Mr. Auster, are you asking a serious question, or simply venting frustration because Germany is refusing to act the part of doormat for President Bush’s cowboy boots?

If the question is a serious one, please explain your proposition more clearly.

“Mr. Auster, are you asking a serious question, or simply venting frustration because Germany is refusing to act the part of doormat for President Bush’s cowboy boots?”

After 911 Schroeder said that Germany “stood shoulder to shoulder” with America. Very shortly after that the Germans refused to hand over important information regarding a Muslim terrorist in U.S custody on the basis that if convicted in America he might get the death penalty. Then Schroeder campaigned for re-election using rhetoric that was not just critical but virulently anti-American. He also claimed that Germany was not held hostage to a “Jewish lobby”. The Bush administration was polite enough not to point out that there was a reason Germany did not have a “Jewish lobby”. Now Germany is not merely staying out it of anything to do with Iraq it is actively working against American attempts to defend it’s interests. So it’s not a case of wanting Germany to play “doormat”, it’s a case of wanting Germany to act as what it claims to be; a friend and ally, and to act with honor and courage. Sadly the socialist scum currently ruining Germany’s econonmy and foriegn policy do not understand these terms. The use of the term “doormat” for those countries that support America, and “cowboy boots” in reference to Bush is shallow and offensive, and sounds like the typical anti-American hogwash spouted by Euro socialists.

The claim that Germany is liquidating the nations and peoples of Europe is correct. In concert with France the Germans are trying to create a Franco-German empire that would ride roughshod over the rest of Europe. This is all the EU is to France and Germany, a mixture of Napolean’s and Hitler’s visions reborn. The obsene outburst by the current socialist leader of France (I know he’s a Gaullist but I consider both “center right” and “center left” parties in France to be essentially two sides of the socialist coin)telling Eastern European countries that they should keep quiet on foriegn policy issues is proof of their intentions.

Shawn, since you the gift of insight into Mr. Auster’s mind, and subsequently agree with him that “Germany is liquidating the nations and peoples of Europe”, would you please explain to me how Germany is liquidating peoples in the context of Hitler’s vision. Or is it now a mixture of Napoleon and Hitler?

As to your other comments on cowboy boots, doormats and German friends, it all reminds me of one of my favorite old bumper stickers: “friends don’t let friends vote Republican”. Because, although there are no doubt socialists ruining Germany, it is much more disheartening that we have our own socialists currently in power and ruining our own country. And poor Germany is trying to be a friend, and getting chastised for it.

“Shawn, since you the gift of insight into Mr. Auster’s mind, and subsequently agree with him that “Germany is liquidating the nations and peoples of Europe”, would you please explain to me how Germany is liquidating peoples in the context of Hitler’s vision. Or is it now a mixture of Napoleon and Hitler?”

Actually this was explained in my first post but as you seem to have had trouble understanding it I will repeat what I said. Both Hitler and Napolean shared a vision of a single European empire ruled by either France or Germany. The EU is essentially a Franco-German attempt to make this a reality. The actions and words of both countries, especially recently, show this to be the case. Both countries want an EU President who will be appointed for life to avoid the current situation of a rotating Presidency which gives other countries influence. Both countries have attempted to dictate EU policy on a number of issues to other EU members as well as to candidate countries. And France just told the candidate countries to shut up and stop supporting America.

“As to your other comments on cowboy boots, doormats and German friends, it all reminds me of one of my favorite old bumper stickers: “friends don’t let friends vote Republican”.”

We just had eight years of a Democrat President who spent his time in power lying to Congress, selling military technology to the Chinese Communists, using the oval office as his personal brothel, and ignoring repeated warnings form his own CIA chief that an organisation called Al-Qaeda posed a serious threat to the United States. So you’ll forgive me if I fall off my chair laughing my head off at this one.

“it is much more disheartening that we have our own socialists currently in power and ruining our own country.”

The current administration is about as far from being socialist as it’s possible to get. Your descending into the realms of the absurd here.

“poor Germany is trying to be a friend, and getting chastised for it.”

Schroeder wanted to get re-elected and saw an opportunity to do so through playing the anti-American and anti-Jewish cards. He is not our friend, and neither is any part of the German government. This is a government after all who’s foriegn minister is from a far left party known for it’s virulent anti-Americanism, and who was himself engaged in supporting terrorist activites on behalf of the Soviet Union. Your concept of friendship is, to say the least, interesting.

Shawn,

How your explanation squares with Europe’s history of empire and the nature of atonement is beyond me.

As to the rest of the chatter, it’s off subject and best ignored.

“As to your other comments on cowboy boots, doormats and German friends, it all reminds me of one of my favorite old bumper stickers: ‘friends don’t let friends vote Republican.’ ” — F. Salzer

Mr. Salzer, did I miss something? Are you a Democrat?

“How your explanation squares with Europe’s history of empire and the nature of atonement is beyond me.”

Obviously. If you can’t see the parallels between Franco-German empire building in the past and Franco-German empire building in the present through the EU then clearly there is no point in going on. The fact that the subject is being discussed at length both here and in Europe seems to have passed you by.

“As to the rest of the chatter, it’s off subject and best ignored.”

Ducking and running is an interesting tactic.

Unadorned,

Obviously my paragraph was poorly written, since neither you nor Shawn understood it. I meant to convey the point that although Germany is being destroyed by socialism, it was acting in this particular instance as a friend to the US by holding firm against US socialism as expressed in the US’ corrupt version of hegemony.

The tie-in with the bumper sticker is that, although true friendship is based in charity, Germany was acting similar to a friend, if not in true friendship, by refusing to go along with another friend’s folly. Likewise, because the Republican party is socialist, a true friend wouldn’t just standby and watch another friend vote Republican, i.e. socialist, without attempting intervention of some form. And so I was sorry that Germany was being chastised for doing what a friend should do, which is preventing a friend from committing an act of folly.

I know US domestic and foreign policy is more complex than simple socialism, but what is common to socialism and the other underlying causes is an abrogation of the principle of subsidiarity. But socialism works as a nice substitute for subsidiarity because one of its foundational errors is the denial of the principle of subsidiarity.

I hope this explaination is more intelligible than the paragraph of my previous post.

So you might wonder how should a friend let another friend vote, third party of course, with the Constitution Party being the only currently acceptable choice.

Shawn writes:
“Obviously. If you can’t see the parallels between Franco-German empire building in the past and Franco-German empire building in the present through the EU then clearly there is no point in going on.”

Shawn you nailed, I don’t see the parallel. And I especially don’t see the parallel in light of liquidation Hitler style. Nor do I understand Mr. Auster’s reference to atonement. Nor do I understand his singling out Germany. But Mr. Auster does, provided his question was a serious one, and not just cowboy boots and doormats.

“Likewise, because the Republican party is socialist, a true friend wouldn’t just standby and watch another friend vote Republican, i.e. socialist”

As someone who was once, in the folly of my youth, a socialist, I think that both of these claims are not only absurd, they display a complete lack of any understanding of socialist ideology.

I feel you should justify these statements. On what basis do you claim that the Republican Party is socialist? Please state where Republican ideology and socialist ideology are the same.

Please show where the Republican Party advocates: higher taxes, a nationalised economy, the universal cradle to grave welfare state, solidarity with other socialist parties and organisations such as the Socialist International, redistributive economics instead of capitalism, and the rejection of traditional religious and family values in favour of state mandated liberalism. ALL of the above policies are essential ingredients in Socialist ideology. So unless you can show that the Republican Party advocates these policies then your claim is a false one born out of either a self serving desire to demonise the party or out of simple ignorance. And a rejection of subsidiarity alone does not make a party socialist, even if it were true that Republicans do reject it, which is arguable.

“in this particular instance as a friend to the US by holding firm against US socialism as expressed in the US’ corrupt version of hegemony.”

Please show how American policy on Iraq is socialist, and how it conforms to specific socialist principles(and if so why is it that most socialists around the world are opposed to it?), and also how American policy on Iraq has anything to do with a supposed vision of “hegemony”.

If your going to make absurd claims like this, I’m going to make a point of demanding proof of such claims. I call this the “put up or shut up” principle.

A final point. A vote for any third party is a vote for the Democrats. The Libertarians proved this at the mid-term elections.

Shawn, The branch of socialism which is primarily practiced domestically in the US is Fabian Collectivism via regulations, subsidies and programs. US foreign policy operates in similar manner via the World Bank, the IMF, the UN, among others, and direct US aid. All these entities are faustian with their coercive strings, and dependency.

Other than the few, such as Ron Paul, republicans never argue against the principles of collectivism but in ‘me too’ fashion, argue to keep collectivism at last year’s level. If republicans were actually against Fabian Collectivism they would attempt to eliminate such regulations etc. but they don’t, they only argue about the acceptable amount.

For instance, if the issue was shooting five year olds, what would we call a person who compromises with the pro-shooting faction, thereby accepting some shootings? Would we call such a person anti-shooting? No. Or substitute rape for shooting five year olds, would such a person be anti-rape? No, such a person would be ‘me-too’, but “please keep it at last years level”
In other words, accepting a little bit of socialism is like being a little bit pregnant, you either are or your not..

Not that the republicans are only a little bit pregnant with collectivism, since we need look no further than public schools, rural electrification, dairy supports ad infinitum to find full support indistinguishable from the democrats.

As to our foreign policy towards Iraq, our foreign policy is socialist insofar as the US is attempting to control world oil supply, and hegemonic, in particular, in the same way as Pax Americana is hegemonic.

As to your “put up or shut up principle”, rudeness will get you no where with me.

If you want more detail than what I have very briefly outlined, I suggest the net with the Future Freedom Foundation being an excellent place to start.

F. Salzer writes:
“In other words, accepting a little bit of socialism is like being a little bit pregnant, you either are or your not.”

This is obviously wrong. Socialism was built on the failures of classical liberalism, and borrows some of its collectivist tendencies from the older traditional orders that classical liberalism tore down. The notion that any of the modern “isms” follow this all-or-nothing categoricity is completely untenable. Surely F. Salzer can’t expect to assert something like that without support and expect to be taken seriously, at any rate.

Matt, Collectivism’s two ostensible errors are the violation of the principle of subsidiarity and theft. Both the principle of subsidiarity and right to private property are inviolable. Thus not even a little bit is acceptable, since both ostensible errors are grave violations of the natural order.

If you are arguing socialism per se, and not its minor branch of Fabian collectivism, your ground is even more tenuous, in so far as full blown socialism is legion with grave error.

F. Salzer will perhaps forgive me if his further assertion without support is not accepted as “proof”. Furthermore, *I* am not making a positive argument of any sort. I am simply critically observing the fact that F. Salzer’s apparent notion of a categorical “socialism” that poisons everything it touches has been asserted without support. F. Salzer is already aware that I am not a Lockean, so why he expects me to simply accept Lockean premeses as gospel is a mystery; and my refusal to immediately accept and defer to his assumptions doesn’t constitute a positive argument for whatever it is that he means (whether a coherent concept or not) by “socialism”.

“Shawn, The branch of socialism which is primarily practiced domestically in the US is Fabian Collectivism via regulations, subsidies and programs.”

Regulations, subsidies and government programs have been around in one form or another for over two thousand years. To claim that these are automatically a form of Fabian Socialism is historically wrong. Like your attempt to pain the Republican party as socialist, you ignore the many other fundamentals of Fabian socialism in order to make your case. This is a deceptive and dishonest way to build an argument. For example, while Fabians did reject violent revolution to achieve their goals, they still rejected capitalism in any form and supported the idea that all workers, and workers alone, should own the means of production. In fact ownership by workers of the means of production was so utterly central to Fabian socialism that to claim that any system, such as America’s, which does not practice worker ownership, is Fabian, is false.

The Fabians described themselves in these terms;

“The Society consists of Socialists. It therefore aims at the establishment of a society in which equality of opportunity will be assured, and the economic power and privileges of individuals and classes abolished through the collective ownership and democratic control of the economic resources of the community. It seeks to secure these ends by the methods of political democracy.”

This system advocated above is in direct contrast to America which emphasises private ownership of the means of production and certainly not collective. While their are exceptionjs to this rule, to describe America as in any way Fabian is laughable, and to describe the Republican party, which is in favour of private over public ownership in general, is ludicruos.

“In other words, accepting a little bit of socialism is like being a little bit pregnant, you either are or your not..”

This depends entirely on how you define socialism. In my opinion you are defining it in a way that is so broad that virtually anything could be described as such, and which dilutes socialism of any of it’s fundamental characteristics. Again, this is in my opinion dishonest.

“As to our foreign policy towards Iraq, our foreign policy is socialist insofar as the US is attempting to control world oil supply”

You assertion that America’s motivation with regards to Iraq is to control it’s oil is made without any evidence. Prove it. My view is that America’s motivation is to remove one of the state supporters of terrorism in order to defeat terrorism itself. The “it’s all about oil” argument is the sad level of fact free debate usually made by the anti-American left.

And even if it were true, this would not make it socialist. If America did steal Iraq’s oil it would certainly hand over the ownership of that oil to private companies. To describe this as socialist is absurd. However Colin Powell has made it clear that ownerhip of Iraqi oil will remain with the Iraqi’s and that America will strictly abide by the laws regarding occupying powers. If your going to keep making the same arguments as the socialist left I’m going to keep laughing my head off at your attempts to paint Republicans and America as socialist.

“As to your “put up or shut up principle”, rudeness will get you no where with me.”

A: I’m not trying to get anywhere with you as I think your a lost cause, I’m simply trying to provide a counter to your anti-American left wing propaganda, and B: I was laying down a challenge, not being rude.

“If you want more detail than what I have very briefly outlined, I suggest the net with the Future Freedom Foundation being an excellent place to start.”

The Future of Freedom Foundation is a Libertarian organisation. Libertarianism is merely a different form of liberalism, and liberlaism in all it’s forms is the fundamental problem with America today. Moreover the FFF, like the Libertarian Party, advocates open borders and uncontrolled immigration both of which would result in the destruction of America as a soveriegn nation and allow vast numbers of Muslims and Islamic terrorists to set up shop in this country without opposition. After 911, I consider anyone advocating open borders and unregulated immigration to be an enemy of the United States and her people.

A good counter to the “it’s all about oil” argument made by socialists and their libertarian fellow travellers.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-ferrara022103.asp

Matt, Your comment on Locke on the other thread seems to divorce Locke from moral theology, but Locke never makes such a contention nor does he appear to even desire it.

But more to the point, and leaving Locke completely aside, whenever I use rights, it is in the same manner as the Church does, as for instance, Pope Leo XIII when he continuously refers to ‘right(s)’ in Rerum Novarum: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/L13RERUM.HTM

This also might help put the notion of ‘rights’ more in perspective.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13055c.htm

If you prefer, substitute my “right to private property” with “God defends and places a guard over our property and possessions, by adding the prohibition, Thou shalt not steal. These words can have no other meaning than that which we indicated above when speaking of the other Commandments. They declare that God forbids our worldly goods, which are placed under His protection, to be taken away or injured by anyone.” The Catechism of the Council of Trent. I certainly intend the same, either way.

The following also gives a fairly coherent explanation of what I mean by collectivism
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04106a.htm

My post to you was a summary of Rerum Novarum 1-15

The point I was attempting to make with the ‘little bit pregnant’ analogy was that even a small amount of theft is still theft. And if one accepts even a small amount, one is in principle accepting theft per se. The same is true for the principle of subsidiarity. How a little bit of theft is not poison is not clear to me, please explain.

Shawn,

You failed to mention that the Fabians are Gradualists, which is their most distinguishing characteristic. This characteristic was the qualifier for Collectivism. Thus the type of Collectivism practiced in the US is the gradualist approach advocated by the Fabians.

I didn’t say the Republicans were formal collectivists, in the way that many Democrats appear to be, because if they were formally collectivist, they would not be ‘me too’ but would be pushing the envelope themselves. But I do claim the Republicans are material collectivists because of their support of such programs as public schooling, and to a more limited degree on other issues because of their ‘me too’ voting record.

Do you, by chance, think the Democrats aren’t pushing us towards socialism?

The Future Freedom Foundation is Paleo-Libertarian, not Libertarian. There is a huge difference. Just as there is between Paleo-cons and Neocons.

The article linked by Shawn, “It’s Not About Oil, Already!”, by Peter Ferrara, ends with this paragraph:

“So the contention that the impending war is really about oil is senseless as well as being baseless. Which leaves us with this question: Why is the American Left joining with its foreign comrades to defame America with this silly and transparently false accusation? Is it really all just about anti-Americanism? Is it really just rooted in a hatred of American power and an attempt to stop its exercise? Isn’t it time they came clean and told the truth?”

I find it amazing how ‘anti-Americanism’s and ‘hatred of America’ are constantly tossed around on the forum. And so far, I have yet to see it used in a manner which wasn’t both a ‘silly and transparently false accusation’.

Of course, I’m sure those who use such terms have the best intentions at heart, but come on, can anyone in all honesty call Srdja Trifkovic anti-American or say that he is defaming America because of his article “The Justification for War”?

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/February2003/0203Trifkovic.html

And frankly, I find his article more convincing than Peter Ferrara’s. It certainly is more fitting. But I suppose that’s rather hateful, leftwing and anti-american of me.

There are quite a number of errors, misrepresentations, and/or misunderstandings packed into F. Salzer’s post of February 23, 2003 05:38 AM:

1) In Catholic terms, my objections to the early Locke and to rights-speak in general are pastoral not doctrinal. I said explicitly that it isn’t logically impossible to construe morality in terms of “rights”. It is just a practical impossibility to prevent such an articulation from devolving into liberalism.

2) Locke doesn’t speak with one consistent voice. The later Locke is more voluntarist than the early Locke, as I mentioned before.

3) It doesn’t matter what Locke’s intentions were. A person rarely if ever understands the total implications of his world view and his articulation of it. Most liberals don’t *intend* to align themselves with evil, but they are nonetheless aligned with an evil ideology. Indeed it is quite possible to be “a little bit liberal”.

4) F. Salzer does not in fact use the term “rights” in the same way as, for example, Leo XIII; and the equivocation is an illustration of the problem I allude to in #1. F. Salzer’s argument that the Council of Trent anathematized taxation and government services is a libertarian parody. Indeed, if it had then the current Pope is guilty of heresy and Mr. Salzer must by implication be sedevacantist.

5) Mr. Salzer’s post didn’t summarize anything but his own libertarian interpretation of Rerum Novarum.

6) Mr. Salzer’s notion that the principle of subsidiarity is propositionally categorical, and therefore inviolable in a well-defined logical sense, reduces subsidiarity to the same sort of parody as his understanding of “property”.

7) Mr. Salzer’s bald “little bit pregnant” assertion is a reductionist libertarian attempt to remake morality into a propositional structure of categorical “property rights”, and has no legitimate relation whatsoever to any Catholic dogma. Mr. Salzer’s attempt to hijack the Church to support his libertarianism is transparent.

Here’s another interesting comment on the “It’s all about oil” charge, from an interview of Bush adviser Richard Pearl in The Observer, “Top Bush aide savages ‘selfish’ Chirac,” February 23, 2003:

“Perle added that he found the claim that America wished to topple Saddam for the sake of its own oil interests bizarre.

” ‘The US interest is to buy oil cheaply on the world market. And the best way to increase the supply of Iraqi oil, and so cut prices, would have been to abandon sanctions in 1991 and urge the expansion of Iraqi exploration and development.

” ‘When you consider that there is now a prospect that the oilfields may be destroyed by Saddam, if what we really wanted was more oil, not only should we not be supporting Saddam’s removal, we should be working with him.’ “

The bumper sticker version of my last post is as follows:

The Catholic Church has formally condemned the notion that the institution of private property should be destroyed (and names the ideology that calls for the complete destruction of private property “socialism”). Mr. Salzer’s bizarre libertarian conclusion is (apparently) that taxation is therefore theft. Clearly this is a nonsequitir.

Matt,

Rarely have I had my words so completely twisted into such an unrecognizable form as you have managed to do in your last two posts. You would do well to not make wild assumptions which stray far beyond what I have written or think, and to instead stick to my written words.

“You failed to mention that the Fabians are Gradualists, which is their most distinguishing characteristic. This characteristic was the qualifier for Collectivism. Thus the type of Collectivism practiced in the US is the gradualist approach advocated by the Fabians.”

The Fabians were gradualists, but they were gradualists wth very specific goals. In order for your claim to be true you would have to show that America’s current system has, as it’s primary goal, the collective ownership of the means of production by workers alone. Unless you can show that this is the case your claim remains false.

“But I do claim the Republicans are material collectivists because of their support of such programs as public schooling, and to a more limited degree on other issues because of their ‘me too’ voting record.”

Now your changing your tune, again. You started by attempting to claim that America and the Republican Party are socialist. When this was shown to be false, you tried to claim that they were Fabian socialists. Now that this has also been exposed as false your resorting to the term “collectivism”.

Firstly, collectivism in and of itself does not mean socialism. Collectivism in one form or another has been around for thousands of years. Socialism is a specific movement with specific beliefs and goals that has it’s roots in the industrial revolution. A nation or community can be collectivist without being socialist. So changing to this term does not bolster your argument.

Secondly, any healthy nation is a mixture of both individualism and collectivism. The libertarian notion that all collectivism is wrong is immoral and simply another expression of the disease of liberalism. A libertarian would allow prostitution and pornography free reign in our nation, and would not oppose brothels being set up next to schools. This is hardly a recipe for a more moral and traditional order in our nation. A nation, community and family must practice a certain level of collectivism to survive and function. America is not just an abstraction of individuals, it is “One Nation under God”, with a collective national/cultural/religious identity and history, despite the attempts by multiculturalists to destroy it.

“Do you, by chance, think the Democrats aren’t pushing us towards socialism?”

Funny, I thought we were talking about the Republicans. Changing your tune yet again?

The nature of constitutional democracy means that there will be parties and groups and movements promoting some brand of socialism. Unless you want to ban all of these this will remain the case, at least for the forseeable future. However the existence of such parties and organisations does not prove that America itself is a socialist country, and it certainly says nothing about the Republican Party.

In answer to your question, the Democrats, like the Republicans, are essentially a coalition party of different groups, not all of whom have the same beliefs. While most Democrats seem to promote liberalism, and while there are certainly some in the Democratic party that promote socialism, this is not true of all Democrats. Right now I dont think the Democrats are pushing us anywhere, as they are effectively powerless.

“The Future Freedom Foundation is Paleo-Libertarian, not Libertarian. There is a huge difference. Just as there is between Paleo-cons and Neocons.”

First, they are both libertarian, and therefore promoting the disease of liberalism. Second, the only serious difference between the two seems to be that Paleo-libertarians are either outright anarchists or they promote Paleo-conservative ideas on immigration. Except that a quick view of FFF’s web site shows many articles advocating open borders and unregulated or continued mass immigration. I notice too that FFF promotes free market capitalism, a system that has seen American jobs exported to third world countries to line the pockets of un-patriotic corporations. Free market capitalism is also one of the primary pillars of the current move towards globalisation, global government, and the destruction of America as a distinct and sovereign nation. Most Paleo-conservatives are suspicious of libertarian style free market capitalism and global free trade, and rightly so. Contrary to libertarian myth making, America was not founded as a libertarian, free market system.

F. Salzer:
“You would do well to not make wild assumptions which stray far beyond what I have written or think, and to instead stick to my written words.”

Previously he also wrote:
“In other words, accepting a little bit of socialism is like being a little bit pregnant, you either are or your not.”

Heaven only knows what Mr. Salzer means here. If by socialism he means the complete abolishment of private property then his statement is true by definition but doesn’t have any implications worthy of note. He can’t mean that though, because the abolishment of private property is not a part of the Republican platform yet he claims that Republicans are socialists in the way he uses the term. So his protestations to the contrary, my posts were in fact direct responses to what he specifically wrote.