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

"Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD"

"Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy"

Woodworking and Construction Hacks

"CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination"

"NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law"

"Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing"

Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine

Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn.

After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning

Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate

Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending.

Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar”

"Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny"

"Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is"

Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner.

Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him

South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien

GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis

Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash

New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms

Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania

Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally

"It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala

Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump

Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive'

(Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race"

He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage

The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom!

"Kamala’s Inane Talking Points"

"The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics"

Easy Drywall Patch

Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast

In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind"

Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’

Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens

Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer?

hurricanes and heat waves are Worse

'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic

Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump

IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons

Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training

The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses

Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists

Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general

Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep

Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA.

Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report

Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence.

Tenn. AG reveals ICE released thousands of ‘murderers and rapists’ from detention centers into US streets


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: 4807
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 (1-7) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#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  


#45. To: tpaine (#44)

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

Oh, bullshit. Amendment 13, Section 1 reads:

Amendment XIII

Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Article 5 reads:

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

nolu chan  posted on  2018-05-10   12:21:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: tpaine (#44)

people have rights acknowledged by our Constitution

Slaves were people. They were also chattel slaves. They were a form of property. They were neither citizen nor alien. They had no right to vote and no right to bring suit in court.

Which part of your imaginary constitutional provision acknowledged that slaves had rights? Quote your imaginary nonsense.

nolu chan  posted on  2018-05-10   12:25:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: nolu chan (#46)

Slaves were people. (and people have rights acknowledged by our Constitution ) They were also chattel slaves. They were a form of property. They were neither citizen nor alien. They had no right to vote and no right to bring suit in court.

Which part of your imaginary constitutional provision acknowledged that slaves had rights? Quote your imaginary nonsense.

The original Constitution/1st ten amendments, --- 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.. --- Which even you admit above..

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  2018-05-12   17:44:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: tpaine (#47)

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..

You persist with invoking imaginary and fantastic provisions allegedly written into the Constitution in invisible ink.

Why are you so dogmatic in denying that slavery ever existed in the United States?

Persons being voluntarily held to service or labor was legal prior to the 13th Amendment. Those were people who volntarily entered into a contract to indentured service for a term of years. Many early colonists got to America exactly that way.

There was nothing voluntary about slavery. It was never service or labor, under contract, for a term of years.

You should have been around in 1789 to inform the people that they have freed the slaves. You could have "quoted" the Constitution then, just as you "quote" it now.

Art. 1, Sec. 9, Cl. 1:

Section 9.

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

Why, the Constitution even made it unconstitutional to prohibit the further importation of slaves until 1808. The Constitution similarly protected the slave trade from excessive taxation until 1808.

nolu chan  posted on  2018-05-14   15:45:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


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