Libertarian Conservatism then debate on Distributionism

Best explanation for Distributism I have seen. Apparently it was all down to vast amounts of alcohol.

The Imaginative Conservative: What next for Distributism.

Reclaiming Conservatism from Libertarians.

“Libertarian ism argues that the role of government is to uphold order, maximize personal liberty, and… pretty much nothing else. Government has no role to play in providing social services like Medicare or Medicaid, fostering economic growth (because the economy grows best when government does not meddle), promoting or even having a social policy. Issues like abortion and marriage are best left to the states or even to civil society.

The best that can be said is that libertarianism, in its moral defense of personal liberty, is a useful corrective to the assumption that prevailed for the rest of human history: that people are made unequal, and that the rich and strong have more rights than the poor and weak. That idea, which was widely presumed to be true for millennia, is tripe, and libertarianism is right to crusade against it. Libertarians would have you believe that they are the only soldiers courageous enough for this particular crusade; that you must accept their philosophy in toto to guard against tyranny; that no other philosophy has ever effectively checked the power of government. Their claim is more than tripe; it is propaganda. You do not have to be a libertarian to be against monarchy.

The other argument in defense of libertarianism is that it is efficient. We should protect human liberty above all else and minimize the role of government because it leads to the best outcomes for everyone. A laissez-faire market creates the most wealth. Free expression creates a free marketplace of ideas in which the truth will prevail. Market-based solutions are the best way to protect the environment because if people want a clean environment, all they have to do is pay for one. The competition of the private sector drives companies to greater heights of efficiency, productivity, and quality, which is why we should entrust everything from mail delivery to space exploration to them and not to the government.

Against these arguments are the fairly standard counterclaims about market failure, moral hazard, and the tragedy of the commons. Sometimes a marketplace of ideas does not result in truth if evil propaganda is shouted more loudly and frequently, especially by well-armed thugs. A free market for environmental goods is impossible because I cannot buy my own individual slice of clean air. And the efficiency of the private sector is only true when all parties have full, free, perfect information—which they never do unless the owners of information are compelled to disclose it by the government. These arguments boil down to the fairly obvious point (obvious to everyone except libertarians, that is) that sometimes working in groups and vesting power in a central authority is more efficient and productive than working in competition.

Libertarianism has the appeal of a personal organizer, or cargo pants, or a trapper keeper. It is a total organization system for all your ideas, convictions, and beliefs about society and politics. When you put libertarianism on, you have a tidy little place for every little thought and opinion. Even better, you can automatically generate an opinion on any issue by pure deduction with very little knowledge of actual facts. Take the first principle of libertarianism—personal autonomy is the highest good to which all other goods should be subordinated–and you can quickly Tweet about school choice (good), the Affordable Care Act (bad), NSA surveillance (very bad), and Miley Cyrus (who cares as long as she is a rational adult?). There is a pleasant empowerment in the comprehensiveness of libertarianism. Like every all-encompassing ideology, it gives you the ability, with very little thought or knowledge, to explain everything. As much as I hate the writing of Ralph Waldo Emerson, he was on to something when he wrote that “foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”

And libertarianism is certainly the product of little minds. By “little minds” I mean those

Values/truth to Money to Liberal taking ownership

It (sign/poster) says: “When all the trees are cut down…when all the animals are dead…when all the waters are poisoned… when all the air is unsafe to breathe… only then will you discover: you cannot eat money.”

what "Being Liberal" proudly posted as a nugget of political wisdom: 

Let’s start with the point of the poster. 

 I already knew that you can’t eat money. I learned this not through a program of nonviolent resistance to the corporate death machine, but rather through trial and error, at age two. By the time I was two I had experimentally determined that you cannot, in fact, eat money, and thus was prepared to delve deeper into economics. But I am glad to see that "you" have achieved mastery of the fundamental concept. If "you" keep at it, you may discover – at this rate, somewhere around age 85 or so – that while "you" cannot eat money, "you" can use money to buy food. That money could be pretty seashells, shiny pebbles, gold, paper, binary digits or cigarettes, but as long as there is money it is useful in order to buy food in a way that not having money is not useful.

I’ll note in passing that not only are the trees not being cut down, but that there is far more forest in the United States today than there was a hundred years ago; in fact, there may be more today than before the Europeans arrived in the first place. 

The animals are not all dead. I saw an animal on the way to work today. Like the forests – where they live! -- there have never been more deer in America, and the buffalo – nearly wiped out a century ago – are back in numbers that make buffalo burgers routinely available. 

The waters are not poisoned. They used to be. The Cuyahoga river caught fire at least 13 times between 1868 and 1969. The last time was 45 years ago – it, and the rest of the nation’s waterways, are far, far cleaner now. "You" ’d have a point if you were your grandmother. 

Likewise for the air. That’s all very 20th century. The air is much cleaner than it used to be – in places where we value money. Capitalist countries. Leftist countries – you know, leftists like you guys – are indeed filthy. China’s air pollution is so bad it makes up a third of the air pollution in San Francisco! But that because the left values the state over the individual, and the Chinese state wants the money from a manufacturing economy and the Chinese individual, as usual, can go pound sand. 

Now to the bigger point: namely, "YOU" ARE NOT LIBERALS. This isn’t liberalism: this isn’t even leftism -- it’s infantilism. It’s the philosophy of children, because that’s what "you" are. I know "you" feel brave, holding up that sign, speaking truth to power. "You" have no right to feel brave, because the risk of anything happening to you with that sign in America is Zero. (this part I believe is sailing into straw arguement though the ramifications in the point below might be passable)

((CHINESE STUDENT AND TANKS))

See this guy? That’s an individual, risking his life to fight the armies of socialism. He’s a hero, you’re not. That took courage. What you’re doing doesn’t. Like everyone else on the left, you want something – in this case moral superiority – but "you" don’t want to pay for it. So you just take it. See how easy it is?

"You" ’re not liberals – none of "you" are. "You" know who is a liberal?

((JEFFERSON))

This guy. We’ll use the image of this dead white male to represent the other dead white males who were, in fact liberals. They were called liberals because they believed in liberty – which meant, and still means, simply the freedom to be left alone. 

((JEFFERSON / PROTESTOR SPLIT))

The man on the right wanted people to be left alone. He believed in private property, strict limits on the power of government, freedom of speech, private ownership of weapons and was the founder of the Democratic party. 

The woman on the left (with the sign)  wants to government to take care of her health care, birth control, etc....

trolling; la la la

Science confirms: Online trolls are horrible people (also, sadists!)

New research out of Canada finds trolls are sadistic. Who knew?

by Nate Anderson - Feb 21 2014, 9:53am NZDT

• Share
• Tweet

 181

Alec Baldwin reminds us of the troll's mantra.

New Line Cinema / Aurich Lawson

If you have siblings, you no doubt harbor a hint of the sadist; who hasn't delighted in getting the occasional rise out of a younger brother by petting his cat after he ordered you not to do so? (To take one, ahem, utterly fictional example that is not in any way drawn from my childhood.) But your run-of-the-mill backseat pokers, hair pullers, and forbidden cat petters don't generally grow up to spend large portions of their time harassing total strangers on the Internet in search of "lulz." They don't, in other words, turn into Internet trolls.

That's because the true troll has a lot more of the sadist hidden deep inside than you do, gentle reader—at least according to a new study, "Trolls just want to have fun,"

Convincing Arguments for global warmng

Here’s a tiny bit of a ‘ripper’ from JoNova. (google it)

I concede the globe warmed approximately 1 degree Celsius over the course of the 20th century, but I have my doubts about the other nine Tenets.  But if you are a devout believer in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) and want to convert me to your religion then I’m going to tell you how you can do it.

The fourteen easy steps
Step 1 – Stop making predictions that don’t come true.
Step 2 – When you make a prediction, don’t just say something “might” happen.
Step 3 – Don’t live your life like you don’t believe a word you’re saying.
Step 4 – Stop the hate.
Step 5 – Stop avoiding debate.
Step 6 – Answer questions.
Step 7 - Stop enjoying catastrophes.
Step 8 – Don’t use invalid arguments.
Step 9 – When you are wrong, admit it and apologise.
Step 10 – Stop claiming that 97% of scientists agree that humans are warming the globe significantly.
Step 11 – Stop lying.  If you think it is okay to lie if it’s for a good cause, you are wrong.
Step 12 – Rebuke your fellow Warmists if they act in an unscientific way.
Step 13 – Stop blaming everything on Global Warming.
Step 14 – Why are the only solutions always big-government “progressive” policies?
----------------------------------------------------

I have adhered to scientific principles my entire life, and resent the implication that my personal scepticism against “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming” is based on anything other than the complete lack of persuasive evidence that the hypothesis, as proposed, exists.

Until such time as some evidence that is objective, convincing and at least has a semblance of empiricism is available, then the null hypothesis of natural climate change stands. That is all a true scientist would expect, so those opposed to that opinion need to provide unadulterated and unexpurgated evidence to justify their assertions.

It especially behoves those making the most outrageous claims to provide a level of evidence that is commensurate with the social disruption they advocate as necessary. In other words, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!

Winston (Reply)
Wed 01 Oct 14 (09:57am)

Meritocracy vs ........+ language twist

"A meritocracy is a social system in which people are allowed to prove themselves; to be all they can be, with everyone given a fair shot at success. The government does not aid or hinder them. Those who succeed either work harder or are more talented than those who don’t.

Your race doesn’t help you (as it might in an ethno-nationalist society). Your disability or poverty won’t promote you (as they might in an egalitarian welfare state). Your sex won’t aid you (as it might in a feminist or Islamic state). Your class won’t limit you (as it might in a Caste-based social system). Showy virtue, or memorising the Qur’an won’t aid you either (as it might Iran). In a meritocracy, you are not helped or hindered by the point you start from."

+ one comment on language

http://defendthemodernworld.wordpress.com/2014/08/26/meritocracy-the-social-ideal/

Astute Observersaid:

August 31, 2014 at 2:17 am

The left has successfully cultivated a language that supports their worldview. We don’t give handouts to the undeserving, we “invest in people”. We don’t sink into debt, we “stimulate the economy”. We don’t acquiesce to thugs and tyrants, we seek “dialogue for peace”.

Until the right retakes the linguistic high ground, we’re “quite simply fucked.”

Christian Islam Fascism Atheism; Influences

Atheism is a False Hope (a dialogue).

Dramatis Personae : A – a fictional interrogator: DTMW – Myself.

A: “Is there a God?”

DTMW: “Possibly.”

A: “The God of conventional religion?”

DTMW: “No.”

A: “So you’re an atheist in that regard?”

DTMW: “Not really. Atheism has become a positive concept. While once it was simply an absence of belief, it is now a very politicised label and suggests a specific worldview built around materialism, liberalism and a forced veneration of science. The New Atheists I find especially dangerous. They do not understand the function religion plays in the maintenance of a civil society, and what would necessarily occur were it removed.”

A: “Which is…”

DTMW: “It protects society from the full consequences of scientific truth. We’ve gotten too used to the idea that the ‘truth will set us free’ – that truth, being a positive value, can only have a positive effect. We forget that it can be beneficial or harmful only depending on its interpretation. Human beings are not naturally good, I’m afraid. Hobbes had this almost correct, except that religion and not government is the most effective Leviathan. Without it, the less evolved among the world population would feel they had no reason to stay within moral boundaries. Without the fear of hellfire, morality becomes a matter of consent. That’s all well and good for intelligent people with their evolved sense of empathy and social nuance. But most people are not intelligent.

And even among the intelligent, atheism allows for an icy, almost mathematical form of ethics that can be used to rationalise just about anything. Abortion, murder in all by name, can very easily be made logical by atheist thinking, but less so by the slightly fuzzy sentimentalism of the religious mind. That fuzzy sentimentalism, even if ridiculed by the petri dish and microscope, protects us from a lot of evil ‘common-sense’. The ‘New Atheists’ are greasing the wheels towards a very cold and dangerous void, the eventual filling of which they shan’t themselves be around to influence.

A: “Richard Dawkins says we can be good without God.”

DTMW: “As well he might. He is the product of a charmed life and first-class education. He belongs the upper-middle class and has never truly experienced hardship of the kind the poor must contend with. Solace of an earthly, material kind was at his side come what may. When the poor are faced with a reality that is horrid in every rational interpretation, they must look beyond reality for comfort. Peace between the classes depends in no small way on this function of religion. The concept of a human ‘equality’ before God; of a levelling after death; of a divine reward measured to match the hardship endured in life – all of these concepts prevent the fires of revolution bursting into life. There is a good reason that Communists went for the churches with as much venom as the banks and corporations.”

A: “What about Islam?”

DTMW: “Not all religions are equal. Some are more moral than others. It’s important to remember that a living religion is more than its foundational text. It is the product of elaborations and philosophies inspired by that text over hundreds of years. This is why Judaism and Christianity evolve and Islam doesn’t. The Qur’an, unlike the Bible, is a book that cannot be re-interpreted without fear of death.

A: “So you’d rather the Arabs and Persians and others converted to Christianity?”

DTMW: “I think that would be transformative. A Christianised Islamic world would solve so many of the worlds anxieties that it is difficult to describe how highly I favour the idea. I also expect the second generation growing up in a forcibly Christianised Pakistan (say) would be thankful to those who dominated and converted their elders. Islam makes life hell. Even Islamists are desperate to escape the fruits of their own labours. They are too proud to admit otherwise of course.”

A: “Are atheists evil?”

DTMW: “No. But many are certainly elitist. Elitism hides behind atheism rather well. You might say ‘No, I don’t hate poor White Americans; I just enjoy ridiculing their belief in Noah’s Ark. It’s got nothing to do with the fact that I went to University and they didn’t.’ I’m not convinced by that sort of thing I’m afraid.

As both Nietzsche and the Nazis understood, Christianity has always opposed elitism and made it politically impossible. This is the case today in America. The anti-intellectual instinct of Southern Baptism for example is something I sympathise with. The elite of America would love nothing more than to re-order society based on IQ or erudition. Christianity demands that other qualities are taken into account; unscientific qualities – like modesty, friendliness and warmth.

On a social level, mass atheism (as opposed to scattered, disorganised disbelief) would open Pandora’s Box. Many sleeping ideologies would awaken and moral values would be re-examined. It isn’t enough to say that ‘reason’ would take the place of religion. Whose reason? Can you not make a reasonable case for unreasonable things?

A: “Do you prefer Catholic or Protestant culture?”

DTMW: “My father is a retired C-of-E minister and so Protestantism is more familiar to me. I don’t like the hierarchicalism of the Catholic church, but I like the aesthetics of Catholic communion. Protestantism is more earthly. The West would fare well with either.

A: “Should children be raised with religion?”

DTMW: “I couldn’t be insincere in that regard, so instead I would make them understand that this is historically a Christian culture and that Islam, Hinduism and the like, are foreign to it. We reserve the right to uphold traditions and to maintain a unifying sense of identity. A religious core strengthens a nation by giving it a point of focus. It is terribly short-sighted to recommend the removal of religion from public life entirely.

D, LDN.

further good comments below the break