tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post5695086080897216166..comments2024-03-18T21:33:35.309-07:00Comments on One Cʘsmos: Hurtling Downward Faster than the Speed of Light?Gagdad Bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comBlogger69125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-28493999704041811162014-01-22T08:56:43.276-08:002014-01-22T08:56:43.276-08:00Matthew said "Your ilk abolished private prop...Matthew said "Your ilk abolished private property when they took the realm away from the King"<br /><br />Wow. Yes, nothing says Private Property like a King owning a realm. I'd assumed that your latest comment was the unfortunate result of leaving the computer open during a kegger, but it looks like it might have more to do with an irony deficient diet... or worse.<br /><br />Best wishes on a speedy recovery.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-61368536697393355072014-01-22T08:45:06.923-08:002014-01-22T08:45:06.923-08:00Matthew said "...Take back (both of you) not ...Matthew said "...Take back (both of you) not the things you said about me, but the things you said about the freedom loving and God-worshipping ancestors you both pres..."<br /><br />Ya know, in this rare moment of downtime at work, I couldn't help noticing, thanks to something Julie posted a bit more recently (you know, this year, this week), just how closely your comment resembles Otter's famous double secret probation rebuttal speech from 'Animal House':<br /><br />"<i><br />Otter: Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female party guests - we did.<br />[winks at Dean Wormer]<br />Otter: But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!<br />[Leads the Deltas out of the hearing, all humming the Star-Spangled Banner]</i>"<br /><br />Is that what you were going for? Or parody...? No? Huh.<br /><br />BTW Matthew, the American system, as designed (though currently ignored, which is the real issue), isn't great because of what it does, or because of who our ancestors were(!), but because of what <i>it doesn't do</i>. It not only makes it difficult for government to agree upon taking any action at all, it forbids it from taking those actions it might finally agree upon taking, which would infringe upon its people's Rights.<br /><br />Any alternate system of kinder gentl'r fascism or monarchy that you'd like to propose as a better system, would have to surpass the American system's ability to prevent its govt from taking action, which, as you seem to like systems that <i>do</i> things (you know, enslaving people, etc), rather than those which <i>refrain</i> from doing things, I'm betting that's highly unlikely.<br /><br />"...hoping the verbiage is clear en..."<br /><br />But thanks, good comedy is <i>sooo</i> hard to come by.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1439756925355340102014-01-22T08:26:11.547-08:002014-01-22T08:26:11.547-08:00That's right Van, go for rhetoric and ad homin...That's right Van, go for rhetoric and ad hominem argument, although that's preferable to your usual 10 page screed/ data dump. To pick at random from your old reams of paper: <br />"Not for nothing did Marx say that "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."<br /><br />Your ilk abolished private property when they took the realm away from the King; no King as owner, no freeholder as owner either. Your ilk declared eminent domain and evicted people living in the hills so we could build enormous dams to glut our free markets or declare huge national forests owned by the real People. <br /><br />Shame on both of you for slandering your European forefathers, who would be ashamed of both of you for dragging their history into the Procrustean bed of your classically liberal logic, and chopping off their body politic because it was "monarchical" or "aristocratic", and therefore (somehow) akin to slavery. <br /><br />Comprehension of what, Mr. V. Hervey? The only "stewing" around here is the last two years, as you both baste in the sauce of the Obama administration's co-Leftism. May you all be as equal and free as pigs in a sty. Good luck. Call me when you stop slandering your ancestors, and I'll take your plight seriously. <br /><br />Matthew C Smallwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08234878138545287306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-65954514903732173752014-01-22T05:13:49.490-08:002014-01-22T05:13:49.490-08:00Matthew said "After thinking about this excha...Matthew said "After thinking about this exchange for two years"<br /><br />Thinking, or stewing? Not seeing any evidence of increased comprehension or new insights (or paragraphs), I'm gonna have to go with stewing. <br />Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-29670541214069080952014-01-22T00:13:02.675-08:002014-01-22T00:13:02.675-08:00After thinking about this exchange for two years, ...After thinking about this exchange for two years, I'd like to publicly ask Robert Godwin to explain his assertion that I was a Leftist who thought that systems had to be so perfect no one had to be good. I argued exactly the opposite: checks and balances are universal to all governments, and are wonderful things, however, men always have to be good. The idea that a certain brand of checks/balances (ie., American) is SOOOO GOOD that anything else is uncivilized (or worse) is actually a very Leftist position, in that it presupposes that our system is utterly singular (eg., so good that America doesn't have to be good), get it in place and take a holiday from history, because there is one right way to formulate and express our intuitions of natural rights, since democracy is so much more than local self-government, nay more than even a religion, it is GOD HIMSELF. What you are saying, Bob, is that our "system is so good, it can survive even with a president like Obama in office". "Our system is so good, that One Million Dead during the Civil War was SO WORTH IT!" (got to break eggs to make omelettes). "Our system is so good, that to question the goodness of it or even the particulars of its development in history (or God forbid, its martyrs and saints) automatically makes one a Leftist!". You call me a Leftist? Even if I was, I couldn't hold a candle to you, big fella! I proudly embrace whatever is good in America (checks and balances, light federalism, regional differences, Magna Carta style rights, etc.), and indeed, have emotion towards the whole. But I do not for a minute suppose that the system is so perfect men don't have to be good; in fact, they have to be good enough to keep it from going corrupt, and good enough to know when it's gone too far to retrieve or defend. That isn't a Leftist position, and you know it. Take back (both of you) not the things you said about me, but the things you said about the freedom loving and God-worshipping ancestors you both presumably had in monarchical Europe, your own flesh and blood, your own spiritual forefathers. And stop calling me a Leftist - I think you protest too much, comrades. Lovingly yours, hoping the verbiage is clear enough for comprehension, MCS. Matthew C Smallwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08234878138545287306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-46235978488894884882011-10-08T08:53:53.789-07:002011-10-08T08:53:53.789-07:00matthew said “My current impression”
Well put.matthew said “My current impression”<br /><br />Well put.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-2400783408747399952011-10-07T18:18:38.306-07:002011-10-07T18:18:38.306-07:00I know that's Jaffa's take, and that was w...I know that's Jaffa's take, and that was why I asked the question about Strauss. My current problem is trying to understand how or why very little is ever said about what was lost during the war, and how it might be recovered. It's nice to see people like Van noting the land act, yet I disagree profoundly that federalism is "merely" a flavor of "states" - Missouri does it this way, Iowa likes it this'a'way. My own thinking is more along the lines of Taparelli or Althusius:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Taparelli<br />My current impression is that Lincoln is an ambivalent character.Matthew C Smallwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08234878138545287306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-10381983165914786442011-10-07T17:34:27.865-07:002011-10-07T17:34:27.865-07:00There are a number of reasons, and there is plenty...There are a number of reasons, and there is plenty of information out there. For starters, one must draw a distinction between public and private statements. Also, there is no way Lincoln could have succeeded without the support of the multitude of Northern racists who were nevertheless anti-slavery, not to mention the border states, plus the many southern racists who were against secession (120,000 of whom fought for the union). People who have an overall strategy often have to say and do things that appear counter to the strategy. That Churchill publicly said nice things about Stalin is a poor indication of how he actually felt about him.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-22505380491918875142011-10-07T16:40:14.132-07:002011-10-07T16:40:14.132-07:00I'd like to let this go; silence, however, imp...I'd like to let this go; silence, however, implies consent (or guilt). I don't hate Lincoln, and certainly belong to no "cults". I simply asked why Lincoln-eulogizers don't speak about his recorded quotations on the race problem in America. It's a curious phenomenon. I have to assume that either you are proving my point, or else I've been fed a pack of lies. Should be easy to determine, and I'll be sure and get back with you.Matthew C Smallwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08234878138545287306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-44797168334932879412011-10-05T17:35:15.802-07:002011-10-05T17:35:15.802-07:00matthew said " It sounds to me that you think...matthew said " It sounds to me that you think "everything is political"."<br /><br />I've said over and again that politics operates at the bottom rung, it is only the visible effect of philosophy. Nothing can be accomplished through politics if it has not already been accomplished in philosophy and the understanding of it.<br /><br />But your comment sums up your recent streak of comments to a "T". It looks to me like you think across the surface of things, like a pebble skipped across a frozen pond, and then congratulate yourself on how far you've travelled.<br /><br />"Well, if that's what you think, Van, then I am not sure why we are arguing."<br /><br />2nd truest thing you've said so far. Look deeper. Take the time to learn, with at least some depth, before pronouncing your opinion. To those who've at least taken a stab at it, the ice cracking beneath your intellectual feet is extremely obvious... as is what comes next.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-35956393351420441252011-10-05T16:26:45.146-07:002011-10-05T16:26:45.146-07:00Matthew, your statements about Lincoln are willful...Matthew, your statements about Lincoln are willful lies rooted in hatred. The truth is easily available to any sincere and intellectually honest person. You believe what you do about Lincoln because that is what you choose to believe. It is easily corrected if one wishes to be corrected. But your mind has been steeped in a culture of stupid lies, vile hatreds, and plain resentment over its inferiority. No one believes it outside your intellectual jerk circle of fellow cultists.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-74277250502187223642011-10-05T16:12:09.889-07:002011-10-05T16:12:09.889-07:00Well, if that's what you think, Van, then I am...Well, if that's what you think, Van, then I am not sure why we are arguing. Every time I express a doubt about "human rights" existing (a doubt I've always couched in the context of voting rights and/or the arena of political rhetoric), I get violently mauled. Perhaps I am a little nuts, but I'd like for it to be explained to me how (in the name of God) someone like Lincoln can have his praises sung as if he were virtually a saint (Jaffa may be better than the author of Sea to Shining Sea, whoever he was, I can't recall now), when his sentiments about Africans were identical to A. Stephens. <br /><br />So there's no connection between Lincoln's land act and the fact that he was willing to consolidate federal power over the states? Call them something other than rights, if you want to. <br /><br />"Forms" of government (as in): government of one, the few, or the many, or any mix of the three, not slavery. I thought that went without saying. But yes, I'd rather be a slave under a just ruler than a "free man" in any number of socialist republics we've had on the planet.Matthew C Smallwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08234878138545287306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-70811548928051765632011-10-05T15:37:08.369-07:002011-10-05T15:37:08.369-07:00Guess I'm not the first to notice.Guess I'm not the first to <a href="http://www.nrlc.org/news/1999/nrl699/slave.html" rel="nofollow">notice</a>.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-91924886684080179392011-10-05T15:34:43.079-07:002011-10-05T15:34:43.079-07:00As an aside, in reading this book by Jaffa, it'...As an aside, in reading this book by Jaffa, it's striking how similar -- and similarly perverse -- are the constitutional arguments for slavery and abortion. Even if one is pro-choice, Roe v. Wade has to be the worst instance of judicial reasoning since Dred Scott.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-44014811746176726072011-10-05T15:22:46.431-07:002011-10-05T15:22:46.431-07:00"The North's victory also threatened &quo..."The North's victory also threatened "rights" by destroying the organic basis of federalism, "<br /><br />What does that even mean? States do not have rights, only people do. States have power, but no power to deny natural rights.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-7919561824214907772011-10-05T15:19:28.550-07:002011-10-05T15:19:28.550-07:00"Robert, Jaffa's condemnation of A. Steph..."Robert, Jaffa's condemnation of A. Stephens' remarks about the African race could (supposing he was completely lucid) equally apply to Lincoln, unless of course you read him (and Jaffa) through a Straussian lens? Isn't this a fair question?"<br /><br />No, it is an absurd question. Stephens did not believe in natural rights, as did the founders, but was a progressive who believed that 19th century science proved the superiority of white over black. Lincoln's goal was to preserve the union while keeping slavery on the path to extinction.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-28567013240048237392011-10-05T15:19:11.965-07:002011-10-05T15:19:11.965-07:00Is your comprehension of voting so limited that yo...Is your comprehension of voting so limited that you equate voting democratically with Democracy?!<br /><br />Argh... done.<br /><br />I wish.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-35412936246636080702011-10-05T15:18:16.606-07:002011-10-05T15:18:16.606-07:00matthew said "...very secular idea of propert...matthew said "...very secular idea of property rights is by affirming the necessity for preserving mass democracy..."<br /><br />Where in God's name did you ever get the idea that I in any way supported Democracy? Or that I thought that Democracy and Property Rights - or any proper Individual Rights - could actually be compatible?<br /><br />Aristotle is one of my favorites... but have you read his politics? Particularly the section on Education? Are you kidding me?<br /><br />Stop.<br /><br />Learn what it is that you are trying to talk about, actually means first.<br /><br />I can't read any further. <br /><br />No doubt my curiousity will get the better of me later... but ... just... stop.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-53252483651651524892011-10-05T15:14:32.112-07:002011-10-05T15:14:32.112-07:00"nor is one system of government abstractly p..."nor is one system of government abstractly preferable to another"<br /><br />So you would just as soon be slave as free. <br /><br />Not only are you self-evidently incorrect, you sound a little nuts.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-83173372328178823212011-10-05T15:05:29.376-07:002011-10-05T15:05:29.376-07:00Been up since 4am, blame it on that in advance. I&...Been up since 4am, blame it on that in advance. I'm done, I'll think about what you've both said and written.Matthew C Smallwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08234878138545287306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-43038707253998847592011-10-05T15:03:23.571-07:002011-10-05T15:03:23.571-07:00Racial slavery was an enormous evil; slavery itsel...Racial slavery was an enormous evil; slavery itself is an existential fact of life which cannot be addressed solely or even primarily by politics, nor is one system of government abstractly preferable to another (why am I lecturing Van on Aristotle here?)<br /><br />I suppose one could argue for choosing the lesser of two evils between a society which continued the one, and a society which abolished it through the mechanism of equality of citizenship. (Now we're talking about "societies", which always scares me). Or, one can embrace an existential view of history which is "revelatory" (otherwise, King Arthur is a "Leftist"). Now we're talking about "progress", which also scares me. I'm not convinced, and judging from Van's tone, neither is he. <br /><br />Van, I think I finally "get" your position - the way one reconciles a very secular idea of freedom (to be charitable, we'll say it comes by way of Aristotle, through Locke) with an (also) very secular idea of property rights is by affirming the necessity for preserving mass democracy, much like the South reasoned in 1860 regarding slavery, and much like the North also thought on the matter - one can't preserve industrial city-scapes with the South as a competitor. This reflects on the firebrands on either side who were in favor of settling things with a war. <br /><br />Robert, Jaffa's condemnation of A. Stephens' remarks about the African race could (supposing he was completely lucid) equally apply to Lincoln, unless of course you read him (and Jaffa) through a Straussian lens? Isn't this a fair question? <br /><br />The South certainly did (in principle) threaten property rights and self-government for all by abrogating it for some (in this case, the worst sin was the racial component). There were (however) free blacks in the old South. The North's victory also threatened "rights" by destroying the organic basis of federalism, and it went far beyond a simple land act, as Van ought to be aware and willing to admit. <br /><br />You have no cause to complain, Van - you've misread virtually every post I've ever written, and all either of us can do is try to do better. Quit squalling. <br /><br />You're certainly a sharp mind, a good debater, and an honest person (as far as I can tell), but maybe you should just calm down a little bit. <br /><br />I'm not a Leftist, I don't think power belongs to the strong (or to the good). I think true power is something most of us probably don't understand very well. You'd make more converts and gain more ears if you'd try to listen to the spirit and tone. I'll try to read more of the "letter of the law" on your website. <br /><br />I can understand hanging on to absolute voting rights as a kind of safety towel, but doesn't that make one a "conservative"? Relative voting rights are another matter - which is what we have now anyway. <br /><br />"Only a Republic is compatible with Reason and the rule of law. The rule of law depends upon a people who choose to establish laws to live under, and choose based upon reasoning, not power. Only a Republic has the potential to establish a rule of law based upon a principle which reinforces the rule of law and individual rights - and the principle is of course property rights... which is arrived at only though Reasoning for the purposes of discovering the Truth - as Cicero said, it is where we touch the mind of God."<br /><br />Any organic federalism can recognize voting rights in ways and means which are not absolute. It sounds to me that you think "everything is political". Again, to my sensibilities, this smacks of "the Left". But I don't actually think that you are "Left", a courtesy which apparently doesn't extend to me?Matthew C Smallwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08234878138545287306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-54846990878952181612011-10-05T06:37:37.551-07:002011-10-05T06:37:37.551-07:00Matthew, what little respect I had left for you ju...Matthew, what little respect I had left for you just left the building. When you figure out how to read what people are saying, rather than what you wish they were saying, check back in. <br /><br /><a href="http://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2006/09/what-never-was-and-never-will-be.html" rel="nofollow">In this post</a>, and many others, I pointed out that the Morrill Act for Land Grant Colleges, passed in 1862, by Lincoln, as a war measure, has had a longer lasting and more damaging impact upon America than even the Civil War itself was.<br /><br />I believe that if you check previous emails, it was raised there too.<br /><br />If you plan on waking up, try opening your eyes first.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-84934506684096476382011-10-05T05:42:35.322-07:002011-10-05T05:42:35.322-07:00"It is pellucid what self-governance means, a..."It is pellucid what self-governance means, and it has very little necessary connection with voting"<br /><br />And it has no connection to the Confederacy, where self-government was forbidden by law and by custom.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-55891306416391905992011-10-04T21:26:08.159-07:002011-10-04T21:26:08.159-07:00"And why, from the beginning of proregressive..."And why, from the beginning of proregressive education, when it was still saying ‘all the right things’, when they stripped all educational material of anything that smacked of imagination, of the poetic or any sign of sentiment, it ceased to be material suited for Education, and the results began to plummet almost immediately, helping to give us the wonderful world we have today.<br /><br />And that ‘immediately’ began well over a century before the 1960’s."<br /><br />I make that around 1860? <br /><br />As long as you continue to think that the Civil War represented an unadulterated good (or pick any other "triumph" of classical liberalism) I don't suppose it's worth discussing. In fact, it's not very "classically liberal" of you to suppose so. <br /><br />For what it's worth, I humbly submit that a hyperventilating and reactionary frame of mind is more of a cardinal marker for "Leftism" than is anything which I could be construed to have written. <br /><br />It is pellucid what self-governance means, and it has very little necessary connection with voting (as far as I can tell). <br /><br />I have your email; good luck with the Tea Party.Matthew C Smallwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08234878138545287306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-22710975067233732982011-10-04T07:21:08.536-07:002011-10-04T07:21:08.536-07:00You'll love it, but Matthew needs it.You'll love it, but Matthew needs it.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.com