I don't agree—but...

[PoliticallyIncorrect]

...the ANTZ threaten to make a fringe right-wing Republican out of me—like this guy: NYC considers ban on e-cigarettes because its officials are addicted to power « Douglas Ernst

I'm a lifelong centrist, wandering a little south and a little north depending on the issue. I didn't expect, when I put cigarettes aside and took up vaping, that the act was political.

It is.

It means a choice between individualism vs. humanism—or at least between the organized camps holding authority over one or the other.

It means bedding down with minds that use the phrase bleeding heart (i.e., compassionate), intending it as an insult—but continuing to vape.

Or it means breaking bread with political hobbyists—pregnant with personal ego, but vacant of mind—who spit the coffee cup out of their face before getting into your face over the issue of addiction.

It means a soft decision between Naziism or Marxism. One allows you to keep your PV. The other demands you drop it.

Both require that you accept and carry all the sociopolitical baggage their leanings imply.

 

[Linden]

Welcome to libertarianism my friend. Make yourself comfortable. The air is clean and the conscience is clear here.

 

[Uma]

Loved the article!

 

[PoliticallyIncorrect]

Welcome to libertarianism my friend. Make yourself comfortable. The air is clean and the conscience is clear here.

Thank you, Linden, but I'm not here on a long-term stay—necessarily.

I like people. Even people I don't know. I have no problem with government taking care of the underprivileged-by-circumstance, of a benevolent government—even if that benevolence comes at the cost of loose change out of my pocket.

My rant has to do with the fact I can't like people and yet vape. Why do I have to choose?

 

[03FXDWG]

Thank you, Linden, but I'm not here on a long-term stay—necessarily.

I like people. Even people I don't know. I have no problem with government taking care of the underprivileged-by-circumstance, of a benevolent government—even if that benevolence comes at the cost of loose change out of my pocket.

My rant has to do with the fact I can't like people and yet vape. Why do I have to choose?

Loose change? You're in Cali? I'm surprised the government left you with anything more than loose change.

 

[PoliticallyIncorrect]

Loose change? You're in Cali? I'm surprised the government left you with anything more than loose change.

You see this? This is precisely the sort of mentality I do not wish to associate myself with—but still vape. I'm so, so torn.

 

[MacTechVpr]

Thank you, Linden, but I'm not here on a long-term stay—necessarily.

I like people. Even people I don't know. I have no problem with government taking care of the underprivileged-by-circumstance, of a benevolent government—even if that benevolence comes at the cost of loose change out of my pocket.

My rant has to do with the fact I can't like people and yet vape. Why do I have to choose?

You don't. You merely have to choose what is right.

Benevolent government is an oxymoron. Anytime you have power, it will be used. And that power can, will and must be viewed at least by some as aggression. Government is that, brute force.

As a tolerant spiritual person I've always considered myself a liberal. Then I came to understand that I was as well a classical liberal in the economic sense and as America's true revolutionary liberals intended. Today I could not avoid to concede that our government has metastasized the synthesis of left right statism, the antithesis of libertarian. A word eschewed by political liberals and disparagingly dismissed, mocked as the philosophy of crackpots. And that is our misfortune as Americans because the word epitomizes the American character in our history. If we believe otherwise, we are simply ignorant of it.

True Amercans, those believing in the free principles espoused in our constitution, the pinnacle of our thousands of years of human intellectual and political evolution, detest abolition or the constraint of individual preference and volition in any form. We know this to be counterintuitive to a truly free and benevolent society. Because we are not free to help our fellow man, or ourselves. It is only government that is free to act — to help, or suppress, at its discretion, in the government's interest, increasingly in every aspect of our lives — while its efficiency, our productivity and worth are eroded in the process.

The belief in the benevolence of government is a psychotic fallacy that has perpetually doomed human civilization.

The present example of vaping is used both to encourage our integration and to gratefully accept the authorizations (control) of government. Totalitarianism gifts with the one hand; then takes away with the other. We are tolerated our gratuitous importation of goods from China; but, eventually will be compelled to gratefully accept an integrated international regulation (and the Chinese will very graciously oblige) and so will a regulated, extorted, monopolized industrial sector for the good of society. The wholesale grant of power to government over our lives continues apace since the dawn of this republic with our indifference to such long standing incremental abolition.

An opportunity exists now for Americans to resist our society's further acclimation by indoctrination into governmental serfdom we have seen for two centuries. We are not China, and will never be God help us. No matter how much they seek our convergence. We are America, civilizations' answer to the competing relabeled brands of slavery called socialism, fascism and communism.

The Age of Aquarius is the time for humanity to compete with government, not each other.

Good luck. Resist! Happy New Year.



There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are ‘just’ because the law makes them so. —Frederic Bastiat

 

[Linden]

You see this? This is precisely the sort of mentality I do not wish to associate myself with—but still vape. I'm so, so torn.

Hehe, I think that was a joke, not a jab. I guess I don't understand why vaping = not liking people!

 

[molimelight]

You don't. You merely have to choose what is right.

True Amercans, those believing in the free principles espoused in our constitution, the pinnacle of our thousands of years of human intellectual and political evolution, detest abolition or the constraint of individual preference and volition in any form. We know this to be counterintuitive to a truly free and benevolent society. Because we are not free to help our fellow man, or ourselves. It is only government that is free to act — to help, or suppress, at its discretion, in the government's interest, increasingly in every aspect of our lives — while its efficiency, our productivity and worth are eroded in the process.

Well I guess all of us "Not so True Americans" better get in line with your viewpoint. Ayn Rand couldn't have said it better herself. When reading some of these posts, I was thinking about Germany and then Finland and other examples of European democracy that have worked well for those choosing to implement a style of the welfare state, thinking that there is more than one way to envision freedom, and ran across this, which I'll quote from Wikipedia as an example:

"Finland was a relative latecomer to industrialization, remaining a largely agrarian country until the 1950s. Thereafter, it rapidly developed an advanced economy while building an extensive Nordic-style welfare state, resulting in widespread prosperity and a nominal per capita income of over $46,000 as of 2012, among the highest in the world.[4] Subsequently, Finland is a top performer in numerous metrics of national performance, including education, economic competitiveness, civil liberties, quality of life, and human development.[11][12] [13][14][15][16] In 2010, Newsweek magazine ranked Finland as the overall "best country in the world" after summing various factors."

In my opinion, the world view of the reactionary right (I refuse to use the misnomer Radical Right) and the libertarian philosophy are made entirely of the whole cloth of American Exceptionalism, the idea that we have the one true way and are destined to show the world what true democracy and true freedom really are. While we do so we will look down our collective noses at those unfortunate souls who live with less "freedom" than we have. I believe that anyone with a clear mind can look around the world and understand the foolishness of that viewpoint.

In the example of Finland above, the majority part in parliament is the National Coalition Party, whose platform is described on their web site: "The party’s ideals combine freedom, responsibility and democracy, equality of opportunity, education, supportiveness, tolerance and caring. The key elements are the balance between freedom and responsibility and an emphasis on the individual and entrepreneurship. The National Coalition Party supports the development of democracy and citizens’ genuine participation in communal decision-making."

Sounds to me like a good combination of freedom and responsibility. I think those ideals can coexist. I don't know, maybe that means I'm not a True American.

 

[MacTechVpr]

Well I guess all of us "Not so True Americans" better get in line with your viewpoint. Ayn Rand couldn't have said it better herself. When reading some of these posts, I was thinking about Germany and then Finland and other examples of European democracy that have worked well for those choosing to implement a style of the welfare state, thinking that there is more than one way to envision freedom, and ran across this, which I'll quote from Wikipedia as an example:

"Finland was a relative latecomer to industrialization, remaining a largely agrarian country until the 1950s. Thereafter, it rapidly developed an advanced economy while building an extensive Nordic-style welfare state, resulting in widespread prosperity and a nominal per capita income of over $46,000 as of 2012, among the highest in the world.[4] Subsequently, Finland is a top performer in numerous metrics of national performance, including education, economic competitiveness, civil liberties, quality of life, and human development.[11][12] [13][14][15][16] In 2010, Newsweek magazine ranked Finland as the overall "best country in the world" after summing various factors."

In my opinion, the world view of the reactionary right (I refuse to use the misnomer Radical Right) and the libertarian philosophy are made entirely of the whole cloth of American Exceptionalism, the idea that we have the one true way and are destined to show the world what true democracy and true freedom really are. While we do so we will look down our collective noses at those unfortunate souls who live with less "freedom" than we have. I believe that anyone with a clear mind can look around the world and understand the foolishness of that viewpoint.

In the example of Finland above, the majority part in parliament is the National Coalition Party, whose platform is described on their web site: "The party’s ideals combine freedom, responsibility and democracy, equality of opportunity, education, supportiveness, tolerance and caring. The key elements are the balance between freedom and responsibility and an emphasis on the individual and entrepreneurship. The National Coalition Party supports the development of democracy and citizens’ genuine participation in communal decision-making."

Sounds to me like a good combination of freedom and responsibility. I think those ideals can coexist. I don't know, maybe that means I'm not a True American.

Mo my remarks were not an indictment of Finland. I only condemn here what does harm and defend that which does none. Nor is Finland the exception that disproves the rule, hardly (from where does the term Finlandized derive? Perhaps the exception that proves the rule, we might argue). I won't. This was a one time post. I will not enter into a reductionist argument. My statements are an indictment of specific forms of statist government. Systems which have been particularly and emphatically exercised demonstrably as that; and, categorically, the potentials for such government to serve as the instrument of subjugation. I have no intention to enter into philosophical discussion. I for one am witness, along have a family full of members who have been living, breathing witnesses and victims of the atrocities of such excess on several continents. I submit that your argument is more with definition, your objection that I make this correlation of consequences to those labels with the propositions that I've tendered. Mo I wish that were so, and that politics were merely semantic. But I have no time for that either. You have a right to your opinion, action and accordingly the government you deserve.

I have found to my enjoyment and delight that the vaping community is filled with individuals. Individuals who with few exceptions seem to espouse the principles of individuality that I describe and respect. Particularly where it comes to vaping. And it is that sentiment that I applaud with encouragement in my endorsement of Americanism.

My very best wishes to you and yours this New Year.

Good luck.

 

[molimelight]

Mo my remarks were not an indictment of Finland. I only condemn here what does harm and defend that which does none. Nor is Finland the exception that disproves the rule, hardly (from where does the term Finlandized derive? Perhaps the exception that proves the rule, we might argue). I won't. This was a one time post.

Obviously it was not.

My example of Finland was merely an example of a "statist government" that appears to balance the need for democratic government with liberty. "Finlandization" is just the term used to describe the change in the internal politics of a smaller country who has had its borders overrun by powerful neighbors when bowing to the influence of that powerful neighbor to prevent its border from once again being overrun. It is universally accepted that this effect ceased with the break up of the Soviet Union in the late 80's and early 90's. It has little to do with their present day government.

The anti-government of talk of libertarians and the far right appears to me to be a simplistic answer to the somewhat paranoid and narcissistic perception of an infringement upon personal freedoms by any law or civil process. It's a delusional belief, in my opinion, that every government worker and elected official is only in it for the power and to take away your rights as you believe they were defined by Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin. To me, the irony of the libertarian philosophy is that, with the exception of the financially best situated, the practical end result would be the loss of freedom rather than more of it. Freedom is meaningless to the person whose child is dying because they can't afford the treatment to keep their child alive. It's meaningless to the victim of a crime that occurred because there aren't enough police. It's meaningless to the family who has to have their children go to work to keep from starving. These aren't philosophical arguments. They are real world examples of the effects of all of the other "instruments of subjugation" that are left free to reign without a government to intervene on our behalf. Good government enhances our freedom, it does not diminish it. But that requires full participation and a firm belief in the need for it.

My very best wishes to you and yours this New Year.

And to you and yours.

 

[Berylanna]

Thank you, Linden, but I'm not here on a long-term stay—necessarily.

I like people. Even people I don't know. I have no problem with government taking care of the underprivileged-by-circumstance, of a benevolent government—even if that benevolence comes at the cost of loose change out of my pocket.

My rant has to do with the fact I can't like people and yet vape. Why do I have to choose?

I'm heartbroken to break with the Democrats and I make a point of telling them exactly that: I have been one of you for 41 years and now you have chased me away! But where Whigs are not running, I may well work for some Republican candidates.

So, I joined a moderate party with a strong libertarian bent wrt personal freedoms. A bit of Green mixed in. A lot of just plain middle.

PLATFORM (We have an OWL for our party mascot, I love that!)

The SFBay Whigs formally opposed CA SB648, which would have banned vaping wherever tobacco is banned: Bay Area Solutions

The national party Modern Whig Party | Service and Solutions is quite a bit to the right of the California branches (big surprise) but still mostly-moderate and heavily anti-nanny.

 

[BuGlen]

...the ANTZ threaten to make a fringe right-wing Republican out of me—like this guy: NYC considers ban on e-cigarettes because its officials are addicted to power « Douglas Ernst

I'm a lifelong centrist, wandering a little south and a little north depending on the issue. I didn't expect, when I put cigarettes aside and took up vaping, that the act was political.

It is.

It means a choice between individualism vs. humanism—or at least between the organized camps holding authority over one or the other.

It means bedding down with minds that use the phrase bleeding heart (i.e., compassionate), intending it as an insult—but continuing to vape.

Or it means breaking bread with political hobbyists—pregnant with personal ego, but vacant of mind—who spit the coffee cup out of their face before getting into your face over the issue of addiction.

It means a soft decision between Naziism or Marxism. One allows you to keep your PV. The other demands you drop it.

Both require that you accept and carry all the sociopolitical baggage their leanings imply.

I understand your "crisis of faith" in your party, but I tend to disagree with your concepts of having to drink the kool-aid when you're a member. Even when I was a registered Democrat (a long time ago), I had strong disagreements with some of the leaders on certain issues and maintained my individual beliefs. I decided to disassociate myself from any particular party because I honestly believe that the party system is corrupt and hasn't served the people of this nation for quite some time.

But that's just my view, and everyone has to decide for themselves whether or not a particular party best represents their ideals and values.

 

[Linden]

I think though, that you hit on the main difference in the belief systems: one belief system is that where there is a problem that is large, the only way to fix it effectively is with government...the belief that government is there to FIX things. The other belief system is that where there is a large problem, individuals have the capacity to fix things, and that government is there to provide the underlying security over which the individual is able to exercise their free will. This second belief system also has millennia of proof that a large government is a danger to the freedom of the individual.
The opinion that each of us has about the above will derive from our own studies, our own experiences and our own personalities. Certainly, the United States was created as a republic with very limited federal powers. You cannot dispute this or disparage it as 'right wing'. It is truth. If you do not like it, there are ways to change it. But I certainly would implore you not to look down your nose at people who hold those American values close. Because they *are* American values, no matter your individual views.

Obviously it was not.

My example of Finland was merely an example of a "statist government" that appears to balance the need for democratic government with liberty. "Finlandization" is just the term used to describe the change in the internal politics of a smaller country who has had its borders overrun by powerful neighbors when bowing to the influence of that powerful neighbor to prevent its border from once again being overrun. It is universally accepted that this effect ceased with the break up of the Soviet Union in the late 80's and early 90's. It has little to do with their present day government.

The anti-government of talk of libertarians and the far right appears to me to be a simplistic answer to the somewhat paranoid and narcissistic perception of an infringement upon personal freedoms by any law or civil process. It's a delusional belief, in my opinion, that every government worker and elected official is only in it for the power and to take away your rights as you believe they were defined by Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin. To me, the irony of the libertarian philosophy is that, with the exception of the financially best situated, the practical end result would be the loss of freedom rather than more of it. Freedom is meaningless to the person whose child is dying because they can't afford the treatment to keep their child alive. It's meaningless to the victim of a crime that occurred because there aren't enough police. It's meaningless to the family who has to have their children go to work to keep from starving. These aren't philosophical arguments. They are real world examples of the effects of all of the other "instruments of subjugation" that are left free to reign without a government to intervene on our behalf. Good government enhances our freedom, it does not diminish it. But that requires full participation and a firm belief in the need for it.



And to you and yours.

 

[MacTechVpr]

Obviously it was not.

My example of Finland was merely an example of a "statist government" that appears to balance the need for democratic government with liberty. "Finlandization" is just the term used to describe the change in the internal politics of a smaller country who has had its borders overrun by powerful neighbors when bowing to the influence of that powerful neighbor to prevent its border from once again being overrun. It is universally accepted that this effect ceased with the break up of the Soviet Union in the late 80's and early 90's. It has little to do with their present day government.

The anti-government of talk of libertarians and the far right appears to me to be a simplistic answer to the somewhat paranoid and narcissistic perception of an infringement upon personal freedoms by any law or civil process. It's a delusional belief, in my opinion, that every government worker and elected official is only in it for the power and to take away your rights as you believe they were defined by Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin. To me, the irony of the libertarian philosophy is that, with the exception of the financially best situated, the practical end result would be the loss of freedom rather than more of it. Freedom is meaningless to the person whose child is dying because they can't afford the treatment to keep their child alive. It's meaningless to the victim of a crime that occurred because there aren't enough police. It's meaningless to the family who has to have their children go to work to keep from starving. These aren't philosophical arguments. They are real world examples of the effects of all of the other "instruments of subjugation" that are left free to reign without a government to intervene on our behalf. Good government enhances our freedom, it does not diminish it. But that requires full participation and a firm belief in the need for it.

And to you and yours.

This was to be one post. However, I will give you the courtesy of an answer once more as I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your response. First to say that I defy all labels. I am not at all a (L)ibertarian, only that I discovered as an adult that my innate feelings and very thought were well defined by the words liberal and libertarian, and not the aspersions cast at either. I am not anti-government, and I don't believe most libertarians, conservatives or spiritually minded people are necessarily either. However, government demonstrates daily and throughout history that it is the desirable tool for the anti-social and the sociopath. And therein is the rub, that when those so inclined or in their orbit adopt the reins of democracy, then all are in jeopardy. It is suspension of disbelief to ignore this; delusion, to pretend that democracy is the solution when it serves the very conduit and purposes of such thinking (the corruption of the majority). And to deny that reality is almost to beg its inevitability.

However, I will agree with you, and we should, to the extent that it is imperative in a free and benevolent society to seek to strike the balance. This is not my native country, however I cannot fail to acknowledge the unique and singular accomplishment of the American constitution in codifying as a form of government the imperative necessity of the individual right in a democratic republic for real civilization to flourish, that men may live with each other as men.

That said, I am not a Randian. But I have read her works.

Again, my warmest hopes for you and yours in 2014.

Good luck.



Instead of giving money to found colleges to promote learning, why don't they pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting anybody from learning anything? If it works as good as the Prohibition one did, why, in five years we would have the smartest race of people on earth. — Will Rogers

 

[molimelight]

I think though, that you hit on the main difference in the belief systems: one belief system is that where there is a problem that is large, the only way to fix it effectively is with government...the belief that government is there to FIX things. The other belief system is that where there is a large problem, individuals have the capacity to fix things, and that government is there to provide the underlying security over which the individual is able to exercise their free will. This second belief system also has millennia of proof that a large government is a danger to the freedom of the individual.

And where does that freedom to help each other come from? Have you seen what has been necessary to achieve something that most take for granted, the 8 hour work day? People died to wrest that from the hands of the industrialists, those who you seek to empower by deregulation and a weakening of the federal government. How about child labor laws? How about the right for everyone to vote?

This second belief system also has millennia of proof that a large government is a danger to the freedom of the individual.

Does that millennium include the Second World War, where that large government sacrificed the lives of hundreds of thousands to purchase the freedom of western Europe? And let me know how much of a danger those who are now employed in the auto industry in your home state think a large, powerful federal government is.

Certainly, the United States was created as a republic with very limited federal powers. You cannot dispute this or disparage it as 'right wing'. It is truth. If you do not like it, there are ways to change it. But I certainly would implore you not to look down your nose at people who hold those American values close. Because they *are* American values, no matter your individual views.

While I won't try to do so here, there are arguments to be made that it was not the intent of all of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and of the United States Constitution, to cobble together a loose federation of states whose individual rights, constitutions, and laws would supersede those of the federal government. That argument was active in people's lives and within those who built this government from the beginning and has evolved as our Constitution and country has grown. It was solved in a large part, by the Civil War. I reject the idea that such a view is "truth" or any more an "American value" than the other.

While I think this is a good discussion, I think I am done with it. Unfortunately, I have too many other things to do. Take care, and keep vaping.