[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

New Jersey wealth spread - Brinks truck

Mueller appears victorious in mystery subpoena dispute

No Charges for Father Who Shot a Cop 6 Times After it Was Found to Be Self-Defense

Comey: The FBI’s Garbage Reputation Is Everybody’s Fault But Mine

Clip #6893 EGYPTIAN TV DEBATE ABOUT WIFE BEATING: IT IS THE HUSBAND'S "QURANIC RIGHT" TO BEAT HIS WIFE; THE PURPOSE IS TO HUMILIATE HER

Former Kremlin Advisor Karaganov: 'We Are In An Acute Prewar Situation'

Russian Expert Korotchenko: Our Military Will Not Let The Americans Perceive The Black Sea As A Region, Where They May Act As They Please

Mueller’s mother’s first cousin was the Architect of the JFK Assassination.

HOW TO WATCH PETER JACKSON’S ‘THEY SHALL NOT GROW OLD’ BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE

A Vice President With Few Virtues

Politics doesn't improve your life

The cost of bad policing: Review of Iberia Parish cases leads to 18 tossed convictions

A Texas Elementary School Speech Pathologist Refused to Sign a Pro-Israel Oath, Now Mandatory in Many States — so She Lost Her Job

NRA Exposed: Their Deadly Support for Red Flag Gun Confiscation Laws!

What should happen to faggot pedophiles?

Christopher Steele: I Was Hired to Help Hillary Clinton Challenge the 2016 Election Results

VATICAN REFUSES TO OFFER ASYLUM TO ASIA BIBI

Russians sought to recruit 'assets' through social media, Senate told

Dozens of al-Shabab Extremists Killed in Somalia Airstrikes, U.S. Military Says

Investigations now entangle Donald Trump’s White House, campaign, transition, inauguration, charity and business. For Trump, the political, the personal and the deeply personal are all under examination.

The boogeyman is coming for you… no matter where in the world you are

SICKO Palestinian culture: Clip #6876 PA TV HOST DANA ABU SHAMSIYA PRAISES PALESTINIAN WHO STABBED ISRAELI POLICEMEN: HE HARVESTS SOULS ON THE BATTLEFIELD AND IS DESIRED BY THE VIRGINS OF PARADISE

EGYPTIAN PRESIDENT AL-SISI: PEOPLE IN OUR COUNTRIES SHOULD NOT EXPECT THE WEST TO WELCOME THEM; THEY SHOULD SOLVE THEIR OWN COUNTRIES' PROBLEMS INSTEAD

Genocidal racist Arab leader: Ahmad Shukairy, ‘father’ of ‘Apartheid’ slander

Gamal Abdel Nasser interviewed in English.

Underground Bishops Expected to Subject Themselves to Communist Ones Favored by Pope as Sign of Obedience

Why did Jeb Bush get Scared after He Saw The Note from Secret Service?

Kansas Supreme Court Says Cops Can Search A House Without A Warrant As Long As They Claim They Smelled Marijuana

The Twilight of Asset Forfeiture? (Copsuckers weep)

Investigations look at Trump’s life from all angles

VICE

French Government Threatens Town With A Fine Of 2000 Euros A Day If It Does Not Remove Nativity Set

Federal judge in Texas strikes down Affordable Care Act.

Faithful Flock to Pay Tribute to Effigy of Virgin Mary That Appeared Near Artesia Church ...

Federal judge in Texas strikes Federal judge in Texas strikes down Affordable Care Act Affordable Care Act

Feds Fine Business $60,000 for Selling Non-Prescription Contact Lenses Without a Prescription

Policing For Profit: How Civil Asset Forfeiture Has Perverted American Law Enforcement

BREAKING: Trump Names Mick Mulvaney Acting Chief of Staff

Sondra Locke, frequent co-star in Clint Eastwood films, dead at 74

Vox: Change the Constitution so Ocasio-Cortez Can Run for President!

Scott Adams: How Google is Ruining my Life for Political Reason

Congress Hid Illegal Legislation in Farm Bill to Further Support Horrific Genocide in Yemen and It Passed

Boy Scouts On Verge Of Bankruptcy

If Cannabis Can Kill "Incurable" Brain Cancer, Why Is It Criminalized?

Karma’s a B---h

Teenage Sisters Legally Recorded Police, Who Tackled Them to the Ground

Bizarre Clouds of Aluminum-Coated Material Appear on Radar Across the US

Trump Inauguration Spending Under Criminal Investigation by Federal Prosecutors

Why Christians Should Embrace Free Markets, With Guest Fr. Robert Sirico

Russian spy Maria Butina pleads guilty to engaging in conspiracy against US


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The Establishments war on Donald Trump
See other The Establishments war on Donald Trump Articles

Title: Suicide of the West HOW THE REBIRTH OF TRIBALISM, POPULISM, NATIONALISM, AND IDENTITY POLITICS IS DESTROYING AMERICAN DEMOCRACY By JONAH GOLDBERG s
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 24, 2018
Author: —David Brooks
Post Date: 2018-04-24 10:15:06 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 696
Comments: 48

Suicide of the West HOW THE REBIRTH OF TRIBALISM, POPULISM, NATIONALISM, AND IDENTITY POLITICS IS DESTROYING AMERICAN DEMOCRACY By JONAH GOLDBERG

“Epic and debate-shifting.” —David Brooks

With his trademark blend of political history, social science, economics, and pop culture, two-time NYT bestselling author, syndicated columnist, National Review senior editor, and American Enterprise Institute fellow Jonah Goldberg makes the timely case that America and other democracies are in peril as they lose the will to defend the values and institutions that sustain freedom and prosperity. Instead we are surrendering to populism, nationalism and other forms of tribalism.

Only once in the last 250,000 years have humans stumbled upon a way to lift ourselves out of the endless cycle of poverty, hunger, and war that defines most of history—in 18th century England when we accidentally discovered the miracle of liberal democratic capitalism.

As Americans we are doubly blessed that those radical ideas were written into the Constitution, laying the groundwork for our uniquely prosperous society: · Our rights come from God not from the government. · The government belongs to us; we do not belong to the government. · The individual is sovereign. We are all captains of our own souls. · The fruits of our labors belong to us.

In the last few decades, these political virtues have been turned into vices. As we are increasingly taught to view our traditions as a system of oppression, exploitation and “white privilege,” the principles of liberty and the rule of law are under attack from left and right.

At a moment when authoritarianism, tribalism, identity politics, nationalism, and cults of personality are rotting our democracy from within, Goldberg exposes the West’s suicidal tendencies on both sides of the ideological aisle. For the West to survive, we must renew our sense of gratitude for what our civilization has given us and rediscover the ideals that led us out of the bloody muck of the past – or back to the muck we will go.

Suicide is painless, liberty takes work.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-3) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#4. To: Jameson (#3)

I love watching red diaper diaper doper babies cry trying to rationalize why real Americans told them to fuck off or die.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-04-24   13:04:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Jameson, misterwhite, Y'ALL (#3)

misterwhite --- As for populism, that's merely a jab at Trump and his supporters. I mean, how else could you explain Trump's victory ---

--- Merca! f-yeah!! MAGA hats!! Whoo Whoo!! Build the wall!! lock her up!! Drain the swamp!!

Too ignorant to resist.....

You're both far too ignorant..

Try reading the (free sample) 1st chapter of this excellent book at amazon.

Even clowns like you two might learn something...

tpaine  posted on  2018-04-24   13:10:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: BorisY (#1)

??

Boris, if you would actually have the guts to make a real comment (in english) about the book, I'd be glad to reply.

Get a pair....

tpaine  posted on  2018-04-24   13:17:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: A K A Stone, yall (#4)

"As Americans we are doubly blessed that those radical ideas were written into the Constitution, laying the groundwork for our uniquely prosperous society:

· Our rights come from God not from the government.

- The government belongs to us; we do not belong to the government.

· The individual is sovereign. We are all captains of our own souls.

· The fruits of our labors belong to us. "

The above should have been in quotes as written by Goldberg..

I hope you're not identifying him as one of the "red diaper diaper doper babies"?

tpaine  posted on  2018-04-24   13:29:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: All (#7)

From Econotalks : ----

Russ Roberts: My guest today is Jonah Goldberg.... His latest book is Suicide of the West: How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics is Destroying American Democracy. Jonah, welcome to EconTalk.

Jonah Goldberg: I am delighted to be here. And listeners should know: Russ has only looked at the galley of this book and does not know that I actually credit EconTalk in the "Acknowledgements," because I am such a crazy fanboy of this podcast. So, I'm delighted to be here.

Russ Roberts: Well, that's very kind of you. Much appreciated. It's a fascinating book. It's a disturbing book. It's a somewhat depressing book, at times; and maybe we'll look for some bright spots on the horizon and in our conversation. But I want to start with a paragraph from near the beginning of the book. You say the following

My argument begins with some assertions. Capitalism is unnatural. Democracy is unnatural. Human rights are unnatural. The world we live in today is unnatural, and we stumbled into it more or less by accident. The natural state of mankind is grinding poverty punctuated by horrific violence, terminating with an early death. It was like this for a very, very long time. Elaborate on that. And talk about what you mean by the Miracle, which is the unnaturalness that we're in the middle of.

Jonah Goldberg: Right. So, what I mean--I'll just start with what I mean by 'unnatural.' If you took a jar of ants and you dumped them on a planet very much like ours, with our atmosphere, ants would do what ants do. And they would build little colonies and they would dig their little ant tunnels. If you took a pack of dogs and you put them in the wild, they would very quickly become a natural pack like they would.

If you took human beings, absent all of the stuff that they learned from culture and education today and put them in the wild, they would not all of a sudden start building houses and schools and have startups. They would take to the trees, and have spears, and it would take a long time to discover spears. And they would behave the way that we are wired to behave.

One of the core beliefs I have about a definition of--at the heart of conservatism-- is this idea that human nature has no history. And so, when I say that 'capitalism is unnatural': if it were natural, if it were the way human beings, like ants or dogs or any other creature naturally behaves in its natural environment, we would have developed capitalism a little earlier in the evolutionary history of man. We would have developed democracy a little earlier in the evolutionary history of man. In the 250,000 years, give or take, since we split off from the Neanderthals, the amount of time where we had any conception of natural rights--particularly for strangers, right? People within the tribe, that's different. But for strangers, the idea that someone we just met has any dignity or any claim on justice--that is an astoundingly new idea in human history.

And, this whole world that we live in--so, a big inspiration for this book is this idea you talk a lot about on EconTalk, which is: Hayek's distinction between the microcosm or the microcosmos, and the macrocosm. And, I take Hayek--I think Hayek is absolutely correct, where he says that we evolved to live in small bands of people--troops, tribes, whatever label you want to call them. And that's how our brains are structured. And our brains haven't changed very much in the last 10-, 11,000 years since the agricultural revolution. And so, this entire extended order of liberty and contracts and the monopoly on violence of the state--all of these things are really new.

They don't come to us naturally. We have to be taught them. We have to be civilized-- as a verb--into believing in these things. And this Economic Miracle--and so the Miracle is--and I was heavily influenced by Deirdre McCloskey; and I think she gets a lot right. We can talk about one of the things she might get wrong, later. But, you know, for, what is it, 7500 generations? For 200-, 300,000 years, the average human being everywhere in the world lived on average on about $3 a day. I think it's Todd Buchholz who says that man lived no better for most of man's existence he lived no better on two legs than he had on four. And, it is only when you get this radical change in ideas that comes from the bottom up- -what I call the Lockean Revolution, but I don't think Locke gets credit for it. He just simply sort of represents it.

For the first in all of human history basically in one place, this little corner of Europe, human prosperity, human wealth starts to explode. And that explosion radiates out around the world and is still doing so today. And that is a miracle. And the reason I call it a Miracle is not because I think God delivered it--the first sentence of the book is, "There is no God in this book

tpaine  posted on  2018-04-25   14:39:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: tpaine (#0)

“Epic and debate-shifting.” —David Brooks

That alone should tell us this book is utterly worthless. One NeverTrumper sellout at the Slimes, praising another NeverTrumper sellout and his new Lefty-approved book.

Goldberg went to a lot of work to state the obvious and well-known in this tired screed. What isn't clear is that he has mustered any new arguments or facts into the national political conversation. And that conversation is largely mythical to begin with, given that the Left has no intention of ever debating issues on the merits. They can't afford to.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-04-26   8:30:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Tooconservative (#9)

---- this book is utterly worthless.

Goldberg writes:----

"· Our rights come from God not from the government.

- The government belongs to us; we do not belong to the government.

· The individual is sovereign. We are all captains of our own souls.

· The fruits of our labors belong to us. "

"As Americans we are doubly blessed that those radical ideas were written into the Constitution, laying the groundwork for our uniquely prosperous society".

--- You disagree, call his words worthless, -- and somehow in your mind Goldberg becomes "another NeverTrumper sellout"...

Goldberg isn't criticizing Trump, he's attacking the progressive left. --- He's not a problem, but thinking like yours sure qualifies..

--- Please, get some help...

tpaine  posted on  2018-04-26   10:32:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: tpaine (#10)

--- You disagree, call his words worthless, -- and somehow in your mind Goldberg becomes "another NeverTrumper sellout"...

He's merely plagiarizing Edmund Burke, John Locke, and other classical Brit liberals.

That you seem to be so unaware of this indicates you aren't as well-read as you'd like for us to believe.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-04-26   11:18:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Tooconservative (#11)

He's merely plagiarizing Edmund Burke, John Locke, and other classical Brit liberals.

You disagree, call his words worthless, -- and somehow in your mind Goldberg becomes "another NeverTrumper sellout"... --- And now a plagiarist????

Goldberg isn't criticizing Trump, he's attacking the progressive left, as his quoted words above prove, the words you ignore in your effort to do what???

What's your point? Why do you imagine Goldberg is an enemy of our Republic?

tpaine  posted on  2018-04-26   11:41:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: tpaine (#12)

What's your point? Why do you imagine Goldberg is an enemy of our Republic?

Drama queen much?

I said no such thing. He wishes he was that important.

I think he wrote this book as his resume to try to get some gig with the Slimes or the Atlantic or some other lib outlet where he can be a well-paid, often-televised house conservative (i.e. porch monkey). A lot of the NeverTrumpers are trying to get such gigs now. Kevin Williamson, a similar writer at NRO and other venues, got hired and fired almost that fast at the Atlantic recently.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-04-26   12:15:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Tooconservative (#13)

You disagree, call his words worthless, -- and somehow in your mind Goldberg becomes "another NeverTrumper sellout"... --- And now a plagiarist????

Drama queen much?

I said no such thing. He wishes he was that important.

I think he wrote this book as his resume to try to get some gig with the Slimes or the Atlantic or some other lib outlet where he can be a well-paid, often-televised house conservative (i.e. porch monkey). A lot of the NeverTrumpers are trying to get such gigs now.

Calling him a "NeverTrumper sellout"... --- And now a plagiarist, --- makes you the " Drama queen".

Goldberg has had a 'gig' on Fox for quite a while. -- Your imaginings that he needs others is just weird..

In fact, your whole 'conservative' stance since Trumps election has become very "NeverTrumper" weird. --- What's going on with you?

tpaine  posted on  2018-04-26   12:48:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: tpaine (#14)

Goldberg has had a 'gig' on Fox for quite a while. -- Your imaginings that he needs others is just weird..

His appearances on FNC are less than 10% of what they once were. Steven Hayes of Weekly Standard, another NeverTrumper, went from being a daily news panelist for well over a decade to making 1 or 2 shows per month and Bill Kristol is now never seen on FNC.

So the NeverTrumpers of NRO and Weekly Standard are rare on FNC because no one wants to hear from them. So now they are flacking themselves to any lib outlet that might put them on the payroll or help them get paid appearances on the libmedia news shows.

In fact, your whole 'conservative' stance since Trumps election has become very "NeverTrumper" weird. --- What's going on with you?

You get more querulous by the day. Nothing is going on with me. I just don't think much of Goldberg's latest book, no matter how hard you try to flack it for him.

These NeverTrumpers are all worried that they're gonna end up like Kevin Williamson. He sold out his editor/columnist gig at National Review and quit so he could work as the house Negro conservative at The Atlantic. He lasted there about 1 month when they railroaded him over tweets about abortion years back. Now KDW is the theater critic for The New Criterion. Like anyone has ever even heard of it. Good riddance to KDW, the man who described Trump's entry in the 2016 race as "Witless Ape Rides Escalator". And that was considered the height of wit and aplomb by the rest of the cocky NRO crew, now down on their luck as much as the benighted Weekly Standard. They all want out and none of them can get a cushy sinecure elsewhere.

So you can shove Jonah's little book right up your ass. Then you can enjoy it twice as much.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-04-26   13:26:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: tpaine (#0)

https://www.amazon.com/Suicide-West-Tribalism-Nationalism-Destroying/dp/1101904933

This is the Amazon review of the 466-page book by Jonah Goldberg, which includes a snippet quote of David Brooks, “Epic and debate-shifting.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/12/opinion/renaissance-right-gop.html

The David Brooks review is in the NYT.

The "article" is the book review by the Amazon staff.

As Americans we are doubly blessed that those radical ideas were written into the Constitution, laying the groundwork for our uniquely prosperous society:

  • Our rights come from God not from the government.
  • The government belongs to us; we do not belong to the government.
  • The individual is sovereign. We are all captains of our own souls.
  • The fruits of our labors belong to us.

Where is this written into the Constitution?

nolu chan  posted on  2018-04-26   13:48:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Tooconservative (#15)

Goldberg has had a 'gig' on Fox for quite a while. -- Your imaginings that he needs others is just weird..

You get more querulous by the day. Nothing is going on with me. I just don't think much of Goldberg's latest book, no matter how hard you try to flack it for him. His appearances on FNC are less than 10% of what they once were. So you can shove Jonah's little book right up your ass. Then you can enjoy it twice as much.

I'm the querulous one? Gotta love your 'sticking it up the ass' bit.

I'm advocating his book because I think it's a true assessment of what's happening to America, --- due to progressive socialism.

Your effort to call that flacking is just one more example of YOUR own Trump hatred. -- Get out of the closet, and admit it...

tpaine  posted on  2018-04-26   15:08:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: nolu chan (#16)

As Americans we are doubly blessed that those radical ideas were written into the Constitution, laying the groundwork for our uniquely prosperous society:

Our rights come from God not from the government.

The government belongs to us; we do not belong to the government.

The individual is sovereign. We are all captains of our own souls.

The fruits of our labors belong to us.

Where is this written into the Constitution?

Throughout the document, those basic truths are evident to anyone so convinced.

Are you unconvinced of our Constitutions principles? Why?

Thanks for posting the link to Brooks review from the NYTs. It's generally a negative review, but he's pretty honest about the basic premise, as follows:---

------ Other conservatives are rising to defend that order, including National Review’s Jonah Goldberg, who later this month comes out with his epic and debate-shifting book, “Suicide of the West.”

Goldberg points out that for eons human beings were semi-hairless upright apes clumped in tribes and fighting for food. But about 300 years ago something that he calls “the Miracle” happened. It was a shift in attitude. For thousands of years, societies divided people into permanent categories of race or caste. But, Goldberg writes, “the Miracle ushered in a philosophy that says each person is to be judged and respected on account of their own merits, not the class or caste of their ancestors.”

That belief, championed by John Locke, or a story we tell about Locke, paved the way for human equality, pluralism, democracy, capitalism and the idea that a person can have a plurality of identities and a society can contain a plurality of moral creeds.

It also proved to be the goose that laid the golden egg. Economic growth exploded. The American founding asserted that Lockean ideas are universal. And nothing had ever succeeded like America. Between 1860 and 1900 alone, America’s population doubled and its wealth grew fivefold.

But we have stopped teaching about the Miracle, Goldberg says, and stopped feeling grateful for it.

Tribalism was always there, lurking under the surface. It returns now as identity politics, which is reactionary reversion to the pre-modern world. Identity politics takes individual merit out of the moral center of our system and asserts that group is, Goldberg says, “an immutable category, a permanent tribe.” Identity politics warriors claim they are fighting for social justice, but really it’s just the same old thing, Goldberg argues, a mass mobilization to gain power for the tribe.

tpaine  posted on  2018-04-26   15:32:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: All (#18)

More from the Brooks review of Goldberg's book:----

--- I love the way Goldberg provocatively tells his story, but I partially disagree with it. The central tension in his book is between Locke, who emerges as a rational, calm, pipe-smoking economist, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who emerges as a wild-haired, passionately resentful rock star. The liberal order emerges from the individualism of Locke and is threatened by group consciousness and romantic resentments of Rousseau.

But America is both rational and romantic, both Locke and Rousseau. We have a rationalist constitution, but we have a shared national faith and are an emotional community, rooted in our land, inspired by our history, warmed by the hope of our common future.

The core problem today is not tribalism. It’s excessive individualism, which has eaten away at our uniting faith and damaged our relationships with one another. Excessive individualism has left us distrustful and alone — naked Lockeans. When people are naked and alone they revert to tribe. Tribalism is the end product of excessive individualism.

Goldberg is suspicious of nationalism and has a tendency to think that any effort to build a national community puts you on the express lanes on the road to serfdom.

His conservatism is missing the bonding sentiments of Edmund Burke, and the idea that the little platoon of the family is nestled in the emotional platoon of the neighborhood and the emotional platoon of the nation. Tribalism is not the only way to form a group; there’s also the redeeming and forgiving love of community, and a shared national faith. Goldberg misses the way Hamilton, Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt built a national community that didn’t crush local communities but rather reinforced them.

Goldberg is right to fight tribalism on the left and the right. But you can’t reweave a fragmented nation by appealing just to Lockean individualism. Gratitude is too weak a glue to hold a diverse nation together. Renewal will come through the communitarians on the right and the left, who seek ways to improve relationships on a household, local and national level.

--- Yeh, sure, the communitarians will save the Republic. Good grief...

tpaine  posted on  2018-04-26   16:20:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: tpaine (#18)

Throughout the document, those basic truths are evident to anyone so convinced.

"As Americans we are doubly blessed that those radical ideas were written into the Constitution," you should have no difficulty quoting the parts to which the Amazon staff referred. They are either written there, or they are not.

nolu chan  posted on  2018-04-26   18:49:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: tpaine (#18)

Are you unconvinced of our Constitutions principles? Why?

I am absolutely convinced of what is, and is not, written in the Constitution.

nolu chan  posted on  2018-04-26   18:51:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: nolu chan (#21)

As Americans we are doubly blessed that those radical ideas were written into the Constitution," you should have no difficulty quoting the parts to which the Amazon staff referred. They are either written there, or they are not.

I am absolutely convinced of what is, and is not, written in the Constitution.

We have principles, written in the Declaration, and in the Constitution, which guide our people on what our proper role should be in political life.

That's my belief anyway. -- Why you're fighting that concept is beyond my understanding..

Do you have any idea why you're so against our having constitutional principles?

tpaine  posted on  2018-04-26   23:02:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: tpaine (#22)

We have principles, written in the Declaration, and in the Constitution....

We were discussing the contention of specific content having been written into the Constitution.

The Constitution is law. The Declaration is merely a political statement, not law, and binding on nobody.

nolu chan  posted on  2018-04-27   17:21:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: nolu chan (#23)

We have principles, written in the Declaration, and in the Constitution, which guide our people on what our proper role should be in political life.

Do you have any idea why you're so against our having constitutional principles?

We were discussing the contention of specific content having been written into the Constitution.

The Constitution is law. The Declaration is merely a political statement, not law, and binding on nobody.

You demand specifics of the document, (which we probably agree on, given the style of the writing) --- while I want to discuss the principles behind our Constitution.

It's obvious to me, --- you don't agree with or want to discuss our Constitutional Principles regarding slavery and the rights of persons..

Why is that?

tpaine  posted on  2018-04-27   18:26:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: tpaine (#17)

We have principles, written in the Declaration, and in the Constitution, which guide our people on what our proper role should be in political life.

Do you have any idea why you're so against our having constitutional principles?

We were discussing the contention of specific content having been written into the Constitution.

The Constitution is law. The Declaration is merely a political statement, not law, and binding on nobody.

You demand specifics of the document, (which we probably agree on, given the style of the writing) --- while I want to discuss the principles behind our Constitution.

You asked me on another thread,

https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=55578&Disp=17#C17

And, if you have time, I'd appreciate any comment on the thread:--- Suicide of the West HOW THE REBIRTH OF TRIBALISM, POPULISM, NATIONALISM, AND IDENTITY POLITICS IS DESTROYING AMERICAN DEMOCRACY By JONAH GOLDBERG ....

The Amazon article was for a book that had not yet been published, but which was available for pre-ordering. You attributed the "article" as "Author: —David Brooks." It was written by Amazon, for the product they were selling.

The Amazon review contains:

As Americans we are doubly blessed that those radical ideas were written into the Constitution, laying the groundwork for our uniquely prosperous society:

  • Our rights come from God not from the government.
  • The government belongs to us; we do not belong to the government.
  • The individual is sovereign. We are all captains of our own souls.
  • The fruits of our labors belong to us.

You pointed me to this fictional drivel for some unstated purpose. I asked where the cited radical ideas were written into the Constitution as claimed.

I understand why you want to change the topic of discussion to radical 18th century political philosphy that is not written into the Constitution, but I am not interested. I have addressed the actual review and its claims.

It's obvious to me, --- you don't agree with or want to discuss our Constitutional Principles regarding slavery and the rights of persons..

Why is that?

The only explanation is that you are delusional.

The Constitution on slavery is that it was lawful, and the Fugitive Slave Clause, U.S. Const., Art IV. Sec. 2, held that "No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

nolu chan  posted on  2018-04-28   0:45:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: nolu chan (#25)

It's obvious to me, --- you don't agree with or want to discuss our Constitutional Principles regarding slavery and the rights of persons.. Why is that?

The only explanation is that you are delusional. -- The Constitution on slavery is that it was lawful,

The Constitution doesn't even contain the word slavery. Persons held to 'service or labor' is the term used..

'Persons' is operative, seeing that person's are people, and people have rights acknowledged by our Constitution..

Agreed, Persons being held to 'service or labor' was legal (before the 13th) but being held as slaves? ---- Unconstitutional, by the very principles within the Constitution..

Why you are so dogmatic in you defense of slavery remains a mystery..

tpaine  posted on  2018-04-28   15:04:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: tpaine (#26)

Agreed, Persons being held to 'service or labor' was legal (before the 13th) but being held as slaves? ---- Unconstitutional, by the very principles within the Constitution..

Oh, horseshit.

nolu chan  posted on  2018-04-28   16:33:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: nolu chan (#27)

Agreed, Persons being held to 'service or labor' was legal (before the 13th) but being held as slaves? ---- Unconstitutional, by the very principles within the Constitution..

Oh, horseshit. --- nolu chan

Gotta love your erudite opinion, oh great chan...

tpaine  posted on  2018-04-28   16:54:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: tpaine (#28)

Jefferson wrote the Declaration while tended to by his slave, Jupiter. At other times he was tended to by his slave Mary Hemings.

George Washington was a slave owner when inaugurated President of eleven states of America, and was a slave owner on the day he died.

Gotta love your fantasy-land bullshit.

nolu chan  posted on  2018-04-28   17:52:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: nolu chan (#29)

Jefferson wrote the Declaration while tended to by his slave, Jupiter. At other times he was tended to by his slave Mary Hemings.

George Washington was a slave owner when inaugurated President of eleven states of America, and was a slave owner on the day he died.

Agreed, some of the founding fathers were conflicted about the practicalities of slavery. -- This does not change the facts:----

---- Persons being held to 'service or labor' was 'legal' (before the 13th). -- -- But persons being held as slaves? ---- This was unconstitutional, a violation of human rights, --- by the very principles within the Constitution..

The founders were well aware of this dichotomy and wrote in provisions to end the 'peculiar institution' at a later date..

tpaine  posted on  2018-04-29   10:08:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: tpaine (#30)

So when you define the constitution you use words and concepts that aren't in the Constitution such as human rights. While I agree you are morally right you're just constitutionally wrong.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-04-29   10:14:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: A K A Stone (#31) (Edited)

Persons being held to 'service or labor' was 'legal' (before the 13th). -- -- But persons being held as slaves? ---- This was unconstitutional, a violation of human rights, --- by the very principles within the Constitution..

The founders were well aware of this dichotomy and wrote in provisions to end the 'peculiar institution' at a later date..

So when you define the constitution you use words and concepts that aren't in the Constitution such as human rights.

While I agree you are morally right you're just constitutionally wrong.

The words and concepts of human rights are in the Constitutions bill of rights.. Try understanding the concept embodied in the 9th amendment..

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

tpaine  posted on  2018-04-29   10:32:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: tpaine (#32)

Slavery was constitutional.

Human rights is not found in the constitution.

The Constitution isn't just your moral point of view.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-04-29   10:36:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: A K A Stone, tpaine, nolu chan (#33)

Slavery was constitutional.

Of course. Please tell mr. Chan that he is an outright liar about slavery or the preponderance of "indentured servants" that were imported to America during the 18th century.

buckeroo  posted on  2018-04-29   14:10:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: buckeroo (#34)

Persons being held to 'service or labor' was 'legal' (before the 13th). -- -- But persons being held as slaves? ---- This was unconstitutional, a violation of human rights, --- by the very principles within the Constitution.. ---- The founders were well aware of this dichotomy and wrote in provisions to end the 'peculiar institution' at a later date..

Of course. Please tell mr. Chan that he is an outright liar about slavery or the preponderance of "indentured servants" that were imported to America during the 18th century. --- Buck

Buck, why don't you try yourself? --- Maybe you can get thru Chan's denial..

tpaine  posted on  2018-04-29   15:49:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: tpaine (#35) (Edited)

I read the preface and the portion of the first chapter available on-line.

I see Goldberg's argument and I understand it.

I see that he sincerely believes what he has written to be true.

I see the key pivot points on which his argument depends, and it is at those joints that he and I are at greatest variance, not over philosophy at all, but over facts.

He rejects the Rousseauian "bon savage" - the "noble savage", and embraces a Hobbesian humanity.

I reject both Rousseau's and Hobbes' views of humanity as being factually wrong starting points. It isn't that things are much more "complex" or "nuanced". It is that they are simply different. Human nature and our past are neither that as postulated by Rousseau or as postulated by Hobbes.

He is a true believer in a certain secular theology, but he doesn't recognize it as such. He thinks he is just speaking the truth.

I'm not going to criticize him too harshly. What's the point in that? What I read was interesting and thought-provoking, but also frustrating. These seams and joints in his argument would need to be correctly set for his argument to be useful. They aren't, and they won't be.

If there is something you would like to discuss from just the preface and first chapter, available on line, we could do that. There's enough in there to have months of discussion.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-05-07   13:50:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: Vicomte13 (#36) (Edited)

I see the key pivot points on which his argument depends, and it is at those joints that he and I are at greatest variance, not over philosophy at all, but over facts.

He rejects the Rousseauian "bon savage" - the "noble savage", and embraces a Hobbesian humanity.

I reject both Rousseau's and Hobbes' views of humanity as being factually wrong starting points. It isn't that things are much more "complex" or "nuanced". It is that they are simply different. Human nature and our past are neither that as postulated by Rousseau or as postulated by Hobbes.

He is a true believer in a certain secular theology, but he doesn't recognize it as such. He thinks he is just speaking the truth.

This is from the Goldberg interview I posted above at #8 : ---

"--- our brains haven't changed very much in the last 10-, 11,000 years since the agricultural revolution. And so, this entire extended order of liberty and contracts and the monopoly on violence of the state--all of these things are really new.

They don't come to us naturally. We have to be taught them. We have to be civilized-- as a verb--into believing in these things. And this Economic Miracle--and so the Miracle is--and I was heavily influenced by Deirdre McCloskey; and I think she gets a lot right. We can talk about one of the things she might get wrong, later. But, you know, for, what is it, 7500 generations? For 200-, 300,000 years, the average human being everywhere in the world lived on average on about $3 a day. I think it's Todd Buchholz who says that man lived no better for most of man's existence he lived no better on two legs than he had on four. And, it is only when you get this radical change in ideas that comes from the bottom up- -what I call the Lockean Revolution, but I don't think Locke gets credit for it. He just simply sort of represents it.

For the first in all of human history basically in one place, this little corner of Europe, human prosperity, human wealth starts to explode. And that explosion radiates out around the world and is still doing so today. And that is a miracle. " ------

I see no reference to Hobbes in this, or in the first parts of his book. Why do you characterize him as Hobbesian? And what is this secular theology he supposedly holds?

tpaine  posted on  2018-05-07   16:46:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: tpaine (#37)

For 200-, 300,000 years, the average human being everywhere in the world lived on average on about $3 a day.

This is fundamentally untrue. For 200,000 to 300,000 years, humanity did not have a money economy. People lived in simple housing - tents - and they lived where they pleased. No rent, and no homelessness. The level of technology was low.

What would it cost, today, for a person to have a plot of land on which he could pitch a tent to live, anywhere in the US? An acre of land anywhere is thousands of dollars, and there are property taxes that go on forever.

What the ancient men could do, if it is to be priced in dollars, would include the cost of riverside land and shelter and the taxes associated therewith.

Also, the diet of mankind before agricultural settlement was quite rich. There is little to no starvation among natives actually living in the woods around the world. They have a rich and varied diet, and are healthier and grow taller than agricultural people. Hunter-gatherers are relatively healthy people, who eat quite a bit of game. Price out a diet of venison, fish, shellfish, berries, nuts, seeds and fresh vegetables. For you or I to eat the way that a New Guinean or African bush native eats would cost about $50 a day, because they eat a diet of expensive things.

Hunter-gatherers spend on average 4 hours per day hunting and gathering, and that has been sufficient to maintain health and life in those simple patterns. We have to work 8, 9, 10 hours per day.

When the founders noted that people who lived with the Indians wanted to run off to live that way, it is because when one converts the way they lived into what it would cost for us to live that way, the average Indian "middle class" person lived a whole lot better than the average "middle class" white did.

Civilization has two primary advantages: medical care that, in particular, overcomes childhood illness with vaccinations, vastly extending average life spans, and universal literacy, which offers the mind new vistas, including the scientific study of nations.

Those are substantial things. But, to be clear, the life expectancy at birth of the hunter-gatherer-small-farmer North American Indians at the time of European settlement was about 54 years old, while the life expectancy of English colonists in Virginia in the same time period was 39 years.

If one monetizes the value, in modern dollars, of an aboriginal North American Indian lifestyle before European contact, one finds it to be far more than $3 a day. Very low rent in good living conditions, fresh game and fruits and vegetables, low working hours, no need to commute - one would have to price those things in modern dollars. The reason people who were captured by the Indians often wanted to go back was that it was a better life out there with them than living inside the palisade.

The pricing mechanism used to denigrate it as "$3 a day" is wholly inaccurate and misleading.

Modern medicine is certainly worth civilization, but an honest pricing of the ancient world finds that our forebears, including the Amerindians, were not living in anything like grinding poverty. They had comfortable shelter, comfortable and durable clothing, a very tasty and healthy diet and lived longer than "civilized" people in the same climate zones until the invention of modern medicine in the late 1800s.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-05-08   9:27:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: tpaine (#37)

For the first in all of human history basically in one place, this little corner of Europe, human prosperity, human wealth starts to explode. And that explosion radiates out around the world and is still doing so today. And that is a miracle. " ------

I see no reference to Hobbes in this, or in the first parts of his book. Why do you characterize him as Hobbesian?

His discussion of tribalism and its inherent injustice is fundamentally Hobbesian.

His first point here, that human wealth started to explode "for the first time" in a little corner of Europe with the industrial revolution just isn't true. This is the factual basis on which his and my disagreement lies.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-05-08   14:34:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Vicomte13 (#39) (Edited)

His discussion of tribalism and its inherent injustice is fundamentally Hobbesian.

His first point here, that human wealth started to explode "for the first time" in a little corner of Europe with the industrial revolution just isn't true. This is the factual basis on which his and my disagreement lies.

Tribalism has an inherent injustice? ---- Goldberg said/implied that? Where?

As to your second point, what's not true that: "For the first in all of human history basically in one place, this little corner of Europe, human prosperity, human wealth starts to explode," ?

Where else did it start to explode? -- Is it possible that he's writing about the Renaissance (The start of capitalism) rather than the industrial revolution?

tpaine  posted on  2018-05-08   19:45:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: tpaine (#30)

But persons being held as slaves?

Yes, persons who were counted in the census, and for whom the state claimed extra representation at the rate of 3/5ths of a person.

nolu chan  posted on  2018-05-09   0:01:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: nolu chan (#41)

But persons being held as slaves?

Yes, persons who were counted in the census, and for whom the state claimed extra representation at the rate of 3/5ths of a person.

Agreed, some of the founding fathers were conflicted about the practicalities of slavery. -- This does not change the facts:----

---- Persons being held to 'service or labor' was 'legal' (before the 13th). -- -- But persons being held as slaves? ---- By the very principles within the Constitution -- this was unconstitutional, a violation of human rights...

The founders were well aware of this dichotomy and wrote in provisions to end the 'peculiar institution' at a later date.. ----- And Yes, persons who were being held to 'service or labor' were counted in the census, and for whom the state claimed extra representation at the rate of 3/5ths of a person.

tpaine  posted on  2018-05-09   7:55:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: tpaine (#42)

- Persons being held to 'service or labor' was 'legal' (before the 13th). -- -- But persons being held as slaves? -

Yes, as slaves. Had there not been legal slavery, there would have beeen no need for the 13th Amendment.

The founders were well aware of this dichotomy and wrote in provisions to end the 'peculiar institution' at a later date.. -

What provision of the Constitution says that, and what date does it say?

---- And Yes, persons who were being held to 'service or labor' were counted in the census, and for whom the state claimed extra representation at the rate of 3/5ths of a person.

Oh, bullshit.

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Representatives and direct taxes were apportioned by "adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed" and counting "three fifths of all other persons."

Indentured servants, held to service or labor, were fully counted. The three fifths of all other persons were the slaves. It was the Framers unique way of avoiding using the term slave.

The slaves were not indentured servants. They were not bound to service for a term of years. They were chattel property and their children were born chattel property.

nolu chan  posted on  2018-05-09   12:47:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: nolu chan (#43) (Edited)

The slaves were not indentured servants. They were not bound to service for a term of years. They were chattel property and their children were born chattel property.

Sad comment on the principles of the day. --- From #26: ----

The Constitution doesn't even contain the word slavery. Persons held to 'service or labor' is the term used..

'Persons' is operative, seeing that person's are people, and people have rights acknowledged by our Constitution..

Agreed, Persons being held to 'service or labor' was legal (before the 13th) but being held as slaves? ---- Unconstitutional on principal, by the very principles within the Constitution..

Why you are so dogmatic in your defense of slavery remains a mystery..

tpaine  posted on  2018-05-09   15:04:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (45 - 48) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com