Posted on 09/26/2002 2:36:29 PM PDT by jstone78
It is not ironic, but merely a reflection of the reality that Conservatives, by the very nature of their ethos, are grounded on reality. We seek to preserve reality. And to do so, you must understand it. Socialism is a denial of reality. The very notion of equalizing people is in large measure a war on the reality of human differences. The notion that collective solutions to individual problems are even likely to work, is a denial of the reality of what actually works in the human experience--i.e., individual responsibility, which puts the best efforts of all to work. (See The Lies Of Socialism.)
I first realized how truly airborne are the those on the Left, when as a Freshman at Oberlin, I found that even the upper-class "Liberals," were almost totally unable to ground any argument on basic truth--undisputed reality. My contempt for their ideology--which I suspect shows--is premised upon an appreciation of this fatal weakness. They dream dreams of a world that fits their dreams of what is "ideal." But those dreams are no better than the reality behind them; which is to say that they are totally worthless. Meanwhile, they seek to savage our civilization in pursuit of this lunacy.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
But the real problem, you seem to ignore, is that our Federal system was not set up to force your or my values on the people of our sister States, anymore than it was set up to force the distorted views of Earl Warren, Eleanor Roosevelt, the Kennedys, Bill and Hillary Clinton, etc., upon the States. The real problem is that it destroys the symmetry and balance of our system, and moves it towards a monolithic concept that was never intended.
Surely, you would not embrace the UN as an answer to American "Liberals" or Socialists, even if somehow the Third World all moved sharply to the Right. The issues would still be ours to deal with, among ourselves: Not be dealt with by outside forces.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Buckley, although he made as I suggested earlier, a very significant contribution to Conservatism (#42, above), his contribution was no where near as significant as Rothbard is suggesting. Buckley was never the dominant factor that Rothbard suggests, except in the Conservatism of the North East Coast. He never had that much influence in the South and West--the real bases for the eventual Reagan counter-attack--and was only one of a number of factors in the Midwest. (Actually, his associate Bill Rusher, played a more significant role than Buckley in bringing the Reagan victory to pass, precise because he did not adopt Buckley's sanctimonious distancing of himself from so-called Populists, such as George Wallace in 1968, when he wrote the very significant "The Making Of The New Majority Party," in 1975.
Buckley's influence probably topped out in the early 1960s, when he was busy distancing himself from other Conservative groups and activity, precisely because of his aloofness. After Goldwater's defeat in 1964, as Conservatives regrouped, it is probable that some of the activity in the South, from which Buckley carefully distanced himself, represented a far broader based Conservatism--call it "Populism," if you like--than anything Buckley ever really contributed to. Throw in the gradual awakening in California--now drowned in Clinton's failure to protect our Southern border--and in other Western States, where Buckley's style was alike less than really effective--and you will begin to put his influence into a truer perspective.
But again. He has made very valuable contributions to our cause. And I refuse to repay those contributions with the same narrow aloofness that he has shown towards others who also made valuable contributions. We are not a monolithic movement. And unless we mean to fail, we must embrace all who are on our side, issue by issue--just as our enemies do.
One other point. You need also to understand that by publishing an ex-Communist's article on the Soviet Union, or even a Socialist's article against Bolshevism, the magazine was not necessarily endorsing the view of that ex-Communist or Socialist upon any subject whatsoever. There were sound reasons to draw on the experiences of defectors on the Left in trying to defeat the threat of Communist expansion in the 1950s, 60s, etc.. It is a stretch to suggest that Buckley embraced Trotskyites in National Review--although some ex-Trotskyites (once the extreme Left of Bolshevism) may have moved to the Right.
I am also not aware that Buckley ever actually embraced the ideology of any of those on the Left, just because he saw fit to find fault with the way some of the rest of us attacked them. For example, while he may have grown rather squeamish in his opposition to what Rothbard correctly terms "the civil rights revolution," he was still willing to speak up for the Bob Jones University dating policy in 2000. And it is important, here also, to recognize that even at its apex, Buckley never had the influence that the far more widely circulated news weekly, U.S. News & World Report, had under David Lawrence, during the 1950s and 1960s, when it regularly ran articles questioning the premises of the movement.
In summary, I think the truth is somewhere between Buckley and Rothbard; that Rothbard's critique is worth considering, but it is an over-reach, reading too much into some articles that may have appeared in National Review, and reading more into Buckely's aloofness than is really justified.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
And the Bill of Rights limits Congress and the rest of the Federal Government, not the States. You simply beg the question that you raise in your post, by that sentence. Read the First Amendment. It makes not the slightest bones about its intention: "Congress shall make no," etc. The other Amendments were likewise only intended to limit the Federal Government. If the Federal Government had been intended to enforce similar concepts against the States, that would have been spelled out in Article IV of the document, which does include certain specific limitations on the States. (They are forbidden, for example, from impairing the obligations of a contract. This limitation is very important, and it is spelled out. So too is the prohibition against putting tariffs on interstate Commerce.)
The framers drafted a clear document. That the Courts have since confused it, reflects the poor quality of many appointed to the Bench.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
The 2nd Amendment applies to All Americans, but it was intended to limit a possible Federal threat. It was not directed towards the States. You may be able to get a Court today, to consider a 14th Amendment attack on the California restrictions, but I would not count on it.
Frankly, I do not believe that any State can legally prohibit its citizens from having guns for self-protection. But my argument there would come under the fundamental concept of Republican Government as a compact. Since there is no way that the State can adequately protect its citizens from all threats, disarming them is tantamount to violating the compact to secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as set forth in our justification for ending British Government here.
-- Art. IV, which you quoted, says in Sec 2 that citizens in every state shall be entitled to the same 'priviliges & immunities'. What does that mean to you?
It means that if you come to Ohio from California, you will be entitled to all of the rights and privileges of an Ohioan, under our law. (This was not intended, however, to confer automatic voting privileges. And the ridiculously short residency requirements to vote in any State, today--a result of the Leftwing Activist Judiciary of a few years ago--is something that needs to be addressed.) In other words you can own property, drive under the conditions set down for Ohioans, drink whatever Ohioans can drink, and have full access and fair treatment in our Courts, etc..
-- And, Sec. 4 says that every state shall have a Republican Form of Government. Can a Republican State prohibit certain types of self defense weapons from its citizens?
It cannot effectively disarm them, under the argument that I used above. Under the Police power, it may or may not be able to ban certain devices. The Police power, which remains with the States--it was not delegated to the Federal Government--is very broad. But, generally, in a free State it must be exercised reasonably--not capriciously or in a purely arbitrary manner. Those are questions that would have to be addressed in assessing any attempted regulation.
William Flax
If the State Police power is administered in an arbitrary or capricious manner, the remedy is supposed to be in the State Courts.
What you seek to do--or others like you--is to change the Federal Government from being a servant of the people, intended to fulfill certain functions with which we could all agree, into being an enforcer of uniform ideas throughout the States. That is a complete distortion, and should be resisted for all the reasons that led to the original separation from England.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Whats 'circular' about saying our constitution is the law of the land?
You do not like the way the States treated certain people, therefore you want to expand the power of the Federal Government.
Bull. -- I want constitutional rights honored for ALL people. Don't you?
But that was not the intended function of the Federal Government.
I never said it was. That's your silly straw man.
If the State Police power is administered in an arbitrary or capricious manner, the remedy is supposed to be in the State Courts.
The USSC is the highest court, as per the constitution. [Art. III]
What you seek to do--or others like you--is to change the Federal Government from being a servant of the people, intended to fulfill certain functions with which we could all agree, into being an enforcer of uniform ideas throughout the States. That is a complete distortion, and should be resisted for all the reasons that led to the original separation from England.
Again, that is sheer bull. I firmly support States powers to protect their citizens from federal violations of the constitution. These 'check and balance' powers are not being used because of a failed so-called 'two party' political system, not because of any faults in the constitution.
I suspect you support this failed rinocrat system, thus your effort to tar me as some sort of a federalist.
Bump for a point not made often enough.
Nothing. But that is not all that you are saying. You need to read your own post after the line that I quoted, for an illustration. The fact that the Constitution is supreme, does not apply the language of the Constitution that limits one entity to another entity that it does not limit. Your suggestion that this somehow justifies the Fourteenth Amendment, changing the responsibility of the players, is completely circular--particularly when you even go so far as seeking to look the other way on the ratification question, in order to accomplish this reallocation of Constitutional responsibility.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Nothing. But that is not all that you are saying. You need to read your own post after the line that I quoted, for an illustration.
How odd. -- You expect me to understand an argument you can't frame? Weird.
The fact that the Constitution is supreme, does not apply the language of the Constitution that limits one entity to another entity that it does not limit.
This sentence is gibberish. It makes no sense. - Try again.
Your suggestion that this somehow justifies the Fourteenth Amendment, changing the responsibility of the players, is completely circular--particularly when you even go so far as seeking to look the other way on the ratification question, in order to accomplish this reallocation of Constitutional responsibility.
Now you simply build upon the nonsense of your first gibberish sentence to spout more bullish bafflegab.
Either clean up your empty rhetoric, or find someone else to bother with your meaningless pap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.