• Looks like a good guy.But

    Looks like a good guy.

    But somebody should tell him to re-do the third picture. We need this guy to win.

    Not a good policy to have a picture where the AR is pointed at the statue of the Virgin Mary.

    Excellent choice on the bear rug though.

  • Hi Farmer,Thank you for

    Hi Farmer,

    Thank you for reading and providing that link.

    As far as destructive consumer preference goes...

    In my opinion, Capitalism is one of humanity's crowning achievements, but at the end of the day it could be ultimately considered an intellectual tool ( as we are a tool making species, almost all living standard progress humanity has made has been with the use of mental and physical tools ).

    Now as a tool what is its function.

    I would define it as :

    "A system to manage a limited amount of resources in the face of unlimited human desire."

    Now most of us would agree capitalism has performed this function admirably well, at least compared to other systems that have been tried by humanity in the past as well as in the present times.

    You could go on for quite a while as to how capitalism accomplishes this, most of us have a pretty good feeling as to why this is being on a libertarian forum, but in any case this isn't the time or post to go into that.

    Now if you accept capitalism as a tool with a limited function (it is impossible to create a tool that can solve every problem) a useful analogy to make would be to compare an intellectual tool to a physical tool.

    Take a hammer for instance, it is created with the sole purpose to exert crushing force, that is its function. We can also agree that a hammer has a limited function, you can't use it to screw in a screw or saw a board in half. Most people use this tool in constructive ways (housework,construction,etc.) however there will be people that will use this tool to exert crushing force on a human being. We can both agree that that is a bad idea in most cases. But if you were to re-engineer a hammer to not hurt a human being it would probably become totally ineffective at its initial function and thus reason for its existence, to exert crushing force.

    Capitalism is similar in this regard. Its function is to manage a limited amount of resources in the face of unlimited human desire. It cannot keep people from immoral economic choices resulting from immoral human desire. If you were to attempt to alter Capitalism to perform this function it would undermine its initial purpose and thus raison d'être until it became noneffective as tool for the management of resources.

    Finally, if you split up the problem of destructive consumer preference into two problems, management of resources and immoral human desire, you can then apply two different intellectual tools: capitalism for the resources, and religion/individual ethical responsibility for the immoral behavior; all problems are solved and the systems functions once more.

  • Progressivism and Neo-convervatism

    While you would be accurate to call Progressivism "Bismarkian" if you meant imply that Progressivism ( and thus socialism and collectivism ) drew their inspiration from 19th century German political theory that peaked under the rule of Otto von Bismarck from 1860-1890 it would be fallacious to imply that these policies are "American conservative" as Bismarck was a German conservative and was thus conserving the German tradition of autocratic statism directed by the aristocratic princes that controlled each of the German states of pre-unification Germany, a system which had been in place for hundreds of years.

    Neo-conservatives are actually conservative Democrats that left the Democratic party in the 1960's in disgust over the policies of Lyndon Baines Johnson and the general movement in the Democratic party toward more extreme leftist ideologies.

  • It is in the nature of

    It is in the nature of tyrannical institutions and deceptive individuals that desire power to use language to control the thought patterns of other people. The technique is to use a word with strong emotional content or historical character, but to subtly change its meaning so that the person hearing the speakers argument subconsciously associates the past emotional content or historical character with its new usage. In my opinion this leads to a breakdown in communication between human beings as ideas and feelings can no longer be conveyed effectively as each participant in the discussion no longer can tell just what the other means.

    Thanks for reading and good point.