8/06/2006

From The Tower Of OTBL Babble

Below are a couple of "interesting" quotes currently post on the extremist side of the St. Croix borderline blog scene at www.ontheborderline.net. To refresh your memory, this would be your basic back to '76 movement. Of course, that would be 1776.
---



"There are some who would feebly attempt to cast the contributors out here On The Borderline as right wing extremists. They rhetorically ask where we get our information and ideas, suggesting that calls for a return to the vision of the founding of this great country are somehow radical notions of a bygone era."

(Editor's note: Weren't most of those Founding Fathers slave owners?)




"There is an ever present danger in having government control education. The indoctrination of society in the despotic states of the Soviet Union, China [especially under Mao], Cuba, and Nazi Germany was a result of “public education”, not free choice."

(Editor's note: Do you mean "indoctrination" like saying the Pledge of Allegiance?)

14 comments:

Cato said...

Fallacies are not arguments and they do not detract, in the least, from the liberalism that came out of the enlightenment.

AndyRand said...

Isn't this post about OTBL poster equating public education to the tyranical control of Mao, Stalin, and Hitler? How does the entlightenment liberalism relate to this issue?
I'm going to have to purchase on of those "Fallacy Finders" over a Wal-Mart:-)

Cato said...

I am refering to the first part, where the posters at the other website was apparently talking about the ideals our country was founded on and instead of explaining why those ideals are wrong, the poster here used a fallacy to mock. But mocking does not make the ideals wrong in the least, although fallacies are very telling of those who use them.

The Poster said...

Cato:

The ideas are great. I'm with the Spirit of 1776 all the way. But I also noticed the wrote things down on paper and not carved in stone. Therefore, I think they saw the possibility of change and flexibility in the future.

Is it mocking to point out the hypocricy of idealists? And what is "very telling" about the poster who did the post?

Cato said...

It is telling that you have no argument.

What is wrong with classical liberalism?

You have not said.

All you have said -- which is a fallacy itself mind you -- is that it was "written on paper and not carved in stone." I don't see how the material on which the ideas are written upon is relevant (I don't see what your point is in responding if you again throw fallacies instead of presenting an actual argument).

If you wish to discuss the flexibility of the Constitution for example I kindly point out that if you read the document, it has already been addressed and the framers did indeed have the forsight to see a flexible Federal Goverment of the United States.

Please see Article V.

the poster said...

Classical liberalism per wikipedia:

"Classical liberalism is a political philosophy that supports individual rights as pre-existing the state, a government that exists to protect those moral rights, ensured by a constitution that protects individual autonomy from other individuals and governmental power, private property, and a laissez-faire economic policy.

Many elements of this ideology developed in the 17th and 18th centuries, and it often seen as being the natural ideology of the industrial revolution and its subsequent capitalist system. The early liberal figures that libertarians now describe as their fellow "classical liberals" rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion, and focuses on individual freedom, reason, justice and tolerance. Such thinkers and their ideas helped to inspire the American Revolution and French Revolution."

So Cato, drawing from the above definetion, where do you see the owning of humans beings to be treated and worked like cattle fitting in: "supports individual rights as pre-existing the state, a government that exists to protect those moral rights."

I suppose you would have to go with the conventional wisdom of 1770s that tried hard to justify slavery be demeaning Blacks as a sub-human species. Ditto for American Indians. There was a great deal of status quo scince done to support this assumption in the 1800s and into the 1900s. I would say this parrallels the "science" done by tobacco companies to counter the charges against the impacts of smoking. Ditto for global warming.

I have not problem with classical liberalism -- in theory. Was it classical liberalism that guided us through the Industrial Revolution? Is it classical liberalism that is moving jobs overseas to take advantage of sweatshop labor in the year 2006?

I guess it don't play the logical parlor game very well. That's one lecture period in a philosophy class that ranks as one of the most boring classes I've sat through in my life. Maybe I'm better at looking at situations and understanding that writers are really good at working out the ideals to strive for and at the same time living the example of their own life at a sub-ideal level.

In theory, I support the pure laize-faire economic utopia and the Marxist utopia. However, I am a pragmatic compromiser how settles for a mixed model that involves compromise through the political process -- like we have in the United States. I am a mixed modelist who believes in a reasonably free market system with a social safety net to smooth out the fluctuation in the economy. I understand the broad generalizations of macroeconomics and I understand the pain, suffering and economic uncertainties that can fall on the individual -- the hardworking, financially frugal, family orientated individual.

I'm afraid my type of belief system doesn't dovetail into a would that ends with "ology." If you have one handy, please share it.

Are you familiar with the Six Thinking Hats" scheme of brainstorming that was working its way through corporate America a decdae a go. It was interesting. There are six colors of hats and you use different color hats for different brainstorming functions. Red had for mean ideas. Blue hat for far out ideas, etc. They ran everybody through the training and nobody every used it. Some people didn't have the sense of play needed and the understanding of what the purpose was.

That to me is what these discussions role into. It becomes an idealist parlor game that doesn't include what-ifs. Once you start throwing in the what-ifs, everything gets screwed up and the logic guy starts trying to steer the discussion back on the logical thread. Like I said, in theory I in favor of the classical liberalism and, in theory, I'm in favor of the Marxist uptopia. Do you see any contridictions in what I'm in favor of?

Cato said...

Classical liberalism per wikipedia:

Don’t. Use. Wikipedia. Ever.

"Classical liberalism is a political philosophy that supports individual rights as pre-existing the state, a government that exists to protect those moral rights, ensured by a constitution that protects individual autonomy from other individuals and governmental power, private property, and a laissez-faire economic policy.

Many elements of this ideology developed in the 17th and 18th centuries, and it often seen as being the natural ideology of the industrial revolution and its subsequent capitalist system. The early liberal figures that libertarians now describe as their fellow "classical liberals" rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion, and focuses on individual freedom, reason, justice and tolerance. Such thinkers and their ideas helped to inspire the American Revolution and French Revolution."

So Cato, drawing from the above definetion, where do you see the owning of humans beings to be treated and worked like cattle fitting in: "supports individual rights as pre-existing the state, a government that exists to protect those moral rights."


I don’t see owning individuals as something that supports individual rights. I never said it did. I think the issue of people owning slaves however is meaningless to the discussion of whether or not individual rights are worthwhile, however.

I suppose you would have to go with the conventional wisdom of 1770s that tried hard to justify slavery be demeaning Blacks as a sub-human species. Ditto for American Indians.

Again, I am not justifying it and think talking the issue in this context is pointless.

There was a great deal of status quo scince done to support this assumption in the 1800s and into the 1900s. I would say this parrallels the "science" done by tobacco companies to counter the charges against the impacts of smoking. Ditto for global warming.

Now this is just plain asinine jpn.

I have not problem with classical liberalism -- in theory. Was it classical liberalism that guided us through the Industrial Revolution? Is it classical liberalism that is moving jobs overseas to take advantage of sweatshop labor in the year 2006?

“The Unknown Ideal.”

I guess it don't play the logical parlor game very well. That's one lecture period in a philosophy class that ranks as one of the most boring classes I've sat through in my life. Maybe I'm better at looking at situations and understanding that writers are really good at working out the ideals to strive for and at the same time living the example of their own life at a sub-ideal level.

In theory, I support the pure laize-faire economic utopia and the Marxist utopia. However, I am a pragmatic compromiser how settles for a mixed model that involves compromise through the political process -- like we have in the United States. I am a mixed modelist who believes in a reasonably free market system with a social safety net to smooth out the fluctuation in the economy. I understand the broad generalizations of macroeconomics and I understand the pain, suffering and economic uncertainties that can fall on the individual -- the hardworking, financially frugal, family orientated individual.

I'm afraid my type of belief system doesn't dovetail into a would that ends with "ology." If you have one handy, please share it.


I think you meant to say a word that ends in “ism.” “Liberalism” “Individualism” “Marxism” “Socialism” …. Anyway, you are into “democratic socialism.”

Are you familiar with the Six Thinking Hats" scheme of brainstorming that was working its way through corporate America a decdae a go. It was interesting. There are six colors of hats and you use different color hats for different brainstorming functions. Red had for mean ideas. Blue hat for far out ideas, etc. They ran everybody through the training and nobody every used it. Some people didn't have the sense of play needed and the understanding of what the purpose was.

Not only is that a stupid idea I fail to see what relevance this has to the price of milk in Salt Lake City.

That to me is what these discussions role into. It becomes an idealist parlor game that doesn't include what-ifs. Once you start throwing in the what-ifs, everything gets screwed up and the logic guy starts trying to steer the discussion back on the logical thread. Like I said, in theory I in favor of the classical liberalism and, in theory, I'm in favor of the Marxist uptopia. Do you see any contridictions in what I'm in favor of?

Yes, since the two ideologies are opposites. The only logical conclusion I can come up with is that you are suffering from dissociative disorder.

The Poster said...

Dissociative disorder:

"Compelling books, movies and plays often are enjoyable because they allow you to escape from yourself for a short while. As the story draws to a close, you can savor the characters' experiences while slowly allowing thoughts of your own life to trickle back into consciousness. Getting "lost" in this way is pleasurable and healthy and allows you to return to reality refreshed.

People with dissociative disorders chronically escape their reality in involuntary, unhealthy ways ranging from suppressing memories to assuming alternate identities. These dissociative patterns usually develop as a reaction to trauma and function to keep difficult memories at bay. An estimated 3 percent of U.S. adults are affected."

Cato, I don't think you diagnosis fits me. I actually am refusing to escape reality and levitate myself to uptopian dream worlds ending is i-s-m. Maybe I just don't give a rip about the ism/ology parlor game speculation.

Cato, you might be fitting into this diagonisis, especially the part that says "assuming alternate identities."

Cato said...

jpn, multiple personality disorder is also called dissociative disorder. The alternative identies (multiple personalities) is what I was speaking of in regards to you since that is the only way that one could say that they want two oppisites, in your case, your want of Marsim and liberalism. It was also an attempt at humor that seemed to have rang hollow with both of you.

Just Poster Now said...

Cato:
If you your side or the other side can get your ideaologies to work as the theory states, then I don't care which one I have to live under. Both will work and I can adapt. I'm not in favor of both, but I could live with either. Either way, I still going to have to get up in the morning, go to work, pay X amount of my income into taxes, mow the lawn and life my life. I will confess with you that I lean toward the side of individual responsibility.

AndyRand said...

I'm going to try to weigh in on this.
In my opinion, Marxism and Classical
Liberalism ( i.e. laissez faire capitalism ) are contradictory and diametrically opposed.
Each in my view are extreme. Also in my view extremes are never desireable.
This is a battle between liberty with no security and security with no liberty. For as long as I've been alive, this country has operated on a model in between.
It is inevitable that when the balances are tipped to one side or the other bad things happen.
With total liberty, the rich and powerful will only get more rich and more powerful. You cannot have a Democracy under those conditions.
With a Marxist government controlled
system, the government controllers become more rich and powerful, and there is no incentive to achieve. You cannot have a democracy under those conditions either.

Both extremes are equally undersireable as far as I'm concerned.

Judicial Prudence Nogratus said...

AR:

I think your analysis is realistic. However, I believe you the rose-colored glasses of theorethical idealism. You entered thw variables of greed, corrupt, personal gain, selfishness, etc. in to the philosophical discussion. That tends to damped the diaper of idealism that Cato pushes for. I'm against the realistic version you explained, but I still for Cato's theorethical model. Likewise, I can live with in the theorethical Marxist model.

As I said, regardless of which one you choose, I still got to go to work and pay the bills.

AndyRand said...

Judicial Prudence Nogratus

I can't see how it's possible to be for both ideals when they contradict each other? I also don't see where it's black or white, Marxist or Liberatian. I chose neither.I know the word compromise is anathema to both extremes, but in reality, engaging in the process of balancing liberty with survival will create the world we all have to live in.

jumentum pario nauta said...

I think, in reality, the ideological spectrum of politcs is an curved arch. In theory, it's a straight line.

In reality, the more we move towards the laizze-faire side of the spectrum, the longer it looks like I will have to keep getting up in the morning to go to work. I'll be OK, as long as my bootstraps don't snap of me.