| From | Message |
Jim Kalb
Administrator
5/09/2002
10:23:19
|
 Subject: What to do?
IP: Logged
Message:
So what's to be done? Grand theoretical speculations are all very well, but by themselves don't lead anywhere. On the other hand, a focus on immediately practical goals is dangerous if the general tendency is wrong. What's needed are political goals that may not be immediately practical but are concrete enough to organize effort and point in the right general direction.
Here are some ideas:
1. The notion that the federal government should be in charge of training the people throughout their formative years has to go. So get government out of education and cultural matters, at least in the case of federal and state government and universal education beyond 8th grade. Possibly the federal government could continue to do a few things, fund basic scientific research for example.
2. Ditto for the notion that the federal government has general responsibility for individual well-being. The answer is to get rid of Social Security and most of the rest of the welfare system. Possibly retain a limited system of free public clinics, workhouses, orphanages and old-age homes, but there is no reason such a system would have to be a federal or even predominantly a state one.
3. Repeal civil rights laws, at least those relating to things other than public accommodations. It's not the business of government to reconstruct how people associate with each other. Especially get rid of AA and presumptions based on unequal impact.
4. Control immigration, to permit the identity of the American people to jell a bit more, and get out of NAFTA and the like. Public life has to be the public life of a particular people with a particular history and understanding of the common good. And we want to have public life and self-government, don't we?
Comments? Other ideas?
|
John
Guest
5/09/2002
16:09:37
| RE: What to do?
IP: Logged
Message:
Message:
Trade & Taxes:
-Perhaps returning to the old system of using tarrifs to fund the government would be in order to lessen the load that each individual pays to the gov't; which would enable people to give more to charity as well as protect US industries.
General Foreign Policy:
-Reduce the military or redirect it to serve only clear US interests? I guess the larger question would be--isolationism versus UN-sponsered interventionalism versus acting only when there is clear support from by the American people as well as (or if there is) a long term strategic interest. Or should the US pursue a long-term goal of some kind?
Establishment:
-Returning to the old understanding of the establishment clause of the Bill of Rights, i.e. each individual state (or other locality) can establish a religion if it chooses or have Christianity in general be the established religion?
|
William Wleklinski
Guest
5/09/2002
18:17:58
| RE: What to do?
IP: Logged
Message:
I would concur with all four suggestions. Yet the first three, in one way or another, are proposals to reduce Big Government or limit its pervasiveness in our society, especially in its federal form. I don't draft briefs for statism, but I see no salvation for us in its subversion.
For me, the Problem is the cultural revolution, affecting standards moral, intellectual, and aesthetic, which has occurred throughout the West in the last half century. (Some would find its roots in our affluence, or the 1920s, or World War I, or the Enlightment, or in the thought of William of Occam.) Big Government did not cause this revolution (did it?), and why would one think that slaying this dragon will necessarily yield the restoration of the good, traditional society?
In the internecine conflicts within American conservatism, my sympathies are surely with the paleos. But the Flemings and Gottfrieds sometimes convey the impression that if that awful, ubiquitous administrative state would disappear, all would be well. I doubt it. We would have instead a more libertarian, but still depraved, demented, and squalid society.
Historians like Barzun and John Lukacs say we're at the end of an age. I expect they're right. In the meantime, during our lifetimes, let's redeem the time as best we can. And your four ideas are worth supporting. But let's not imagine that there are libertarian solutions for a cultural crisis.
WW
|
Jim Kalb
Administrator
5/09/2002
18:35:40
| RE: What to do?
IP: Logged
Message:
Oh, I agree libertarianism isn't a cure-all, I just think it's necessary. The point of big government is to make individual and local choices, habits and relationships irrelevant. If they were relevant then that would violate social justice because things wouldn't be equal. But if all that's so then big government means the abolition of freedom, virtue and love. Getting rid of it wouldn't automatically restore those things but it would make it easier.
I'm sympathetic to John's suggestions - the first two would give American society more of a chance to develop in its own way, because it wouldn't be so much under the federal thumb and it would be a bit more separate from the rest of the world, and the third would allow development to take more than economics into account.
|
Jason Eubanks
Guest
5/11/2002
03:52:51
| RE: What to do?
IP: Logged
Message:
I agree with Mr. Kalb that libertarianism will provide a reprieve so that society and culture can reorganize along more stable lines. I've concerns about big business because it looks as if it's very compatable with big government and liberalism in particular. Questions about dealing with big media also arise because the two are closely related. Legal reform needs to be addressed.
1) Big Business: I suggest we leave manufacturing and industial companies alone. Resurrect usary laws to end consumer credit spending through credit cards. Reducing intellectual property protections could help. Advertising is best dealt with by other means.
2) Big Media and Entertainment: End federal licensing of radio frequencies and promote small private TV/Radio broadcasters. National advertising would become an impossibility if networks have to negotiate thousands of contracts with independent broadcasters. Televised sports won't long survive a lack of distribution royalties. Reducing copyright protections would have a deleterious effect on media mega-conglomerates like Time/Warner, Disney, and the NYT not to mention Hollywood. You can bid a fond farewell to rap and rock without monetary support from CD sales.
3) Legal Reform: End case law and revert to codified law based on the Code of Justinian. Tort reform. End judicial power by introducing legislative and local oversight of federal appelate judges. End divorce on demand. Reintroduce bishop's courts to resolve minor disputes between fellow Orthodox or Catholic members in a cost effective manner. Provide them the sole power to dissolve or annul marriages performed in their respective churches. Also let them handle many adoptions, child welfare complaints and custody disputes. Make their decisions authoritative and legally binding.
|
John
Guest
5/11/2002
13:25:06
| RE: What to do?
IP: Logged
Message:
Mr Eubanks:
Number 2:
You don't have to actually reduce copyrights to weaken rock and rap; just make sure that, like advertising, locally owned radio stations are the rule. Doing this would make it harder for such things to be advertised on a nation-wide scale. And, over time, could lead to more local variety of music. These actions could make popular music and such more artist and region-centered, which could be good for both music and allow local communities to have more influence over what is played at the local station. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it will be more moral. Maybe giving local areas more power to set and enforce decency codes could be implemented.
Ending or limiting copyrights might work but due to the internet and de-centralizing radio stations (for example) it might be unnecessary--just one more battle that does not need to be fought. But, again due to the Internet, local control or decentralized media can be meaningless since the Internet can be used to distribute music and concert information. Advertising over this medium is starting to be a big money getter. Immorality is just a click away, as well.
This leads to another issue, how does a traditionalist react to the Internet?
|
John
Guest
5/11/2002
13:39:45
| Irony
IP: Logged
Message:
Mr. Eubanks: The Internet is rapidly moving towards superceding the current system of popular culture (and intellectual property) distribution, while, at the same time, is an advertizer's dream (mass niche markets and the like). So, the technology is slowly subverting the half-century or so old ways that made many companies rich while also allowing more opportunities for corporate profits. Which, then, leds me to come to a more important issue:
How should a traditionalist react to the Internet?
|
John
Guest
5/11/2002
13:56:13
| RE: What to do?
IP: Logged
Message:
Oops!
I'm not sure what happened there....
|
Jim Kalb
Administrator
5/11/2002
16:58:52
| RE: What to do?
IP: Logged
Message:
Good question about the internet. It seems to undermine centralization, which is good. On the other hand, it puts everybody and everything in immediate touch and so puts everything somewhat on a par, with exchange (that is, money) and arbitrary choice the organizing principles.
So a big challenge will be limiting its effect on communities. I think to meet the challenge a community will have to have quite a strong organizing principle and discipline. So things look good for the Amish and strict Orthodox Jews, I'm not sure for who else.
|
Jason Eubanks
Guest
5/12/2002
07:49:17
| RE: What to do?
IP: Logged
Message:
The internet is a dilemma. Most of the problem is the apparent anonymity it offers. Promoting things that lessen this might prove effective. There are plenty of porn conniseurs who would stop what they were doing if it were public knowledge. Another question is whether or not the internet can survive its own anarchic existence. Rampant computer virii, hackers, 'phreakers' and intellectual property theft create an atmosphere very much akin to inner cities: Once a nice place to visit and do business, but now simply too dangerous.
What about pop culture in general? America really hasn't ever possessed an identifiable folk culture such as the Greeks or Bavarians. The South comes close but the case can be made that it was a major contributor to our current problems. In any case, what little remained in America was annihilated during the 60s. Another problem is that pop culture is all the newer generations know. I suspect that even if the pop music biz was shut down today, we'd have things like Pink Floyd cover bands for generations to come. Of course, the Greeks and Bavarians had (or still have) religions which maintained a strong cultural presence in the community. America has seen only religions which show no interest in celebrating faith in a cultural way. Maybe such a religion is necessary for folk or any decent culture to exist.
I'm sorry for drifting off subject. Is the goal of this thread to create a platform or manifesto?
|
Jim Kalb
Administrator
5/12/2002
08:20:43
| RE: What to do?
IP: Logged
Message:
It seems a bit early to put together a manifesto although if somebody's got one it would be a way of organizing discussion.
The Internet perfectly realizes libertarianism: it takes everyone and everything in the world, breaks all the ties that connect them to each other, and makes it possible for them to enter at will into any combination with anything else. So the question is how to protect tradition, authority, continuity etc. in such circumstances.
I'm inclined to think the answer is going to be something radical, like reversion of society to a Middle Eastern form of inward-turning ethno-religious communities. Some of the things the Internet threatens are necessary for a tolerable life, and people will do what they have to do to live in a way they can tolerate.
|
Jason Eubanks
Guest
5/13/2002
03:37:33
| RE: What to do?
IP: Logged
Message:
The internet is of concern to everyone because no social faction seems capable of controlling it: not business, not government, not individuals, not anyone. Libertarians are as vexed about the internet as anyone, because of widespread theft, fraud, and abuse. The situation is more analogous to anarchy. Hardly anyone on the internet even pays lip service to property rights, intellectual or otherwise. There exists a substantial number of people who have nothing more than mischief on their minds and cause a lot of damage. It's also proving a haven for con-artists, credit theft, and fraud schemes of all sorts. This is all costing someone money, of course, which leads me to believe that non negligible resources are being devoted to controlling content and access in the future.
I do agree that the internet, by its nature, forces a world view on the participants that mankind is essentially a series of faceless economic agents whose sole purpose is the satisfaction of personal desires. Sometimes it's difficult to conceptualize the originator of an email as a human being. It's going to be hard to build a new era in civilization on that!
I agree, in principle, that introverted ethnic communities are the most plausible projection for future civilization. I think the transition will be relatively brief however. The main problem is the new economy which is supposed to take full advantage of the internet's far geographical reach. If someone wants to opt out, they're liable to be jobless or very restricted in terms of economic opportunities. The situation is similar to being without a mode of transport other than walking. If that's the case, then recruiting people won't be an easy task with the lack of geographic commonality currently in America, unless you're proposing that new ethnic identities are to be created.
Regardless, an economic crisis will be necessary for large shifts in public thinking toward these matters. Not to worry, modern government is very adept at creating crisis. In 1925, you would have been thought a lunatic for proposing Social Security. By 1932, people were practically begging for it. The Tsar went from having near total allegiance of his subjects to having none in a matter of six years because of WWI. Because of this, I propose that the fundamental shift will take place in about a 5-10 year time frame during an economic collapse of some sort. Of course, all of this is contingent on the prediction of economists and technologists with regards to the internet.
There doesn't seem to be any way of curtailing the internet's effect on human relationships at present. That doesn't mean that the internet cannot aid traditionalists. We also need to explore the folly of the new global internet economy where businesses might not have customers within hundreds of miles and where local economic downturns precipitate global crisis.
|
Jim Kalb
Administrator
5/13/2002
06:26:05
| RE: What to do?
IP: Logged
Message:
Issues like fraud are probably soluble through certification procedures and the like. I think the libertarians are right about that. The difficulty of settled ties when anything can immediately be put in touch with anything anywhere strikes me as the real issue.
I don't think the "new economy" is an additional problem, it's just an aspect of the general fluidity of ties and could be dealt with if the general problem were solved. If the members of the Zion Bible Church all lived together in a gated community somewhere and mostly had ties to each other they could deal with economic life the same way. They could set up the Gates of Zion Services Corporation and all work for it. The corporation could deal in the New Economy while its members could mostly be working with each other.
|
John
Guest
5/13/2002
14:32:33
| RE: What to do?
IP: Logged
Message:
"If the members of the Zion Bible Church all lived together in a gated community... They could set up the Gates of Zion Services Corporation and all work for it."
But that isn't really a national society--it would be the inverse. That doesn't make it any less of a valid answer to modernity but its hard to base a national policy around it. Unless the one of end goals, of course, is to make it easier for these communities to exist without molestation by the gov't.
Zion Bible Church will be under threat of a gov't that wishes to have ultimate power over each individual's life. They could meet the same fate as the Branch Davidians; especially if they have weapons to deterr vandals, thieves, or whatnot and if they believe in premillennialism. Even the name "Gates of Zion Services Corporation" seems to beg for gov't intervention. Especially if you throw in "group living" and gated community-wide schooling.
Is fragmentation the end result of a technology said to be "what can tie all peoples together"?
This message board is an example of that, to some extent.
|
Jim Kalb
Administrator
5/14/2002
05:42:45
| RE: What to do?
IP: Logged
Message:
The topic's wandered a bit. We started out talking about concrete political goals and now (with the Zion Bible Church) we're talking about possible ultimate outcomes of current trends.
I think it's obvious that the technology that "ties all peoples together" actually fragments all peoples because it makes each of us no closer to the guy on the next block than to the guy on the next continent. The question is how far that will go and how people will regroup.
The Zion Bible Church example is a suggestion that it may go quite far and that regrouping may require a radical transformation into separate inward-turning groups.
If something like that did happen I don't think Waco-type situations would be that much of a problem at least long-term because government would fragment like the rest of society.
Naturally proposals for concrete policy have to be based on something less speculative and extreme.
|
Jason Eubanks
Guest
5/14/2002
07:27:57
| RE: What to do?
IP: Logged
Message:
I must apologize. My last two posts were consistently off topic. I was attempting to predict were the internet is leading society if present projections hold, which isn't really germane to this particular thread. I take it we're developing a political Solution to diminish the internet's pervasive nature.
It seems if :
1) The internet has an ill effect on society
2) This effect is pervasive
Then attacking the internet's infrastructure (tele-lines, servers, routers) or reverting to its originial purpose by restricting access to educators or ICBM launching computers seems appropriate.
But if:
1) The internet can be a useful technology to society.
2) And the ill effects arise from its inherent subversion of local control.
Then breaking the internet up into smaller intranets or WANs, where local control can be exerted over its content and access, would be an improvement over more severe measures. If the government of Elk City, OK decides that it doesn't want citizens looking at hustler.com or buying erotica novels from amazon.com, then they could turn the internet into a WA intranet with links only to businesses that conform to local practices and laws. There would be some circumvention by the technologically savvy, but that option would be unavailable to the bulk of ordinary citizens.
|
Jim Kalb
Administrator
5/14/2002
10:14:31
| RE: What to do?
IP: Logged
Message:
I suggest we continue the internet aspects of this in another thread.
|
Eamon Sweeney
Guest
5/19/2002
10:38:16
| RE: What to do?
IP: Logged
Message:
Is capitalism compatible with Christianity? Father Fahey,Abbes Nantes and other "ultra-right" Catholics would say no.The present "moderate-right" holy Father also agrees. Surely the market just as much as the state tends to level things down and produce immorality- after all are nations are communities not super markets as libertarians tend to see them.Pornography,drugs,rock music and the reduction of identities to childish fashion followed into to eastern Europe with their opening up to the "world market"- good that Marxism fell but how much an improvement really happened?
Guild anarchism or neo-fuedalism any one?
|
Jim Kalb
Administrator
5/19/2002
17:34:02
| RE: What to do?
IP: Logged
Message:
The market is not the ultimate moral standard that extreme libertarian theory would make it. On the other hand it seems right that on the whole people ought to be free to acquire and dispose of property, deal with each other, make exchanges, organize for common purposes, work out mutually agreeable accommodations, etc. That principle justifies a lot of capitalist practice.
It all depends on specifics and what the alternative is. If the effect of state intervention is further to rationalize life on universal hedonistic principles it's bad. If it's to limit the same sort of effect on the part of the market then it's good.
The problem is that the modern state is committed to universalistic rational hedonism. I don't see that changing soon because that's the outlook that most favors its own autonomy and comprehensive authority. It follows that bad interventions dwarf good interventions and will likely continue to do so. Hence the tactical appeal of a moderate libertarianism.
Europeans and Americans usually view this issue differently, I think because of the difference in history between the European and American state. The American state is established pretty much entirely for this-worldly purposes, so it can be tolerable only if its competence is more strictly limited than current practice suggests. I'm inclined to think the American view is more realistic today.
|
Eamon Sweeney
Guest
5/20/2002
10:10:14
| RE: What to do?
IP: Logged
Message:
A modern individual left to his own devices could not manufacture a pencil let alone survive, society is an inter-connected whole.We all need each other if things are to run smoothly- take the old comparison between the human body and the social organism.The pre-capitalist order for all it's faults(which are incidental rather than incipent in it's principles like total war, abortion, usury seem to me to be with our new world one) where you had a balance of rights with duties based on the various levels of human potential did not know the super-states which we have now nor the market either.I agree with you about the fact that our goverments waste money and time forcing the liberal agenda down our throats, that state socialism is repulsive on numerous levels but the market does not seem too much better.
Capitalism does tend to oppress the masses while pandering to the lowest common denominator, super states and class war do tend to grow out of it- surely Traditionalists should raise the banners of Chesterton and de Maistre and oppose it in the same way we do Marxism?
|
Jim Kalb
Administrator
5/20/2002
11:56:38
| RE: What to do?
IP: Logged
Message:
Pre-modern states had markets and at least in some abstract sense "the market," although I agree that since then market relations have been very greatly extended and rationalized, and I agree that's a big problem.
I have no objection to the banners of Maistre and Chesterton. I'd be very happy if there were lots of people raising them and waving them around vigorously. I just think a problem that more often has application to immediate practical politics is limiting what the state is responsible for. Trying to persuade the EU or US federal bureaucracy to pick up the banners of Maistre and Chesterton might be a good idea because it might educate some people, but given the essential nature of those institutions I think trying to cut them down to size is a more pressing need.
I would add of course that people should keep long-term goals in mind as well as pressing needs. Let 100 flowers bloom and each add what he can. Long live Chesterton and Maistre, but also long live opposition to the comprehensive activities of the modern centralized state. Chesterton I think would have agreed on that. Also, I would agree, down with ideological libertarians who think that tariffs and national borders should be abolished and traditional state police powers done away with.
I'm leery I should say of "oppressing the masses" as a slogan because of the Marxist tie the expression "masses" indicates. It suggests the crude interpretation that the Capitalists impoverish and physically abuse workers, and I don't think that's true in comparison with other systems.
The problem isn't that capitalism doesn't supply material goods, comfort and so on or that it doesn't spread them around. It's that in the absence of any other more authoritative principle it makes those things the sole goods. The oppression at present is more spiritual, cultural and social than material. To me the expression "oppressing the masses" suggests concentration on the material factors, which in turn suggests agreement that they are the important thing and the only question is whether government should intervene to make sure there are more and better material goods and more people get them. And that's something I think it's better to avoid.
|
Roy F. Moore
Guest
5/25/2002
17:08:43
| RE: What to do?
IP: Logged
Message:
Dear Mr. Kalb et.al.,
It's good to talk with you all.
Mr. Kalb, you may remember me as the editor/publisher of "The Distributist", the newsletter of the Distributist International (DI).
I have good news for you and all concerned about
two projects.
One, I am working with some other interested parties in a book project promoting Distributism to the general public worldwide, in a manner the average man can understand. It is to be called
"Distributism: A Better Social Order", and is in it's beginning stages. I'd appreciate everyone's prayers on our behalf for the book's swift completion and success.
Two, I've just begun a Yahoo (TM) discussion group on Distributism. It will discuss various American and foreign issues and events from an explicit Distributist perspective. It will also propose concrete, practical and workable solutions for the problems discussed, both short-term and long-term. (Mr. Kalb, I'll e-mail you and others the invite soon.)
Also, on the publishing front, the small Catholic book publishers IHS Press is reprinting the best of books on Catholic social teaching. It has reprinted Chesterton's "Outline of Sanity", and has just recently reprinted Belloc's "The Free Press". Their web address is:
www.ihspress.com (if wrong, try: www.ihspress.org)
I hope to touch base with you soon on other matters. May God bless you all through Our Lady of Fatima.
Roy F. Moore
|
Jim Kalb
Administrator
5/26/2002
12:03:29
| RE: What to do?
IP: Logged
Message:
Thanks for the update, and thanks for some constructive initiatives!
|
Monnica
Guest
11/11/2002
20:33:34
| go live in the south pole
IP: Logged
Message:
You're all a bunch of haters.
|
Shawn
Guest
1/09/2003
04:22:31
| RE: What to do?
IP: Logged
Message:
Concrete proposals.
Seriously reduce the size of the federal government and restrict it only to those powers granted by the Constitution. Return power to the state and local levels.
Abolish the federal Dept of Education and return control of public education to the state and local levels with one exception; pass a federal law mandating that all high school students must attend a civics class that teaches a program focused solely on the war of independence, the identity and history of the founding fathers, the birth of the nation, the creation of the constitution, and the role of the constitution in the lives of Americans.
Make the burning of the flag a federal crime punishable by imprisonment.
Abolish the IRS and federal income tax and replace with tarrifs and a consumption tax.
Balance the budget and end deficit spending.
Get out of Nafta and the WTO.
Withdraw from the U.N.and all of it's laws and conventions.
End federal social security and return welfare to the state and local level.
End foriegn aid.
Terminate NATO and bring back our troops from South Korea. Let the Europeans and the Koreans fend for themselves.
Maintain a strong military of no less than 20 Army divisions and 4 Marine divisions. Create a viable national missile defense system. Incorporate NASA into the Dept of Defense.
Return to Americans the right of freedom of association, including voluntary racial separation, along with the abolishment of all forms of government-mandated racial discrimination, such as affirmative action and quotas.
End all "hate crime" legislation.
Make English the sole official language of America and end the trend towards bilingualism
Radically reduce immigration to one sixteenth of it's present rate and permanently ban all Muslim immigration. Construct a security wall along the Mexican border and create a new para-military police force to patrol it. Deport all illegal aliens.
Overturn Roe vs Wade and outlaw abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or real physical threat to the mother's life.
Repeal all gun control legislation.
|
Lance Brisbois
Guest
1/12/2003
11:54:15
| RE: What to do?
IP: Logged
Message:
I'm not sure whether this is the right section to ask, but I'm just becoming acquainted with the counter-revolutionary world. Wondering about books, thinkers, organizations that acknowledge the unstoppability of liberal politics and economics, and the irretrievability of Catholic order in the west, and yet seek to defend elements of Catholic order, especially in Europe. In others words, books, thinkers, organizations that believe a Catholic hegemony (e.g. Christendom) was the best the west could do, that such a hegemony is no longer possible, and that the presence and inevitable growth of secularism disqualifies political hopes for the future. Any suggestions?
|
William
Guest
4/12/2003
11:12:50
| RE: What to do?
IP: Logged
Message:
"What to do"? The only option for traditionalists is action, i.e. a just war perpetrated on defensive grounds. We need our own Pilgrimage of Grace.
|
Will S.
Guest
5/01/2003
03:25:33
| RE: What to do?
IP: Logged
Message:
My two cents:
Barring unforeseen political success in carrying out the sensible programs already mentioned previously by others...
Secede. As much as possible, without going the Old Order Mennonite / Amish / Hutterite route, or political secession - too impractical, for now...
Pull your kids out of public schools, the Scouting movements; any organizations which will try to indoctrinate them against traditionalist Christianity, and into radical egalitarianism. Homeschool them or send them to sound private, Christian schools; find Christian alternatives to Scouts, that inculcate good morals into children and teach skills, as well as being fun, but which also teach the Faith, and not Political Correctness.
Discourage too much T.V. and too much Internet; regulate/control what they do consume of these; strongly encourage reading of books, especially ones that teach history.
Bring them up to treasure and learn from hymns, classical music, folk music, rather than any modern crap on the radio.
Centre their and your lives as families, around the church - a good sound traditionalist one. Trust in the Lord; then it's in His hands, as it is, ultimately, anyway...
|
|
|