax cuts expire (they are, after all, unfunded with equal spending cuts)? Are you willing to have your taxes raised appropriately to pay for the continuing expenses for having troops in Iraq? Are you willing to have your taxes raised appropriately to pay for our endless war in Afghanistan? Are you willing to have your taxes raised to pay for Medicare Part D? It’s still ongoing. It wasn’t a one time charge. Or are you willing to cut Medicare Part D as much as you are willing to cut Obamacare? Are you willing to cut out of Iraq and Afghanistan as much as you are willing to cut Obamacare? Do you see where I’m going with this? My charge is that, at their core, tea partiers only care about deficits when Democrats are in charge. They don’t mind one of their own spending like a drunken sailor. They’ll later throw him under the bus, but when he’s in charge, his spending is fine. Are you willing to have your taxes raised to pay for the spending of YOUR guy?
Will #55,
“They have destroyed this nation and put us so far in debt we won’t be able to get out. So please, take your liberal non-sense elsewhere.”
first of all, let me also echo the TONE IT DOWN with regard to your attack. We don’t want that here.
Second, the best debtors Presidents in modern times were Reagan and the Bushes.
And, it does not suit the discussion well when you just try to deflect the conversation away from Glenn Beck the the Tea Party.
58 (thank you, TPTB for giving us comment numbers) — No. I have no trouble using the word “stupid” where I think it applies. If I wanted to apply it to you, I would have done so. I have not done so. I don’t withhold the possibility that I may do so at some point in the future, but, to date, I have not, so can we keep the conversation to what I have said, instead of what I have not? If we do that, you can notice that I included some of the group of people who are stupid and unwilling to check out what they heard in Bro. Beck’s audience. There’s no reason to think that people who agree with me on any given issue are smarter than people who don’t, nor that they are stupider.
As it turns out, I have no problem with people reaching differing conclusions from me. I do reserve the right to state what I disagree with and why, and to do so with some edge to my tone if it seems appropriate to me. If you can refer to what Bro. Beck has to say as “crap” without providing examples and reasoning, I can refer to that reasoning as less-than-impressive. And you have and I have, and there’s nothing in that that requires moderation by anybody.
And perhaps it would help to know that I’m more interested in evidence from more primary sources than things quoted on talk shows or partisan blogs. I like C-SPAN more than news channels — more with the facts and less with the imposed analysis that’s based in speaking points.
Perhaps what you’re responding to is less what I say than my tone. I don’t advise that. My conversation style is quite direct, and I can be quite blunt when calm in ways that many people don’t get to without being quite angry. Often, people think I’m angry with them, when I’m just being quite clear about what they’ve said that I disagree with and exactly why.
So, anyhow, hi. Nice to meet you. I won’t be changing too much, probably, but you’ll probably get more used to me with time if you give it a chance. I’m an acquired taste.
I think my interpretation is correct. See D&C 63:24-31. The only reason to be paying taxes is to avoid the wrath of government, i.e., so you won’t be killed, jailed, and persecuted and are able to spread the word of God. Not because the government is on the right side but because government has the power to kill, imprison, and steal from you. Government isn’t virtuous and if you are “paying attention” as you say then you would notice all the governments the US overthrows, overtly and covertly. You would notice all the people that the government is killing every year. You would notice the estimate of 1 million people who died in Iraq because of the American economic sanctions put against those people after the first gulf war. If that is what you desire then go for it but I’ll have to strongly disagree and say that government isn’t the solution, a God fearing people is!
61 — I suspect that this is why I don’t have as much of a sensitivity to Beck references at Church. I’ve never seen one. Which is a teensy bit odd, since I live in the same stake as the high school Beck graduated from — I probably know people he went to school with. FTM, I know people he probably went to school with in the town he grew up in, too. Maybe this is a little bit of a reason I tend toward the sympathetic with him. I don’t know.
But I do tend to be a bit cautious/sensitive when people bring in comments from policy makers in Sacrament Meeting (although I did, some years ago, reference something Hillary Clinton said in such a talk — I’m not categorically opposed to it). If I was hearing Beck quoted repeatedly, I would likely say something about it in EQ, and I think that might help a bit in my ward.
So, for those who have to experience this quite a bit, I’m sorry. It would bug me too, even though I like Bro. Beck.
Jeff,
My comments are the tea party. They represent the anger of the tea party. They represent the anger of any fiscally responsible person in this country that understands the problem that has been created by the out of control spending in the county. They represent the anger I feel as I finished by taxes yesterday (filed for an extension due to some partnerships) and my hand shook as my pen just wrote out another 12,000 in taxes adding to the nearly $60 K already paid.
I agree Reagan and Bush Sr. had their spending problems, but it is nothing like the spending of Bush 43; and, mostly Obama. The budget deficits in 2010 and 2011 will equate to almost three trillion – more than both Bushes and Reagan combined. Also, the 2009 budget was proposed by Bush, but implemented by a democrat controlled congress. Moreover, the stimulus and amendments (over a trillion) in 2009 that added to the budget deficit were the handy work of Obama and the democrat controlled congress. This means Obama is responsible for almost 4 trillion in debt. Thus is just a mind boggling amount. With 4 trillion you could pay 4 million people one million dollars each.
I disagree with a lot of what Beck has to say, but one of the virtuous and praiseworthy things he did was bring attention to the out of control spending by the democrats.
#63 Dan–
I enjoyed the exchange. I don’t agree with your points, but it is always interesting to see another person point of view.
Take care, brother.
Jon,
Dude, look at your currency! Whose image and name is on it? Yours? Or the United States of America? Who is stealing from whom? Personally I’m glad the government has the right to enforce its tax collection, otherwise people won’t pay their taxes, and things won’t get done. I have no problem with it. And it’s not theft. Try again.
This has nothing to do with the topic. It doesn’t matter whether our government is tyrannical or democratic. They have a right to levy a tax.
What the hell does that even mean? A God fearing people? Are you suggesting that someone who believes government has a right to levy a tax is not a God fearing person? You realize that under that logic, Jesus Christ would not be a God fearing person, because he advocated that taxes be given back to the government.
Jared,
#70,
NO! Don’t bow out before answering my question! … uh, please. 🙂
What is “extreme left wing thinking?”
ah, tea party love for Ronald Reagan…apparently all Obama has to do to earn the respect of tea party members is
1. Triple national debt
2. Cut and run from terrorist strikes against our military
3. sell arms to our enemies, and give that money to militant guerrillas
“I disagree with a lot of what Beck has to say, but one of the virtuous and praiseworthy things he did was bring attention to the out of control spending by the democrats.”
Will, my Friend, you gotta get real here. The problem is our political systems not one party against the other. the system is set up as a way for incumbents to remain in office.
The problem with the Tea Party movement is that they have aimed their wrath against Obama rather than the very political system that got him or GW Bush elected.
This bit about taxes being stealing is probably the dumbest thing I’ve read in a long time. We have built an entitlement based system. EVERYONE feels entitled. Special Interests, corporations, politicians, poor people, rich people. Its the middle class or whats left of it that gets stuck with paying the bills for everyone. if the Tea Party really wantedto appeal to the common person they would focus on this rather than the shout downs at town hall and the socialist/marxist garbage. this is where the lose credibility with the masses.
Oh, that and the Sarah Palins and Christine O’Donnells of the world. With all the smart women out there, this is the best they can do?
Jon,
by the way, the Constitution of the United States of America legitimizes what you call “theft”: Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution (not even in the Amendments):
It doesn’t even provide a limit to how much tax Congress shall have power to lay and collect. They could Constitutionally tax you at 100% if they so desired, and you’d have no legal recourse. Doesn’t that just suck? Maybe we should have ourselves a revolution and remove the taxation clause from our Constitution…but then again, you cite scripture which does speak quite favorably toward the Constitution as written…quite the conundrum you face.
75, Actually Jon proves the point I made in the OP about the Tea party movement.
Jeff,
I hope your comments about stealing and such were not directed at me, I made no such comment.
As for the rest of your comments, I don’t put all of the blame with the democrats; republicans have been involved in plenty of taxing and spending. The main problem and the large percentage of our budget is comprised of entitlements, mostly implemented by the left. The reality is that when (most likely when we are forced) these entitlements are slashed or eliminated, it will be those that depend on them that will be hurt the most.
Jeff,
I’m not part of the tea party movement. I’ve never considered myself part of the movement. I also criticized Bush while he was still in office. I don’t watch Beck (otherwise I would be moderate and a war monger). I don’t listen to Sean Hannity (any of those other loons).
Dan,
Joseph Smith said that the biggest thing lacking from the constitution was the power to kill those who are working for the constitution (congress, president, ect.) if they don’t adhere to the constitution and protect the rights of the people (of course, he said it in a more coherent manner). My point is the constitution isn’t perfect and shouldn’t be looked upon as perfect. Just because the constitution says something doesn’t mean it’s moral.
I’m not a right winger. I’m more of a classical liberal/volunteerist (volunteerist in the sense of the ideal, minarchist in the since of realism).
Regardless what Christ said (and if you look at the D&C that I sighted you would see the modern day revelation interpretation of if it, which matches what I was talking about – that to pay the mafia (government) so they don’t hurt you and consequently make it so you can live and carry on with your business is worth the cost.) you have to admit that it is theft. What is theft? To take something from someone that isn’t theirs and keep for oneself by force or craftiness. If that isn’t what the government (mafia) does I don’t know what is. Just because they have the bigger guns doesn’t mean that it’s right. If I get the bigger guns and tax 100% of your earnings does that mean it’s OK? After all, I could put my face on it. Remember Jesus wasn’t a political figure, he had a higher message. Dan, your argument is fallacious.
My point isn’t that we shouldn’t pay taxes, my point is that once you realize that taxes are theft then we will look at taxing the people with more respect and we would get rid of the income tax, property tax, etc. It’s immoral to the core and reason tells us that.
Here’s an analysis of what Jesus said with a far better rebuttal than I could ever do. Read the whole article (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/bevis1.html)to get context:
“So, what does Jesus here imply belongs to a Caesar who tried to rival God for worship and loyalty? Financially speaking, the most that statist Christians can get from this story is an endorsement of a flat tax limited to a single digit percentage of a manual labourer’s annual income. Furthermore, this money was used to finance local government, local security and road construction. It was never sufficient to prop up bloated international government agencies, failing businesses or indebted home buyers. But since Jesus implicitly shut Caesar out of the Temple with his answer, even this conclusion is debatable at best.
Morally speaking, though, Jesus was refusing much more than a coin for himself or his Father. His answer was a rejection of the blasphemous power of state-controlled money, issued by thieving moneyers at the behest of false gods. Even today, such money is backed by the ability to threaten and use state-sanctioned violence on a massive scale. Those who give such orders today shelter beneath the doctrine of “sovereign immunity,” and those who carry out the orders try to absolve themselves by pointing to “the chain of command.”
Caesar’s “power” (such as it is) entails appearing to reap without sowing, promoting or unmaking just weights and measures on a whim of public policy, taking or preserving the lives of others in the name of the “big picture” or the “greater good” – and reaping personal and national disaster in due course. No wonder Jesus, the Prince of Peace, rejected such power whenever it was offered to him.”
Dan,
Just read another article. Thanks for helping me to understand the scriptures better!
The scripture is referring to Caesar as idolatrous and to God as the only one to serve. Makes much more sense to me now! Before I was a bit baffled, not anymore. Stay away from the idols! The government is not a god! Seriously, read this article it will make so much sense!
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/barr-j1.1.1.html
#77, Will,
The Stealing comment with for Jon.
“The main problem and the large percentage of our budget is comprised of entitlements, mostly implemented by the left.”
This is where I have a problem. In just blaming the left. You may be referring to so-called social entitlements, that originated with the New Deal during the depression. I am also referring to the entitlements that are given to corporate and special interests, political favors and to the defense industry. They also are huge and a product of both the left and the right.
The social entitlements like SS are problematic for me in that the outflow now goes to many people who did not contribute to the inflow at all.
The government can’t have it both ways where they want folks to plan for their own retirement and then expect them to spend all their money propping up the economy, allow our jobs to be outsourced to the world and rewarding companies who do it. This is mostly tied to politics more than a grand plan. Our economy is highly manipulated to favor those with money. You cannot blame one side or the other for this, they all have dirty hands.
jeez Jon,
where to begin? You’re gonna rely on interpreting the words of Christ from Lew Rockwell? Let me try to go through your several comments point by point.
1. On Joseph Smith, do you have a quote for that?
2. You say: “Regardless what Christ said”…no, not regardless of what Christ said. Regard what Christ said! Let’s review the text from the three New Testament verses on the subject and the one in D&C. Here is Matthew 22:
Do I have to show you all three? They’re nearly identical. Now, regarding D&C 63, I honestly don’t know why you even consider this making your point. Here is the key verse:
Jesus could not have been clearer that even HE, The Lord, renders unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s. I don’t know how the rest of the following verses even justify you claiming taxation is theft, as those verses don’t even talk about taxation. You have a tremendously weak point, Jon.
3. You say: “that to pay the mafia (government) so they don’t hurt you and consequently make it so you can live and carry on with your business is worth the cost.)”
Seeing that God does not call the government a “mafia” if you call it a mafia and then use scripture to make your claim, you’re adding words to the scriptures, perverting their meaning and putting words in God’s mouth. Personally I recommend against doing such a thing.
Nope, it’s not. Whether a tyrannical autocracy, religious theocracy, communist, totalitarian, or democratic country, each state has the right to levy a tax upon its citizens, and Jesus makes this point so pure and simple. You’re way off base dude.
It’s as if you don’t even read my comments. You don’t know what theft is apparently. You write that theft is to take something from someone that isn’t theirs and keep it for oneself by force or craftiness. Nothing terribly wrong with that description. But then you say that our government steals “our” money from us. Once again, if you are reading this part of my comment, look at any currency in your pocket. Does it have your name on it? If it has your name on it, and your image, then that currency belongs to you. If it has the name of the country you reside in on it, then that money is NOT yours. The value of the money in your pocket has little to do with YOU. You can print your own money with your name on it with your image on it, but what is its value? It has no value to anyone including YOU, as you cannot do anything with it within the country you reside. The value of the American dollar comes from the strength of the policies and economy of the United States of America. The legal tender belongs to the United States of America. They have a right, a Constitutional right, to demand whatever tax on the use of that legal tender within the boundaries of the country. Lew Rockwell is an idiot if he teaches you any different.
Actually they do and it is right.
No. You would then be a tyrant and overthrowing a legitimate government.
ah, so you did read my comment, but understood not one whit.
hehe, this is such a childish response. I simply have nothing that I could say. It is so sad that there are actually millions of people who believe this kind of crap.
oh and in #80, Jeff Barr makes a Catholic position. I don’t remember when Mormons accepted Catholic theological positions…Maybe we should start believing Heavenly Father and Jesus are one and the same…
Jeff, Will,
You have to remember, there’s not a huge difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. Bush increased socialized health care more than any other previous president, he got us into two wars (one where all the reasons have been proven false), and he took away many of our civil liberties (patriot act, Guantanamo, etc.). Obama has increased socialized health care more than any previous president, he has continued two unpopular wars (after receiving the Nobel Peace prize) and has expanded or increased them to other countries (Yemen, Pakistan, Iran (economic sanctions is a form of war), etc.), he has taken away our civil liberties (made it possible to kill American citizens by presidential decree, etc.).
Your talk of Republicans not increasing social welfare is simply not true.
Dan,
1. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith
“The Constitution should contain a provision that every officer of the Government who should neglect or refuse to extend the protection guaranteed in the Constitution should be subject to capital punishment…”
Reason and experience tells us that any inspired document from God will contain errors since men implement it and have desires of their own hearts. E.g., the bible. Neither does the Book of Mormon claim to be perfect.
2. Verse 31 makes it clear why the render unto Caesar statement is made:
31 And if by blood, as you are forbidden to shed blood, lo, your enemies are upon you, and ye shall be scourged from city to city, and from synagogue to synagogue, and but few shall stand to receive an inheritance.
It’s abundantly clear that latter day scripture tells us that it’s only for reasons of self preservation that we obey bad governments. (BTW, in the 5000 Year Leap Skousen outlines what constitutes a authoritarian regime in his 11 points show that the US is authoritarian).
3. The Lord has said that governments that don’t follow Him are bad.
1 Samuel 8:7
7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
Only God is our King (anything else can be compared to the mafia). That also sheds more light on the scripture from Christ that makes clear his meaning that is similar to the second post from lewrockwell that I gave you (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/barr-j1.1.1.html). It is clear that God is our King and not any person or government but you have to be reasonable, you’ll accomplishment much more out of jail or alive then you would if you tried to be a truly free person. D&C also talks about when it is OK to overthrow bad government. I forget the section but it’s the one where they talk about government in general.
Look, I know we’ll never agree. I do this more to understand if I’m right or wrong. I just cannot believe that men were not meant to be free. Even the Nephites escaped their captors in order to be free.
There really isn’t enough room here to write to each other and have a full discussion on the proper roll of government. I’ve been thinking about it for a while and just have a desire to not have spurious rules put over me that don’t make any sense. It’s led me to believe that all taxation is theft and that the no government that is not based on volunteerism is a good government (no government follows the non-aggression principle – which is just the second great commandment).
I really do think our conversations would be more productive if we focused on the militarism that the US has displayed and how many millions of people die at the hands of the US government. How many millions of people are in worse forms of government after the CIA has toppled legitimate governments in other countries and how the US government has militarized our police force. (Listen to This American Life where they talk about how the NYPD has started kidnapping people in order to meet “quotas” and how they are not defending the people from crime).
BTW, Dan, I do understand where you are coming from. I just strongly disagree. It’s just hard to put it all in words. And I just don’t have the time to lay out all my ideas in a coherent manner (my training is in engineering, not English). So hopefully you have a better understanding where I’m coming from and can understand that it’s has a logical flow. I think yours does but just has flaws in the logic, which I’ve tried to illustrate here.
83, Jon,
“You have to remember, there’s not a huge difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.”
I do remember that and have been preaching that for some time. That is why I am so adamant against the Tea party movement. they do not spread the blame around, but instead focus on the current administration with all this stupid socialism/marxist baloney. It’s the system that is broken.
Jon,
#1. wow, good thing we never let Joseph Smith be in charge of this country… capital punishment…
2. Verse 31 has nothing to do with taxation. That’s what I’m telling you!
3. Well, duh, but we’re not a theocracy. We’ve never been a theocracy, and we clearly, soundly, and thoroughly rejected theocracy in the United States. I hope that point is clear, Jon. The United States of America is a secular nation run by men and by man’s laws, not God’s laws. The beauty of America is freedom of religion, allowing people to worship whatever God they choose freely, without imposing their religious standards upon others who have not accepted their morals. It’s a beautiful system and it generally works.
4. You write:
That’s just stupid. We’re not a theocracy. We have proven that you can worship God while not letting Him rule over us politically. Moreover, God has commanded us to obey the laws of the lands in which we live, thus your point, as I indicated, is stupid, Jon. Com’on, raise the level of your discourse. Take better, more educated positions.
5. You write:
I don’t think you understand what freedom means. Because honestly I don’t think you feel free here in the United States right now, having your taxes “stolen” from you. Freedom doesn’t mean what you think it means. You still have responsibilities to your community, some responsibilities which you are forced to participate in whether you like it or not. You do not live in a vacuum. You cannot provide for yourself everything in your life. You do not build your own house. You do not make your own food. You do not build your own car. You do not provide your own safety. You do not make your own laws. You do not fix your own ailments or perform surgery on your body when ill. You’re not as free as you think.
6. You write:
Then get yourself educated on their senses. I don’t care for the war in Iraq, for example, yet I have little choice in whether or not my taxes will eventually pay for that war. And that is because I chose to be a citizen of this country, for good and ill. If you don’t like the rules put over you, renounce your citizenship and leave the country. But don’t call the rules, or the taxes, theft, or some mafia crap. It makes you look childish and ridiculous.
7. You write:
It’s terrible logic. Taxation is not theft.
Thanks, everyone, for a perfect example of why progressives are going to get a complete thumping next election.
Thoughtful people can very easily compare the views of the Tea Party sympathizers they know, with the absurd stereotypes on display above. The difference between reality and rhetoric is substantial enough to discredit the users of the latter.
There is *no* Tea Party figure that advocates *no* taxation. None. “Behold, thou hast lied” may be impolite, but it’s 100% true. But this is a common theme of statists: Limited government = no government. Silly.
On a related point, have you ever noticed that whenever a government budget gets tight, the first thing they threaten to cut are police, firemen, and toilet paper in state parks? Somehow nobody ever proposes cutting back the salary of the junior deputy assistant secretary for Making Kids Eat Their Vegetables back to where it was five years ago. Their game is to make us believe that if we don’t hold spending at the levels they’ve reached (after years of accelerating far faster than inflation + population growth), we’re going back to the Dark Ages.
Another Tea Party theme is the notion that the Best and the Brightest, aren’t. Certainly the elite hasn’t covered itself in glory over the last decade. One of my prized possessions is an e-mail exchange I had with a nationally-known economics columnist in 2005, where I argued that option-ARMs and other exotic lending were inflating a titanic bubble and were going to bring on an epic financial crisis. (He thought not.) We see New York Times writers thinking (and their editors not seeing anything wrong with it) that “the rule of law” is just some obscure Hayekian term of art for deregulation. I had Ivy League-educated law professors who were absurdly undereducated in areas outside their specialty — and had no means of self-correction. More and more, major national publications are full of typos and editorial goofs. The elite, simply put, isn’t all that elite anymore. There may have been a world of difference betweeen an Ivy League-educated shiny person thirty years ago, and a University of Idaho grad like the oft-maligned Sarah Palin. Today? Not so much. Most of the elite conceit anymore is just that — a self-congratulatory in-club based less on actual knowledge or thoughtfulness, than simply having the proper opinions and manners. The hell with them.
Glenn Beck may be a bit emotional, and his treatment of history and political philosophy aren’t quite up to the standards of a faculty discussion, but neither are faculty discussions anymore, let alone the smarmy in-group mental wankery of the “serious” commentators. Beck’s no George Will, but graded on a curve, he looks pretty good, sadly enough.
Re: Obama and “socialism,” the word has gotten to have rude undertones. And yet Mr. Obama’s actual political thought differs on how many points, from the thinking of conventional-wisdom European social democratic parties that are generally classified as “socialist”?
“Socialism” no longer means exclusively “state ownership of the means of production.” Even “socialist” countries (i.e., the European countries that aren’t running away from socialism as fast as they can, a la Sweden and Switzerland) don’t go that route anymore. It’s been found much more effective for the state simply to direct economic activity that’s carried on by nominally private firms, who for practical purposes are completely broken to the will of the state. Corporatism, that is — the real meaning of the word, not the stupid “government by corporations” meaning that idiots like Bill Maher think it has.
Finally, re: “taxation without representation,” a couple of thoughts:
1. The larger a polity becomes, and the further an individual citizen is removed from direct democracy — the New England town meeting — the more a person’s “representation” becomes a legal fiction. There are now far more levels of decisionmaking between a citizen’s exercise of the franchise, and the laws that end up governing him: administrative law, decreased federalism, judicial review carried well beyond Publius’ and Justice Marshall’s original conception of it, and so forth.
At some point, the fiction of virtual “consent” by representation, ceases to be convincing. Leaving the morality of this entirely aside, there is a serious practical danger here. One of the most dynamic aspects of self-government, is that it fosters voluntary compliance with the law, by people who feel a sense of ownership in the civil enterprise. When you lose that — when you can only get compliance by enforcement — you’re screwed. You’re Greece, or Mexico.
I believe that American progressivism, in its legitimate concern with various retail political issues, has come to focus on outcomes with insufficient attention paid to preserving real self-government. American civilization is unusually resilient, which allows progressives to make fun of people who suggest that the system may be getting overloaded. But just as I was premature to think, in 2005, that the housing market was about to bust, even premature critics may still have an eventually valid point.
Dan,
Let me use your logic.
Your logic is stupid.
Well, looks like I’m right and your wrong. Mormon Matters recently had an article about that.
#1. I agree, neither do I wish to live in a system that requires that, that would be, our system.
#2. Verse 31 was talking about the verse we’ve been talking about. It said, follow the law, because if you don’t, you’ll be punished by man’s law and won’t be able to further the purposes of God. He never said that it was a good law but He said follow it anyway so we can be practical. We can worry about the political later.
#4. According to many of our founding fathers there are inalienable rights that no government can take away. The rights come from God. No mortal government can legislate away that which is God’s laws they are universal and true.
#5. What you were describing is called the free market. I can choose to buy a car. I can choose to pay someone to be me doctor. But with government it takes my choices away. It says, I can’t choose who will be my doctor, it says here’s a list, choose one of those people or we’ll throw you or your doctor in jail. Government doesn’t let you choose who will be your policeman, it doesn’t let you choose who will protect you from other countries.
I would say your arguments are ridiculous. Yes, freedom dictates that we have rules of God but not of man. Rules are good if they make one free but the moment they take away my inalienable rights (given to me from God) then it is making me less free.
To say that I should leave this country if I don’t agree with the rules that I never signed on to agree with to begin with is ridiculous. Where am I supposed to go? There is no where. That’s why some people came to the US to begin with to leave the spurious rules laid upon them by their old governments. We don’t have that choice anymore. We have to stand and fight (peacefully) here and now. I will not accept it as my fate to be a slave to the state just because it’s “the government”.
Jeff,
Point taken. Just remember to not use me as an example of the Tea Partiers.
Where do you get the comment numbers from?
Thomas, #87,88,89
You have the uncanny ability to use a lot of words. In my own dumbness, I cannot figure out exactly what you ARE trying to say. So, it’s hard to comment. I think I know where you stand from previous discussions, but I’ll be damned if I can figure it out from those three comments.
Jon, Comment numbers are courtesy of our technical wizards behind the curtain of this blog, JMB and Andrew S, with a little AdamF thrown in to spice things up.
Jeff,
What, does JMB offer the first digit, Andrew the second digit, and AdamF the period?
I definitely offer the first digit. JMB and AdamF can battle out for the rest.
Sounds like Jon’s not seeing the comment #2 (major threadjack here). I am seeing them at home, but not on my work laptop. Must be different IE versions.
Oh, I see the comment numbers now. I use opera web browser, maybe that’s why I wasn’t seeing them before.
So are you guys going to make it so we can just get e-mails every time there is an update on the blog posting? That would be much more convenient than keeping the post open all the time.
Jon,
1. I’m confused. If you don’t agree with what Joseph Smith said, why the hell did you even quote it in comment #78? Here’s what you wrote there:
Sure sounds like you agree with Joseph Smith, but back away when realizing just how extreme his position is.
2. You write:
That’s not at all what verse 31 says. Here is verse 31 again:
It does not say, 1) follow the law, 2) if you don’t, you’ll be punished by man’s law and 3) you won’t be able to further the purposes of God. The previous verses say that Zion shall be gotten through either the purchase of land or through blood. Verse 31 says that, if by blood, since you are forbidden to shed blood, you’re not going to get the land, because your enemies will scourge you from city to city, and from synagogue to synagogue, and only a few will not be purged or scourged. It says absolutely nothing at all about following the law, or about taxation!
4. That matters not one whit, because our Founding Fathers, while they agreed that there are inalienable rights, they did not agree that those inalienable rights came from Deity, but rather were universal rights available to all, even to the non believer. You’re missing the point of what a theocracy is versus a secular nation. A secular nation is not run by church leadership. A theocracy is run by church leadership. Iran, for example, is a theocracy, run by the clergy. We’re not that. In any case, both Iran and the United States have a right (one of those inalienable rights) to tax their citizens as they please. 🙂
5. ah, free market. Very different than freedom. I don’t want to belabor this point any further. Suffice it to say, it changes nothing regarding taxation.
6. You write:
Actually you agreed to it every time you said the pledge of allegiance, or when you received your first identification card as a member of the country or state in which you reside. Once again, no one is forcing you to stay. Renounce your citizenship if you don’t like it here.
7. You write:
Then looks like we will see each other at the opposite ends of the barrel of the gun some day, eh? You bring on the revolution, and I’ll kick your butt. 😉
Dan,
#1.
I think I quoted that quote because you were using the constitution as justification for taxes. My point was that the constitution isn’t perfect, neither did JS who was a big proponent of the constitution but recognized there are flaws. I’ve never agreed with the position to kill people over something so small. As you can see from my anti-war/police state comments.
I attend a constitution book reading class (Center for Constitutional Studies) and I always give them a hard time about using the constitution as the only source to figure out what freedom is. Sure, it might be a good starting point but by no means is a document that tells us what freedom is at its core.
2. Yes it does.
4. From God or from a universal truth it’s the same to me. My point on this doesn’t mean that we need a theocracy. My point is that there are universal truths (which I believe God can lead us to) that will take us to freedom. When we understand the universal truths we can know what it is to be free and yearn for it. The Israelites, from what I understand, voted on their leaders/judges, like we do. It was a law from God to pick righteous men for the job. It would be interesting to read a book on the subject. Do you know of any?
6. That’s a flawed argument. Just because I don’t like that I’m not free doesn’t mean I should have to leave, it just means I need to try and change things the way they are.
I question if the Jehovah’s Witnesses are right about not pledging their allegiance to this country. Where in the scriptures does it say I should pledge my allegiance to a heathen nation? To a nation that doesn’t obey the universal truths. Of course this is a whole other topic that would be interesting to go into, but not until I have more time to research it.
The identification card I have is one of practicality. I want my money back from the government (that they stole). I have to have a card, so I get a card. Just because I use it doesn’t mean I have to agree with it. Just because I don’t agree with public roads doesn’t mean I will stop using them. It would be pretty hard to not use them. It’s impractical. But just because I use them doesn’t make them right and just.
You talk of childish arguments but then you give the argument if you don’t like it leave. That’s childish. Especially when there’s no competing entity, like we would find in the free market, to go to. That’s what they states were supposed to be but now that the federal government has supplanted all the states we don’t even have that option any more.
7. Read the word “peacefully”. I don’t believe in using violence to become free. Most of the time that you use violence you will only get a new violent government like we have now, what would be the point? Freedom will be won by freeing the minds of the people. Once there is a critical mass of free minded people we can implement step number two. Passive resistance. As the great thinkers Tolstoy, King, Gandhi, and Christ taught us about. How does one passively resist? By withdrawing consent. As read in the book “The Politics of Obedience”.
Well, Dan, it’s been nice chatting with you. I’ve definitely learned a lot from this conversation. If you post anything else I’ll read it but I don’t know if I’ll have time to make any more responses.
Thomas,
Great points as usual…
“Thanks, everyone, for a perfect example of why progressives are going to get a complete thumping next election”
I agree, they will take the House for sure and I think they may even take the Senate. My concern is that they will still not have the wherewithal, or guts, to make the necessary cuts. We need massive government cuts in spending across the board – Social Security, Medicare, Medicare, Welfare, Unemployment Benefits, Defense, Federal Employee Salaries, everything – across the board cuts of at least 40 percent to balance the budget. We know this won’t happen by choice and will have to happen when the Chinese, Japanese, Saudis and British quit lending us money. With this said; I am for keeping the tax and spend liberals in office. The quicker they can officially bankrupt our country, the sooner we can really solve the problem.
Jeff, I thought it was liberals who liked nuance, and conservatives simplistically boiled everything down to mere talking points?
A Reader’s Digest special:
1. The standard-issue wannabe-elitist dismissal of the Tea Party is grossly at odds with reality. Tea Partiers are often much better informed than their critics.
2. Calling President Obama “socialist” is supposed to be something inexcusably rude — and yet his actual thinking is more or less identical to a European social democrat’s. And liberals routinely call countries governed by social-democratic parties “socialist” (by way of assuring us yahoos that socialism is really nothing to be afraid of, and works so much better than what we’ve got).
3. Progressivism pays insufficient attention to the principle of consensual, limited government, and it will bite them.
BTW, to Dan, above, who thought that it was inexcusable “revisionism” to state that few of the Founding Fathers were “deists”: Who, aside from Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison, would qualify as deists?
Where is the evidence that the majority of the Founders were anything other than conventionally (if often casually, kinda like me) religious?
This is not hard to look up.
#87 – Thomas, I’ll give you Glenn Beck, but I dare you to say the same about Sarah Palin. She is an imbecile.
#90 – Jon, I’m trying to understand you. Are you insinuating that the right to choose your doctor or policeman, or even the right not to be taxed would be considered inalienable rights by the founding fathers? Clearly that is not so. It seems like you’re conflating 2 separate arguments. You DO have the right to not have your inalienable rights taken away. However, there are relatively few of those type of rights, and I don’t think you’ve hit on any of them yet. You keep talking about pretty low-level rights, and then arguing that the government has violated some sacrosanct rights. If you feel the government has breached an inalienable right, could you please enumerate which right that would be?
“Thanks, everyone, for a perfect example of why progressives are going to get a complete thumping next election”
I take issue with this statement, but not out of any kind of defensiveness on the behalf of progressives. Any party in power would be slaughtered in the current economic crisis. Has there ever been an election that has so aptly proved the addage “beating something with nothing” as this one will? This isn’t a criticism of conservative policy, I just don’t think this election proves anything in terms of which ideology is superior, or even preferred by the American People. Liberal commentators were saying the exact same thing in ’08 and in two short years the worm has completely turned.
I will make no predictions for 2012. That’s plenty of time for anything to happen — up to and including a general mid-east war, another one between India and some Pakistani entity TBD, and one in North Asia over Korean issues. I actually downloaded a military campaign analysis of the former a week ago from a military / foreign policy think tank.
But I think the “thumping” for 2010 is locked-in, and progressives ought to realize that their surprise that thumping is coming says a great deal about how disconnected they have become from the American people.
When the Dems lost Ted Kennedy’s old seat…
It reminds me of the old anti-war Vietnam-era song: “Chest deep in the Big Muddy, the Big Fool says to keep on.”
Brjones — See, this is what I just don’t get. Granted Sarah Palin isn’t a brilliant political philosopher, but (1) who in politics is, now that Daniel Patrick Moynihan is dead, and (2) “imbecile”?
The one big choke I’m aware of was her interview with Katy Couric, where I think her most significant failing was being unable to identify a single Supreme Court decision she disagreed with. (Every good conservative ought to have the travails of Farmer Filburn on the tip of his tongue, if nothing else.) What other drooling idiocy is she famous for displaying?
“Liberal commentators were saying the exact same thing in ’08 and in two short years the worm has completely turned.”
Liberal commentators, and you, had a point in 2008. But the problem isn’t just that the economic crisis has dragged on, on Obama’s watch. The problem is that he oversold himself as a King Canute-style (“this was the moment when the oceans began to recede) messianic figure, encouraging excessive optimism about what he could accomplish. At a point where a Minsky Moment was colliding with a demographic inflection point, he may have been wiser to have taken more of a “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat” approach.
The interesting thing, is that even at the Democrats’ utterly perfect moment — an economic meltdown, high gas prices, two grinding wars, an uninspiring opposition candidate, an attractive candidate that played perfectly (per Harry Reid and Joe Biden) into a bunch of American mythic narratives — the Democratic mandate wasn’t all that decisive. A few percentage points the other way, and the imbecile Sarah Palin would be Vice President.
The American people are basically center-right in their thinking. They don’t tend to elect unabashed liberals — which is why Obama ran as a heal-this-land centrist. He has governed (and appointed, and spoken) well to the left of where he ran. That, and the apparent failure of it all to make a difference, is why there’s a conservative avalanche (that’s Joe Soros talking, speaking of shadowy billionaires behind political movements; see above) looming. Not just the continued economic crisis.
#101 Thomas,
“Jeff, I thought it was liberals who liked nuance, and conservatives simplistically boiled everything down to mere talking points?”
I wouldn’t know.
“The standard-issue wannabe-elitist dismissal of the Tea Party is grossly at odds with reality.”
Ah, if we just call people names, we can get around the facts.
“Tea Partiers are often much better informed than their critics.”
I haven’t found that to be the case. My exposure to Tea partiers is of the standard issue, “yahoo” variety. I’ve not heard much stimulating discourse. No government, no taxes, no socialism/marxism. Nothing very concrete except much of the old Republican rhetoric.
“Calling President Obama “socialist” is supposed to be something inexcusably rude — and yet his actual thinking is more or less identical to a European social democrat’s.”
Not sure where you get this idea from? It is the yahoo that automatically equate any type of socialism with Marxist communism even though they themselves enjoy a significant amount of socialism here in the US.
“Progressivism pays insufficient attention to the principle of consensual, limited government, and it will bite them.”
Ah, again I am enlightened. progressives by their nature want to throw out the democratic/repbulic form of government we now enjoy and mandate certain things and take away the people’s right to vote? Am I understanding this correctly.
Jon,
I’ll only respond to one of your comments. You’ve clearly hardened your view and there is no changing your mind on the issue of taxation. You’ll always see it as theft, even though that legal tender does not actually belong to you. But I want to comment on one thing. You write:
So if I understand the libertarian/”volunteerist” (whatever the hell that means) position, the Constitution is only as good as you like it? The Constitution is perfectly clear on the position of taxation. There’s no doubt about its meaning. If you believe the Constitution was inspired by God, that the Founding Fathers who created it were God-fearing men, then why do you rail against taxation when it is so clear in the Constitution that Congress has a right to levy a tax on every citizen of this country?
Jeff, again with the shifting definition of “socialism.”
See, when a “yahoo” suggests Barack Obama is a socialist, what he obviously means is that he thinks this mild-mannered conventional-wisdom American liberal is a full-bore Marxist. Which is of course absurd. So let’s make fun of the yahoos!
But then you state that Americans “themselves enjoy a significant amount of socialism here in the US.” Which, presumably, is a good thing.
You define “socialism” differently depending on the context. On the one hand, you declare it out of bounds to say that Obama’s left-liberalism has any “socialist” component, presumably because he’s not a full-bore Marxist demanding state ownership of the means of production. But then you turn around and defend “socialism,” as something the yahoos ought not to be afraid of, because (as you say) it includes things like Social Security and Medicare and public fire protection.
Well, which is it? If the latter — if you truly don’t have to go thoroughly state-collectivist to be socialist — then surely the yahoo critique of Obama as “socialist” for indisputably seeking to expand the scope of government’s involvement in the economy, is at least linguistically accurate: He *is* a socialist, by that definition. You then need to argue that “more socialism” is a good thing.
And regarding that, I always come back to John Maynard Keynes’ underquoted quote, to the effect that it is a mistake to believe that politicians are necessarily more moral than businessmen.
Thomas,
#102,
Thomas Paine, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Ethan Allen, James Monroe, Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Aaron Burr, Benjamin Rush, John Witherspoon, David Rittenhouse, Philip Freneau, Joel Barlow, James Wilson, Gouverneur Morris.
I’m going to guess though that you’ll attempt to find evidence of them professing belief in God, or going to some local church or something. I really couldn’t care. Our Founding Fathers, particularly and especially the ones who created the Constitution, were deists, not Christians.
“The standard-issue wannabe-elitist dismissal of the Tea Party is grossly at odds with reality.”
OK, I’ll dispense with the name-calling. Your statement that Tea Partiers favor the abolition of all taxation, as well as all government, is grossly at odds with reality.
Damned if I have ever found anyone who wants “no government, no taxes.” Except maybe Mikhail Bakunin, but he’s (1) dead and (2) definitely not a Tea Party type.
This “limited government = no government” business is of a piece with the best traditions of anti-Mormonism. Limited-government conservatism no more advocates anarchy, than Mormons’ teaching about gender differences is equivalent to insisting that women stay barefoot, pregnant, submissive and silent.
You’re better than this.
Dan, you lose all credibility by putting the good Congregationalist Sam Adams on that list. And John Freakin’ Witherspoon was a minister, for Pete’s sake.
(When I refer to Founding Fathers, I mean the guys who signed either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. I.e., not Thomas Paine or Ethan Allen.)
“I’m going to guess though that you’ll attempt to find evidence of them professing belief in God, or going to some local church or something. I really couldn’t care.”
In other words, “having thrown out my unsupported declaration that these men — all of whom, by the way, are listed as members of conventional religious denominations — are ‘deists,’ I will now refuse to consider evidence in rebuttal of the matter.”
I’ll be the first to contradict modern Evangelicals (and some Mormons), who want to make the Founders like modern Evangelicals. They weren’t — most of them. But to say that more than a couple thought themselves all the way through to outright Deism, is simply false. The Virginia Anglicans were famously relaxed, and some the New Englanders were starting to flirt with Unitarianism. Relatively few were old-school fire & brimstone Puritans anymore. But Deists, who consciously took the position that God does not intervene in history? Not even the religiously casual George Washington went that far.
“progressives by their nature want to throw out the democratic/repbulic form of government we now enjoy and mandate certain things and take away the people’s right to vote? Am I understanding this correctly?
Clearly, no. Except, of course, for the “mandate certain things.” Because what’s the fun of being a progressive except that you get to mandate things? (Everything is fair game for the regulator’s gentle touch — except sex, which serves as a fig leaf enabling the progressive to keep pretending he cares about liberty.)
Nobody’s saying progressives want to take away the right to vote. (Except for those matters which progressives define as Rights, which are too important to be left to the vote of the yahoos.) The problem is that they keep the forms, but are increasingly emptying them of substance. From the first Progressive amendments to the Constitution to the present, Progresivism has steadily centralized power in Washington, and towards government organs insulated from the people’s influence — the courts, administrative bodies, a directly-elected Senate, an imperial Presidency. Even the failure of Congress to grow in proportion to the electorate’s increase has diluted the influence of an individual vote.
That’s what I’m talking about, and that’s what progressives are as a rule totally clueless about.
#107 – Actually, Thomas, I’ll take back the word “imbecile.”. Palin is obviously a sharp lady. What she is is frighteningly ignorant of many of the things you would hope a holder of national office would be aware, such as any foreign events or figures, etc. I realize that she will have educated herself to a much greater degree than when she was chosen as the Republican VP candidate, but the fact that the Governor of an American state was as woefully uninformed as was she, speaks to her intellect, I think.
Also, I think being unable to name a single newspaper in the Couric interview trumps the failure to remember a SC decision.
#110, Thomas,
“But then you state that Americans “themselves enjoy a significant amount of socialism here in the US.” Which, presumably, is a good thing.”
I didn’t say it was good or bad, just that it is fact. And the older Tea partyers don’t want the government messin’ with their Medicare. And their roads. the Tea Partiers around here do nothing but complain about how high their taxes are and they should be paying less. that is the message I hear all the time.
Now, I am not arguing for socialism or against it. All I am trying to say that it is not the evil empire that the Tea Party types make it out to be. it’ not Communism nor is it Marxism. It is a legitimate form of government employed by many democratic countries and works just as well as our form of government. Some would argue better in some aspects. But making it evil is incorrect and shows someone to be ill informed. IMO. I’ve been to many countries that have socialist leaning governments and they are just as nice or even nicer than the US. They have less crime, their population is better educated, their highways and roads are good and they take good care of their citizens.
One last thing, one of the things you fail to acknowledge is that the Tea party movement will not save us from anything unless we undergo a fundamental way that the politicians are elected and our government functions.
Thomas,
oh no, egads! I made a mistake! Seriously. I knew that I had to find a way to get around your “who qualifies as a deist” hedge. I guess your deist is not my deist. In any case, it really doesn’t matter. I’m not the revisionist of history. The writer of the Constitution was a deist. Our first president was a deist (not according to your definition, but I really don’t care). Our second president was a deist. Our third president was a deist. I’d say that indicates that 1) deism was seen as alright back in the day, and 2) our country was not founded as a Christian state, but as a secular multi-religious, multi-cultural state where all would be free to worship whatever god they chose. You wanna argue against that, Thomas?
Anyone who can’t handle a Katie Couric interview should not be at the G8 summit. It’s Katie Couric, for crying out loud!
“…the Tea party movement will not save us from anything unless we undergo a fundamental way that the politicians are elected and our government functions.”
I’m not sure what you have in mind for the fundamental change here, but: 1) the Tea Party is shaking things up pretty fundamentally as to who gets elected just as most crises do; 2) there is no hope of changing the system if the incumbent politicians are more concerned about their own power than their responsibility as stewards whose authority is temporarily derived from the people; and 3)before this crisis is over, there may be several more shake-ups, since the 2008 AND 2010 results may eventually be seen as one reaction and counter-reaction.
Firetag,
The 2010 election is not related to the 2008 election. It’s main strength for change is the economy, stupid. 😉
Firetag,
“I’m not sure what you have in mind for the fundamental change here, but: 1) the Tea Party is shaking things up pretty fundamentally as to who gets elected just as most crises do;”
So far, the only result has been a straight on republican problem in the primaries. The General election may prove the viability of the Tea Party candidates. So far, some are mildly interesting, but not sure they are electable. We’ll see.
The rest I am in agreement with. the fundamental change starts with real campaign reform.
Thomas, Jeff,
Obama is a mercantilist. He’s not a socialist.
Same for Bush, most Republicans and Democrats.
brjones,
I think I only invoked the founding fathers once in all my arguments and I never said that the founding fathers hold my same view point that the right to contract is held by them or not. I’m not sure if it was or not. I know they didn’t like the government making monopolies (read Murray Rothbard’s Conceived in Liberty) which is what regulations boil down to. That’s what doctors operate under now days and that’s the core reason of why we see the price of doctors and operations etc going up and up.
A natural rights come from God and are universal laws. Just because no one that died 200 years ago said it doesn’t mean it’s not a natural right.
The natural right that Will and I have been focusing on is the right to property. The right can be further extrapolated to the right to not be aggressed against (embodied in the non-aggression priciple – look it up in wikipedia – or, from the scriptures, in the 2nd greatest commandment gave by Jesus that that love thy neighbor as thyself, AKA the golden rule).
Most normal people that like other people to take their possession unless agreed upon by contract (whether an oral or written agreement). When the government uses force or violence to take which belongs to you without your permission they are breaking the 2nd great commandment which is the natural right for you to own property. Considering that is one of the most basic rights that we have as a people and the one that government is supposed to uphold I would say that the government is aggressing against it’s citizens.
You can also see my comments on war and the police state that we live in.
Dan,
“You’ve clearly hardened your view and there is no changing your mind on the issue of taxation.”
I believe we were both hardened from the beginning. Although you brought up some good comments that made me question my own position but after study I think I’m still in the right and that your position is still flawed.
“even though that legal tender does not actually belong to you.”
I won’t go over what belongs to whom but I do want to point out another problem with the constitution. It gives the government the exclusive right on who creates a monetary system. This should be left to the market.
“”volunteerist” (whatever the hell that means) position”
I should have written it as “voluntarist” which is a nicer way of saying ordered anarchy which is to say a society where everyone interacts with each other voluntarily without force or violence.
The constitution and taxation:
Like I said before, JS believed it was an inspired work. But JS didn’t believe it was perfect. Cleon Skousen believed it was inspired work but didn’t believe it was perfect (read the book called “The Making of America”). Jon believes it was inspired work but not perfect and that there are deep flaws in it, like imminent domain, taxation, etc.
I believe that there are modern prophets today but that they aren’t perfect, neither do they claim to be. I don’t see where my flaw is? Do you believe all these things to be perfect? They are only perfect when God is the one writing them by himself otherwise things get messed up in translation, that is, by men who are not perfect. The constitution was made up of many compromises by some men who were inspired and some who were not.
“I won’t go over what belongs to whom but I do want to point out another problem with the constitution. It gives the government the exclusive right on who creates a monetary system. This should be left to the market.”
Let me amend that. The constitution doesn’t give the government the right to create a monetary system, it gives them the right to use only silver and gold in the monetary system. Although I still think it should be market driven.
#123 – “Most normal people [don’t]like other people to take their possession unless agreed upon by contract (whether an oral or written agreement).”
Jon, are you familiar with the concept of the social contract?
I don’t really understand exactly what it is you’re arguing for. You seem to believe that there are “natural” rights that exist whether they’re recognized or not. Fine. How are we supposed to know what they are? And beyond that, how is the government supposed to recognize them if they’re not enumerated somewhere? Do you believe that we shouldn’t have to abide by the laws of the land if those laws impinge on what you consider to be a “natural” right because the government has failed to recognize it? That’s anarchy. Who do you believe should be out there pointing out and safeguarding our “natural” rights? I just don’t understand exactly what it is you’re arguing for. I understand your point, but I think it’s purely academic. I don’t see how it translates to reality.
Jon,
“Imminent Domain”
Is that a prediction 😉
Will,
Eminent domain. 🙂 Good catch.
brjones,
Social contract interesting stuff. But if a person doesn’t consent to the social contract how do they opt out? And don’t tell me they have to move.
How do you know what a natural right is? Well you can start by reading the scriptures and you can use reason and logic. If you read the 5000 Year Leap Skousen talks about it and goes through thinkers of the past and how they derived natural rights. Natural rights are focused on the individual from what I understand.
The constitution says we have these rights but only enumerates some of them. It’s impossible to enumerate all rights. That’s why the constitution focused on giving the federal government limited rights to do things and that’s why at first they didn’t have a bill of rights, since it was assumed that the limits they put on the government wouldn’t infringe on the natural rights.
“Do you believe that we shouldn’t have to abide by the laws of the land if those laws impinge on what you consider to be a “natural” right because the government has failed to recognize it?”
Yep, that’s what I’m advocating. That’s what we believe doctrinally. It’s in D&C in the section that they talk about government, it’s in the declaration of independence, it’s in the Book of Mormon, it’s in the bible.
“That’s anarchy.”
There’s a whole lot of literature written on the matter and it’s mostly academic but there have been examples of ordered anarchy in society. Examples of ordered anarchy, quakers during short periods in Pennsylvania, people of the high mountains of asia, and Ireland, to name a few.
Where can you learn more? You can read mises.org, lewrockwell.com. Look on there book lists and read a book about it or read some articles on it.
Remember the US was supposed to be a grand experiment in minarchy. It made us quite prosperous until things started to change especially with the implementation of the federal reserve in 1914.
Remember that any form of order must have these three elements: a relatively righteous people, a unified people, a people that understand what freedom is. As we’ve seen with the US these three elements don’t exist anymore and we see that we now live under authoritarian government (as attested by Skousen too, among many others). The three elements need a good portion of the people understanding those principles, not necessarily all the people.
brjones,
One more point. If Christ’s mortal parents obeyed the law and didn’t choose to disobey what would have happened to Jesus? He would have been killed with all the other first borns.
#129 – With respect to the social contract, it’s a tricky issue. It’s tough because obviously you don’t get to choose the society you’re born into. However, I would argue that at the very least, if you avail yourself of the benefits of the social contract, then you have entered into a performance-based contract. If a person uses government roads, police protection, utilities, etc., then I think it’s tough to make an argument that they aren’t bound by the social contract. Now, if someone is living in a compound in the middle of nowhere, and is self-sustained and doesn’t avail itself of any societal benefits, they’ve got a much better argument that they’re not bound. Unfortunately, this is, again, only an academic argument, as Ruby Ridge and Waco have demonstrated. The reality is that you just can’t recuse yourself from compliance with the laws, whether you think that’s right or wrong.
I have to part ways with you on the scriptural basis for natural rights, etc., because I don’t subscribe to them. I believe there are few, if any, natural rights, so for ME, this is a completely academic exercise.
“Remember the US was supposed to be a grand experiment in minarchy. It made us quite prosperous until things started to change especially with the implementation of the federal reserve in 1914.”
Whatever your views on the current state of government, I think it would be a little irresponsible of us not to acknowledge that we’re still a fantastically prosperous country, both temporally and in terms of the freedoms we enjoy. Especially considering there may be those reading who reside in countries that are much less so.
brjones,
I would give the comment number but they don’t show up in the opera web browser. They did for about 30 seconds and now they’re not here anymore.
So you just told me I have to move. Yep, I said you shouldn’t give me that answer since it wasn’t satisfactory. As for your arguments you should read the book “The Politics of Obedience” written in the 1500s I believe by a Frenchman where he refutes all your arguments. It’s a short book and available online for free in audio book format and pdf from mises.org.
You don’t believe in the scriptures? I’m not understanding.
Just because one slave master treats his slaves a little better than the others doesn’t change the fact that we are still slaves. Yes, it’s nice that our owners our nicer to us than the other owners, but I’m still unhappy that I’m not free.
#132 – Jon, I didn’t say you have to move. I said if someone wasn’t availing themselves of societal benefits, then they would have a decent argument that they’re not bound by the social contract. That doesn’t change the reality that we don’t get to make that choice, right or wrong. Ask all the people who continue to argue they don’t have to pay federal income tax. That’s not a comment on whether I think it’s right or wrong, it just is. If a person is taking advantage of societal benefits, though, then I don’t think they have a leg to stand on when arguing they haven’t agreed to the social contract. So, no, you don’t have to move. you just have to remain isolated on your own property, and never take advantage of anything that is provided for or made possible by the societal and governmental system in which you’re living. Since you’re enjoying the social interaction of the internet, I assume via your subscription internet service which is likely powered by a quasi-governmental utility company, then you I don’t think you qualify. That said, I don’t think you should be prevented from voicing your opinion, and just because you derive some benefit from society doesn’t mean you have to like it or shouldn’t be allowed to criticize it. I get where you’re coming from.
That’s correct – I don’t believe in the scriptures. Again, that doesn’t mean I don’t understand your point, I just don’t accept the authority from which it derives.
By the way, Jon, I’m a little surprised that you quote Skousen – don’t most mormons consider him a bit of a nut?
brjones,
“I said if someone wasn’t availing themselves of societal benefits, then they would have a decent argument that they’re not bound by the social contract.”
I would say once the “social contract” becomes voluntary then someone would have a decent argument to following the social contract but as long as it’s not voluntary then I’m not bound. I’m only bound by God’s law which can be said I’m bound by universal truth, not by some made up law by some power hungry person.
I assumed you were Mormon since your commenting on a Mormon blog. So what is your affiliation to religion? Atheism or something else?
I always thought Mormons respected Skousen’s viewpoints. That’s why I quote him. I agree with some of his views. Not all though.
#135 – Technically I’m still a member of the church, but in name only. I would describe my thoughts and feelings with respect to god as atheistic.
I know there are still a lot of Skousen fans in the church, but there was definitely a lot of controversy surrounding the Skousens’ teachings over the years. I could be mistaken, but I just had the impression that he was seen as a bit of a fringe figure among mainstream mormons.
“I would say once the “social contract” becomes voluntary then someone would have a decent argument to following the social contract but as long as it’s not voluntary then I’m not bound. I’m only bound by God’s law which can be said I’m bound by universal truth, not by some made up law by some power hungry person.”
This is interesting. I don’t necessarily disagree with you about the first part. As I said, it’s tricky because, as you point out, it’s not a totally voluntary agreement. That said, I worry about those who think the answer is to opt out of the social contract. The practical reality is that in the current social system in which we live, that can be a recipe for disaster. Again, not saying that’s right or wrong.
With respect to the second part of your statement, I feel exactly the opposite, which is where I so often find myself on the opposite side of the argument from religious believers. I don’t believe there’s any innate or absolute moral law that I am bound to obey. On the contrary, I only feel compelled to obey the rules and laws that I have agreed to through the social contract. Fortunately for me, I live in a country in which it’s possible (theoretically) to change those laws from the inside out, through peaceful means. For many, many people in the world, the only hope they ever have of changing their government is through bloodshed. All that said, I understand the reality that many in this thread have talked about; namely, that the political system is so corrupt and broken that changing laws for the “better” through peaceful, lawful means seems like a bit of a pipe dream. I’m not sure what the answer is. For me it’s not to abandon the social contract or rebel against the government. For someone else, that may be what they think is right. I get that.
Jon,
Dude, what you believe doesn’t matter. The Constitution is the established law of this country. Doesn’t matter whether or not you think there are deep flaws. Eminent domain is not in the Constitution, but taxation is very clearly in the Constitution. This speaks to your lack of understanding of the document that runs the laws and regulations in your country. It would behoove you to avoid Lew Rockwell and his uneducated ilk if you wish to master the Constitution.
Perfection has absolutely nothing to do with it, Jon. Credibility, enforcability, authority is what counts. Your words do not match the established laws of the land. Taxation is not theft. It is a written part of the Constitution. Anyone who says otherwise is perverting our nation and should not be listened to.
Now, I can see where you are coming from better. Many atheists are anarchists too. My favorite to listen to would be Stefan. He uses philosophy to come to his conclusions. He does podcast, vodcats, and writings.
http://freedomainradio.com/
He’s pretty anti-religion. So I don’t agree with him on those points but some of his other arguments are fascinating.
I didn’t know Skousen was looked upon that way. I like some of the work he does so I’ll keep quoting him. I’m sure people on this blog look at me as a fringe figure too so I guess Skousen and I fit well together.
Jon,
heh….let me say your words again: “you can start by reading scriptures…read Skousen…” DUDE, Cleon Skousen is not a prophet. His book is bunk, shoddy work. If you listen to him, you lose brain cells!
heh, the Constitution also enumerates Congressional right to tax your ass. but that would be detrimental to your point.
Nope, he’s a nutcase.
“I could be mistaken, but I just had the impression that he was seen as a bit of a fringe figure among mainstream mormons.’
I think that Skousen was/is a product of the old “red scare” days and was aligned with ET Benson in that regard. I have a few of his books and he lost credibility to me when he tried to attribute thoughts to people whose thoughts he knew nothing about.
I think the only people who really worry about a rising communist threat these days are Tea Partyers. It has been shown to be a defunct political system.
#139 – Jon, I was not intending to impugn you or to suggest that you were a fringe type, or even that you shouldn’t be quoting Skousen. I was just thinking out loud. I hope you didn’t take my comments that way.
A story on NPR on Beck and the White Horse Prophesy
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130470858
Dan–
Is it really wise, reasonable, kind, and respectable to refer to those who don’t see things as you do as a nutcase, and their work is bunk and shoddy?
These are the qualities Glenn Beck is trying to undo. He realizes he goes over the top at times. When he does he often apologizes.
Going over the top is something we all struggle with. Those who admit it when they do are recovering from the natural man.
Jared,
Is it wise? Yes. Is is reasonable? Yes. Is it kind? Nope. Is it respectable? Nope. But if someone like Cleon Skousen is going to use his status within the church to add weight to his crap, then it is definitely wise and reasonable to call someone like him a nutcase, and that their work is bunk and shoddy. And his work IS shoddy. His Naked Capitalist, for instance, misreads Quigley’s book “Tragedy and Hope” completely.
Did I read that right? Is black, white these days? Is wrong, right? Beck, trying to undo over the top? Are you freaking kidding me? Over the top is his bread and butter. It’s his bacon. He’ll undo over the top when hell freezes over, or when it is no longer fashionable among the right to do over the top.
Dan–
I think the point I would like to make is that I’m not a fan of bombastic rhetoric. I think you and Beck, yeah-I grouped you together-are intelligent, articulate pundits for your political persuasion. Being bombastic detracts from it, in my opinion.
I can’t continue the exchange because of my schedule but maybe another time we can continue.
Dan, #140,
“If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.”
Seek truth where you can find it. The whole truth might not be there but some truth might. You can even find truth from satan. Remember what he said? “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” I see some truth in that statement.
“but that would be detrimental to your point.”
No it wouldn’t.
Jeff, #141,
“I have a few of his books and he lost credibility to me when he tried to attribute thoughts to people whose thoughts he knew nothing about.”
I find some of his work fascinating though, even though his reasoning and logic can be quite off.
brjones, #142,
I don’t mind be considered fringe. I like JS and would consider him to be fringe back in the day. Just because the my ideas might seem strange and unfamiliar to people doesn’t mean they’re wrong. Just because something is mainstream doesn’t mean it’s right or wrong either.
Mosiah 23:13
“And now as ye have been delivered by the power of God out of these bonds; yea, even out of the hands of king Noah and his people, and also from the bonds of iniquity, even so I desire that ye should stand fast in this liberty wherewith ye have been made free, and that ye trust no man to be a king over you.”
Freedom, that’s the goal! We have a defacto king today and live in tyranny, let us yearn for freedom!
Jared: “Being bombastic detracts from it, in my opinion.” I am a composure gal, myself. I find I am more skeptical of a viewpoint the more stridently it is stated. But I think that’s the genius of Stephen Colbert: skewering political bombast by embracing it and speaking his fake truth openly, in mock sincerity.
Dan, #138,
“Eminent domain is not in the Constitution”
Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution
“…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
If that isn’t eminent domain I don’t know what is.
“It would behoove you to avoid Lew Rockwell and his uneducated ilk if you wish to master the Constitution.”
Just the opposite, obviously. Besides, the constitution isn’t what I wish to understand, it’s freedom. Sure I might look to the constitution as a starting point but not as scripture.
#143
Jeff:
I read the link. But Milbank seemed to make the point that Beck was using far broader Mormon roots in his thinking than simply the White Horse Prophecy, and it does not extremism make.
I guess the broader point I wish to make is that extremism in a political context usually means no more than “believes things which the majority of my tribe (however I define ‘my’) does not believe”.
When a majority of the country as a whole starts to believe something, it becomes “extreme” to call majority opinion “extremist”. You can still say the belief is incorrect, but you can only call it “extreme” by defining yourself out of that tribe.
Every American who believes Joseph Smith was a prophet is something of an extremist to the American tribe, in a way most Christian denominations are not. If that’s what we believe, than we live with the label, and try to act in accord with our beliefs.
Jared,
You think Cleon Skousen is not bombastic?
Jon,
#147,
Spoiled rotten. You do not know what it is to live under tyranny. Your diatribe is an insult to those who have.
Now that you’ve indicated this, let me ask you about the following section of the Constitution:
Would you agree with me that if this doesn’t indicate Congress shall have power to collect taxes, I don’t know what is?
You’ll not find good information from the Lew Rockwells of the world. Or Cleon Skousen. Or Glenn Beck. Or Ron Paul. They are sadly misinformed on what it means to be free.
Hawkgrrrl–
I think you’re right about Stephen Colbert. Although, I’ve only seen him a few times, I like your assessment of his comic franchise.
Dan,
“Spoiled rotten. You do not know what it is to live under tyranny. You’re diatribe is an insult to those who have.”
Did you not read my previous posts? Just because one slave master is nicer then the other doesn’t mean you still aren’t a slave.
Dan, have you not paid attention? You should read LRC more then you would know what’s going on. Did you know that the NYPD kidnaps citizens of NYC on a daily basis? That didn’t even come from LRC that came from “This American Life” 3 or 4 weeks ago. Did you know that the president openly (I’m sure it happened before but wasn’t public, I wonder if Obama made it public to warn the people, or just because he’s pompous, I’ll never know which) tells the CIA/Military what American citizen they can assassinate without due process? If we aren’t living under tyranny I don’t know what it is. Just because it happens to the poor among us doesn’t make it bad. I can go on and on with more examples but you need to read LRC then you can find them yourselves.
“Would you agree with me that if this doesn’t indicate Congress shall have power to collect taxes, I don’t know what is?”
I never denied that was in the constitution. All I’ve said is that I disagree with it. Did you know in the Articles of Confederation this power wasn’t granted to the federal government?
“You’ll not find good information from the Lew Rockwells of the world. Or Cleon Skousen. Or Glenn Beck. Or Ron Paul. They are sadly misinformed on what it means to be free.”
So what is freedom? Since you seem to know what it is? Is freedom having someone telling you what to do all the time, how to live, who to be charitable to, what people in other countries to kill, all at the point of a gun? If that’s what you call freedom then you can have that but I want the type of freedom where I’m free to make mistakes and others are too. I want to be able to choose whom I’m charitable with. That’s what I want. I want the freedom to choose not to have my money spent on killing others in foreign lands. I want the freedom to not have “peace officers” kidnapping people and killing people (at least it would be nice if they were punished for killing innocent people, read Will Grigg, he’ll tell you all about it) in my own country.
Not a fan of Colbert. I don’t remember the last comedian to make so much hay out of a single one-dimensional character. I find it very tiresome.
Correction:
Just because it happens to the poor among us doesn’t make it OK.
“Did you know in the Articles of Confederation this power wasn’t granted to the federal government?”
I don’t know what argument you’re trying to make, Jon, but I’m not sure you want to go down this road. If you want to retain credibility in appealing to the founding fathers in any way in the future, I wouldn’t touch the Articles of Confederation.
Jon,
That is your most accurate, most correct statement you have yet said.
brjones,
Didn’t realize there was a banned resource list. Please, forgive me. 🙂 I thought the founders had a hand in the Articles of Confederation. Just wanted everyone to have a good understanding of history, didn’t know that was bad.
Oh, All-Knowing Dan,
Please tell me what tyranny is.
You still haven’t answered that question. Lot’s of rhetoric but no substance.
“Not sure what’s wrong with admiring the wisdom of Mao Zedong. He made some tremendously horrible decisions, but before he became chairman, and was a guerrilla, his tactics and policies to unite the Chinese behind him were phenomenal.”
Gadamighty, Dan.
Yeah, Adolf made some horrendous decisions starting in about 1938, but before that, his tactics to unite the German people behind him were phenomenal. Plus he built some kickbutt freeways, inspired the VW Bug, and got Germany out of the Depression a heckuva lot quicker than that slacker FDR did.
To make things simple: Serious people don’t praise genocidal tyrants, no matter how occasionally “wise” they may have been. Sometimes the overall package is just such crap that praising them is out of bounds. See also Guevara, Che.
“One last thing, one of the things you fail to acknowledge is that the Tea party movement will not save us from anything unless we undergo a fundamental way that the politicians are elected and our government functions.”
Oh, I don’t expect any political movement to save us. “Put not your trust in princes,” and all that.
My more modest expectation is simply that government refrain from clusterfarging things up, and handle a few core functions competently. Those include national defense, maintaining a legal system, and issuing the public currency — the last of which government has spectacularly mishandled for about two decades now, leading to the cycles of malinvestment and bust that have landed us into this financial mess.
I should probably know the answer to this, but I’m still not seeing comment numbers. Help?
“But I think that’s the genius of Stephen Colbert: skewering political bombast by embracing it and speaking his fake truth openly, in mock sincerity.”
This is why I think Jon Stewart is so much better than Stephen Colbert, actually. He’s making fun, not of the actual targets of his satire, but of his audience’s factually-impervious preconception of what those targets are. Which is why his testimony before Congress, in character, was so unserious.
Re: “tyranny,” as we’ve discussed before, one of the second-order consequences of the great twentieth-century tyrants, is that they’ve caused us to define tyranny up: You’re not a real tyrant if you haven’t killed at least one million Enemies of the People.
From Alexis de Toqueville’s Democracy in America:
Thomas,
I really don’t care if you don’t like my position on things. You bring up Nazism and break Goodwin’s Law. Maybe we should make Thomas’s Law, that is that none shall say anything positive about Mao Zedong. As for Adolf, you’re actually spot on. Before 1938, he wasn’t a horrible ruler over Germany. People like you tend to forget that under Adolf, Germany rose to the most powerful nation on earth. He apparently did some things right. Not everything he did was evil. But see, here’s the error of talking about Hitler. We’ve so vilified him, rightly, that saying anything positive about him is verboten, even though it may actually be accurate. Same thing with Mao Zedong. I do recall John McCain praising Mao a while back. And I hear Newt Gingrich has been quoting Mao too. But of course, you’re gonna say, “but there’s no difference between Newt, John, and Barack; they’re all the same socialist creature.” or some crap like that.
Thomas,
Interesting quote. I need to read that book one day, not until I get my Kindle e-reader though. Sounds like the US today though.
As for the comment numbers. When I open it up in Chrome I see them. When I have them in Opera I don’t see them. Don’t know what’s going on.
Thomas,
Can you quote how Alexis de Toqueville defines despotism?
oh and one of my comments is in moderation. It seems the spam filter doesn’t like certain words that end in -ism or -ist.
Jon,
Toqueville had our American number: We are far more prone to Huxleyesque un-liberty than Orwellian.
Dan,
Tocqueville seems to have taken it as a given that his audience didn’t need “despotism” formally defined. Being a French liberal, he would most likely have understood the word as defined by Montesquieu, as (essentially) unaccountable government.
The reason I respect people who worry seriously about “tyranny” today, is that being despotic isn’t like being pregnant: You can be a little bit despotic.
My thinking (and tell me where I’m wrong) is that the greater and more far-reaching the impositions on the citizen, the more substantial must be the sense in which he is deemed to have consented to the impositions. It’s a sliding scale, in other words. You can, in justice, moderately inconvenience a man with only a symbolic fig leaf of “consent,” like his one vote diluted by a hundred million others’. But the more you burden him with, the more real consent is needed to justify it.
Alternatively, you can just decide the guy is a malefactor of great wealth and deserves whatever comes to him, consent or not.
#159 – Touche, Jon. I just meant that I don’t know how much mileage you’re going to get out of appealing to the Articles of Confederation when they were quickly repudiated by the same founding fathers who ratified them, once they realized what a crappy foundation they were on which to run a country. Obviously not everyone felt that way, but the AofC are generally considered a failure, and the US Constitution is considered one of, if not the most brilliant foundational document in the history of world governments. So I for one am not persuaded by an appeal to them over the Constitution. Not that you necessarily care what I think.
Dan,
It looks like Thomas is schooling you AGAIN.
Thomas,
I liked the following quote by Alexis de Tocqueville in a conference talk given by President Ezra Taft Benson. (He also quoted Ronald Reagan, the sign of a true Prophet)
“I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers, and it was not there; in her fertile fields and boundless prairies, and it was not there; in her rich mines and her vast world commerce, and it was not there. Not until I went to the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great”
#172 – This is a great quote, Will. I think America is still good, as evidenced by today’s Federal Court ruling invalidating DADT and the recent ruling overturning Prop 8 (apologies, Thomas). America is still doing the right thing. Tocqueville would be proud.
Thomas,
You’re essentially saying that the larger the population, the less freedom you get, or the more despotic the country becomes. None of this, nor de Tocqueville’s point defend Jon’s rant on how we live under tyranny, or that Obama is some king or something. Are you really defending Jon’s rant?
Thomas,
I’m not familiar with Huxley. Could you send post a link so I can see a short description.
I think we do have some Orwellian stuff going on. Politicians do change words all the time to make it sound like one thing but mean another. The thought police are working hard at getting people that are “extreme” but actually have done no crime nor threatened any one (there’s at least three cases of this that I know of). The thought police went after some anti-war people recently even though they had done nothing wrong (only proclaimed peace, reminds me of John Lennon – he wasn’t allowed into the states for a period because of that). Pastor Anderson in AZ chose to exercise his 4th amendment rights when traveling from Yuma to Tucson and was stopped by the border patrol (very from the border), they asked him if he was a citizen, he refused, he was then severely beaten and abused for the non-crime that is (or was) protected by the 4th amendment. The AZ governor has used untrue scare tactics to get anti-illegal immigration passed that turned out to be no more than a national ID scam. The only way you know about all this stuff, or a lot more about it, is by following online blogs/news organizations. mainstream media (MSM) won’t touch them. I don’t even bother watching them anymore (of course, I don’t have a TV either, everything I watch is online). We saw that we got into the Iraq war with all lies. We found that the escalation of the Vietnam war was based on lies. The 9/11 report was pretty shoddy. We hear about Iran now but we know from anti-war.com that even the CIA won’t back up the war mongers claims. Those are just a few examples of many. It’s been awhile since I’ve read Orwell but that’s what I remember him talking about.
brjones,
I don’t have much of a problem looking at the AofC because the Israelites lived under a confederation and Switzerland lives under a confederation. Both did decent. The US has done OK too with the constitution but the constitution doesn’t really hold like it used to, a piece of paper doesn’t keep us free (people that believe in freedom and are relatively righteous do though).
Dan,
“Are you really defending Jon’s rant?”
Well you still haven’t defined tyranny for me. You can’t rebut my claims.
I think many people love their country so much that they can’t see the problems. How can you fix the problems if you don’t recognize you have a problem? It’s kind of like the emotional attachment people have with their children and defend them and say there’s no way they did that bad thing, even though they did, just because they can’t see past their own desire that their child couldn’t ever do anything bad.
brjones,
Before you start getting all giddy, he then goes on discuss the collapse of the Roman Empire, and I quote “Military service was an obligation highly honored by the Romans. Indeed, a foreigner could win Roman citizenship simply by volunteering for service in the legions of Rome. But, with increasing affluence and opulence, the young men of Rome began avoiding this service, finding excuses to remain in the soft and sordid life of the city. They took to using cosmetics and wearing feminine-like hairdo’s and garments (NO DADT), until it became difficult, the historians tell us, to tell the sexes apart. Among the teachers and scholars was a group called the Cynics whose number let their hair and beards grow, and who wore slovenly clothes (HIPPIES), and professed indifference to worldly goods as they heaped scorn (LIBERALS) on what they called ‘middle class values.’ The morals declined. It became unsafe to walk in the countryside or the city streets. Rioting was commonplace and sometimes whole sections of towns and cities were burned. And, all the time, the twin diseases of confiscatory taxation and creeping inflation (OBAMA) were waiting to deliver the death blow. Then finally, all these forces overcame the energy and ambition of the middle class. Rome fell”
Jon,
I don’t need to define tyranny from you. You’d never accept my definition. Let me give you a classic example of a tyrannical state, and let’s see if you think your current environment fits that. Nicolae Ceausescu was dictator of Romania from the 1960s until he was shot to death along with his wife on December 25, 1989. He ran the Communist Party of Romania, the only political party allowed in the country. Anybody that even considered creating an alternate ideological camp would get thrown in prison or even killed. He expanded the power of the Secret Police to the point where they employed regular citizens to spy on each other on the pain of imprisonment or torture. How do I know this? My mother was forced to spy on her neighbors and friends for the Romanian Secret Police. All because she went to a Gypsy church that happened to have had other secret police spies. Ceausescu’s regime oppressed religions, prohibiting new religions from coming into the country and forcing other Protestant religions into obscurity. The Orthodox church survived under communism by siding with communists to protect themselves and their own. Minority groups, such as Gypsies and Hungarians were oppressed and beaten, simply because no avenue of recourse was allowed to them by the state. There was no freedom of speech. You could not say “Nicolae Ceausescu was secretly a Kenyan witch doctor!” as you can of Obama here in America. With that let’s contrast with America.
In America, you can say the President of the United States is a racist person who hates white people. You can say he is secretly a Kenyan witch doctor, and doctor a photo of him looking all kooky in voodoo clothing. You can dissent to your hearts content on practically anything. You can perform civil disobedience. You can protest anything you want to protest. You can yell as loud as you want. You can curse as often as you want. You can speak vile things of anybody and practically anywhere you want. No state official will stop you. Now, there are provisos for our free speech. To set up a protest of a significant number of people, you have to get approval from a state agency, the Parks service, I think. This is not intended, nor even in practice, to limit your free speech, but to ensure the safety of all involved, those who wish to protest, as well as those who prefer you don’t protest, or wish to avoid hearing you. You can’t yell “fire!” in a crowded room because that could cause people harm in the chaos to follow. But in terms of freedom of speech, there’s just no comparison between a “tyrannical” example, and the one in which we live today.
Freedom of religion. In the United States today, more than at any other time in the history of this nation, religions are more free to practice their religion. And we’re not talking about just Christian religions, or even within Christianity, say Protestant religions. Catholics can practice as they please. Mormons can practice as they please. Evangelicals can practice as they please. Jehovah’s Witnesses can practice as they please. Non-Christian religions also can practice as they please. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus. Even non-traditional religions can practice as they please. New age, Gaia, Wicca, and so on. I am constantly astounded by those who claim we’re less free today to practice religion than at any other time in the history of this nation. The laws and regulations our country has set up over the last 200 years that govern freedom of religion are amazing. How free we are today!
Freedom of association. It’s amazing that anyone would dare compare that the United States is “tyrannical” like actual tyrannical states. In Romania during Communism, there was only one political party one could join. The Communist Party was it. The only party in town. You don’t like it? Tough luck man. Here in the United States, you are able to join whatever party your heart desires. And you know what, you don’t even have to tell the government this. You can even create your own political party. Jon, you can create the Jon Party of Folks Against American Tyranny if you so desired, and you know what? The United States government, by law, has no choice but to register your party as such. Those darn tyrants!
Freedom to own guns. As much as I dislike how free we are with our guns, (mentally disturbed people having guns and mowing down bishops in church buildings is highly reprehensible to me), our country allows regular citizens to own guns. And more than that, you can own as many guns as you want. You can purchase thousands of guns if you so desire. Of course, when you get into those kinds of numbers, the government will naturally be concerned and keep a closer eye on you. But if you have one or two guns, or even five, the government is not that caring.
Freedom and protections of unlawful seizures. I probably will stop at this one. You can tell I’m just going down the list of the freedoms provided for us in our Constitution. In Romania, you don’t have this right. Your property, and your own self, can be seized at will. That’s tyranny. What you see in America today is not tyrannical.
Now, the US does cross lines on numerous occasions. This is natural, and should be pushed back against. We should never allow the government the right to assassinate American citizens, either here or abroad. We should not be torturing anybody. We should not be going to war without Congressional declarations of war, as proscribed in the Constitution. But these things, added to the whole picture, don’t equate tyranny with that of an actual tyrannical state. Thomas’s point is that tyranny is a sliding scale. Yeah, that’s nice. America, even with these mistakes, and poor choices, is not a tyrannical state to its citizens. American citizens have a right to vote out every single elected official every 2-6 years. That’s not a tyrannical state. We have that Constitutional right.
I say all this with frustration in my heart, because this is elementary knowledge, and really, should not even be a question to an educated citizenry. That conservatives constantly bring up America and tyranny as if they were synonymous makes me weary of what’s really going on in the minds of the conservative American. What pot are they smoking? What are they doing to destroy their learning brain cells? Are they this stupid?
Dan,
Yes, that’s pretty bad. And I can give you even worse examples than that. Does that make Romania not a tyranny? No, it just means it’s not on the worst of the scale. America is living under tyranny, albeit not as bad as Romania. That’s why I hope for freedom and liberty in my life and that’s why I’m sounding the bell that we do live under a tyranny because it’s still possible for us to get out of it.
Does the US not have spies running around with the people? Yes, they do. They’re called the FBI and CIA. You may think I’m paranoid but it’s true. Who do you think infiltrates all these groups and then make national news when the government says “Oh, we caught these really bad people, thank us people for keeping you safe.” Bull, if you follow the stories further sometimes the groups get off with not much time if any. It’s all made up as a psyop against the people to make us believe that we need to be at continual war. Some people, not me, say 9/11 was a false flag event that the government let happen. We’ll probably never know. I gave other examples like Vietnam where it was all made up then 10s of thousands of Americans died because of it. A president can declare war, defacto, without congresses approval and can continue it with only a rubber stamp from congress. Killing millions of people over seas, just because they’re not killing Americans doesn’t mean it’s not bad and tyrannical.
Free to speak? Bull, I’ve given examples of the anti-war protesters being intimidated. There’s this one group of people that drive around in a freedom van that get pulled over by the cops and harassed all the time. There was the cop working in the NYPD you had to leave because he spoke up about all the corruption and he still gets harassed even after moving away! The only time you are free to speak is when the government allows you to. Yes, they can’t stop all of us but they are putting forth an effort to stop us in increments. Get the people used to a little then do a little more. There are police that have killed people that were completely innocent and the cop gets off with no more than “don’t do it again” and we can’t work at this police department anymore but you can work at the one down the street. Before we know it it will be like Romania!
Yes, I agree. Our freedom of religion is quite high in our country and I currently don’t see any government intrusion into this, except for asking pastors to “calm the populace” and not be “radical”, AKA, don’t do the same stuff our founding fathers did.
Freedom to own guns? What happened in Katrina is what will happen every where. The moment you actually need your guns, the police/military come in and tell you to give them up. You dislike how free we are with guns but said you would look down the barrel of a gun at me? I don’t even own a single gun.
Unlawful seizure. Only if you don’t live in the wrong city or aren’t a poor minority. There’s a process policemen all over the country have started to do. It’s called taking your possession because they think that you did something wrong without ever proving it. Sometimes you get it back, sometimes not. I forget the actual technical word, but it’s happening. Cato institute has reported on it. It’s actually happening more now than it did before because of the economic downturn. On a Cato video a man was teaching minorities how to interact with policemen so they don’t get harassed and thrown in jail talked, after the video presentation, of a guy that was a wealthy bank owner who must have pissed off the wrong person because he was accused of a crime so the FBI seized all his assets so he didn’t even have money to defend himself from the government.
This is elementary knowledge and if you stopped reading all the liberal/conservative media and MSM maybe you would know about it. Sure we are more free than what you describe but we are still not free! This is a very slippery slope and we are headed down. We need to get our heads out the sand and stop thinking all is well in the US, cause it’s not.
As for the you can’t vote for whomever you want. I’ll say it again, it doesn’t matter who you vote for, the outcome is the same, we have a defacto one party system in the US. It doesn’t matter if you vote dem or repub. Just because I can vote for a guy that belongs to a different party but has the same beliefs as the other guy doesn’t make me free to choose. Choose between what master 1 or master 2, they’re both still master. Did you see any significant differences between Obama and Bush? I’ve described their major similarities in an above post, I won’t do it again. Here in AZ there’s no difference either, choose between big spending democrats or big spending republicans. I’m registered republican since where I live all the people always vote republican. I went to the primaries and looked at the US representatives, they were all war mongers, one person even wanted to wage war against all Islam, that is not a choice to me. I didn’t vote for a single one of them.
Don’t think that just because the US isn’t is as bad as other countries we shouldn’t admit that we have major issues and need to turn things around. I say again, let us fight for our freedoms, peacefully!
I am not a big quote freak so I use them sparingly. I tend to stay in the here and now. And what I see now is a broken political system, a highly manipulated economy run by people, who may have been principled at one time, but because of the system in place now, become corrupted by it.
I don’t care for arguments that pit one side against the other, because fundamentally they are all the same. The sides each pander to a constituency that will best help them maintain power. They dole out favors to those constituents to bribe them into going along.
I do not like the divide I see in the nation. I see some on the media who feed on that divide to their monetary advantage.
Beck is one of those people. There are very few heroes, most are villains, IMO.
Jon,
You show much ignorance of how things work. The FBI does have informants (recently it was revealed that Martin Luther King Jr.’s photographer was an informant to the FBI). The NSA definitely keeps an eye (and an ear) on regular Americans. Local police officers also have informants within local gangs, for example. Hell, even Captain Moroni used spies. I guess he was tyrannical or something. Do you know the difference between a tyrannical use of spies and a non-tyrannical use of spies? Because you seem to not be capable of differentiating between the two.
wow, you ARE like Glenn Beck. “Eh, I hear some people say this, but don’t quote me…” You say some people, not me, say 9/11 was a false flag, but then you say that we’ll probably never know? WE KNOW. 9/11 was no false flag event. Don’t be a truther dude. Ignorant crowd.
all made up? Listen, Jon. You need to stop reading Lew Rockwell and others like him. You’re being fed quite a spoonful of disgusting crap. Our involvement in Vietnam predates the Gulf of Tonkin by at least several decades. Do you know any of this? Because while I agree that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was ridiculous, we were involved in Vietnamese local politics for some time previous to it, and much of it was good reasoning.
Your “free to speak” paragraph is so overly melodramatic, I don’t know where to begin. Look at yourself, Jon. Look at the rant you are able to type here on this blog. Is there a government official getting in your way to stop you from saying such detrimental things about your government? Do you realize how spoiled rotten you sound?
Huh? I’m afraid to ask for your evidence…nothing from Lew Rockwell please.
A THOUSAND TIMES YES!
Who said the US doesn’t have problems? This is my last comment to you. Your position is ridiculous, ignorant, and demeaning to those who actually suffer under real tyranny, not under the fake tyranny you so terribly languish under. Grow some thicker skin, Jon. You’re so free that you have no idea how free you are. You’re so spoiled and living such a luxurious life that you don’t know what it actually means to suffer under tyranny. It is a testament to the freedom of this country that someone like you is allowed to be so spoiled, so rich, and so free.
The American people are free in large part because the US government is not paranoid that that masses will rise up against it. Because of being bribed by the abundant wealth that we enjoy, there is little to no chance anything will happen. The small marches and demonstrations, organized militias and such will not do anything provocative. The Founding Fathers allowed Free Speech because they knew that talk is cheap and allows a free society to function so long as the government never gets way out of hand. And we are a long way from there. Even with large unemployment and a poor economy, most people do just fine. Even at the height of the great depression, unemployment was 30% which meant that a majority (70%) had jobs. To make a long story short, Americans are too fat, dumb and happy to do anything other than vote the jerks out in favor of other jerks.
Jeff et al,
I just learned that Glenn Beck is offering classes on American History. It appears that they will be taught by college professor via the internet.
For those interested here is a link:
http://www.glennbeck.com/becku/foundingprinciples.php
Will, re: President Benson and de Tocqueville, (1) I think the reference was in an Ensign article (July 1973), not a Conference talk, and (2) he fell for a spurious quote. The quote’s not in Democracy in America, and nobody has ever located it in any other writing by de Tocqueville.
Dan,
Captain Moroni was at war. And he didn’t spy on his own people. The CIA didn’t come into existence in the US until around the 50’s and the FBI wasn’t around that much longer. In a free society we wouldn’t have either.
“9/11 was no false flag event.”
Can you prove that? Have you read the commission report? No to both? Neither can I. I suppose you would say Vietnam’s Tongan (sp) false flag event wasn’t a false flag event either even though it’s been proven and is mainstream that it was (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident). The government ended up killing 10s of thousands of our young men after that, what makes you think they wouldn’t let 3,000+ people be killed to further their plans?
So do you consider the revolutionaries (founding fathers) of this country spoiled rich brats? Things weren’t that bad (compared to Romania) in the US either but we still had a revolution. If you were alive then you would have been a Torie.
Jeff,
My point about the free speech is stuff isn’t that we don’t have it good but just that it’s not all roses like people think and we better stop the encroachments on free speech now. That it also depends on the situation if you will really have free speech or not. If we aren’t exercising the free speech then we won’t know if we actually have it or not. Some people have tried to exercise their rights and found out that we truly don’t have those rights, partly because of ignorant or naive or malicious or cowardly people that work in the police/military fields. And there’s a lot of good ones out their but it only takes a few bad ones to turn the tides, especially if people in juries let them get away with it.
“You’re essentially saying that the larger the population, the less freedom you get, or the more despotic the country becomes.”
No, I’m saying that the larger the population, the more care you have to take to preserve meaningful popular consent to government. This is all heavily discussed in the Federalist Papers and Tom Paine, who (despite the whole Dead White Male thing, meaning they’re supposedly not a bit relevant to us moderns) continue to have a point.
There have been quite a few articles lately by “serious” liberal writers making fun of the Tea Partiers for their “obsession” with the actual Constitution (which everybody knows is a “living” document, meaning it has no objective meaning that can’t be massaged into reconciliation with the conventional wisdom of the day). But the serious people who wrote the Constitution, grappled with ideas that today’s outcome-oriented elites either simply ignore, or aren’t intellectually sophisticated enough to even follow.
(Re: the critique of Sarah Palin’s intellect, I gotta say, she’s got a long way to fall before she’d reach my own Senator (not “ma’am”) Barbara Boxer’s level — who I once heard making an argument that the Second Amendment protected only collective, not individual rights, because the word “Militia” in the first clause was capitalized — thus betraying a thumping ignorance of (a) 18th century punctuation and its Significance, and (b) the fact that it was the Constitution’s Printers who Punctuated the constitution Pretty much according to their Whim. Sheesh.)
Jon, re: the Gulf of Tonkin incident being a “false flag” event, it’s absolutely not “mainstream” that it was. It doesn’t help that the relevant Vietnames authorities themselves have acknowledged that the first of the two attacks occurred.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident#First_attack
As for the 9/11 Truther $$%@, take that garbage somewhere else.
While Jon and Dan argue out in the hinterlands, let me note for the record that the only connection between Beck and the 9/11 “truthers” is that Beck outed Van Jones, Obama’s “green jobs” czar as being one of the “truthers”, forcing his resignation. He has also publicized, though the facts were first reported elsewhere, that at least one subordinate cleric associated with the ground-zero mosque had been caught on tape doubting that AQ was responsible for 9/11.
Jeff:
I agree largely with what you say in 179. The distraction between right and left keeps us from seeing a more morally fundamental division that needs healing between elites and commoners. That was the point I was trying to make here:
Where I differ is I’ve not decided whether Beck will give in to sincerity or the temptation of corruption. Opinions about that, IMO, are still heavily colored by whether one’s orientation is politically left or right. I prefer to watch closely and see.
Jon,
hate to break it to you, dude, but we’re at war…just FYI. If it’s okay for Captain Moroni to spy during war time, it should be okay for us too. Oh, and the CIA and FBI were spying on Americans whilst in the middle of a Cold War.
Then you must have been blind the day of the attacks. I know what I saw. I don’t need anything else but my own eyes. I’m with Thomas on this one. Take this garbage elsewhere.
You’re comparing yourself to the Founding Fathers now, eh?
Do you know so little of your own country’s history? What was the revolution (which wasn’t really technically a revolution, but rather a rebellion; after all, once free of Britain’s rule, we essentially adopted most of Britain’s form of government—minus the king of course), what was the revolution about, Jon? Taxation without representation. The rights of Americans to have someone representing them at the government’s table. The rights of individuals to not be oppressed. Britons in England had these rights, but refused to provide them to their colonies for fear of being overwhelmed and overrun at Parliament by the colonial priorities. It’s understandable for an empire to not allow colonies those rights. It’s an untenable and unsustainable position, however. And eventually all of England’s colonies adopted self rule.
dunno who believes its all roses. But it’s never been all roses, even at the beginning. What rights did human beings who were brought over on slave ships from another continent have here?
Thomas,
I think you mistake what those unsourced liberal writers were making fun of. It’s not the Constitution. It’s the grossly inaccurate thoughts Tea Partiers have about the Constitution.
And where are we lacking in that? Are you able to vote for your local mayor and city council? Are you able to vote for all other local public officers? Are you able to vote for your local Congressional representative? Or are you suggesting that Congress be expanded to more accurately reflect the size of the country? Last time we resized the House was in 1929. The population has certainly exploded since then. In 1929, the US had a population of 121,000,000. Today we have 305,000,000 million people. That’s 2 and a half times the size. Perhaps we should increase the House of Representatives to 1101 or something…
The point is that if we’re supposedly heading toward some tyranny, or less “meaningful popular consent to government”, it isn’t due to some nefarious dastardly plot by libruls or something ridiculous like that. It’s structural.
Of course, conservatives and Republicans will never go for increasing the size of the House to accurately reflect the increased size of the population. Simply because they won’t be able to gerrymander the districts in their favor anymore.
188, Firetag,
I like your posted very much and tend to agree. It is interesting to me to note that the great rulers of the world were never the most intelligent folks around, in fact, many were a “couple short of a dozen.” They had their position based on inheritance or military might.
Really no different today, politicians, academic elite, sports figures, business leaders and the entertainment industry largely gain their position the same way.
I am not sure if Beck is sincere or not. I do know he makes a boatload of money on his performance.
“Of course, conservatives and Republicans will never go for increasing the size of the House to accurately reflect the increased size of the population. Simply because they won’t be able to gerrymander the districts in their favor anymore.”
In California, where the Dems have had a death-grip on redistricting since the ’90s, one gets a different perspective on who’s guilty of this. Probably everybody.
Dan,
I have in mind Dahlia Lithwick (who is singlehandedly devaluing the worth of a Stanford legal education), and her snarky piece declaring it “weird” for a candidate to consider, in deciding to vote for legislation, whether it’s constitutional or not:
http://volokh.com/2010/09/22/dahlia-lithwick-its-weird-for-a-senator-to-consider-the-constitutionality-of-legislation/
Re: the decline in meaningful consent: Yes, I can still vote for my city council — but a great part of the decisionmaking they used to be responsible for (and which I could hope to substantially influence) has been shifted to Washington. Unfortunately, because federalism was once so thoroughly abused to defend slavery and its aftereffects, Progressives have been able to bootstrap the limited dialing-back of federalism that was necessary to remedy that particular evil, into a general license to disregard federalism and subsidiarity altogether.
And no, this was not inevitable or “structural.” It was driven at every step by Progressives, starting with the 1913 amendments (which ended state representation in Congress, by making Senators directly elected, and created the federal-government-adrenalizing income tax), and the New Deal-era redefinition of the Commerce Clause into a virtually unlimited federal legislative power.
As for tripling the size of Congress — by all means, go for it! (Keep the cost down by cutting back the legislative session, and the size of staffs.) As an added benefit, that ought to reduce the influence of money in politics: Because candidates will be more accessible to their constituents, there would be less use for money-sucking mass advertising — and it would just be too expensive to buy influence with that many legislators.
Thomas,
You should understand that I have no problem with this, and this is not an example of tyranny or of limiting one’s value in the process of democracy. I’ve never liked notion that local states should have stronger rights than the federal system. And it doesn’t matter what our Founding Fathers said on the matter. Giving states that much power led to the near destruction of this country, and it would again, and again, and again, and again. Progressives have done much for the…uh, progression of this country. I’ll stand with them rather than attempting to revert back to a less developed, and more importantly, less free, time.
Woohoo, we agree! 🙂
How so? First, how did Constitutional federalism lead to extraconstitutional secession? The Confederates were demanding something *more* than just separation of state and federal power; they saw even that system as insufficiently protective of their right to oppress, and so kicked over the table before (as they saw it) the North would grow so strong that abolitionism would inevitably become the law of the land.
And what of the fifty-year gap between the reassertion of federal supremacy (within its proper sphere) and the vast 1913 expansion of it? And then what about the fifty-year gap between *that* expansion of centralized power, and the 1960s “living Constitution” revolution, wherein the unelected judiciary arrogated essentially legislative powers to itself? If federalism is so toxic to Union, why didn’t the Union fragment during those periods where there was greater respect for federalism than today?
They’ve done a great deal of good. But of course the average person never hears of the *other* ideas Progressives were preaching, alongside the ideas that were accepted. Because they were rejected and (generally) forgotten long ago. For one thing, until really quite recently, Progressives stood not just for protective regulation, but capital-R Regulation, namely, government setting prices and production levels like a Five-Year Plan commissar, and making a whole host of economic decisions for which government (or anything short of a marketplace) is utterly incompetent. Their approach came close to ruining several critical industries until President Carter helped start reversing it. (He gets too little credit for it.)
That’s to say nothing of the Progressives’ flirtations with coercive eugenics (“three generations of imbeciles is enough”), social Darwinism (Richard Hofstadter managed, utterly without basis, to tar free marketers with that ideology, when the vast majority of its actual adherents were “scientific-minded” Progressives), race conflict theory, and corporatism. (The head of FDR’s corporatist NRA program had a picture of Mussolini on his wall.) Present-day Progressives have a grossly sanitized version of their movement’s history.
No, I suppose it doesn’t. I’m no fan of appeals to authority. That said, they gave a hella lot more thought to good government than the average outcome-driven liberal (or most other people) today, and dismissing their output out of hand may be unwise.
Thomas,
Yeah, talk about do things from a central authority. Recently the federal government gave a grant to the small town (10k people, 1 acre lots) I live in to start a mass transit for the city. None of the other towns, which are 2 or 3 times bigger, have any mass transit. Talk about perverse incentives!
Here’s another interesting thing about AZ. The people of AZ voted so that no cities can give money to companies (special interests) without exact compensation back from those companies. The cities have continued to use tax payer funds for these special interests and a law suit went to the AZ supreme court. What did the AZ supreme courts say/do? Well, you cities shouldn’t be doing that but since you’re already doing it you can continue breaking the law.
There’s one founding father that I really like since he did a ton of study on the subject of government and freedom, more than I’ll ever do. That would be Thomas Jefferson. Of course, I have yet to read a book about him and his ideas, so I always claim the right to change my mind.
Thomas,
The misinterpretation of the Constitution regarding states rights. Happens all the time, if you haven’t noticed. 🙂
Who knows, Thomas. We could have had a civil war as early as the 1800s, or the 1820s. The division between states on issues of national importance deeply fractured the states. Personally, I kinda like not having to worry about states leaving the Union anymore, dividing our country so badly by region (then again, I would not weep if Texas left and became its own country). 🙂 But I think the expansion of railroads and roads and freeways and airplanes, thus expanding the mobility of the population, helped remove the threat of regional separation. Ideologically different people now live in all states. Thus if people in Texas wish to secede, they would have a battle within their own state over that, rather than intra-state.
I take the good with the bad, as with everything in life.
That doesn’t happen amongst state rights advocates, eh? 😉
This is the second time you’ve used that. What the hell is an “outcome-driven” liberal?
Jon, 197
“Recently the federal government gave a grant to the small town (10k people, 1 acre lots) I live in to start a mass transit for the city. None of the other towns, which are 2 or 3 times bigger, have any mass transit. Talk about perverse incentives!’
Now , how do you suppose that happened? The federal government just was thinking about how to give out money and they just so happened to designate your city to receive it and magically it was for mass transit?
No, someone asked for it. A city official, a congressman or senator, a grant writer, someone. So, you need to figure out why it wa asked for and why it was granted than just pointing a finger at the Feds. They generally don’t make this stuff up. there are plenty of hands out these days.
197, Jon,
“Here’s another interesting thing about AZ. The people of AZ voted so that no cities can give money to companies (special interests) without exact compensation back from those companies.”
Ooh, be careful, that is the China economic model. Money invested here, stays here. Sounds like Arizona might be full of communists!
This is the 200th comment!
Jeff,
I think it was someone in the city council pushed for it. It was asked for because they didn’t want to pay taxi cab drivers to bring old ladies to the hospital 1/2 hour away. The point was that the city will be burdened with keeping up the service now that they signed on to it and it would have never existed if it weren’t for the federal government giving these things out. There’s an article called something like “As Arizona so goes the nation” that talks about all the federal programs incentivizing states to take on all these programs but putting so many if you take this money then you have to do all these other things. This causes perverse incentives and gets states to spend money they don’t have. Hence, AZ is now the most indebted per capita in the nation because they signed onto these federal programs.
The problem with cities paying companies to locate in their locale is that most of the money goes to large companies making the people of the city and small mom and pop businesses pay for the larger companies to exist reducing their profit margin. Mercantilism isn’t a good form of governing.
“What the hell is an “outcome-driven” liberal?”
A person who focuses solely on results, the process be damned.
Thomas,
Is this a straw man or do you have specific examples of liberals who focus solely on results, the process be damned?
Dan: Amen to the secession of Texas.
Jeff: Congrats on an overwhelmingly successful first post at W&T.
Dan, the High Holy Liberal Decision, Roe v. Wade, was itself a fine shining example of “outcome first, reasoning later.” This isn’t just a heartless conservative speaking; a whole boatload of liberal legal scholars from John Hart Ely at the time through Lawrence Tribe have basically acknowledged that whereas Roe got the fundamental decision right (from their perspective), it didn’t come close to justifying it by actual constitutional principles. In other words, Blackmun and the majority knew from the beginning they were going to strike down abortion laws; they just had to go back and dream up a plausible legal rationale for it.
Verdict first, trial afterwards, in other words.
Have you never encountered the liberal conceit that liberals are “pragmatists” and conservatives are inflexible “ideologues”? What is that, if not a confession of preference for outcome over consistency with process and principle?
Thomas,
I stand corrected on it being a conference talk. It was an Ensign article titled “watchmen warn the wicked.”
As for the authenticity of the quote, I will talk to one my my best high school friends father who was Presidents Bensons personal assistant, reseacher and editor.
well Thomas, we come to the fundamental divide between liberal and conservative thinking vis a vis the Constitution and how to interpret it. This divide was right from the beginning, as is clear from the Federalist Papers, and onward. I have no problem probing the Constitution for rights the Founding Fathers could not have conceived of. They designed the Constitution to start small, but allowed it to be changed over time. If we don’t adjust the Constitution to reflect the challenges of our times, or of a particular time, it becomes an outdated, and more importantly, obsolete, document. Other forces would come to take more priority. Because simply put, if the Constitution is unable to solve the challenges at present, what good is the document? Indicating that liberal thinkers don’t care about the process is not accurate, or even what was the original intent of particular words or phrases. As I indicated earlier, the actions and laws created by progressives over the past 100 plus years have provided more freedom to a greater percentage of the American population; freedom not previously available. Through the formation of unions, workers are treated with better respect. Child labor has been totally removed from our society. Through civil rights laws (a bipartisan bill) minorities received rights the Founding Fathers refused to give them. Through feminism, women received rights the Founding Fathers refused to give them. Including of course, the right to control their bodies as they choose, not as men around them tell them. Until men go through the pains of menstruation and child birth, I’m not going to be in the camp that thinks I have a right to tell a woman what to do with her body. Did the Founding Fathers think of women when they penned their thoughts? It is instructive that they used the word “men” when saying “all men are created equal.” What about women?
Sorry man, but I’m with the progressives on this. When it comes to enumerating universal rights, the Founding Fathers forgot about a hell of a lot of people. They left it up to those who followed in their shoes to fill in the gaps.
my comment is in moderation.
Not any more.
re 207-209,
We are really trying to figure out what the heck is going on here. Since none of the moderation stuff is happening on a manual level, this means that somewhere within our code we have an overactive filter. I have no idea what could be tripping up the filters here but I will say that we are investigating.
haha, our comment moderation filter for some reason has the word “shoes” (among other seemingly innocuous terms).
This is intriguing.
And I found the other reason.
So, it seems that every time you write the word “socialist,” our filter sees “cialis” and think you’re spamming. this is pretty over-reactive
#211 – This is total bullshoes.
brjones
haha funny.
next time I won’t fish such a comment out.
thanks guys. I hadn’t caught that the word for that drug is found in the word socialist.
No problem. I didn’t realize that it would look *within words* for the filter words. I mean, that’s just kinda tough to account for
204,
“Jeff: Congrats on an overwhelmingly successful first post at W&T.’
I hope to have an equally contentious one tomorrow! 🙂
Dan,
Were you going to define tyranny for me? You gave me an example but you never defined it. I would still like your definition.
BTW, I never compared myself to the founders. I compared you to the Tories though.
So amend the froggin’ thing. Democratically, using the process built into the system, and the only legitimate, consensual way of doing it. Not with winks, nods, and “penumbras and emanations,” in the utterly dishonest and yes, tyrannical way the courts arrogated to themselves from about 1963 on.
You see, the Constitution has an objective meaning. (If not, then it has no useful authority.) That meaning has legitimacy, because the people consented to be governed by certain language that meant a certain thing. That meaning may be difficult to discern, and in some cases, courts may legitimately apply general Constitutional principles to specific cases. But when you go beyond legitimate interpretation, and start saying that because the Constitution’s specific provisions have the effect of protecting certain general principles (like “privacy”), therefore there is a general Constitutional right to “privacy” that can be protected by means that aren’t specifically enumerated in the text, then that’s sleight-of-hand, and it’s dishonest. We are either governed by laws or men. You want it governed by men. Men who agree with you.
So allow me to add one more non-straw-man to the list of “outcome-oriented” liberals.
Ah, but (1) does it therefore follow that everything Progressives want today is a good thing; (2) can the objectives that Progressives won previously, be taken to destructive extremes; and (3) could these advances have been won without the corresponding costs to liberty they have brought? Because whereas in many ways we (including groups that were shamefully excluded from full participation in society) are more free than we once were, in many ways, we are subject to greater restraints than even gen-u-wine despots used to place on their citizens. (Technology and mass communications enable government to control more of a citizen’s life than used to be the case.) Heck, look at the tax rates the American colonial revolutionaries were whining about. My California state tax burden alone is higher than that. For that matter, my car registration fee ($600, for a five-year-old Camry) is probably higher than the Townshend Duties, the Stamp Tax, and the tea tax put together.
Sure, we “consent” to these tax levels (filtered through several layers of increasingly unaccountable government, elected more often than not by the half of the population that doesn’t even *pay* any froggin’ income tax), and we supposedly get more for our money (although this is becoming less the case, as more money is spent on featherbedding and excessive public-union-driven compensation and pensions).
Maybe the broadening of freedom, and the handful of widenings (I could conceivably enjoy a broader sexual repertoire than in colonial times, where rogering a turkey would get me hanged) are worth the cabining of freedom in so many other contexts. But why the choice? Why could we not have broadened freedom where it needed broadening, without losing what we’ve lost? The saying about babies and bathwater comes to mind….
If it doesn’t have your DnA, it’s not your body. That’s the whole reason abortion is an issue (believe me, it’s not just because puritanical sexists want to make sure women suffer for promiscuity) — At some point during fetal development, a fetus becomes close enough to being a person for government work, and destroying it becomes too close to killing a human being to be countenanced by a decent society.
As for the implication that abortion laws would be a function of men oppressing women: Fine. Leave men out of it. Let only the women vote. The vote breakdown would be nearly identical, if polls of men’s vs. women’s support for abortion rights are any indication. I guarantee abortion laws would be more restrictive than they are now. Heck, Sweden’s are, and no Puritans they.
It’s “instructive” only if you view the Founders’ use of language through the filter of folk-feminism, and not through actual linguistics. “Man” originally (and in many Indo-European languages still does) refer to humankind generally. The sexes in Old English were waepman (male person) and wifman (female person). The change to “man” and “woman” was fairly recent (German still uses Mensch to refer to both sexes), and “man” was always understood as encompassing both men and women.
You’re reading the Framers’ intent as if they had been familiar with post-1970s American feminism, and chose their words accordingly. Not likely.
Thomas,
You’ve not shown what we’ve lost. Name some “freedom” that all Americans had pre-Civil War that is now lost. Name some “freedom” that all Americans had pre-1913 that is now lost. Remember, all Americans. Not just whites. I wish you luck in your endeavor.
How many amendments passed by progressives are coming under fire now by conservatives? I can name you the 14th and the 17th off the top of my head. You’re not making a strong argument that progressives have subverted the Constitution, Thomas.
One more thought on Orwellian America. All you have to do is go for an airplane flight and if that doesn’t make your skin crawl I don’t know what would. Going through government workers looking through your stuff and looking at your naked body (granted I won’t ever go through one of those again). That should just scream at you that we aren’t living in a free society. If there is a true danger let the companies do the security. The greatest thing you could do to make airplanes safe is allow people to carry guns on them.
Re: Dan 201 and Thomas 218
I think a more fundamental problem with Dan’s argument is that he equates government as the agency that extended rights. History didn’t start with the American revolution. The Founders were taking back freedoms that PREVIOUS government had taken from them over thousands of years.
“Consent” was once a child’s inherent love for a parent, a parent’s love of the child, and mates’ pair bond for each other. The first social contracts were between kin groups, which then banded together around the best hunters, best gatherers, strongest warriors, and most astute shamans who provided services in exchange for elevated status and/or goods. If, at any point, the people felt they weren’t getting what they’d been promised, and the rulers stayed in power, it became “unrighteous dominion”. The same principle held through the rise of city states, nations, and empires.
The Constitution was not an agreement of the people with government. It was an agreement of the people about government which gave government authority UNDER them, not OVER them. People are angry because government has forgotten that role, and they are firing the officials who have forgotten their place.
The “livingness” of the Constitution may be supposed to deal with living problems, but it was more specifically defined to deal with the CLASSICAL problem of democracies: that such systems are doomed as soon as the people start to think they can vote themselves bread and circuses.
Dan,
“You’ve not shown what we’ve lost. Name some “freedom” that all Americans had pre-Civil War that is now lost. Name some “freedom” that all Americans had pre-1913 that is now lost. Remember, all Americans. Not just whites. I wish you luck in your endeavor.”
Pre-civil war people looked to their individual states more and so had more freedom to choose their representative that actually had a daily impact on their lives. The slippery slope slid and now we bureaucracies/lawmakers make rules & laws over everyday lives, like the war on drugs & the war on raw milk.
Pre-1913 we had more control over the monetary system now some quasi-private organization (the federal reserve) controls our money and puts a tax on its citizens through inflation. As this gentle from India summed it up best “…the dinar & dirham represent a moral movement of absolute individual freedom.” See this short video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNtIsSWVJBI&feature=player_embedded
“What restraints do you have troubles with? I mean, I have no problem with restraining businesses from discriminating against their customers based on race, sex, or religion. Do you have a problem restraining that “freedom?””
Yes, government shouldn’t be able to put those restrictions on private businesses on private property. Should a jewish man have to sell goods to a neonazi? Should a black man have to sell stuff to a KKK member? That’s what you’re saying.
“You will fail to make your point that you are taxed at a higher rate right now than at any other time. Your taxes right now are at their lowest level since the Great Depression.”
So? We are still taxed really high. What’s your point?
“You think they were whining about tax rates? Or was it taxation without representation?”
Both.
“Should I pull out my violin?”
Yes, it sucks!
FireTag,
Good articulation, as always, getting to the core of the matter.
Dan,
Thank you for making my point. What you’re saying is that so long as everybody enjoys the same level of freedom, it doesn’t matter what that level is.
But of course you haven’t answered my question, which is — why couldn’t we have extended freedom to blacks, women, Indians, etc., and not loaded up the full Progressive micromanaging panoply of illiberal restraints?
I’ll give you one freedom all people had in the 1850s they don’t have today: The freedom to barber. I’m serious. The proliferation of licensing restrictions for professions that don’t remotely need them, is a stupid, unnecessary restraint on people’s liberty.
Here’s another: The freedom to pursue a good idea, without spending several thousands of dollars on lawyers to figure out if it violates some obscure regulation or not. Another great point in the Federalist Papers is that laws should not be so voluminous so that a person can’t possibly know the law, or so vague as to make an official’s discretion the real key to whether something is allowed or not.
Surely you know that the average person is far more regulated in what he can and can’t do today vs. earlier — heck, even in the 1970s. We just keep adding and adding to the regulatory structure, and Progressives never seem to even *question* whether compliance costs are a problem.
“You think they were whining about tax rates? Or was it taxation without representation?”
“Taxation without representation” made a great slogan, but the not-so-secret truth was that the colonists would not have been satisfied with the fig leaf of representation in Parliament (where their interests would have continued to be ignored, because in the corrupt Parliament of the rotten-borough era, America wouldn’t have gotten enough seats to matter.)
Yes, tax rates matter. Remember, I have this wacky political-sciency notion that the greater the imposition, the more substantive must be the consent. In an electorate of ten wolves and one sheep, the sheep may be technically represented, but to say that he’s “consented” to the imposition of a tax consisting of his rack and legs, just because he got to cast the one “nay” vote, is silly.
So yes — the higher the tax rate, the closer a tax gets to being nonconsensual, even with “representation.” Especially when the people voting *for* the tax, aren’t the ones *paying* for the tax. Which is more and more the case these days, now that the Bush lower-bracket tax cuts resulted in the percentage of people paying no or negative income tax dropping to close to half.
Cromwell: My dear Norfolk, this isn’t Spain. This is England.
I like to think I have a higher standard for liberty than just being better than a Communist autocracy.
“I think a more fundamental problem with Dan’s argument is that he equates government as the agency that extended rights. History didn’t start with the American revolution. The Founders were taking back freedoms that PREVIOUS government had taken from them over thousands of years.”
This is a nice sentiment, but I don’t buy it. At best it’s true conceptually, since the freedoms you are alluding to have not widely existed in most societies in recorded human civilization, and certainly not uniformly or equally. For all practical purposes the framers of the US government DID extend those freedoms, since had they not “recognized” them, citizens of this country wouldn’t have enjoyed them. Although I’m sure it would have been a great deal of comfort to them to know they HAVE those freedoms, they just aren’t allowed to practice them. This doesn’t make any sense to me.
Thomas,
Your talk of licensing made me think of a “against” view for the medical marijuana proposition here in AZ. The MD goes through and explains how in CA and MO the laws are liberal enough that non sick people can get MJ from licensed physicians and then states: “So limiting prescriptions to licensed physicians obviously won’t protect against drug abuse.”
It should be the quote of the year. You can extend this to “so obviously licensed doctors won’t keep people safe.” Of course, they won’t, they just give people a false sense of security. Free market certification = good, government coerced licensing = bad.
You can see that the licensing isn’t even to keep people safe. Here in AZ they made it more difficult for lawyers to pass the bar by raising the bar, why? Because, too many people passed it in the previous year. It’s all about government backed monopolization. As described in great detail in Murray Rothbard’s “Conceived in Liberty” illustrated.
The source for the quote is: http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/Info/PubPamphlet/english/prop203.htm#A
brjones,
That goes back to the inherent universal truths if you believe in them or not. You’ve stated that you don’t. You also appear to hold the constitution as an inspired document even though you don’t believe in any universal truth, like when I quoted AofC, as if the constitution were better. It’s arrogant or naive to think that the constitution is the best way to govern a people and that there can’t be a better form out there.
Just trying to point out some of what appears to be inconsistent thought on your part. Granted, without talking in person it’s difficult to divine everything on a blog. So, I’m sure I haven’t nailed it down accurately.
#230 – No worries, Jon. Actually I don’t believe the constitution was divinely inspired, although I think many of the founding fathers were brilliant and crafted a masterpiece foundational document in the constitution. And I didn’t mean to insinuate that the constitution was innately superior to the AofC, just that it is functionally superior, as evidenced by the fact that the drafters threw the former out and supplanted them with the latter. I believe this is borne out by the fact that after a very short period the framers found the AofC to be completely untenable and abandoned them, while the constitution, like it or lump it, has served as the foundation for the most successful civilization (by many standards) in the history of humankind for over 2 centuries. A lot of this has to do with whether you sympathize more with Jefferson or Hamilton in their ideas of what a nation should look like. Thomas and certainly Jon would side with Jefferson, while (not to put words in your mouth, Dan) Dan seems to be more of a Hamiltonian.
As a sidenote it’s worth mentioning that after years of chucking grenades from the cheap seats at those who put their money where their mouths were to run for elected office, Jefferson, upon becoming president, immediately sold out and betrayed many of the principles he held to be so sacrosanct. But I digress.
I don’t necessarily believe that there can’t be a better way to govern a people than the constitution. I just don’t think there has been one to date, and I certainly don’t think anarchy is better. I think the constitution is sufficient for our societal needs, and I think advocating throwing out the baby with the bathwater is a little extreme (sorry for the use of such a loaded word). I think it’s ironic that you, Jon, believe the rights enumerated in the constitution are innate, divinely granted and absolute (at least the ones that are recognized) whereas I believe they’re simply very good practical and ethical ideas and ideals thought up by brilliant men. Meanwhile, I’m defending the constitution and you’re criticizing it (not that there’s anything wrong with that). One might just assume that our positions would be reversed as to its present treatment considering our respective beliefs about its source.
brjones:
“Conceptually true” is enough for my purposes here since it helps us better extrapolate trends to look at what has happened repeatedly over thousands of years than to presume that something in a single society in a single century extrapolates to the inevitable “progress” of all mankind.
As you note, the freedoms we have been so proud of restoring vanished repeatedly in most human civilizations as soon as coercion to take them away existed. Whether it’s the Book of Mormon or Genesis or Tolkien or Darwin, “men are so easily corrupted” is a “universal” truth we ignore at our peril.
brjones:
I agree, it is ironic. To tell you the truth I wouldn’t mind living under a limited, constitutional government if it were truly that way.
I think for almost any form of government/non-government you need 3 things. A relatively good people, a relatively unified people, and a people that understand what freedom is.
I don’t think the form matters that much since the result will be the same in the end, one might just take a bit longer than the other. So, I agree, the constitutional form of government we have lived under has worked relatively well but is far from what I think would be ideal.
So that’s what leads me the anarchy, we tried minarchy it worked pretty good, what’s the next step? Ordered anarchy. The word anarchy has been abused so much over the years that most people look at it bad but I think it needs a fresh look.
One of the problems with the constitution is that it says the states have to have a republic form of government, which takes out experimentation to find a governmental form which could be better.
brjones: “Jefferson, upon becoming president, immediately sold out and betrayed many of the principles he held to be so sacrosanct” Just goes to show yet again that where you stand depends on where you sit.
#231 – I won’t argue with this, FireTag.
#233 – Let me point out that I’m not saying what Jefferson did was wrong. I just think it makes his behavior leading up to his presidency look that much lamer, and illustrates exactly the point Hawk makes. Jefferson is seen as one of the great idealists in American history, and yet as soon as he was in a position to make tough decisions, he quickly (and correctly, I think) realized that you can only really afford to be an idealist when your decisions don’t have any consequences. It’s too bad he couldn’t recognize and allow for this principle in others’ behavior prior to his presidency. He did some real damage in the name of his ideals.
brjones, hawkgrrrl,
From what I understand he regretted, at least some of those decisions he had made while president after he wasn’t president. What seems prudent at the time, in retrospect wasn’t. That’s just what I’ve read, I haven’t actually read a full biography on him yet though.
“Jefferson is seen as one of the great idealists in American history, and yet as soon as he was in a position to make tough decisions, he quickly (and correctly, I think) realized that you can only really afford to be an idealist when your decisions don’t have any consequences.” There was a book title I read several years ago: If Democrats Were in Charge They’d Be Republicans. (I didn’t read the book; I thought the title was summary enough – not to be confused with Ann Coulter’s similarly titled book). I think the accurate point is “If idealists were in charge, they’d be pragmatists.”
Thomas,
Now we’re getting somewhere. You write:
Um, so I did a little research and I can’t find a law passed by anyone requiring licensing for barbering. I see private professional organizations popping up which they themselves requiring licenses for barbers. Maybe you could help me out by showing me a law that forced people to get licenses for barbering. And to be clear, I’m looking for federal law, not state law. After all, state laws on barbering is more to what you are looking for.
So if I have an idea, say a story for a book, and I wanted to ensure I didn’t step on someone else’s feet, I would either do the legwork myself, or hire a lawyer, and somehow this is the government’s fault? I didn’t know it was the government that sued someone for copyright infringement, unless the idea belonged to the government. Usually private individuals or corporations sue other private individuals or corporations over such violations. I’m still not seeing how you are not free to pursue a good idea. Certainly Mark Zuckerberg was free to pursue his good idea. Same with the Google boys, and with Steve Jobs.
I’m sure you’re well aware why you have previously refused to provide actual examples. They end up undermining your point.
That’s because 1) they’re not a problem, and 2) you fail to provide evidence that they are a problem.
Of course they wouldn’t. No one doubts that. They smelled blood in the water. They saw bigger gains to be made. They saw they could be their own country rather than just have a seat at English Parliament. That doesn’t negate that their main gripe was “taxation without representation.”
It sucks, but that’s one of the drawbacks of a democracy, even a representative democracy. We could, of course, go toward despotism and impose the will of the sheep over the 9 wolves. But then, we wouldn’t be in a democracy, nor a representative democracy. The will of the nine wolves is greater than the will of the one sheep.
You’ve not proved this. You’ve proved that one person voting no does not consent to his taxes raised, not that a higher tax rate on all ten becomes non-consensual to the whole ten.
You need to talk to the dude in the mirror, Thomas. You’re the one claiming America is despotic. If America is despotic, then we’re like China, which is actually despotic.
Firetag,
#221,
Talk about a sanitized and revisionist version of the history of the world. This is terrible Firetag. I expect a better understanding of history from you.
Jon,
#222,
We’ve never lost this freedom.
We’ve never lost this freedom. Frankly I don’t know what you mean by “we” in this statement. If you mean the individual, well, he’s never actually had control over the monetary system. Secondly, inflation actually benefits and enriches a society. Your concern I don’t think is inflation itself, but rather the rate of inflation. Currently our main concern is deflation, which is what happens when the economy goes south. Deflation stagnates an economy for years, if not decades. Japan has lived through their Lost Decade because of deflation. No matter what Japan’s economic powers tried (private businesses and government stimulus attempts), they could not overcome the death by deflation.
Hi Rand Paul. Yes, a Jewish man should not discriminate against a neo-Nazi, nor should a black man discriminate against a member of the KKK. Now, if the neo-Nazi chooses to act up in the Jewish man’s store, then the Jewish man has a right to kick him out. If the member of the KKK chooses to act up in the black man’s store, the black man has a right to kick him out. Do you get the difference, Dr. Paul?
brjones,
That is correct.
hawkgrrrl,
Not that it is wise to equate Republicans with pragmatism. The book could easily be called “If Republicans were in charge they’d be Democrats.” And historically, Republicans have governed as they have painted Democrats governing. They’ve never been able to cut expenses, but rather they’ve INCREASED expenses while cutting revenue. That’s not pragmatism.
Dan,
I’m still looking for a definition from you of what is “tyranny” and what is “despotism”. No examples, a definition.
You can’t separate the state problems and the national problems. They’ve become so intertwined that it’s difficult to distinguish whose the original one at fault. Many times the federal government makes a law/rule/presidential decree that stipulates things at the local level (e.g., public schooling). An example of this is seen in this article: http://www.aei.org/outlook/28340
#1. 17th amendment made voting for senators a popular vote, which ended up have the unintended consequences of put more control of the government into federal hands.
#2. The federal reserve is unconstitutional see Article 1 Section 10. The supreme court has ruled in other cases that it’s unconstitutional for congress to give control over constitutional mandates to other branches of the government (which would include private entities).
Inflation benefits the rich. A society can become very wealthy without inflation (as seen during the 19th century). Inflation indebts (sp) a society as seen by history. This is really just an argument between Keynes and Mises. Personally I believe the Austrians. The Austrians called the crash the Keynesians said, “Oh, don’t know how this could have happened.”
This is what the argument boils down to, do you need a central authority to tell you every last thing that you can do or not? I say no, let me live my own life. You say, “I want to be your master.”
#3. I disagree, people should be free. Let the free market get people to be nice to each other. You say the bloody civil war was good. I say we should have done what every other country in the world did and get rid of slavery peacefully.
That’s the problem with your viewpoint, you want war and death and to hurt people. I say let us live peacefully with each other and let persuasion rule. Yes, there are times when you have to fight back after someone has hurt you but at no other time. You say harm first and let there be a ruler. I say let God rule, not man.
The book I refer to was on shelves before Obama’s presidency. I assumed at the time that it was a swipe at critics of the GOP’s leadership under Bush. As I said, I didn’t read it. You didn’t balk at equating Dems with idealism, but you want to garner pragmatism with it. I’m not being partisan in my comment; I didn’t title the book. I am leery of politics in general. Take an idealistic politician, add a few years of experience, you get pragmatism. Add 5 more years, you get cynicism. Add 5 more you get corruption. Add 5 more you get scandal.
If you regard “sanitized” as reduced to essentials, than I admit it’s sanitized. My history of the world apparently goes back farther than you’re giving me credit for. See here:
We started out, whenever we became human, with chemically driven emotions to keep us alive in family groups. Coercion came in shortly thereafter, if not simultaneously. I can’t compress tens of thousands of years of evolution without leaving out some details.
hawkgrrrl,
my apologies, I was trying to have it come across with a bit of jest, but it didn’t end up that way.
Firetag,
no, I mean missing out on a lot with your description. As if at the beginning anyone knew how to govern a society. That’s a joke.
Jon,
#243,
I’ll tell you what is not tyrannical or despotic: The United States of America. And that is the last time I will speak to this point.
I fail to see 1) the problem, 2) how this restricts your “freedom.”
I fail to see 1) the problem, 2) how this restricts your “freedom.”
You may think the federal reserve is unconstitutional, but do you have any actual evidence of this (no Lew Rockwell please). Secondly, the Founding Fathers actually created a national bank. Did you even know this? In fact, they created TWO! Those darn traitors to the Constitution…
Wow dude, so little you know! You’ve got it exactly backwards! Inflation is bad for the rich because it devalues their money. And the 19th century was not a wealthy time for anyone except the rich.
That’s not what it boils down to. Your straw man of the liberal position is just that: a straw man; a fake creation.
Dude, where did you go to school? I certainly don’t want to rehash the Civil War here, but wow man, you really think the free market is going to change discrimination? For the 100 years from the end of the Civil War to the passing of the Civil Rights Act, why hadn’t the free market been able to force businesses to end discrimination? Here is where the libertarian position simply is incapable of dealing with actual reality. Libertarianism cannot answer the question of why one person is free to discriminate, but the person who is discriminated against doesn’t have the freedom to go where he wants to also. Unless of course the discrimination is justified. Jon uses the example of rather terrible people (neo-Nazi and KKK), and wants us to equate such terrible people with blacks, as if blacks, simply by being black are as abhorrent to whites as neo-Nazis are to Jews and KKK are to blacks. Something is wrong with this picture.
Persuasion can kiss my butt. That’s how effective it is. I love your next sentence though. How successful would a black man be at fighting back against someone who has hurt them? I’m telling you, Jon, you’ve lost tons of brain cells reading Lew Rockwell crap.
Wow. That goes miles beyond even the farthest reaches of present antidiscrimination law.
You’re still allowed to discriminate on the basis of politics, or because you just don’t like somebody. What is the compelling argument otherwise? If a businessman is dumb enough to turn down paying customers or good employees for non-economic reasons, all the better for his competitors.
My experience (granted, coming from a defense perspective) is that there are far more spurious claims of discrimination than ones with merit. That’s a massive expense being foisted on innocent people, which I suppose I should like because it’s money in my pocket, but I don’t.
Hey Firetag,
Even God couldn’t govern humans well, which is why he flooded the damn planet! Moses 8:
Seriously. You think people had it figured out and then suddenly oppression arrived and it all vanished? Why do you think people throughout history constantly looked toward some divine being for guidance? You think they knew anything about proper governing? Why do you think fewer people look to divine beings for guidance today? It’s because we have a better understanding of how to govern ourselves.
Gadamighty. If this is how more liberals than one think, I really do need to stock up on ammo.
You really think it would be democratically legitimate for ten people to vote to eat me for lunch?
Hint: “Who chooses” is only part of consensual government. The “what” is also important. There are some things that no person could ever be fairly considered to consent to, even with the fiction of his representation.
And so, naturally, not knowing how to govern a society, we stumbled around for 10,000 years or so, and then just happened to hit upon the method of raping the Sabine women, after slaughtering their husbands? That’s your lesson in the foundation of Western government? Or is it Sparta? Or, recognizing the religious foundations of the West, how about Egypt, Babylon or Assyria, as well as the reemerging Persia? Or we can go with Abraham or Moses.
Same in the other centers of civilization, Dan. People didn’t suddenly become more moral as individuals at the beginning of the 20th Century. And people can still not be trusted with unchecked power.
After all, the whole basis of the progressive movement is that power must be concentrated in the hands of the best and brightest to overcome bad choices. But “brightness” does not correlate with goodness on timescales of decades if goodness has shown such little improvement over evolutionary history.
First thing they teach you in high school science is design any experiment so it CAN’T blow up in your face.
No, that’s Jon, who may tend a bit to the dramatic.
America, taken as a whole, is not “despotic” or tyrannical, though there have been aspects of it, in its history, where the definition fit. Again, you can be a little bit tyrannical. Hell, just ask my old elementary-school principal. That didn’t make him Mao (who I believe you were recently heard praising?). Degrees, man, degrees.
Thomas,
#248,
And how exactly would a Jewish man distinguish a neo-Nazi from any regular German? If the neo-Nazi dude was walking into the Jewish man’s store dressed up like Hitler, then the Jewish guy would have reason to kick out the provocateur. But if the neo-Nazi guy is walking in wearing a t-shirt and jeans, not saying anything provocative, just wanting a pack of cigarettes, the Jewish guy would have no reason to discriminate against him.
You realize the faulty logic of this statement vis a vis civil rights. In the South, where practically ALL whites discriminated against blacks, there IS NO competition for those black customers except among blacks.
Ironically, Hamilton was and is widely seen as favoring business, whereas Jefferson is seen as the champion of the little guy.
No, actually, I lean more Hamiltonian. The original Hamilton, that is, not his ideas about a competent central government put on steroids and blown beyond recognition. My one Jeffersonian streak involves his respect for the principle of subsidiarity — i.e., an ideal of having decisions made at the lowest level possible, closest to the individual. Interestingly enough, that’s a major part of Catholic Social Teaching, which is widely considered “liberal.”
Dan, as I’ve said before (man, that condescending Obama phrase is wearing off on me!), I would make racial discrimination the one exception to the rule. This is because of the unique role slavery-driven racism (often, btw, driven by government, not private initiative — this is why there had to be Jim Crow laws, to restrain merchants who were just out to make a buck from serving black customers) played in American history.
And it is still true, by the way, that even if your hypothetical neo-Nazi were dressed in nice khakis and a polo, the Jewish store owner could kick him out. Nazis (or Democrats, or Republicans, or whatever) are not a protected class.
From this point forward all post must contain the name Glenn Beck! Since that is the subject of the original post.
Fit it in somehow. 🙂
Firetag,
Morality has nothing to do with freedom.
yet another straw man liberal. Where do you get that “the whole basis” of the progressive movement is toward elitism?
Tell that to God. It sure seems to me, from how Moses describes it, that His human experiment blew up in his face, to such a point that he felt he needed to start over again. If God has such a tough time with this (note also in Jacob 5 how much the Master is troubled by the failure of his orchard, even though he put so much effort into it). This isn’t easy stuff, Firetag. The answers were never really there, not even for God. Don’t think you’re wiser than the Master.
Frankly, guys, I’ve totally lost interest here because it is so far off topic.
but I have another post tomorrow.
Thomas,
yes. But as you indicate, common sense should also come into play. Ironically, the Founding Fathers used this very method of democracy in their times. The sheep were Africans, the wolves were white Europeans. Sucked pretty bad for Africans who didn’t even have a vote.
You mean like slavery? You get my point, right? We were a democracy before we gave blacks a right to vote, right? We were considered a democracy before we gave women a right to vote, right? There are many reprehensible things one can do with a democracy and still call it a democracy. I vehemently fought against us going into Iraq, but sadly, we’re a democracy and the greater will of the people was to stupidly go into Iraq. I could only fume about it. I still do. It’s my weak point. But it doesn’t make the country more despotic.
So then could we rightly call anytime before women had a right to vote and minorities had a right to vote a despotic time in our nation’s history?
Dunno where you get the notion liberals and progressives are against business. Must be a lot of straw men around your house, Thomas. You should knock them over fast, so that you can see the real people beyond your lawn.
I guess I’ll see you in court when we get the first instance of a neo-Nazi going into a Jewish man’s store and the Jewish man kicking him out because he’s a Nazi…it might get tough though figuring out who is Jewish and who is a neo-Nazi….eek…
As Glenn Beck frequently notes, morality has everything to do with whether people in power allow you to keep your freedom. Hence, unless one supports systematic protections against the abuse of power as much as one supports using power to eliminate abuse, we are likely to end up where most civilizations end up — with a lot of abuse.
I believe Beck puts it as “Nudge,shove, than shoot.”
I’ll defer to Jeff and save further comments on how God uses evolution for the exploration of ALL possibilities for a future thread. God’s not confused, Dan. Reality is functioning exactly as designed, failures and all.
Firetag,
I didn’t say God was confused. I said that God had a tough time, and that his experiment blew up in his face (to use your analogy). Here is from Jacob 5:
Maybe Jacob is merely being poetic in describing how God is viewing this, but it is the same phrasing, essentially, as what Jesus said of Jerusalem. Matthew 23:
Are these examples the voice of one who expected things to go this way because He foresaw it? Or maybe that the hard labor of a hen guiding her chicks under her wings is really difficult work, even for an omnipotent God, regardless of what He is able to see into the future.
Oh, and I fart in Glenn Beck’s general direction.
#244 – 20 years till scandal seems like an awfully generous timetable.
Sorry – Glenn Beck.
262: “20 years till scandal seems like an awfully generous timetable” Many politicians are just overachievers.
I think the reason that people like Glenn Beck get all riled up about politics is because we are all different and any reasonable person just doesn’t want to be forced to do what other people tell them to do. Then there’s those who wish to exercise unrighteous dominion over others when it’s none of their business.
There are some that would like to program the people to do that which is good by using the sword (reminds me of someone’s name that starts with L/S, etc.).
“And now, as the preaching of the WORD had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just—yea, it had had MORE POWERFUL EFFECT upon the minds of the people THAN the SWORD, or anything else, which had happened unto them—therefore Alma thought it was expedient that they should try the virtue of the word of God.”
Never mind that a man I met in SC swore and said, “I’ll run over that little ng’er.” Then soon repented and said that he slipped but had turned to God and decided to put those thoughts out of his head. Never mind my grandmother who grew up in SD and once told me that she “didn’t want to sit up in ng’er heaven” but soon repented that she said that, no one forced her, she’s not religious nor LDS.
Never mind that in the western world slavery was peacefully brought to an end except for the US as shown in great detail in the book “Greatest Emancipations: How the West Abolished Slavery” by Jim Powell. He even asserts it could have happened peacefully in the US. But there are some among us that preach war, not peace. People need not government to become better but God, as observed by Alma (Alma 31:5).
Give people like Glenn Beck a reason not to get all riled up. Remember Ernest Hancock’s motto “There are some people who just wish to be left alone and there are some people who will just not leave them alone.”
Let us not forget “Great peace have they which love thy law.” But “There is no peace . . . unto the wicked.”
It’s been great bantering with you guys. Maybe I’ll join in the next political one. But really, will any of us really change each others minds? No. But I do learn some when I see others ideas.
BTW Dan, I did know that they had a temporary central bank in the early days, doesn’t make it unconstitutional. How do I know things are unconstitutional? I can read the constitution and then I can see what the government does. I don’t need a government employee to tell me it’s not unconstitutional because they said so.
That last post was going to be my last but I thought Glenn Beck wouldn’t want me to forget to remind everyone of the history of the civil rights movement. It was started by the people in rebellion of the law of the land, that’s right all those bad things going on down south was done by government laws/statutes. Thank goodness for Rosa Parks and her friends who conspired and decided enough was enough and started to rebel (Oh no! Anarchy!). Of course, the government first tried to stop it and then when it became more popular joined in and tried to make everyone think it was their idea to begin with!
Let us remember the unions that the government didn’t like that made working conditions better (Oh no! Anarchy!) but then jumped on the band wagon and said it was their idea. Let us remember these movements started out well and were good but then were bastardized by the government and turned into what we see today.
Let us remember that my wife and I chose to marry each other without anyone pointing a gun at are heads and things are going pretty good (Oh no! Anarchy!).
Jon,
Glad you’re finally seeing the light, that you’re not actually living in tyranny. Good point to end on.
Oh, and Glenn Beck’s mother was a hamster and his father smells of elderberries.
Wow. First our bishop talks about “Bro. Beck” in his talk last month (see comment #61 above). Today, my visiting teacher talks about how much she admires him as part of her lesson on temples today. As her companion nodded her head in agreement, I just sat there speechless. Literally. If I had replied how much I DISLIKED Glenn Beck, they probably would have equated it as my attacking the church. Now I wonder if my lack of response was taken as agreement. Should I have spoken up? Ugggh.
I enjoy GB’s show but don’t run everything he sez up the flagpole just because he’s self-styled as “conservative” or LDS.
I would disagree vehemently with him about supporting the Republican party, Israel, conducting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and “Islamic Terrorism”.
However, I agree with him about most of America’s problems being based in collective (im)morality. I also generally agree with his illustration about how nations deviate in various socialistic, facistic, or communistic ways from the path of freedom.
My wife’s sister and her husband, devout “Yew-Taw” LDS who think I’m going to hell for swigging Red Bulls, consider GB to be the proverbial “cat’s meow”.
I don’t see GB as a ‘religious’ leader even though we belong to the same Church. Methinks “Tommy Boy” fills that role quite nicely (well, better than the late Chris Farley ever would!!!)
BTW, I don’t feel that having LDS membership in common with any politician or celebrity means automatic allegiance.
For example, though “Doc Halladay” is LDS, that doesn’t make me a “Philly Phanatic”.
I’ll be rooting for my “boy” (well, he’s Mr. Lincecum’s boy, but the “Freak” is a “son” to all us middle-aged ‘Gints fans. And should “Los Gigantes” prevail tomorrow nite, you’ll know the cause of the raucous noise from Fair Oaks, CA….
@Doug
Now, I know why there’s a disconnect between us. I’m a rabid “Philly Phanatic,” but I can agree to disagree with you. I just love my flying Hawaiian.
Doc is pitching tonight so don’t count us out