OF TWISTED WORDS => LIBERALISM ; REVISED A LITTLE BIT

All ducks waddle, and all ducks swm, but not all ducks can fly.

All ducks waddle, and all ducks swm, but not all ducks can fly.

With respect to politics, liberalism is an especially twisted word. As Wikipedia’s ambiguous article on Classical liberalism observes, the definition of Liberalism has shifted over time. Thus, that article sort of begins with the right idea.

Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government.

Yet along the way, that Wikipedia article somehow manages the stunt of equating “extreme” Classical Liberalism with Social Darwinism. How did that Wikipedia article get it so wrong? The author started with the assumption that Classical Liberalism is a type of Liberalism, but Classical Liberalism is actually what people use to call Liberalism.

An NCPA article, Classical Liberalism vs. Modern Liberalism and Modern Conservatism, provides a less muddied perspective. The author, John C. Goodman, wants us to adopt the philosophy of Classical Liberalism.  That article observes this distinction with Modern Liberalism.

Most liberals — at least mainstream liberals — believe you should be able to say anything you like (other than yelling fire in a crowded theater), no matter how much it offends and, for the most part, no matter how seditious. They also believe you should be able to publish almost anything as a matter of right. But they reject the idea of economic rights. They reject, for example, the notion of a right to freely sell one’s services in the labor market. The New York Times in particular supports minimum wage legislation that keeps people from working if they cannot produce at least $7.25 an hour.

Anyway, a couple of years ago, I posted HAYEK ON HOW WE DEFINE THE TERMS “LIBERAL” AND “CONSERVATIVE “. Rather than repeat that, let’s just consider why its important to get political labels right.

Consider the Duck test.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. (from here)

Google around the Web. Some variations of the Duck test replace the phrase “walks like a duck” with “swims like a duck,” but relatively few variations of the Duck test include the phrase “flies like a duck.” Why doesn’t the Duck test usually include flying? Domesticated ducks don’t fly. Add flying and the Duck test excludes domesticated ducks.

Domesticated ducks have owners. The owners of domesticated ducks clip the wings of their pets or livestock. Clipping Duck and Goose Wings to Prevent Flight shows how it is done.

Why is the exclusion “flies like a duck” from the Duck test significant? It hides the fact that ducks have two “political parties”: the Wild Duck Party and the Domesticated Duck Party. Because they want to fly, members of Wild Duck Party believe in fending for themselves.  Members of the Domesticated Duck Party, on the other hand, will accept handouts, ignoring the consequences that come with those handouts.

Similarly, we can divide people into two political parties based upon a critical lifestyle choice. When we compare Classical Liberals and Conservatives with Modern Liberals, what is that critical difference? Whereas Modern Liberals are willing to be domesticated in return for handouts, Classical Liberals and Conservatives don’t think the government should be passing out handouts. Classical Liberals and Conservatives would rather be free; they know what happens to domesticated animals. After a farmer fattens up a duck, he serves it up for dinner.

Interested in being a Peking duck? Check out this post at Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peking_duck

Interested in being a Peking duck? Check out this post at Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peking_duck

Consider the irony. Don’t Modern Liberal organizations like PETA spend more effort freeing animals into the wild than they do protecting the freedom of human beings? If we warehouse chickens in cages or stage dog fights that upsets the Modern Liberal. Yet if government officials strive to make the poor dependent, the same people look the other way. Why is that?

Look at the matter from a politician’s perspective. When we allow our leaders to purchase our votes and our loyalty, they know we have no honor. Therefore, power-hungry men and women will first try to ensure our loyalty by making us dependent upon them. Then, with the object of leaving us no choice in the matter, they will create a police state. At that point, they can serve us up for slaughter any time they please.

Are you one of the people who voted for President Barack Obama? Did you think you were voting for a savior, someone who would give you all the things you want and eliminate all the things about America you hate? Do you still deny you just elected a self-indulgent man who craves power? Do you still yearn for solution to all your problems from government? Then you are not a Classical Liberal. You are a Modern Liberal.

If you are content to be domesticated, then you are a Modern Liberal.  If you would sacrifice your freedom for the security of walking in an untidy barnyard and swimming in a stagnant little pond, then you are a Modern Liberal. If you are afraid to fly — if you think only The Dear Leader can be trusted with flight –  then you have already been domesticated. You are no longer wild enough to make decisions for yourself.

Interested in reading other posts on twisted words? Check out OF TWISTED WORDS => FEMINISM. That post contains a list of links.

Posted in 2014 Election, Constitution, Culture War, economy, Information Warfare, Philosophy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Seven “crashed” Hard Drives, #IRS? SEVEN??? Puh-leeeeeease….

Citizen Tom:

Anybody who doesn’t know about this has their head buried in well-cured concrete, but just in case.

Originally posted on Two Heads are Better Than One:

Hard drive - what are the chances - Remy

I like a good piece of fiction as much as the next guy. But as brilliantly illustrated by ReasonTV’s Remy (below), there’s a limit to ANYONE’s ability to suspend their disbelief, …mine included.

View original 194 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A GREAT COMMENT!

220px-BB61_USS_Iowa_BB61_broadside_USNEvery now and then I get a comment I want to make certain my readers notice, and here is a good one. In the following,  Keith DeHavelle levels a broadside in support of a Convention of the States.

You asked for a substantive reply to this comment. Let us do it, ignoring your pretenses, protestations, and claims about what conservatives think.

Many of us conservatives find the idea of a Constitutional Convention to be a rather radical idea, Tom. There’s no clear way of measuring it, but my guess is that the majority of opinion among constitutional conservatives is against the idea of convening a new convention.

This is not what is being proposed. A “Constitutional Convention” to craft a new constitution is an idea loved by many on the Left, but there is no mechanism for this in our current structure. Thus, any such group would be making up its own rules, and could be a class of high-school students if they can sell their idea. And then, it would be imposed, if they could, by force or by salesmanship, but not through any extant legal process. And the current government would be duty-bound to oppose such a thing.

But this has nothing to do with the process laid out in Article V of the US Constitution, which details the process of the states putting forth their own amendments and (almost completely) bypassing Congress. That is what is being suggested, and that should be the focus of any remaining concerns you may have or pretend to. (continued here)

Pity the poor fellow on the receiving end. That’s  scout, and he wrote this comment.

Many of us conservatives find the idea of a Constitutional Convention to be a rather radical idea, Tom. There’s no clear way of measuring it, but my guess is that the majority of opinion among constitutional conservatives is against the idea of convening a new convention. The urge for a convention seems to bespeak a lack of confidence in a document that has served us very well indeed and which, as conservatives, our instincts are to preserve. A lot of us feel that the United States was extremely fortunate (even Providentially blessed, if you like) to get this document as our guiding operator’s manual and that it would be very unlikely that we would ever do so well again. The Founders were unique, both individually and in how they applied their knowledges and intelligences collectively in the 1780s. (continued here)

Whatever he is,  is not a Conservative.

 

 

Posted in Constitution, Information Warfare, Philosophy | Tagged , , , , | 9 Comments

IT’S NOT ABOUT THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CHILDREN

traditionsWhen illegal immigrant children started coming into our country, I hoped most of the opponents of illegal immigration would have enough sense not to direct their protests at the children. The children are not the problem. Our problem is the politicians aiding and abetting their illegal entry into the United States. If the politicians were doing their job, the children would not be trying to cross our borders. Unfortunately, there are a few people who have not given the matter enough thought.

Here is how Youth for Tomorrow Hires Off-Duty Police to Guard Entrance (bristowbeat.com) starts.

Following the controversy over Youth For Tomorrow’s Unaccompanied Minor Program, the Bristow facility that houses at-risk youth has posted off-duty police officers at its Linton Hall Road entrance as a precaution.

According to Prince William Police, they are not doing so at the county’s expense.

“YFT is paying for the officers to be there,” said police spokesperson Officer Jonathan Perok. “This is an off-duty detail not paid for by the county or department.”

While Youth for Tomorrow did not immediately return calls for comment on the issue, many speculate YFT is concerned about the strong emotions the controversy is garnering with the public and local politicians.

Tuesday, a resident contacted Bristow Beat soliciting support for promoting demonstrations in front of the facility. [Editor's Note: The editorial staff refused the request.] (continued here)

Consider why Democrats think they can get away with bringing illegal immigrant children into our country. They are children. We are suppose to love children, not hate them. Therefore, if anyone opposes letting hordes of unaccompanied children cross our borders, the Democrats figure they can accuse them of hating children. Never mind the fact the Democrats have purely selfish reasons for bringing all these children into our country.

So what should we do if we want to protest illegal immigration? Try the following:

  • Visit and protest at the office of our congressman and two senators. We should be respectful, of course.
  • Send letters to our congressman and to our two senators. No curse words. We just need to tell them that if they don’t promptly fix this mess we are going to vote for someone else.
  • Send letters to the editor of our local paper. Here we can focus on the fact our leaders need to protect our country, not import more welfare dependents.
  • Support candidates who advocate limited government. If we are going to keep voting for increased funding of Social Security, Medicare, public education, food stamps, unemployment benefits, tax loopholes, and so forth, why should our leaders care what we think about illegal immigration?
  • Participate in the Tea Party protest movement and fight for our constitutional republic.
  • Join the Republican Party and fight for our constitutional republic.
  • Study the history and the traditions of the United States and pass that history and those traditions onto our children. Because we do not appreciate what the founders accomplished — because we don’t know how to make what they built work – our constitutional republic is dying.

We in America still have a distinct culture, one that even now has the potential to continue flourishing as the cradle of liberty. However, if we do not protect our borders, devious political leaders will succeed in completely dividing us by language and culture. You say that is not possible? Don’t our leaders already seek to divide us by race, sex, religion, age, wealth, …….? And you don’t think they won’t try to divide us by language and culture?

Consider what this phrase means:  God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Is it not just about living and letting others live in peace? Unfortunately, we have put a bunch of busybodies in charge, and busybodies are not content just to do the minimum government needs to do and then leave the people they seek to “serve” in peace. Instead, they want to make all our decisions for us, and that’s why our government now runs our healthcare, our schools, our retirement, our banking industry,… That’s why our government is putting the coal industry out of business, is forcing us to subsidize windmills, insists upon regulating Christian religious practices out of the public square,…. That’s why this country is going broke.

So leave the illegal immigrant children in peace. Pity them. If they had any sense, they would have stayed home. If we must protest, then we ought to give our elected officials some grief.

Other Views and Other News

Posted in 2014 Election, Culture War, immigration, local news, Philosophy, Republican Party, Tea Party | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 22 Comments

John 10:6-7 (The Gate)

Citizen Tom:

Do you like puzzles? Do you like reading from the Book of Isaiah? The resident blogger, BJ Richardson , at the River Walk takes an unusual approach. He provides a scripture reference. Then he makes his point, and he leaves it to us to figure out the connection.

Originally posted on The River Walk:

Gate Edit

Those who heard Jesus use this illustration didn’t understand what he meant, so he explained it to them:
“I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep.” (John 10:6-7)

Read: Isaiah 18:1 – 23:18

Relate: In the west, we live in a culture full of individualism. In other parts of the world the group, the collective whole, is to be more valued than the individual but for most European and American nations, it is the individual who reigns supreme. Some have taken freedom and twisted it to mean individualism. They have taken conformity and warped it into oppression. “Don’t conform. Don’t just go along with the group. You’ll just wind up like the Germans in Hitler’s day. Everybody marching in the same evil, destructive direction.”

Hogwash. If you are the only one moving in a particular direction. You’re probably going in the wrong direction. Frost’s “road less traveled”…

View original 383 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments