Long ago Aristotle taught us that there is a sharp difference between the kind of behavior that democracies tend to like and the kind of behavior that will keep democracies from turning into smoking craters. He didn’t put it exactly like that, but you get the gist.
In The Suicide of the West, James Burnham said this:
“Either liberalism must extend the freedoms to those who are not themselves liberals and even to those whose deliberate purpose is to destroy the liberal society — in effect, that is, must grant a free hand to its assassins; or liberalism must deny its own principles, restrict the freedoms, and practice discrimination” (p. 152).
Another way of putting this is that a truly liberal society — a society that enjoys maximum freedoms — cannot be a society governed by liberalism. Liberalism has AIDS, meaning that it has no effective immune system. It cannot fight off infections, and past a certain point it is the infection.
Every free society has to have and maintain the ability to say no to proposed or mandated insanities. The progressive idea of liberty is that your daughter can continue to go to the bathroom of her choice, just so long as the sad pervert gets to go into all of them. As long as the ultimate authority for saying yes or no to anything lies within that society, in the opinions, lusts, and kinks of its own members, we will never be able to say no to the regnant, pregnant insanities. The bitchstate is about to bequeath to us a teeming litter of idiot puppies. You think things are bad now?
They have all assembled in a large circle, facing each other, facing in. They came into the room at different times, ostensibly with different purposes. Sometimes they have shouted fiercely that they are not there for same reasons the others are, but they still found their way into the room nonetheless. The floor of that large room is unfinished concrete, and it slopes gently downward into the center, where there is a large, grated drain. Water is up to the knees of the assembled, who are all familiar figures — Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Ben Carson, and Bernie Sanders. At the last, they all join hands together, raise them up and shout, “Let us all circumnavigate the drain together!” It seemed like something of a triumph initially.
In order to function with true liberty, a nation must submit to the authority of the transcendental no. Political liberty is only a practical possibility when it out of the reach of politics. Without such a transcendental no, the whole thing will ratchet slowly, inexorably, bewilderingly, downward.
There can be no political liberty without a divine voice saying “thou shalt not,” and that negative imperative must be known to be grounded in the heavens, secure in a place where a thousand plebiscites could not come.
Very well stated although I would not of added Rush Limbaugh but would have added all of Fox News .
This post offers some perspective that would have been useful to me during a conversation I recently had with an atheist libertarian friend. He is willing to concede the necessity of an imperative no but only offers the state as the source of such authority. Does this not seem contrary to libertarian ideals?
James Burnham was a notorious racist, Doug. He would’ve called you a radical leftist, because you believe there are no important differences among races or ethnic groups when it comes to IQ, morals, or “civilizational capacity”, and you also believe racial discrimination is wrong. I believe you once referred to men like Burnham as “ignorant Kluxxers” or something to that effect.
The discussion on HBD, the existence of Nations and our brotherhood with all in Christ is better served without the acid sarcasm. I understand that you are using it to force Wilson to acknowledge the contradiction between his American views and reality, and as a tactic, it can be effective. However, like the hippie who constantly , constantly, constantly solemnly and vigorously exhorts you to “listen to the words, man! listen to the wooooorrrrrrdddddssss” the sanctimony and repetition quickly lose effectiveness. Unlike the hippie and his Dylan LP’s , the subject matter you are “arguing” for is interesting and a… Read more »
Sarcasm? What are you talking about?
If you think my comment contains a drop of sarcasm, you have a wildly inaccurate understanding of what that word means. Do you really think Burnham was a left-winger on race and sex, and actually believed in interracial marriage, integrated schools, transracial adoption, equal opportunity laws, etc? No. He wasn’t, and he didn’t. I was quite serious when I described his beliefs. No sarcasm at all.
And if you think it was acid sarcasm, you’re on acid.
Nevertheless your rhetorical technique could use improvement.
Your acid sarcasm is directed not at Burnham but at Wilson. sar·casm ˈsärˌkazəm/ noun noun: sarcasm; plural noun: sarcasms the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.”his voice, hardened by sarcasm, could not hide his resentment” i·ro·ny ˈīrənē/ noun noun: irony the expression of one’s meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.”“Don’t go overboard with the gratitude,” he rejoined with heavy irony” Correct me if I am wrong, but you do not believe that “James Burnham was a notorious racist….”, rather, you believe that James Burnham believed that freedom of association… Read more »
Sarcasm is close, but I think the word that timothy is looking for is cynicism. Cynicism is easy for those who cannot defend constructive answers because they have no answers.
Well, then you’re just as deficient in vocabulary as he is, because there’s not an ounce of cynicism in my post, either. I didn’t bring up Burnham’s beliefs to cynically claim he didn’t actually believe them, or to cynically claim that Doug secretly believes them.
Has anyone on here ever used a dictionary?
You can’t just hear big words and start tossing them around.
You need to know what they mean before you use them in print.
You’re new here it seems.
LMAO
Been here for months.
Didn’t get banned.
Changed my name.
Do try to keep up.
Yes and of course nations have everything to do with skin color and nothing to do with geography. Blacks and whites don’t share the same nation, except that they have for 400 years.
Brilliant. You obviously know what you’re talking about. Truly you have a dazzling intellect.
I don’t put much stock in the proponents of Magic Dirt. How’s Detroit Ben?
Is this the same guy that was a Marxist and wrote the Managerial Revolution? When Orwell wrote about him in the forties, was he still dancing to Moscow’s tune?
Yes. He was an ex-commie and wrote the Managerial Revolution book.
If Orwell wrote about him, I know nothing about it, so I can’t answer that.
Is there somewhere you can take trolls to and exchange them? This one we have now is defective.
He keeps exchanging himself. This is Bull Connor/whatever else again.
DW attracts the best trolls.
I disagree (unless, of course, you’re being ironic). I’ve taken a significant step back from commenting and learning from other commentors here because the trolls are more and more vicious.
By “best” I mean most skillful in trollery. Most trolls are on the level of kids throwing rocks at cars. Some of the ones here employ a degree of subtlety that makes Satan proud.
Ah, I see. That’s very true. It saddens me more when people are close enough to the truth that it’s nearly impossible to convince them they need the actual truth (or true truth, as Francis Schaeffer used to say).
I agree, and that’s why I post here. I troll because I care. ;-)
I am not completely convinced you and Barnabas and timothy are trolls. I think you’re wrong, grievously so, but I think you believe what you’re saying and think it’s worth trying to dialogue about it.
I think the pseudonym is not so much.
I’m always grateful for someone who makes me look reasonable.
timothy is absolutely not a troll. Troll isn’t defined by someone I sometimes disagree with.
Ian puts Timothy in the troll camp, sorta.
Strangeness prevails.
I don’t think Timothy is a troll but he is refreshingly unpredictable.
Deffo needs to buy a dictionary, though.
Come in from the four corners of the globe
Be careful what you wish for.
And did it ever occur to you that maybe THE CALLS ARE COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE?
No, why would we chase a troll down a rabbit trail? And even if by chance it’s coming from inside, it’s still from the outside.
Matt, that was really uncalled for.
Awww… Poor baby troll. Did he say mean things that hurt your widdle feelers?
Come on, guys. That’s enough.
You’ve had your fun.
Let’s drop it.
Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it, bro.
Tough crap.
Is there a name for an excellent quote uttered by someone society generally regards as a madman?
“One of the great advantages of the First Amendment is that it allows us to quickly and easily identify the idiots within our society.”– Ted Nugent. (That’s actually a paraphrase. I could not find an exact quote.)
Around here the preferred nomenclature for that sort of thing is “racist hate.”
You’re a banned troll that has come back to life
Try again, Einstein.
Been here for months.
Didn’t get banned.
Changed my name.
Do try to keep up.
Not banned — I don’t know what the secret thrill is of constantly changing his name, but unfortunately, never banned.
Dunsworth, don’t get hung up on the deets.
For reals – don’t mistake the form for the substance.
Changing my name is just a metaphor.
The real alchemy is the lives I’m changing.
Maybe even destinies.
So try not to sweat the small stuff.
LOL.
Key sentence is missing a word: “Political liberty is only a practical possibility when it *is* out of the reach of politics.”
Reminds me of something I wrote in a journal after SCOTUS legalized gay marriage:
Pluralism and Relativism can now legally marry. The infertile couple is adopting America and raising it as their own.
Reminds me of Narcissus
I truly believe you cannot legislate morality, that morality is a heart issue, a spiritual matter, that transcendental no and Divine voice, Wilson speaks of. But you do have to protect yourself from those who cannot hear that Voice and you must provide people some moral standard on which there is some kind of consensus, especially young people who are prone to question everything, never realizing it’s all been tried and done before. We’re really stressed out as a culture right now because everything is all about moral ambiguity and shades of grey, and up is down and right is… Read more »
No, morality is the only thing that you can legislate. Law is a line dividing right and wrong, which is always a moral question. The only good laws are those that make a moral judgement, like “thou shalt not murder”. The bad laws (regulation) are those that just give some group what they want, but breaking those kind of laws isn’t immoral (good example: do you ask forgiveness when you hit 56 in a 55?).
“No, morality is the only thing that you can legislate.” People who say things like this always make me nervous. Basically you’re saying the only reason why we don’t engage in rampant immorality and outright slaughter of one another is because the law has made it inconvenient to do so. Not only does that reveal a need for authoritarian dictates because one doubts their own moral compass, but it also speaks to our inability to understand grace, to walk as if we are redeemed, seeking His approval, rather than the approval of the law. Even in the US, the law… Read more »
Have you ever been in a large metropolitan (defined in the millions) area when the restraints are removed? Picture this: the power is out over a widespread area, buildings are on fire everywhere you look, cars are overturned and litter the streets, also on fire or now just smoldering hulks, and roving groups of thugs (look up the derivation of the word) are taking lives and anything not nailed down (they burn that). The normal response of public safety is no longer in play, and when you call for help you get an answering machine. When the sun goes down… Read more »
I have. Here’s the interesting thing about that, in an instant the law is gone and the only morality that exists at that point is our own grace, our own desire to be pleasing to God even when we don’t have to. The law can disappear in an instant but God is eternal, so I would prefer a world ruled by the gospel and the good news rather than external controls and the laws of man. The problem with the law as a basis for morality is that when the lights go out, there’s nothing but darkness. His light just… Read more »
A world ruled by the gospel is a world ruled by laws. God is the one who defines right and wrong, and gave us the laws to base society on, and gave government the one duty of justice. Law is not the basis for morality, God is the basis, and he gave us the law so that we can live love out. The law is just God defining love. If your society doesn’t have laws that coincide with God’s moral edict, then it is a society lacking in love.
Thank you for clarifying that the law is not the basis for morality.
So, rather than thank the LORD for the creation and sanctioning of kings and states that act as ministers and deacons for the preservation of order, protection of the weak, execution of justice, and prosecution of evil, ME is willing to just blithely welcome in anarchy because of Jesus. Because Psalm 2 is irrelevant and prior to the Gospel, and Jesus isn’t really the “King of Kings” as government will pass away and we’ll ascend to heavenly Egalitaria. And note that ME has moved the goalposts, at least tacitly, and implies that RFB, Demo D, and myself would prefer the… Read more »
“ME is willing to just blithely welcome in anarchy because of Jesus” LOL! Well now, there is a pretty good argument to be made for the anarchist nature of Christ and the radical message of the gospel. You are right, I do think there are many who seem to prefer the state to Christ’s reign on Earth. Perhaps it’s a bit idealistic, but I’ve always thought that in a democracy heavily influenced by Christian values we could manage to create a close approximation to Christ’s reign on earth, flawed and imperfect in our case, but at least a reflection of… Read more »
The grace that you speak of only works for the recipients thereof. One either has it, or not, and it is a gift from God. (It is cold comfort to be counting on someone else’s grace while supine in the gutter with a sucking chest wound, looking into the dead eyes of your loved one next to you.) The world is already ruled by the Gospel (even if some are in rebellion against it), and part of that good news is that the laws of man “…do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of… Read more »
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.” JFK
Probably best not to mention JFK. He strongly admired Hitler. Was also a huge fan of Joe McCarthy.
Not cool.
Nobody cares.
And this is why I say that Wilson is compromised with liberalism. Accepting that “a society that enjoys maximum freedoms” is a valid or worthy goal is to accept the liberal outlook. “Principled conservatism” is nothing more than inconsistent liberalism; it accepts the conclusions of liberalism even as it denies some or all of its premises.
(If you’re reading Burnham I strongly recommend The Machiavellians. Top-shelf stuff.)
Did he say it’s the goal? More of a side-effect, isn’t it?
If he isn’t, this article could be a lot shorter and just resolve Burnham’s dilemma by saying “Because relativism is philosophically inconsistent, the idea of liberal or ‘free’ society is fundamentally self-destructive”.
“Accepting that “a society that enjoys maximum freedoms” is a valid or worthy goal is to accept the liberal outlook.”
‘and ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free’
‘where the spirit of the lord is there is freedom’
A scociety governed by God (and the truth because God is the truth) does enjoy maximum freedoms.
Equivocation on the use of the word “free” here is ill-considered at best. “The truth shall set you free” from… what? Jesus makes it clear he is describing slavery to sin, not any mere constraint by other men. Your citation from 2 Corinthians is in a similar context.
Societies are under God’s authority, but He has appointed deacons to do His will, and they do not bear the sword in vain. The liberal pursuit of license in the guise of “freedom” and “liberty” is opposed to the gospel, and it is foolish for Christians to go along with it.
Accepting that “a society that enjoys maximum freedoms” is a valid or worthy goal is to accept the liberal outlook. But its a valid Christian outlook isn’t it? We are slaves in Christ, but we are also free in Him and therefore free here. A Christian people is a self-governing people. We know from our walk with Him that our self government starts with us governing ourselves (against our old-man) by taking up our Cross and living by faith. The reason for this comment is that you conflate liberty with licentiousness (fun fact, before fixing with the spell-checker, I typed… Read more »
I’m trying to think how one would explain “A Christian people is a self-governing people” in the sense you mean it to Charlemagne, Henry II, Frederick of Saxony, or von Metternich.The capacity for self-government is not all that widespread, and being a member of the household of faith doesn’t immediately grant it. Ideally those with the personal character and ability to govern themselves will be recognised and have the opportunity to do so — but sheep need a shepherd.
I think liberty means that we must be cautious about legislating against sin. Christian libertarianism would argue for crimes to relate to sins against another’s person or property. And only direct sins, not indirect ones.
The other main reason for liberty is a caution against sinners in power. The state needs to be limited because evil men get into power and we need to limit the damage they can do. It is right the state protects us from bandits and murderers, but the state often kills on a much larger scale.
“Christian libertarianism” is as coherent as “Christian communism”.
The state “needs to be limited” — by what? The state is that which does the limiting.
You may well be correct on who limits the state, but you are equivocating on my use of limited. Try small. (And I am speaking in the context where democracy is assumed, this is no defense of democracy)
The state needs to be small because evil men get into power and we need to limit the damage they can do.
My objection remains to the word “we” there.
As to morality and legality. Clearly morality is primary. If something is right and illegal it is the law that is wrong. Because laws control, or attempt to control, all laws are imposing a moral system. As such legality is morality in that sense. But ME is also correct in that righteous laws do not make men righteous. The law has no power to change a sinner. So in that sense legality does not cause morality. Law can prevent crime however. Good laws, good cops and good courts can make crime less attractive. It doesn’t deal with the heart issues… Read more »
A couple of points. “…righteous laws do not make men righteous. The law has no power to change a sinner.” It never has, nor was it intended to. Law (ideally) points to the differentiation between good and evil, circumscribes the proscribed act, and acts as God’s agent in imposing the penalty for it. “For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” “…whether law does attenuate propensity to sin.” In general, no cat sits on a hot stove twice; also generally, the cat will avoid cold stoves as well. Ask yourself if… Read more »
Agreed, but I am also thinking of the heart. Does a law which limits the likelihood I will be tempted to do something I am otherwise not particularly predisposed to, attenuate my heart propensity to sin? Jesus after all taught us to pray: “lead us not into temptation”.
I think that the fallen nature has a propensity to sin. The law is good; we know the law is good, otherwise God would not write it on our hearts. It is the human propensity and desire for sin that is evil. “So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good…. What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not… Read more »
Yes, I thought of that verse and was considering posting it. It is not that I disagree with the general concept you are getting at, I see sin in my own life all too clearly. But there are some sins that present very little temptation to me. If the law is somehow involved in minimising the occurrence of such sins is that of help to me? I don’t doubt the law is of no help in helping me overcome my failings (“don’t touch” only has the appearance of wisdom Col 2:21). At most the fear of the law prevents my… Read more »
bethyada, Without trying to be picky, I would differ with you on the import of your selected scripture regarding its application at this juncture. I think that the historic understanding of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians is regarding Christ being superior to all power(s), the liberty from subjection to principalities and powers, and liberty from obedience to Mosaic ceremonial ordinances that were fulfilled in Christ. When Paul (and St. Peter as well) uses the term translated elements/principals (stoicheion), it is referring to elemental spirits or beings. Paul says something similar in Galatians: “In the same way we also, when… Read more »
bethyada, I think you speak of the forbidden fruit aspect of the law and some studies have been done about that that lead us to conclude that the law can sometimes do more harm than good.
Prohibition comes to mind too, a complicated issue for sure, but in the gov’s quest to cure drinking they created a whole new set of problems.
The law can certainly do more harm. Though I doubt prohibition is a valid argument against my question (of which I don’t know the answer). Prohibition banned something good to prevent its abuse. It was all round a bad move by the people involved. But there are laws against selling to intoxicated persons (who are in public), or against providing alcohol to minors (which may be a reasonable law if the intent is to aid the child in abusing alcohol). I don’t see these laws as causing the evil that prohibition did. I don’t think there is a good argument… Read more »
Law (ideally) points to the
differentiation between good and evil, circumscribes the proscribed act…..”
It does this under Paganism too, its just that the Pagan inverts good and evil, calling evil good and good evil. Their moral system creates laws that support their (im) moral system.
timothy, That is the reason why I parenthetically inserted “ideally” regarding the issue. When we view law and government, we must look at the showroom model, not the wheel-less hulk rusting in the junkyard to understand the concept: “since God says that (genuine) law is good, and also that He created government as His executive construct for dealing with evil, then I do not think that it is the law that causes a propensity to sin in any greater fashion than the sun “causes” shadows. We are the problem, and our very nature is corrupt. The law exposes what is… Read more »
But ME is also correct in that righteous laws do not make men
righteous. The law has no power to change a sinner. So in that sense
legality does not cause morality.
The law has no power to change the righteous either!
To focus on a single point: What is the biblical case for “political liberty”? Certainly a God-honouring government will provide the environment necessary for its subjects to obey Him and make the best use of His gifts, and if we want to call that “liberty” then I think that’s reasonable. But where does the idea of “political liberty” come from? One can easily imagine governments that work in this fashion but grant political power to very few people.
“Let us all circumnavigate the drain together!”
DW, if drain circling becomes a new olympic sport, I’m blaming you! ; – )
Speaking of the kind of behavior that will make democracies smoking craters —
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-rejects-conservative-bid-to-count-only-eligible-voters-for-districts/2016/04/04/67393e52-fa6f-11e5-9140-e61d062438bb_story.html
As one prominent commentator put it: “within a century, everyone on earth will get to vote for President. On what grounds do we deny any human being the right to vote in American elections? These grounds, examined thoroughly, will be found to be entirely incompatible with the basic principles of democracy. In fact, they’re probably racist.”
Great article, but why does he need to put such an offensive word in the title. There are better and more wholesome ways of communicationg without using the word ‘no’.
Doug, given the way you’re spinning like a whirling dervish the past few days in order to maintain that, yes, abortion is murder but, no, women who hire someone to kill their babies are NOT murderers, you might want to think about changing the name of your blog. Instead of Blog and Mablog, how about I’m Dancing as Fast as I Can.
“The floor of that large room is unfinished concrete, and it slopes gently downward into the center, where there is a large, grated drain. Water is up to the knees of the assembled, who are all familiar figures — Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Ben Carson, and Bernie Sanders [and Ted Cruz]. At the last, they all join hands together, raise them up and shout, “Let us all circumnavigate the drain together!” It seemed like something of a triumph initially.”
There, fixed it for you.