We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
America was never perfect, but it was never conceived to be some abstract utopia showcasing human perfection. The 56 men who came together to usher it forth understood that in order to form a more perfect union they had to pledge their lifes, their fortunes and most of all, their sacred honor. They understood clearly that human freedom only guarantees that mistakes will be made; but that the human soul is only able to thrive when human nature is allowed to be free. Further, they understood that society too, will inevitably progress when the individual human soul is unchained.
Dr. Sanity. Yes, freedom is messy and complicated, but it beats the state of serfdom to the power-hungry and arrogant elites. Furthermore, the Overlords have no more wisdom - probably less - than the average Joe. Count me as an average Joe, and happy and proud to be one.
This is part of the only discussion that anymore seems worth having these days -- who is right, the individualist or the collectivist?
Many have noted how in the USA, the lab doing the groundbreaking work, the question has refined and clarified into one of nature's 50-50 propositions, and either/or, uncannily proven by the numbers of interested parties being pretty half of one opinion and half of the other.
This points to an answer, a general field theory, that could be stated, could be organized, the same way --into an either/or, a yes/no, a 'there's-two-kinds-of-people-on-this-earth' axiomatic.
So, given the conceit, what would that be? What are the words in the line in the sand?
"Half the people are above average and half are below average"?
If so, then "winners favor competition, losers favor collectivization"?
If so, then "zero sum" is real --regardless of the rise or fall of the general weight, volume, and mass of the emblems and artifacts of winning or losing.
If so, then a loser then could could be a winner again, even though in the doing, that accumulation of finished value, the moving finger of history writ, might be blasted into smoking ruin for one and all, for all time.
What can be done? Clearly more people need to think of themselves as winners. IOW, the entire dismal tide of leftist indoctrination doesn't need to be reversed --thank goodness, because it will always appeal to some and the communications (in the large sense of the word) revolution will keep them organized.
so only a few million Americans need to learn what a grand experiment this nation is --how radical it is --and how their votes will in turn keep the American way in the world's eye, and how this in time will convert the resurgent collectivists in numbers, how like the walls of Jericho were vibrated down by the music of jubliation, how everyone is a winner who preserves liberty for posterity's freedom of choice.
So anytime now we just MUST shake off the gloom and start blowing the trumpets --or we're lost --and considering a secret police with today's technology, lost may well mean not lost "until the elections" but lost for a long long time, maybe lost forever.
it would be easy if a person could think himself a winner by the passive receiving of gifts. But no such luck, making up the lost ground won't be that easy. Without a spiritual life filling a person with intrinsic, inherent actual self-worth, the project seems to have no how-to doctrine -no tools that by design reveal purpose.
maybe who we're after is the gloomy middle-aged and elderly. A young person automatically feels self-worth, because it is a fact, it's worn on the sleeve, youth guarantees potential, where there's time there's hope. It's no misconception, either, a young person IS more valuable --the store of resources ipso facto more valuable because more extensive.
So, are Grammaw and Grampaw voting thses days? You don't know? You better ask. You better go introduce yourself to those old folks down the street, too. We'll make it or not, one voter at a time. Makes setting a minimum goal pretty easy --just get ONE.
Well said and you are right that it is at the margin that this battle will be won or lost. I realize that all conservatives and libertarians must become engaged with everyone around them. If we each turn one person, then the battle can be won. The war will continue forever because freedom is never free - whether it is a war of ideas or a war of bullets.
Nevertheless, economics is not a zero sum game. That is the crap of Tom Friedman. The standard of living in America is a testament to this. The "poor" in America have cell phones and flat screen TVs. The poor in Kenya, Obama's native land, don't have electricity. The freedom of individuals to pursue life, liberty and happiness has created wealth that is the envy of all nations. The pie can get bigger for all and has. MF posted something on income inequality the other day (but I did not have time to really read it.)
You have also out your finger on a key ingredient. It is a genuine spiritual life that fills a person with the knowledge of intrinsic self-worth. This is a key to freedom because it also brings responsibility. The leftists hate God (and Jesus, in particular) because it not only places sunlight on their often immoral behavior but because it empowers us - the opposition.
I can only imagine the conversations if you and I ever met and had the luxury of time.
"The leftists hate God (and Jesus, in particular) because it not only places sunlight on their often immoral behavior but because it empowers us - the opposition."
You have made a gross error in your sweeping generalization of liberals here, Barrett. What you state here is a huge factor in why there is a schism between parties that makes one or the other the "opposition" as opposed to the party we deal with on a reasonable basis.
Both sides engage in egregious immoral behavior, and claiming that the conservatives, because we have God are empowered is ludicrous and serves only to make us look like backwoods hicks. I don't have a problem with belief in God, but to flout it as an empowering accomplishment is exactly why we are the laughingstock of half of the citizens of this country - most of whom do have a belief in God but choose not to use it as a bludgeon.
--for sure, Barrett. Re 'zero sum' i was a little vague there --i was trying to say, with 'regardless of how much', that it doesn't matter that economics aren't zero-sum, nor that the poor people in the stats are mostly young people starting out and they of course, because of this thing called 'time', are ALL poor. or that in a dynamic society the actual individuals within a group stat change tremendously over life times.
Movement, motion, the activity of time, has some sort of spiritual element hard to describe, but it shows up missing in a lot of the lies we are told --missing but leaving a little black hole making the reality wobble around it.