Quote of the Day: “Technology moves so quickly today that any looming resource constraint will be nothing more than a blip. We adjust.”- Phil Verleger
“Justice imposed through power is the philosophical foundation of the political left, and when earnest progressives become convinced the only avenue to power is violence, their tolerance quickly falls by the wayside.” – John Daniel Davidson
This is obviously a problem – but this is only part of the problem. The political left also typically believes that if they do not impose power that power will be imposed upon them. This is actually a much larger threat to peace and prosperity because it is a false rationale which can conveniently be used to excuse almost any behavior the political left wishes to engage in.
The notion of a society operated via voluntary associations and actions is a concept the left rejects.
Several decades ago there was something called the ‘Kirkpatrick Doctrine’. A portion of the Kirkpatrick Doctrine was the assertion that the United States should support nations that retained the means of production in private hands because privately held enterprises are the greatest influencers of freedom. The rationale behind this assertion was that private enterprise requires freedom of speech, freedom of action and freedom of information in order to continue to exist. Requirements by business would then influence all of society toward freedom of speech, freedom of action and freedom of information. History would teach us that there would be many other factors influencing freedom or the lack of freedom but there is an analogy here to the American political left in that the Kirkpatrick Doctrine held that all of the elements of voluntary cooperation must exist in order for private enterprise to thrive – and that voluntary cooperation would then spread to the rest of society.
The very essence of the American political left is the renouncing of all of the elements of voluntary cooperation – freedom of speech, freedom of action and freedom of information. Freedom of speech, freedom of action and freedom of information is the very opposite of the philosophical basis of the left – imposing power on others. Because freedom of speech, freedom of action and freedom of information stand in contradiction to imposing power on others, and the left believes that if they do not impose power on others then power will be imposed on them, they cannot intellectually or morally entertain the concept of a voluntary cooperative society.
The left, as you may’ve noticed, is all about pointing out instances where power was imposed on others. Be it Confederate monuments or what they call Patriarchal novels – the allegation by the left is that history is a power struggle and that if you are not imposing power it is being imposed on you. Many naive people notice the left condemning past instances of power being imposed on others and mistakenly assume the left stands in opposition to power being imposed upon others. If you have read Animal Farm you are familiar with this story – the left is not opposed to power being imposed on others they are opposed to any situation that they themselves are not imposing power on others.
That power imposed on others also requires violence is a detail that the left inevitably chooses to leave unsaid in their quest for imposing power.
What stands against the left is a voluntary cooperative society – liberty. Liberty is a societal model requiring that no one possesses a right to impose power on another. The role of government is preventing one from imposing their power on another. Liberty stands against the use of force – leftist stand foursquare in line with force as a societal and governmental requirement.
Do you wish to live in a society of voluntary cooperation and associations or a society predicated on the use of force?
The difference in a free market and the various forms of statism is simple and critical: in a free market everything is voluntary and there is no compulsion. In a free market no one makes you engage in a commercial act and no one engages in a commercial act on your behalf without your explicit permission.
Let us understand that each and every time that some one attacks the free market what is being attacked is the right of the individual to choose what they will do. Those who attack the free market are proponents of a system that requires the individual to do what other individuals think they should be doing – even if it is against the will and conscience of that individual.
At the end of the day this is all that it comes down to.
The question to ask anyone who is opposed to the free market is why do you think it is a superior model that people other than yourself are empowered to decide what you should do with your life? Of course that is never the question which people who oppose the free market want to answer, is it? They want to talk about justice and fairness and evil capitalist and all sorts of things other than the one vital question which exposes the whole statist ideology: why do you think it is a superior model that people other than yourself are empowered to decide what you should do with your life?
The typical bumbling answer the statist attempt to provide when they cannot escape this question is that people would be selfish, uncooperative, uncharitable, and unfair. All this answer tells us is that people who respond in this manner believe their fellow human beings are trash. One is drawn to questioning if they believe their fellow humans would behave this way because that is how they themselves would behave?
At the end of the day people who believe that force, rather than love and charity, is what keeps society together are probably not the people we want in power. Inevitably the people who believe that force is required to keep society together are also the exact same people who believe that only they are entitled to use that force.
That speaks volumes.
Other Side Quote of the Day: ‘“…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” – Life Magazine, 1970
Quote of the Day: “In the meantime, watch as a toxic political tide sweeps away the foundations of a two-hundred-odd year experiment in civil order. Six months from now, nobody will trust anyone or anything, and we may easily see a great deal of kinetic lashing out against each other in the ringing, raging confusion of the political vortex we’ve gleefully ventured into.” – James Kunstler
I have no clue what we are doing in Syria. I assume we are there because ISIS, Russia and Iran are there. If someone were to say that we are there to wipe out ISIS and then we will leave, ok, I could probably buy into that. However – I do not understand why we are escalating against Assad and Putin. It is not that Assad and Putin are good people – they are not – but that waging war against them won’t make them good people. If the goal is regime change we should know that and have argued to us why that is worth the death and destruction?
For eight years I castigated Obama over these foreign adventures that appeared to be without purpose or objective by asking, “What is the plan?”
I never received an answer from the Obama administration as to what the plan was as we ripped apart one country after another.
Time to ask the Trump administration – what is the plan? What are we doing there, how do we know when we are done and how do we know if we succeeded? Why is it worth the price we will have to pay?
Not holding my breath for an answer to this question either.