AnalogKid

Deo volente.

The Left and the State

Ace is getting pissed

The left has decided that talk of murdering politicians they don’t like is now acceptable. Cute, even. I have long been against such talk — including on this site, directed at people I personally loathe — but I have to say I’m getting to the point where I’m less willing to avoid it if the other side refuses to abide by similar common-sense restraints.

I can’t say I’m in complete disagreement. What is particularly dangerous is the notion that they can hide behind the Net’s anonymity, the “humor” gambit, or their collectivism to say that they didn’t mean it. It is precisely that identification with a group or with a philosophy that would give them license to pull a nut-brained stunt like this.

I can tell you one thing about the Left’s conspiracy theories – they all point the finger of blame at Bush and his administration. When and if they gain political power, given their philosophical roots, they will seek to assuage that blame by having the State proclaim him or his administration or his supporters as its enemy. Does anyone recall when Clinton sought to blame right-wing talk radio for the Oklahoma City Bombing?

I’m goddamned tired of the murder-talk and the left’s wink-wink-nudge-nudge response to it. I am sick of these vile fuckers subtly and not-so-subtly encouraging the assassination of duly elected or appointed members of the Bush Administration.

Here’s the problem: our political opponents are autoritarians all, believing in some mix of fascism, socialism, and communism. The ends justify the means, and only they are privy to what the appropriate ends must be. In that way, they are philosphical duplicates of jihadist assassins, for whom a loss of life is the means of advancing the argument.

Their delusion of grandeur is based on the flawed notion that they are both omniscient and representative of the State appratus. Just as there are already calls for an Impeachment hearing should the Republicans lose the House, there will be pressure put on elected Democratic representatives shoud they gain any power whatsoever. Because the ends justify the means. And if the elected officials don’t take action, don’t you think some jack ass would take a Democratic win as a mandate for sanction to act on the behalf of the State?

This is precisely why we cannot start talking like that as a party or as a group. Classical liberalism and rugged individualism cannot tolerate an “ends justify the means” motivational component, because they don’t. The means are the ends that we seek. The way that you do things is important. And the State is not the god of the Republicans – we don’t serve it; it serves us.
Communism and socialism are known as the governments of thugs, becuase they are the first groups to benefit from the ability to hide vicious criminality behind the veneer of righteousness. The Democratic nutroots are devouring that political methodology, and this is why they are a danger to the US. They would allow anything as long as it promoted the State agenda.

We are living in dangerous times when a group of people would act on the behalf of the State to advance an un-democratically supported political agenda.

Advertisements

September 7, 2006 - Posted by | Philosophy - General, Philosophy of the Commons, Politics, Sweet Crazy

7 Comments »

  1. Classical liberalism and rugged individualism cannot tolerate an “ends justify the means” motivational component, because they don’t.

    Depends on the magnitude of this issue IMO. Ending WWII was obviously worth nuking Japan to save the estimated 500,000 casualties of an invasion.

    The Bush situation? Not worth it. If the left is so weired out, the guy is going to be gone in two years anyway. What’s the big deal?

    Comment by Purple Avenger | September 7, 2006 | Reply

  2. You’re making my point, PA. We didn’t use the AB offensively, to conquer. We used it to save lives. That’s a nuance that the Left seems incapable of comprehending.

    Comment by John | September 7, 2006 | Reply

  3. That’s a fine commentary, John.
    Thanks.

    Comment by Alear | September 7, 2006 | Reply

  4. Talk is cheap. The left lacks the stones to do much else. Killing the politicians, all of them, is probably the only way the people could take the country back from the left. And the right. Both are different sides of the same coin and serve the same corporate masters, not we the peoople.

    Comment by J | September 8, 2006 | Reply

  5. Talk about missing the point.
    This is not a question of right/left ideology. Can you honestly tell me the Bush government is one of minmalist intervention in the operations of lower than federal agencies, i.e. state, municipal, etc.
    Tarring all communists with the Marxist violent overthrow of government label is just as lacking in insight.
    Any government should be organized to allow society maximum liberty to toperate without oppression. This facilitates innovation and co-operation.
    The proper function of government is surely to provide a stable base for all its people to live in security and whatever prosperity they can manage. That may include a mix of operations which differs from country to country according to the wishes of its people. This is not really an ideological difference.
    Authoritarianism, micromanagement , spying, lack of civil liberties : these are police state activities and should be considered discredited by the not-so-wonderful examples of Nazi Germany and the U.S.S.R. both.
    They are no package to emulate in admiration or fear.

    Comment by opit | September 19, 2006 | Reply

  6. Not all states that engage in “police state activites” are police states, Opit. Tautologically, the Bush Administration, of which I am no huge fan, does not adhere to the ends justifying the means. If they did, they would have gone about achieving any number of political and military goals differently. Two examples: No vetoes and no colonialism.

    Not all actions are created equally, and that is clear from their execution. Certainly you can admit that.

    Comment by John | September 20, 2006 | Reply

  7. Here’s the problem: our political opponents are autoritarians all, believing in some mix of fascism, socialism, and communism.

    Obviously we live on different planets. On my planet most US leftists are either establishment liberals or progressives. There are few, if any, socialists or communists on the left anymore, and by definition a fascist cannot be a leftist — by European standards there is no left in the US at all, only the center-right and the right. On my planet the US President has sanctioned and conducted warrantless spying — as a conservative, doesn’t that bother you? Blown up the budget –as a conservative, doesn’t that bother you? Lost two wars AND a city — as a conservative, doesn’t that bother you? Attacked science — as a conservative, doesn’t that bother you? Flouted the Constitution and ignored the law — as a conservative, doesn’t that bother you? What a weird group of conservatives… and here I thought being conservative met protecting and cultivating the Constitution, not spitting on it. Conservatives sure have changed since I was a kid….

    Michael

    Comment by Michael Turton | September 24, 2006 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: