Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For September 24, 2014

Sept 19

To R.Scott Clark and his blogpost celebrating Constitution Day. This appeared on Heidelblog.

We are often told about the Constitution from idyllic perspectives. But if we want a fuller perspective of what the Constitution is about, we need to read the historical documents that provide some of the context for the Constitution. Those documents include Henry Knox's Letter to George Washington, the Constitutional Debates, and Federalist Paper #10. There are others as well as there are events that also help provide context for the Constitution such as Shays Rebellion.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sept 23

Please note that at the time of the posting of this blogpost, the comment below was still unpublished. The comment below will be deleted from this post should it be published in the imaginative conservative blogpost to which it was posted.

To Patrick Deneen and his blogpost associating democracy with materialism and other enemies of democracy. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative.

Where should one start with this? Attributing to democracy materialism and privatism seems the opposite of what we observe in history. And it isn't that we can't have materialism in democracy, but such really rests with our economic system rather than political system.

What democracy does is to redistribute power so that the more democratic a society is, the more that power is shared equally amongst the people. The less democratic society is, the society leans toward elite-centered rule and thus the more likely that society will be ruled by tyrants. 

But democracy alone does not determine the degree of materialism that will exist or whether individualism will reign too strongly. Economic systems that emphasize a variable level of collective ownership would limit the individualism that exists in society while economic systems that emphasize individual rights and ownership regardless of the interdependencies that exist in the system.

Democratic socialism leans toward recognizes a variable standard of collective ownership while it expands democracy. Whatever materialism it produces will be a shared rather than a hoarded materialism. There is a certain solidarity with those in need that is present in democratic socialism.

Neoliberal Capitalism denies collectivism and emphasizes profit. Thus, we should expect to see a great deal of individualism exercised by the financial elites in this form of capitalism as well as hoarding kind of materialism. After all, don't American capitalists try to prove American capitalism by saying that it has produced the greatest level of prosperity in history? How can one get more materialistic than that? We should also note here that that is the claim of every greatest empire of its time. And the push of advocates of neoliberal capitalism is to loosen the chains of social responsibilities so one can keep more for themselves. Again, here is more materialism and individualism.

One more point, should we really read de Tocqueville and his comments about America uncritically? After all, America at that time was a highly racist country that ethnically cleansed the land of its indigenous people and either enslaved or treated as second class citizens African-Americans. de Tocqueville used British society as the measure of the highest society on earth despite the abuses that came with running an empire. To not read him critically would be to submit to some form of authoritarianism. And we should note that authoritarianism goes hand in hand with elite-centered rule, not democracy. And we should finally note that those who wrote the Constitution opposed what was referred to as "democracy" back then. Rather, they favored a lite elite-centered rule seeing that the Constitution was written in response to widespread dissent and Shays Rebellion rather than as an afterthought to the American Revolution. And the writers of of our Constitution were very economically class minded.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on the survey that showed that more Americans want religion to have an influence on politics. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

I don't think that the importance of religion in politics has really waned as much as the kind of religious influence that has been influencing politics. We've seen a push back against religious influence on politics in personal morality issues such as same-sex marriage. On the other hand, Martin Luther King Jr. demonstrated that religious influence on politics could not only be accepted, it could be embraced. So we need to distinguish between religion's influence on politics in personal moral issues from its influence in social justice issues.

In addition, we need to distinguish religion having influence on politics from certain religions having a privileged position in society. This is a distinction that has been lost on some evangelicals who feel pain from their religion's loss of a privileged position.

Finally, it seems that what Americans in the study are most alarmed by is change rather than  religion losing its place.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Bruce Edward Walker and his blogpost on how religious groups are attacking fossil fuel and energy companies. This appeared in the Acton Blog

If groups are not concerned enough for shareholder value for the taste expressed in the post, realize that turnabout is also true. Shareholder interest in the environmental impact that fossil fuels have is not sufficient enough to spur trust by those in environmental groups in oil giants like Exxon. It also seems that when profits blind shareholders to the science of climate change, shareholders are simply being post modern in that their desired results determine what is truth to them.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on what it means to be a free person in a free society. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Did we ever consider that it is the market place that is causing us to destroy ourselves? The pursuit of individual riches and the avoidance of social responsibilities might make some wealthy but are unjustly hurting others.

In addition, there are two kinds of freedoms. There are individual freedoms and group freedoms and they sometimes oppose each other. We see group freedom when we see a properly function democracy where the group, or society, freely determines how those in the group will live with each other and how the group will interact with other groups. And thus group freedom and can infringe on individual freedom.  The converse is also true. In fact, when individual freedom is the only freedom, then we have ellite-centered rule by either those in the private sector or those in the public sector.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For April 9, 2014

April 4

To Elise Hilton and her Blogpost on Mozilla's intolerance to Conservative Christian views of marriage. This appeared on the Acton blog

Is it possible that this post hyperbole? After all, to say that the resignation of Brandon Eich because he contributed money to a California proposition banning same-sex marriage implies that religious conservatives need not apply to work at Mozilla is a bit of an overstatement. So is implying that to believe that it is ok for same-sex marriage is to reject the Biblical definition of marriage.

See, it was certainly intolerant of Mozilla to pressure Eich into resigning for making the contribution he did. But before Christians throw the first stone at intolerant progressives we should remember the history of persecution and the striving for rights that gays have had to endure. It wasn't that long ago when homosexuality was a criminal offense. Then my fellow Conservative Christians wanted  gays to be fired from certain jobs like teaching. Then my fellow Conservative Christians fought against laws allowing for same-sex marriage lest people in society think that homosexuality was normal and should be accepted. And now my fellow Christians want laws that allow Christian businesses to have the right to deny public services to same-sex weddings and even gay couples who are already married and the only intolerance that my fellow Christians notice is when it comes from the people they are asking society to persecute. 

This kind of selective perception indicates a blindness in how my fellow religiously conservative Christians perceive themselves. And that blind spot is a result of either the presumption of having a privileged status in society or having a pathological lack of awareness of how one's actions affect others or perhaps both. Whatever the reason for our shortsightedness, those who encourage a modern Christian martyr industry are leading the charge in filtering the past and present. And they are manipulating my fellow Conservative Christians into a stronger xenophobia as well as isolation from society. And it is tragic.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


April 5

To R. Scott Clark and his brief blogpost on what happened to Brandon Eich at Mozilla. This was posted on Heidelblog

What happened to Brandon Eich was wrong. But how gays have been treated in this country was far worse. Homosexuality was first criminalized, then many Christians asked that gays be fired from certain jobs, then some Christians tried to prevent same-sex marriage, and now some Christians favor Jim Crow laws targeting gays. And what is our response?

Our response is to use instances like what happened to Eich in order to further a Christian martyr industry in this country to further separate Christians from nonChristians in this country. Yes, we now see some signs that the pendulum is swinging the other way but we didn't complain when pendulum was going in the other direction as it is in some African countries somewhat due to the influence of Christian missionaries. 

We all have a choice of being tribal here. That is we can join the gay rights fanatics, and note that not all favoring gay rights are fanatics, in one side or position ourselves on the side of those Christians who wish to prevent gays from enjoying full equality. In either case, we will imitate the other side by practicing tribalism, by adopting a gang mentality, by defining fair and unfair by who does what to whom. Or we can be principled by defending the equality and rights of all regardless of their view of gay rights.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Anthony Bradley and his blogpost on the progressive plot to eliminate the normal boy. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Why is it that this website likes to scapegoat the nebulous group, "Progressives." Certainly there has been a progressive reaction to malehood but instead of totally rejecting or accepting that reaction, we should listen to see what we can learn. After all, learning from anyone does not imply agreement. Perhaps we need to examine whether what these "progressives" want to remedy in boys is a problem or a perceived cause of a problem.

If one happens to ask the left about education, you'll find that most Leftists will say that education is a bipartisan institution to teach and enforce compliance. That is part of what the No Child Left Behind, which had bipartisan support and targeted both boys and girls, was intended for. Don't ask kids to understand and think, simply demand that they memorize and regurgitate. In fact, if you look at how the Left views education here, you'll find that, like the Church, it is considered to be just another institution of indoctrination to maintain the status quo for the benefit of those with wealth and power.

Is the problem being observed and mentioned here legitimate? Certainly. And there is no doubt that there is some progressive participation involved. But do all progressives agree with what is happening? No. Are there broader issues involved? Yes.  And are the some progressives the only ones involved in abnormalizing and drugging normal boys? Not at all especially since the pharmaceutical industry, a member of the free market, is now an active participant that has something to gain here.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Marcia Christoff-Kurapovna and her blogpost on democracy and aristocracy. This appeared on the Imaginative Conservative blog

The good part of this post is that there is a refreshing honesty about the kind of "democracy" or republic designed by our founding fathers. It was a partial democracy where there would be voting but that control would remain in the hands of those with wealth--these were the ones who belonged to the "landed interest," that is the wealthy landowners.

But the bad part of this post is that it shares the same vulnerabilities as all other partial democracies. That weakness is the rule of one group of people over the other. And when those who rule view themselves as superior and the provider for others, at the most we could graciously call this a paternalistic democracy. Note that, according to what is written in this post, if everybody had an equal voice, then we would be ruled by a pejorative mob. We should note that all representative democracies are ruled by mobs. In fact, we could say that when the representatives in such representative democracies are those with wealth and power, we could describe such democracies not as places where we have mob rule, but as places where the Mob rules.

In any case, the aristocracy in such a democracy seems to quickly embrace the role of the pharisee in Jesus' parable of the two men praying. In that story, the pharisee thanked God that he was not like the tax-collector-sinner because he was righteous while the sinner was not. So think about how such a democracy would rule over a country where only the elite were righteous enough to be qualified to rule while everybody had to be protected from the masses. It makes sense that those who picture themselves as either being a part of the elite or dependent on them would favor such a partial and paternalistic democracy.

BTW, my apologies to the Imaginative Conservative Blog for listing the above comment as being blocked. I discovered later that it wasn't blocked. This is my fault.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 6

To Joe Carter's blogpost against "distributionism" by calling it utopian.  This appeared on the Acton blog.


It seems that "distributionism" is another name for a kind of "distributed capitalism." It is where more individuals are more self-sufficient and own their own means of production. And the objection here is that it doesn't fit in with the current global economy.

Those defending the status quo call most proposed changes to the current structure utopian. And the implication here is that though what we have is imperfect, it is the best available in an imperfect world. Therefore, calls to change need not apply and those calling for change, though sometimes well-intentioned, are not just calling for something that is unrealistic and unattainable, they are calling for what could only hurt what we have worked so hard for in the end. So the defense of the status quo relies on an immune system that attacks any  calls for change by discrediting them so as to inhibit public inquiry. 

But what isn't really examined here is the direction in which the current global economy, an economy supported by the writer of this post, is taking us. For in the current global economic system, wealth and power are being consolidated. And wealth and power are being consolidated because more and more restrictions on those who have proven to be exceptional are being removed. While that consolidation can build bigger and more majestic structures, fewer people are in control and, as with any centralization of resources, the first concern of those in control is to preserve their own current status. And this blogpost against "distributionism," though claiming to share some of the concerns of those calling for change, follows the method of operation practiced by those who defend the system. And the question is why?

An irony that exists here is that the same people who fear the consolidation of power in the gov't fully embrace what leads to such a consolidation, which is the consolidation of wealth, so long as that those acquiring such wealth are in the private sector. So those who sound the alarm against too much power in the government the loudest are supporting those in the private sector with wealth who want a powerful government to exist because they are becoming more able to purchase that power. 

It isn't that I am a big fan of "distributionism," it is that our current direction needs changing. And it isn't utopian to inquire as to whether we can improve on the way things are. And it isn't utopian to think about whether different systems can make things better. But so long as we accept the standard line that calls any desire for changing the system utopian, we will be unable to change our current direction, a direction that makes our current system not only unsustainable, but self-destructive as well.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To Leon Bupkiss's response to my comment to a blogpost on the differences between the french and american revolutions. This was on the imaginative conservative blog. In his comment, Loen Bupkiss denies the existence of corporate liberty in favor of reducing all liberty to individual liberty

Leon,
Democracy is about corporate liberty. It is about community deciding on how it will exist. And the problem that exists for some conservatives is the notion of corporate liberty, it is the all-or-nothing thinking that comes with reducing all liberty to individual liberty. And all-or-nothing thinking approaches to individual liberty leads to tyranny. That is true even of the all approach to individual liberty because such an approach relieves the elite individual of all social responsibilities.


BTW, my apologies to the Imaginative Conservative Blog for listing the above comment as being blocked. I discovered later that it wasn't blocked. This is my fault.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 19, 2014

Because of my family's schedule, this edition of the Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs will be shorter than usual.


March 18

To the writers of the blogpost, How To Read The Constitution, which appeared on the Imaginative Conservative Blog


Here is a more economical suggestion on how to read the Constitution. Read historical documents that are related to the Constitution. These documents are available online and then one is in a better position to makeup one's own mind than if one read the view of some person who writes authoritatively about it.

To understand the reasons for the writing of the Constitution, one can read Henry Knox's Letter To George Washington and Federalist Paper #10 for starters. See, the reason for the Constitution was not the unrest during the Revolution against the British, it was due to the unrest against the new American aristocracy as was exhibited during Shays Rebellion. In addition, reading the Constitutional Debates will also help one form their own opinion about what was written in the Constitution and why it was written.

BTW, my apologies to the Imaginative Conservative Blog for listing the above comment as being blocked. I discovered later that it wasn't blocked. This is my fault.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on what is happening in Crimea. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

What is happening in Crimea is certainly immoral but not without precedent.  All we have to do is remember the actions we have taken against Cuba along with Central and South American countries whose politics and economics drifted from what the leaders of our nation wanted. Sometimes our actions were successful and sometimes they weren't. 
--------

On Joe Carter's blogpost on what Bill Gates says about poverty. This appeared in the Acton Blog.


Yes and consider what one of the lawsuits against Mircosoft revealed about how they found their fortune. Certainly there is going to be waste in some government programs and some fraudulent use of aid. Some of the waste is there to benefit corporations such as in the medical benefits. In addition, none of the fraud there compares with what is lost to corporate tax cuts, subsidies and corporate welfare.

Regarding poverty, we have to remember what Martin Luther King said about helping the poor. He said that donating money was not enough, one must examine the system that puts so many people in need. And that includes corporations' outsourcing of jobs to other countries in order to increase profits. When I taught, I ran into one such former Microsoft employee. The short of it is this, the jobs of many American workers today are at the mercy of leading shareholders and the return on investment they are seeking. These investors don't invest to have a symbiotic relationship with the company. Rather, they invest to have parasitic relationship and many workers are counted as nothing more than objects of profit. And what is a tragic irony is that they regard the income gained from their investments as being as much earned as the income earned by workers. And that is what is missing from Gates' analysis