Saturday, February 27, 2010

Press Register

Regarding the response of Mr. David Mahieu, " Be wary of costly help from the government," I have this to say: Mr. Mahieu, I don't recognize your brand of conservatism for anything other than what it so obviously is, which is liberalism. The conservatism I learned in my youth taught me that the means did not justify the ends, that there were absolutes in morality and ethics, and that to compromise the part was to corrupt the whole.

It does not matter how deeply entrenched a error is, for we on the right have a duty and an obligation to strive until the error in question torn up and out by the roots, to be excised from society forever. To appropriate the earnings of one man over his consent in order to enrich another man is robbery. The motivation for doing so is irrelevant. The perceived benefits that spring forth are immaterial. Tell me, sir, would I not spend my wages if those wages weren't subjected to the depredations of wealth redistribution schemes like Social Security? Would this not be a boon to the economy? Since the money involved consists of my earnings, generated in the course of honest labor, is it not superior in every way to money pilfered out of the paychecks of ordinary working men and women and then given to other parties who did nothing to merit such bounty other than agreeing to complicity in the theft? Your logic is bankrupt. So is the logic employed by every hoary-headed geriatric tyrant who summons massive hypocrisy from within to stand forth in a stentorian chorus with their peers to repudiate universal single-payer healthcare while they occupy the rolls of Medicare, a program which conforms exactly to single payer healthcare. The problem is this country is one of general intellectual incoherence. You are probably genuine in asserting conservatism as your outlook. However, you are confused. You don't realize what conservatism actually is, and it isn't any real wonder why, given the parade of pretenders who held forth on behalf of conservatism over the past forty years. We have Ronald Reagan, who raised taxes six of the eight years he held office, all while growing the government through the military. He quadrupled the average annual deficit from the Carter Administration. Under his rule, his underlings mounted an illegal and unconstitutional effort to aid the Contras of Nicaragua, in defiance of the Boland Amendments passed by Congress expressly forbidding such aid. Yet today Reagan is mythologized as a titan of conservatism, eulogized by no less a luminary than William F. Buckley. Today's conservatives recoil indignantly at the notion of amnesty for illegal aliens, yet
Reagan extended just such an amnesty while in office.

At the core of conservatism lies the notion that tradition ought to be honored and followed; originalism is what should suffice for guidance, as we stand on the wisdom of our forefathers and guide our movements today by their precepts. Our forefathers dumped tea in Boston Harbor to protest the onerous taxation being foisted upon them by the British crown. The rate? Some 2%. Those same forefathers fought hard against the British to be be free in their property from searches and seizures; the latter of which included forced quartering of British soldiers. Their ideas rested on the notion that governments existed to endure, defend, and expand the liberties of individual citizens. To that end they established a republic to limit the power of majorities who might attempt to establish programs whereby means could be justified by utopian ends. They limited majoritarian power in order to make such power penultimate to the rights of the individual. Majorities can be misled. A majority of Americans may support programs like Social Security and Medicare, but our founders would be aghast to see what their republic had been reduced to. My property is my own, and that includes my wages, which I earn. My retirement is my own responsibility, and perhaps that of my children should it become necessary for them to make arrangements on my behalf in the event of my incapacitation. This is appropriate. Social Security is an affront to our traditions, a gross perversion of the vision our Founders bequeathed to us in the republic we inherited as citizens. The grand visions and schemes of ideologues have exacted a heavy toll on our nation. We are deeply in debt, entangled in geopolitical intrigues and alliances throughout the world, and, like all empires in their twilight, our financial sector with its rampant speculation and reckless gambling has surpassed our manufacturing sector. All of this occurred because we lost our identity, and with it, the true meaning of our nomenclatures. Think of it: today's conservatives were the liberals during the days of the Founding Fathers. However, we are rising anew to fight with vigor in order to restore our Republic, and in doing so we will smash the utopian schemes and programs which have produced today's dystopia: an Empire that robs its own citizens in order to enrich politically powerful constituencies, and spies on our emails, phone calls, and Internet traffic. It is not a matter of wariness; it is instead a matter of vigilance. We are coming in November with a renewed sense of vigilance, and we will continue until the last vestiges of government overreach are stamped out. I'll see you at the polls.


Jay Bates


Sent from my iPhone

Posted via email from momus1978's posterous

Re: Press Register

Regarding the response of Mr. David Mahieu, " Be wary of costly help from the government," I have this to say: Mr. Mahieu, I don't recognize your brand of conservatism for anything other than what it so obviously is, which is liberalism. The conservatism I learned in my youth taught me that the means did not justify the ends, that there were absolutes in morality and ethics, and that to compromise the part was to corrupt the whole.

It does not matter how deeply entrenched a error is, for we on the right have a duty and an obligation to strive until the error in question torn up and out by the roots, to be excised from society forever. To appropriate the earnings of one man over his consent in order to enrich another man is robbery. The motivation for doing so is irrelevant. The perceived benefits that spring forth are immaterial.

Tell me, sir, would I not spend my wages if those wages weren't subjected to the depredations of wealth redistribution schemes like Social Security? Would this not be a boon to the economy? Since the money involved consists of my earnings, generated in the course of honest labor, is it not superior in every way to money pilfered out of the paychecks of ordinary working men and women and then given to other parties who did nothing to merit such bounty other than agreeing to complicity in the theft?

Your logic is bankrupt. So is the logic employed by every hoary-headed geriatric tyrant who summons massive hypocrisy from within to stand forth in a stentorian chorus with their peers to repudiate universal single-payer healthcare while they occupy the rolls of Medicare, a program which conforms exactly to single payer healthcare.

The problem is this country is one of general intellectual incoherence. You are probably genuine in asserting conservatism as your outlook. However, you are confused. You don't realize what conservatism actually is, and it isn't any real wonder why, given the parade of pretenders who held forth on behalf of conservatism over the past forty years. We have Ronald Reagan, who raised taxes six of the eight years he held office, all while growing the government through the military. He quadrupled the average annual deficit from the Carter Administration. Under his rule, his underlings mounted an illegal and unconstitutional effort to aid the Contras of Nicaragua, in defiance of the Boland Amendments passed by Congress expressly forbidding such aid. Yet today Reagan is mythologized as a titan of conservatism, eulogized by no less a luminary than William F. Buckley. Today's conservatives recoil indignantly at the notion of amnesty for illegal aliens, yet Reagan extended just such an amnesty while in office.

At the core of conservatism lies the notion that tradition ought to be honored and followed; originalism is what should suffice for guidance, as we stand on the wisdom of our forefathers and guide our movements today by their precepts. Our forefathers dumped tea in Boston Harbor to protest the onerous taxation being foisted upon them by the British crown. The rate? Some 2%. Those same forefathers fought hard against the British to be be free in their property from searches and seizures; the latter of which included forced quartering of British soldiers.

Their ideas rested on the notion that governments existed to endure, defend, and expand the liberties of individual citizens. To that end they established a republic to limit the power of majorities who might attempt to establish programs whereby means could be justified by utopian ends. They limited majoritarian power in order to make such power penultimate to the rights of the individual.

Majorities can be misled. A majority of Americans may support programs like Social Security and Medicare, but our founders would be aghast to see what their republic had been reduced to. My property is my own, and that includes my wages, which I earn. My retirement is my own responsibility, and perhaps that of my children should it become necessary for them to make arrangements on my behalf in the event of my incapacitation. This is appropriate.

Social Security is an affront to our traditions, a gross perversion of the vision our Founders bequeathed to us in the republic we inherited as citizens. The grand visions and schemes of ideologues have exacted a heavy toll on our nation. We are deeply in debt, entangled in geopolitical intrigues and alliances throughout the world, and, like all empires in their twilight, our financial sector with its rampant speculation and reckless gambling has surpassed our manufacturing sector. All of this occurred because we lost our identity, and with it, the true meaning of our nomenclatures. Think of it: today's conservatives were the liberals during the days of the Founding Fathers.

However, we are rising anew to fight with vigor in order to restore our Republic, and in doing so we will smash the utopian schemes and programs which have produced today's dystopia: an Empire that robs its own citizens in order to enrich politically powerful constituencies, and spies on our emails, phone calls, and Internet traffic.

It is not a matter of wariness; it is instead a matter of vigilance. We are coming in November with a renewed sense of vigilance, and we will continue until the last vestiges of government overreach are stamped out. I'll see you at the polls.


Jay Bates


Please include in "Your Word" in order to meet length constraints. Thank you