Democracy deserves to die in darkness, as, like all state power, it’s radically opposed to true natural human rights.
“Progressives” understand progress simply as chaos.
It’s transvaluation of all values, endless upheaval, war, revolution, and churning of society for its own sake.
But chaos on its own generates only random change, not progress. And since random change for the worse is much more probable that random change for the better, progressives end up favoring social retrogression and decay.
True progress, on the other hand, is creative advance. This chaos operates within order, both moral and economic. There is a balance between stability and change, wherein destructive chaos is neutralized, while creative chaos is encouraged and thrives.
This balance is achieved most sublimely within laissez-faire capitalism.
Progressives intend on “winning control of a Democratic Party that is presently dominated by procedurally conservative institutionalists, winning free and fair elections, and then passing laws,” says Eric Levitz.
What an orgasmic experience it must be, to “pass laws.” There must be more laws, to control people more precisely. No one will be able to move without breaking some of Levitz’s “laws.” Ratchet up the punishments, too. No one is to do anything new; everyone will do tomorrow and forever exactly what he did today, since deviation from routine will be, what else? against the “laws.”
Levitz does not entertain the idea that the best path to general welfare is to repeal laws.
“Progressives represent minoritarian interests who are disempowered in the economy and civil society (the poor, nonwhite, and undocumented),” he goes on.
But in a fully free market society, there are no “disempowered” people. There are no legal barriers to success. There are few barriers to success even in our statist mixed economy. The poor, nonwhite, etc., any more than the rich whites, do not need to be represented, because they face no unjust threats to their welfare. There is no need for any class or race warfare, because most of our interests within social cooperation are harmonious. There is no such thing as “racial justice”; it’s gibberish; what Levitz imagines “just” is on the contrary merely unjust destructionism.
It’s also a huge and pointless distraction from the fact that it is the state and indeed its “laws” that are responsible for the breaking of the market harmony.
It is true that the freedom to succeed entails the possibility of failure. But under capitalism, one’s failure is usually one’s own fault. It is useless to blame, for example, white people for the flaws of blacks. The cynical view that the winners succeeded by illegitimate means, while the losers failed because they are unjustly oppressed does not convince. It is disgraceful and wrong to feed the hateful resentment of the unfortunate losers by lying to them that their failure is the fault of “society” and by falsely promising to them future bliss and revenge.
“Passing laws” is an inappropriate means to helping the “disempowered.”
Robert “Pit Yorkie” Reich, who is wrong on everything he ever expressed an opinion on, attacks Jeff Bezos for being a billionaire.
But Bezos earned his money justly, and hence has a natural right to his wealth.
Moreover, each man’s having an opportunity to become extremely rich benefits all of us. Bezos, for having actually taken this opportunity and succeeded, should be honored for his service to fellow man.
There is under laissez-faire capitalism a harmony of interests between an individual and society. Individual creative initiative and social welfare are not in conflict.
America is in decline as it’s becoming ever more morally unhinged and economically stupid. Watch for government looting to accelerate.
Several times in reading the paper “Roe v. Wade: A Study of Male Ideology” by Catharine MacKinnon, I asked, “What are you arguing? What’s your beef, exactly?”
But her point, I think, is something like this. Sexual relations are by their nature inherently violent. Therefore, by bringing reproduction under the rubric of privacy, the Supreme Court has prohibited the state from regulating or punishing what are in fact unjust and wicked deeds. What is supposedly private or personal should by right be political.
This opinion takes an important insight to grotesque extremes. Yes, sexual intercourse normally involves the man dominating and possessing the woman, and the woman submitting and surrendering. There is an aspect of violence here, but in this case, when not abused or perverted, it is holy and good. It’s what excites both, and what promotes the bond of marital love.
The absence of this dynamics is precisely one reason for why premarital sex does not work: the woman holds back and refuses to give herself over, especially since she does not consent to bear his children; the man focuses solely on basic pleasure; and the couple fails to become one flesh. And for that matter, one soul, as this hinders the beginnings of love in them. But deliberately obstructing charity is a sin.
There is indeed no equality here, but there is not supposed to be, and the inequality is perfectly great and to the benefit of both the man and the woman.
MacKinnon’s other problem has something to do with “refusing to have sex.” I don’t know what she’s talking about. Rape is everywhere outlawed. There is no law that compels sex. Many women successfully refuse sex even to their own husbands for years on end. Her complaints seem petty to me. Perhaps she is recommending that a man be imprisoned by the state for consensual sex with a woman simply upon the woman’s request. But this is both implausible and unjust.
It may be simply that MacKinnon hates and fears sex. Ok, fine. But why does she feel compelled to try to ruin sex for everyone else?
For there is reason to think that if a city were composed entirely of good men, then to avoid office would be as much an object of contention as to obtain office is at present;
then we should have plain proof that the true ruler is not meant by nature to regard his own interest, but that of his subjects;
and every one who knew this would choose rather to receive a benefit from another than to have the trouble of conferring one.
Why rule others? Isn’t it a pain in the ass?
Won’t you be tempted to abuse your power and probably succumb? The best you could do would be to abolish the state and immediately abdicate thereupon.
What if you screw up and harm society, as you are almost certain to do? Isn’t your statist ideology almost guaranteed to be false and vicious? Your name will be cursed for generations to come.
Isn’t it impossible to rule large states justly, anyway? Won’t you be a slave to a thousand conniving and ruthless special interest groups? Won’t the Deep State bend you to its will one way or another?
Forget about it: if nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve.