You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “The Invisible Despotism”.
« Previous Post More Right-Wing Links (March 30, 2010)
Frank Rich Must Be A Racist Next Post »
What say you?
"All that tended toward the destruction of the intermediate authorities of social class, province, church, and family brought simultaneously into being, Burke noted, a social leveling and a transfer to the state alone of powers previously resident in a plurality of associations."
Thank God we have nothing of the sort here and never will, for reasons too obvious to note.
"It must not be forgotten that it is especially dangerous to enslave men in the minor details of life. For my part, I should be inclined to think freedom less necessary in the great things than in the little ones, if it were possible to be secure of the one without the other."
That is exactly right and we've proved that it is most certainly possible to do exactly that. Thanks Alexis!
This article is terrific and it is one of the best pieces of evidence I've seen that modern Rockwell-libertarianism is grounded on nothing more than a personal philosophy of pseudo-pacifism.
People like Rockwell should stop writing gibberish when it comes to American foreign policy for a few years, concentrate on educating his readers about Austrian economics and study his Tocqueville and history a little more seriously.
We've proved what Tocqueville said wasn't possible? And America isn't tending towards a social levelling through the destruction of the family, church, et. al.? And what does this essay by Nisbet have to do with Rockwell?
No we've shown that it IS possible.
"I should be inclined to think freedom less necessary in the great things than in the little ones, if it were possible to be secure of the one without the other"
The "great things" includes war. The "little ones" is everything else, the subject of the piece, the bureaucratic despotism. With a volunteer military and not even a glimpse or hint of it ever directly or indirectly threatening our liberty (quite the opposite actually), we've shown that it is indeed possible to be secure of the one without the other.
What we need to do now, is "be secure WITH the other", i.e. both, and tear down the bureaucracy brick by ever-loving brick.
"And America isn’t tending towards a social levelling through the destruction of the family, church, et. al.?"
Oh no it is, I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.
"And what does this essay by Nisbet have to do with Rockwell?"
It has clear hints of the Rockwellian anti-military philosophy that is borne of those armies raised by despots to be used in the service of despots.
We...don't...have that. We never have and to be honest, I can't foresee right now it ever existing here. Our soldiers are our friends, our neighbors and our family. They were raised in the same schools, churches and playgrounds as you and I. This is the brilliance of the Founders conception of a military and it is what belies the Paul/Rockwell doctrine in its entirety.
They hate the military because they hate military. It's that simple. They've never put a single seconds worth of actual thought into the matter in terms of what our military actually is and instead parrot philosophers and intellectuals who were commenting in a different time on different facts, very few of which are present or applicable to the United States military.
Apples and oranges comes to mind everytime I hear one of them go off on the "warfare state". It's just not true.
That's the way I see it.
Having a voluntary army, and a politicians abuse of that army, are 2 entirely separate things. Nobody is arguing to get rid of the military, or suggesting that having a military in and of itself, creates despotism.
"Nobody is arguing to get rid of the military, or suggesting that having a military in and of itself, creates despotism."
Then what the hell are we arguing about?
[...] institutions in government would be the reduction of political power in individual lives. - theCL Does Al Franken even know what was in the health-care bill he voted for? Um..nope. Jason Matera [...]
Locking in the Permanent Union Lobby...
Public employees suck. That’s right. I went there:...