I am trying to understand something. We can generally agree that Democrats are for increased government and regulation. In our view, such policies are destructive. If Democrats had their way and did not have a sudden economic realization, then the world would be a much bleaker place. However, this is not the case. What has been there to stop them? It seems that the answer would be Republicans. Hence, even though Republicans are socialistic in other ares than Democrats, the struggle of the two parties has resulted in something positive. Republicans have therefore been more beneficial than we give them credit.
Does this make sense?
They've resulted in something neutral at times, but never anything positive and usually something bad.
Are you familiar with the Federalist Papers?
What do you mean? I've read a few, but I haven't spent much time on them. You mean the discussion on checks and balances?
Repubs at least back the free market in principle, and think the gov is often the problem. Thing is, the repubs are not consistently anti-state. They have become communalists just of a different degree and order from the dems.
Whereas the dems are more economic communalists, the repubs are much more ethical communalists, and for many people that's far more pernicious.
Still, reading about the islamic takeover of Egypt, things could be much, much worse on that score. And the repubs are probably the only party that's receptive to libertarian-conversion--I myself came from there. Of those who come from the left to libertarianism, they typically fall to leftist libertarianism, with its sundry flaws and problems. The right, understanding and supporting the free market and liberty away from government intervention can be made libertarian by forcing them to be consistent on that score and follow the idea out to its logical conclusions.
The left, I think, is more evil because they actively want the power to coerce in all spheres of life. They've done weird inversions of the NAP, where, absent any concept of property rights, they cast an ethical system where violence is wrong, not invasion of property.
This ethic was taught to, for instance, the first student movement back in the 70's. The result was that students believed it was okay to invade a campus and takeover physically, but thought they were being aggressed against when the police removed them by force. There's even the famous incident where the administration was about to cave and end the opposition, but the leader of the student movement grabbed the microphone to speak and the cops then forcibly removed him, thus re-enflaming the students and as they said "saving" the movement.
Absent a belief in private property, there's almost no hope for an objective ethical system to develop. And the left has been attacking the concept of private property for seems like centuries now. The right at least believes in private property, and therefore can be convinced to accept a property-based ethic such as leads directly to libertarianism. With the left, that's a much longer road; they must first come to value private ownership of property, which they have long been told is the root of all evil in the world! Typically then, leftists only come out of the fog when they see the result of unopposed socialism in places such as the USSR and the like, and the misery it creates.
They've fooled you. The 'struggle of the parties' is nothing more than the Hunger Games - a staged contest employed to distract the populace and with little chance that you will survive. If the Democrats were the only party, the majority of people would be a lot more aware of the tyranny of the state and would not be fooled into thinking that the state can eventually be employed for their own purposes. Currently there is a one-party system, but people are tricked into thinking that it is a contest and that they should use their scarce energy in futile politics. Impotent suffrage is perhaps the greatest device ever granted by the power elite.
I don't think the result of the election will really matter but if Obama has any power of his own he might try to prevent a war with Iran should he retain the presidency. If that's the case, he might just be your only hope.
Read them. Read #10. It is on factional influence in politics.
Republicans have therefore been more beneficial than we give them credit. Does this make sense?
Republicans have therefore been more beneficial than we give them credit.
So Hitler and Stalin, too, have been more beneficial than we give them credit, and for the same reason, because they fought each other.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Smiling Dave: Republicans have therefore been more beneficial than we give them credit. Does this make sense? So Hitler and Stalin, too, have been more beneficial than we give them credit, and for the same reason, because they fought each other.
When you frame it by talking about both simultaneously it loses the emphasis of the point. But for what it's worth, Tom Woods talks about Jefferson having an idea similar to Wheylous here...and even uses your analogy as an example.
Aristophanes:Read them. Read #10. It is on factional influence in politics.
I think history has provided a clear refutation to Hamilton's argument. The large size of the country has not provided a check against "factionalism" (what today would be called "special interests"). Instead it's led to the federal government pandering to all the factions that matter (i.e. have money). The result has been a more-or-less constant ratcheting-up of the size and scope of the federal government.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
When you frame it by talking about both simultaneously...
OK, read the first sentence today and the next one tomorrow. And no peeking.
1. So Stalin, too, has been more beneficial than we give him credit, and for the same reason, because he fought Hitler.
2. So Hitler, too, has been more beneficial than we give him credit, and for the same reason, because he fought Stalin.
Yeah, kinda. Again I'll defer to Woods:
"...at least if you can pit them against each other, if you can get them fighting against each other, like the Nazis against the Commies, then maybe people can find some resevoir of liberty..."
Wheylous:Hence, even though Republicans are socialistic in other ares than Democrats, the struggle of the two parties has resulted in something positive. Republicans have therefore been more beneficial than we give them credit. Does this make sense?
No.
Though Ds and Rs differ in the reasons (welfare vs. warfare) for plundering the masses (via taxation and fiat money) they are "bi-partisan" about such plunder continuing and growing. The "fight" is just for show -- like a never ending WWF match. What matters is that ever increasing amounts of wealth must continue to be extracted (via outright taxation and "borrowing" legal tender created out of thin air) and benefits "allocated" to cronies in the welfare and warfare implementation chains alike.
Don't be fooled. The "dysfunction" is a screen. Everyone involved (politicians and cronies alike) is quite efficient at attaining their true ends. If they weren't they wouldn't be clamoring for a spot at the teat like they are.
Again I'll defer to Woods:
If the bottom line is that the Republicans deserve credit for fighting the Democrats the same way the Nazis and Commies deserve credit for fighting each other, I'm good with that.
Of course, I'm not addressing the valid point others have made that the D's and R's are really a two headed hydra, as opposed to two seperate creatures.
Smiling Dave:If the bottom line is that the Republicans deserve credit for fighting the Democrats the same way the Nazis and Commies deserve credit for fighting each other, I'm good with that.
I could be wrong, but that seemed to be all he was saying.
Aristophanes:Read them. Read #10. It is on factional influence in politics. I think history has provided a clear refutation to Hamilton's argument. The large size of the country has not provided a check against "factionalism" (what today would be called "special interests"). Instead it's led to the federal government pandering to all the factions that matter (i.e. have money). The result has been a more-or-less constant ratcheting-up of the size and scope of the federal government.
Madison wrote #10.
Instead it's led to the federal government pandering to all the factions that matter (i.e. have money).
What is this "instead"? The Framers knew that property owners would (and should) control the State. You're right in your point that factions have ceased to war with each other to a degree, but only because the political parties have acted as an amalgamation of several factions. The Founders didn't really say much about political parties.
The result has been a more-or-less constant ratcheting-up of the size and scope of the federal government.
Which is surprising?
I think Woods' analogy is inexact. It would make more sense if it refers only to the average Poles. In that case the benefit of a Germany vs. USSR conflict, playing out in our own homes, is pretty dubious.