Comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.
Tonight I am thinking about the paulians' vision. The more radical "revolution" people in their ranks... They seek to break our government contract and install a political savior in ronpaul! to bring back whatever sort of quasi-republic they think this country used to be. Very unconstrained, in my opinion. And dangerous.
Tonight I am thinking about the paulians' vision. The more radical "revolution" people in their ranks... They seek to break our government contract and install a political savior in ronpaul! to bring back whatever sort of quasi-republic they think this country used to be. Very unconstrained, in my opinion. And dangerous.
Love, Sharmuta
It is a puzzle to me.
I have dabbled a little bit in Libertarian politics in California.
As a small (l) libertarian, I found them fascinating. I enjoyed the discussions but was always put off by the fundamental disconnect from political reality that so many of them seemed to be guided by. Some Libertarians understood that the Libertarian Party was in reality just a pressure group designed to pressure Republicans into being more free-market. Others, the nuts, kooks and flakes in the Libertarian Party, were and still are under under the delusion that they could actually win major elections.
I have heard the complaint that one of the main problems with the Libertarian Party is that it suffers from what is called "The Rule of 2,000". "The Rule of 2,000" observes that in any large political organization, you will find at least 2,000 nuts, kooks, and flakes involved in it at some level and that unfortunately for the Libertarian Party, they have about 2,000 active members.
The Paulians I think have it in their heads that theirs is the "solution" that America needs and wants. They seem to think that they can skip the process of making people more inclined to Classical Liberalism and go right into the halls of power on just their sheer energy and capacity for shouting.
Just like the unconstrained on the far left, they are looking for salvation in the result, not in the process of our political system. Carts before horses and all that.
Just like the unconstrained on the far left, they are looking for salvation in the result, not in the process of our political system. Carts before horses and all that.
The difference between reform and revolution?
I'm finding the unconstrained right to be a fascinating "discovery". I guess I saw it before in a sesnse, but now that my dichotomy has shifted to this new set of perspectives, I understand it better. Does that make sense? I'm no longer seeing the right-left, but the constrained and unconstrained. What seems to be the difference in the unconstrained left and right is their conclusions, not the thought process.
I'm finding the unconstrained right to be a fascinating "discovery". I guess I saw it before in a sesnse, but now that my dichotomy has shifted to this new set of perspectives, I understand it better. Does that make sense? I'm no longer seeing the right-left, but the constrained and unconstrained. What seems to be the difference in the unconstrained left and right is their conclusions, not the thought process.
I think it makes perfect sense.
I think that you would find both constrained and unconstrained in any political group. I think that they would be more dominant on what we call the left and less dominant in what we call the right, but since they are inclined to be the ones who shout the loudest on either side, they would seem to be dominant in both.
In the local political theater that I participated in here in the primaries, there was a very well planed and vigorous effort put forth with great success to limit the influence of the fringe kooks. The Paulians were one of the main reasons for this, as were those who like to make endless and excessively tedious amendments to the rules and platforms for the sake of making new rules and overly pugnacious platforms.
As for what makes the difference between the two "visions", I would say that you can spot the differences by their conclusions. It is their differences in their thought processes that leads the two to their different conclusions. Their worldview is the program, their conclusion is the output.
I think that you would find both constrained and unconstrained in any political group. I think that they would be more dominant on what we call the left and less dominant in what we call the right, but since they are inclined to be the ones who shout the loudest on either side, they would seem to be dominant in both.
That's so funny- I was thinking the same thing- they're the loudest. Not looking at my notes, I recall something about vigor not being a substitute for experience. Since the unconstrained is loudest and vigorous, they expect they should be pandered to. Sadly, too many in both parties do get some of the pandering they seek.
It's also interesting on the unconstrained left that they seem disappointed now in their political savior that he didn't keep his pandering promises to them concerning Iraq. But the unconstrained vision is the one that is built upon the sort of reasoning that allows for moment to moment reasoning in decisions.
Do not be too surprised if their disappointment in The Zero is short lived. For the unconstrained, it is the intention that is the first imperative. All other considerations, especially actual results, are secondary.
Also, they inherently expect a all agreements and contracts to be temporary and breakable. That is part of why they are so easy and free with making them. They mean it when they promise or contract it, but the next moment voids all the promises and contracts of the proceeding.
Some interesting stuff tonight. I'll come back in the morning and add some more thoughts, but for now I need to go. Please add anything else you've pondered. I'm still mulling over a few things myself, and haven't gotten too much further in reading, though I expect to spend some time over this weekend doing so.
The video is a illustration of the disdain and contempt for the customs and the courtesies of the lesser people that the superior yute has to share the planet with.
I've been reconsidering my thoughts on issues in europe. For quite some time I've said the underlying issue in europe is socialism - out of control spending and taxes that hurt the economic viability of european countries and their citizens.
But now I understand that the socialism is a symptom of the unconstrained vision that dominates european politics. They never instituted a form of government that restricts the powers of the government like our Constitution does. Thus we see european speech laws, an over-reliance on diplomacy and negotiations, and intellectual elitism.
Had the constrained vision dominated european thinking in the post French Revolution era, perhaps european history would be different today. Of course, we'll never know, but it's clear to me that the unconstrained vision dominates europe, and until they seek leadership that embodies the constrained vision, europe will continue to perpetuate their own problems without understanding why it's happening nor how to stop it.
Yes, Tom Waits. That quote is very much of the constrained.
And Johny Cash, almost certainly, though I am sure that both men have had some very "unconstrained" moments in their lives, as have we all.
The more that I think about trying to apply the constrained and unconstrained definitions to music, the more that it occurs to me that Man is not a creature that really can nor should be all the one or the other.
I am still trying to work through this. Not sure where it is leading me yet.
Can the culture be changed, or does it require 40 years of wandering in the desert till the unconstrained generation passes leaving a constrained new generation to enter the promised land?
Is there a way to change a person's worldview once it has been set? Or is it so set in the stone of our hearts that once made, it cannot be unmade?
I agree that it's not quite so black and white, but if I had to choose, I would say country music, especially classic country, would be a likely candidate for constrained music.
Can the culture be changed, or does it require 40 years of wandering in the desert till the unconstrained generation passes leaving a constrained new generation to enter the promised land?
Is there a way to change a person's worldview once it has been set? Or is it so set in the stone of our hearts that once made, it cannot be unmade?
Very excellent questions- which touched on the previous discussion spinoff- can visions change? Dr. Sowell makes mention of one such change on pg. 61 by Alexander Bickel.
In the case of a cultural shift, however, I'm not so sure europe is capable when considering the anti-American bias that is so prevalent there. It's possible that culturally, they see the constrained vision as American, rather than seeing Americans embracing a different vision. It makes me wonder if they're capable of a shift considering their long histories of monarchies, which places absolute power in one figure- unconstrained. Of course, the constrained vision made inroads otherwise we wouldn't have seen the rise of constitutional monarchies in europe, but instead of embracing the constrained, they settled for what could be called a "happy medium" while the colonies embraces the constrained vision completely.
We can see a continuation of the unconstrained vision in later european government with the rise of fascism- again elevating a charismatic leader as a political savior. With another opportunity to embrace the constrained vision after WWII, europe continued to remain unconstrained- where negotiations are central, and the rule of law and constraints on government are not valued. Instead of respecting the sovereignty of nations in europe, they formed another layer of government in the form of the European Union, thinking that more government was a solution and not less.
I'm not so sure that those in europe that oppose the EU are necessarily of the constrained vision. It's possible they're unconstrained having simply reached a different conclusion, such as we discussed previously. However- it's possible that the constrained vision could make inroads in such an environment. I have my doubts though.
Tonight I am thinking about the paulians' vision. The more radical "revolution" people in their ranks... They seek to break our government contract and install a political savior in ronpaul! to bring back whatever sort of quasi-republic they think this country used to be. Very unconstrained, in my opinion. And dangerous.
Love, Sharmuta
Here is something that I have stumbled upon here on a LGF Spinoff that I think sheds some light on this. It is reveals something about Ayn Rand that I should have been cognizant of but had missed.
One does not yet have to break relationships with society. But what one must do is break relationships with the culture: Withdraw your sanction from those people, groups, schools, or theories that preach the ideas that are destroying you. In Atlas Shrugged I describe the sanction of the victim–when the good people help their own destroyers–and show in how many ways men are guilty of it, through generosity or ignorance. Anyone serious about saving the world today must first discard the dominant philosophy of the culture. Stand on your own as much as if you moved to a separate valley, like in Atlas Shrugged. Check your premises; define your convictions rationally. Do not take anything on faith; do not believe that your elders know what they’re doing, because they don’t. That’s the sense in which Atlas Shrugged is applicable to our period.
Unconstrained. Especially the last part of that paragraph.
That was a good find! And here the book is flying off the shelf, and it's the exact opposite of what we need at this time. I've had numerous people recommend the book to me, but I haven't bothered to look into it, because my reading list is already extremely long and on hold while I'm slowly working through Conflict. I may get to it, but now I will certainly have a different perspective than others.
I was thinking of the Contract with America and why it was so successful. I think it's because those of the constrained vision were attracted by it- electing people to Congress that would uphold their word as embodied by the Contract. It was a constrained pledge. One I feel that would work again, were it tried. Especially the Balanced Budget Amendment- placing constraints upon our elected officials.
I believe our Founders thought those elected to Washington would know better than to bow at the alter of unrestricted spending, but clearly it was a flaw as over the decades Congress' spending has gotten out of control. I think it's well past time to add this restriction to power. Allowing men to spend other people's money goes to their heads. Time to counteract this bit of human nature, and check their power through law. Working to pass the Balanced Budget Amendment would be working within the constraints of our public contract, not rejecting it to "Go Galt".
She is Russian so be prepared for it to start slow and to get a bit ponderous at times. I wouldn't put it at the top of your list, just somewhere where a long polemic might fit.
As I think about it in relation to the discussion at hand, I wonder if she is an example of the unconstrained advocacy of a constrained system.
-
I am a little leery of making a balanced budget the law of the land. I worry that, to paraphrase an old Danish axiom, "Politicians like painters can turn black to white."
The problem, it seems to me, is that our culture is so steeped in guiltless and costless debt that it becomes hard to constrain spending at any level of the polity, even down to the level of the individual citizen.
Debt used to be something that individuals looked upon with a sense of guilt and shame. Not anymore.
When debt becomes so ubiquitous, commonplace and accepted, or even construed as something that people are entitled to, then I think a law requiring a balanced budget would at best only be ignored, and at worst would be used as a weapon against minority political interest.
I don't know how to change the cultural acceptance of debt, but that is where I think the change needs to take place.
Frank says: