We Need Militant Nationalism

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-03-2017, 02:14 AM)Galen Wrote:

(07-02-2017, 09:37 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-27-2017, 05:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-26-2017, 09:09 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-26-2017, 10:14 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: We could have a Citizens' Army that includes everyone from Communists to Constitutional Conservatives. The only exclusions would be for Totalitarians

So your manifesto relies on internal contradiction?  Communists are totalitarians, after all.

Nor does the Constitution have anything in it about the scientific method, the arrow of progress, or positive rights.

The bill of rights? Not "positive" enough fer ya?

The Bill of Rights is all about negative rights - the right not to have the government quarter soldiers in one's house, not to be unreasonably searched, not to be forced to incriminate oneself, and generally not to have the government interfere in one's life in more than very limited ways.

Positive "rights" - the "right" to life, the "right" to food, the "right" to have a nicer house than one's next door neighbor - positive rights are nowhere to be seen in the Bill of Rights.  The government isn't generally allowed to take those things away from one, but it isn't generally allowed to take things away from other people to provide those things to one, either.  If you want those things, you have to provide them for yourself, and not depend on the government to provide them, as far as the Bill of Rights is concerned.

The libtards can't handle this concept.  It interferes with their concept of omnipotent government.  Their religion is statism and the state is their god.

You can find better examples of both positive and negative rights in the Four Freedoms.  Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech are traditional negative rights, limiting the power of the government and guaranteeing that nobody can take certain things away.  They represent a larger set of traditional negative rights.  However, that leaves Freedom from Fear and Freedom from Want.  These aren't in the Constitution and are only hinted at in the Declaration of Independence, but can stand as good examples of positive progressive rights.

To my mind, Freedom from Want doesn't imply economic equality.  It says nothing about the super rich not becoming super richer.  However, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 25, it suggests a minimum floor level that assures a reasonable right to such things as food, shelter, clothing, medical care and retirement.  I'd strive to achieve this more through an inclusive economy rather than welfare or dole.  I don't want to pay taxes for welfare or a dole either.  Minimize that.  However, being able to find a job with a living wage is a healthy alternative to welfare.

With technology eliminating many jobs, it is becoming harder to sustain an inclusive economy. This is likely to become worse as other economic sectors collapse. Basic numbers such as hours per week and age of retirement will have to be looked at hard. Both were being adjusted freely through the New Deal era, but the 40 hour work week and retirement at 65 numbers have become such a tradition that thinking of changing them is hard. If an inclusive economy is combined with the new technology, at some point some folk will have to open their minds.

Nor is Freedom from Want unrelated to Freedom from Fear.  You can see Freedom from Want as a key element of the Cold War, or at the bottom of much of the Middle East instability.  Extreme want leads to political instability.  Governments should definitely care about their own people.  I'm not as thrilled with meddling abroad, notably with force.  One often does more harm than good.  However, having most of any population have a decent path to a healthy and sustainable life style takes a lot of tension out of a region.

But for this progressive, the notion of the government as a god is repugnant.  The government is not a goal in itself.  It is a tool to help the People.  As such, keeping its powers limited and focused on the welfare of the People is necessary and prudent.  There is a place for both positive and negative rights in achieving such goals.

And I definitely do not want to see government as a tool to aid and abet the wealthy.  This is a natural trend.  Those with power and wealth will seek influence in government to achieve more power and wealth.  It is nigh on inevitable, but a trend that should be fought with firmness.

I also see Freedom from Want and Article 25 as in opposition to tribal morality.  As long as one and one's group is free from want and getting freer all the time, tribal morality will suggest the heck with everybody else.  I see such "I've got mine, up yours" thinking as destabilizing.

I can't say these thoughts are central to every progressive, but the notion of progressives seeking power for power's sake sounds to me like a conservative straw man.  If an extreme partisan wishes to discredit extreme partisans of the opposite spin, he will embrace and often believe libel falsehood that makes the other group look bad but is far from truth.