PJB: Bring Our Marines Home

[doobs]

I really want a PB & J now.

[Marcus Bryant]

The end result of taking ol' Ayn literally.

[Marcus Bryant]

WH, I believe that's known as the Union of AnarchoCapitalist Republics these days.

[Marcus Bryant]

Or, WalMartistan.

[Marcus Bryant]

Steal from the poor, hang with the rich.

[Marcus Bryant]

Who knew all natural rights were economic in nature? The fatal flaw of Marxists and the Ubermenchen Randians.

[Marcus Bryant]

Rand must've been one dirty in the sack though.

[mogrovejo]

Unless, I am mistaken, this is every inch the non-sequitur.

Power limits whatever it chooses to limit. You may question the legitimacy of that power, but not its existence IMO.

The state in a sense cannot touch natural law but the reverse is often true as well. Political power is often necessary to make natural law effective and enforceable.

This is the tradition in the US, for example. Our form of government was conceived to preserve certain liberties not inconsonant with natural law, but also some traditional English liberties. That it restricts us according to the covenant is part of the covenant, as is the coordinate power of the states over us. Submitting to the authority of the valid laws of the USA and the states we inhabit is part of the bargain.

Pretending it is not marks mogrovejo as the denizen of a philosophical cloud-cuckoo-land, where there is liberty but no political state. Or perhaps, more ominously, that of a post-political corporate globalism, where nation-states hollowed out by crippling debt and finlandized by impending default, do the bidding of the great corporations and global finance.

This is the classic defence of the tyrannical system of governing a political community. Funny to see it being made so openly in the 21th century. Very unusual.

Accordingly to Buchanan and his clique of excited teenagers with silly existential angsts against corporations, the dual party system and the likes (read Winehole and MarcusBryant), the freedom of the individual only goes as far as the interest of the state allows it - and those who decry from their creed that the Framers would see for what it is are "crazy bat s".

Mr. Buchanan and his friends in Wall Street don't want to bother the Chinese political-business oligarchy and their gigantic market? Well, all that needs to be said is that allowing private parties to do something that may bother the Chinese illegal is "against the national interest". And, therefore, the long arm of the government and his coercive force must act against those who jeopardize the interests of Mr. Buchanan and his friends. Oh, and you can even wrap it up in some populist, anti-militaristic rhetoric, that way some silly teenagers, those who parrot the crazyness of Ayn Rand or the Birchers, will always fall for it.

In the name of "the national interest", the clique justifies giving the government the power to wiretap whoever they want, suspend the habeas corpus, transfer huge amounts of wealth from ones pockets to others, go to wars, restrict speech because of the nature of the speaker, borrow money from the unborn - whatever the oracles in Washington see fit. Because, after all, they're just coordinating "the power of the states over us" and submitting to the authority of whatever the government decides is the role that the people must play.

[boutons_deux]

"Which party controls the executive and legislative branches"

Corporations Party

[Marcus Bryant]

[Marcus Bryant]

Yeah, silly us who would prefer not to see the government transfer wealth up to those who own the government. mobastiato lives in a fantasyland in which that does not occur, but rather believes that the business and financial elite in this country are a bunch of George Baileys. Buy. A. ing. Clue.

[Winehole23]

This is the classic defence of the tyrannical system of governing a political community. Funny to see it being made so openly in the 21th century. Very unusual

It is a description of political power as it actually exists, not as it should be. Perhaps that is why it seems so strange to you.

The state protects and enforces rights; without a political state, there is no guarantee or enforcement of rights, apart from the naked force of smaller communities and, of course the individual himself.

[Marcus Bryant]

It is a description of political power as it actually exists, not as it should be. Perhaps that is why it seems so strange to you.

The state protects and enforces rights; without a political state, there is no guarantee or enforcement of rights, apart from the naked force of smaller communities and, of course the individual himself.

Of course. No protection, no thought of equal rights for the economically weak. And he scoffs at Rand?

[mogrovejo]

It is a description of political power as it actually exists, not as it should be. Perhaps that is why it seems so strange to you.

The state protects and enforces rights; without a political state, there is no guarantee or enforcement of rights, apart from the naked force of smaller communities and, of course the individual himself.

BS. Between Locke and Rousseau (and his descendents, including Buchanan), there's an abyss. One thing is the function of the state as a protector of the natural rights; the other is to grant the state and those who command it the legitimate right to ber-stomp and annihilate a natural right in the name of abstract concepts like "national interest", "common good", "equality" and so on.

[mogrovejo]

A very easy, basic, distinction that the Founding Fathers made multiple times. No wonder that these days few can comprehend it.

[mogrovejo]

Back in the day, they used to call it "limited government".

[Marcus Bryant]

If anyone is taking a Rousseauian position, 'tis you and your defense of the current American economic order. Your belief in the myth of an existing unfettered free market is glaring. Further, your belief that it is not welcomed by businessmen and used to their advantage is naive. You in no way travel in the tradition of Locke, nor of the Founders who were quite su ious of economic power, not to mention state chartered corporations. Stop peddling your myths around here.

[mogrovejo]

But again, Mr. Buchanan's openness (which is, in this regard, no momentary excentricity but an habit of mind) when it comes to his wish to see the principle of limited government banished and replaced by the tyranny of the state shall be commended.

[Winehole23]

BS. Between Locke and Rousseau (and his descendents, including Buchanan), there's an abyss. One thing is the function of the state as a protector of the natural rights;

What I was talking about.

the other is to grant the state and those who command it the legitimate right to ber-stomp and annihilate a natural right in the name of abstract concepts like "national interest", "common good", "equality" and so on.

Overstatement. Our government wasn't curb-stomping the "natural rights" of corporations before Citizen's United, and mind you and me are in agreement as to the merits of the case.

One difference is, you seem to have swallowed the majority's crocodile tears over the "absolute, outright ban" on corporate speech, while I see it as a ridiculous and tendentious overstatement.

[Marcus Bryant]

Since when is the removal of state subsidization tyrannical? We are truly through the looking glass now.

[mogrovejo]

If anyone is taking a Rousseauian position, 'tis you and your defense of the current American economic order. Your belief in the myth of an existing unfettered free market is glaring. Further, your belief that it is not welcomed by businessmen and used to their advantage is naive. You in no way travel in the tradition of Locke, nor of the Founders who were quite su ious of economic power, not to mention state chartered corporations. Stop peddling your myths around here.

Hey kid, that's a hard point to sell considering the number of posts that I've written against the bail-outs, corporate welfare and, even in this one, Mr. Buchanan's willingness to subject individual rights to the interest of the pro-big business and "state" interests, that you obviously defend. Of course, I suspect my position is a bit difficult to understand for a person like you.

[mogrovejo]

Overstatement. Our government wasn't curb-stomping the "natural rights" of corporations before Citizen's United, and mind you and me are in agreement as to the merits of the case.

One difference is, you seem to have swallowed the majority's crocodile tears over the "absolute, outright ban" on corporate speech, while I see it as a ridiculous and tendentious overstatement.

You're confused. This thread wasn't about CU. A

[mogrovejo]

What I was talking about..

Hardly. But if you were, then I'm happy to see you agree with me.

[Winehole23]

What natural right were you referring to then?

[mogrovejo]

More reading (like actual books, say, the Federalist Papers) instead of making a living of parroting whatever the AmericanConservativeMagazine (oh, what is supposed to be conservative these days) or FOX news or Air America "speak" sounds like a good advise.