Does it want?
I just finished reading Suicide Marlboro Man Fred Reed, who in turn drew inspiration from the full minionymi sometimes longing for G. Gordon Liddy book When I was a kid, it was a free country [ When I Was a Kid, This Was a Free Country ]. (So \u200b\u200bthis article is inspired by the conservative commentary conservative commentary on the book written by a conservative commentator. Give me some slack, christmas soon.) Fred unspeakable * ** Shares Liddy longing for the old American independence and self-sufficiency, but it shows that the distribution and the eventual loss of this way of life were inevitable. I hope that Fred will not be offended if I quote the last paragraph of the text in its entirety. Fred uses the words in a way that I admire, but do not deceive myself that I manage to match him. Here are his words:
Under the influence of the reading I began to wonder about freedom, longing and uncompromising independence of our ancestors. Unfortunately, my ancestors were not working on their own land farmers from the hills of West Virginia, but in most English miners, so I approach the subject from the other side. However, I believe I can shed some light on these issues.
Thinking of freedom always begin on the first page History of England from 1914-1945 AJP Taylor (one of the volumes Oxford History of England ) [ Angielski History, 1914-1945 ]. Let me quote the entire page. I can not bear the thought that I would summarize it or shortening. Here it is:
At first glance, this sounds like an idyll - the dream of the libertarian [1]. Now let's look on a little bit more. As it happens, I grew up among the English, the oldest of whom worked and founded the family in the times described by Taylor - shortly before the outbreak of World War [World War I ] (or, as they always said, "Great War" [ "The Great War" ]). They presented a lot of socially conservative attitudes in this respect agree with G. Gordon Liddym. For our youth - were accustomed to speak - the beer was stronger, people cared about each other, the country was not full of foreigners, the children know that adults should not shoot one's mouth, murderers were judged, sentenced and hanged - all within a month, and so on. Yet all these older people were socialists. In matters of public policy has never been quite the government. Nationalization of the mines? State pensions for the elderly? State disability insurance? State housing? Free education? The National Health Fund [National Health Service ]? You're welcome.
If you try to examine where did these socialist tendencies, did figure scary stories. Down the road lived the poor widow with eight kids to feed - none of them had a single pair of shoes. He was old Sam Matthews, who died in agony, because he could not afford the operation. He was a cousin of Alfred, the smartest and most well-read man I ever met, who had to quit school at the age of fourteen and exit "to hell" (that is, to work in a coal mine), because the family lacked the money. They were work-related hazards - fires in the shafts, for example: "The changes people crawling behind iron carriages, each of which is wyrywający forward to put in the carriage shovel hot coals, then returning at the end of the series - all nine pence in the carriage. "(From the notes, which I did once at a family meeting. In 1914, nine pence was worth fifteen cents American.) Worst everything was shelter - a word uttered with such dread and terror that to this day I feel chills. Shelter was the only form of social care in the Victorian (though, as Taylor points out, the decreasing extent) Edwardian England - The Community House was managed by the parish in which the poor received a symbolic shelter and meager meals in exchange for low-skilled work.
historians - including Taylor, who, by the way, he was a socialist - confirm that the libertarian idyll in essence boiled from the discontent and injustice. The best book on this subject is the classic position of George Dangierfielda strange death of liberal England [ The Strange Death of Liberal England ], resumed today, 66 years since the first edition. Dangerfield reveals hidden dark side of the vast Edwardian idyll. Trade unions tighten your muscles begin to work towards universal strikes and demanded nationalization of industry. Participants campaign for voting rights for women to smoke puszczały rural houses, attracted to the fence in public places, threw themselves under the hooves of racehorses. Ireland was a festering wound - a large group of Irish people demanded more autonomy, the second large group of them objected to this, in the British army mutiny occurred when soldiers were ordered to shoot loyal Ulsterczyków. The very constitution - yes, Britain has a constitution, but no one ever bothered transcribe it - began to totter, and a constitutional monarch was forced to use their authority to carry out reforms.
certainly possible to identify some common points above description with the image of the former, more free America, he remembers with such fondness G. Gordon Liddy. "Farmer cultivating their own land" sounds very nice and after jeffersonowsku until I think about Ethanie Frome Joadów or family. Freedom is a beautiful thing, but, like any other good, has its price, and for many people, this price was too high. Sold their freedom for a little security, making America and Britain as they are today. Nobody forced them to do so by force. Accepted the exchange smoothly, we would - in fact many of them fought bravely, and some even died, so that the market managed to finish off. The former, richer way of life in freedom was, as Fred puts it succinctly, "condemned the suicide."
why America today is like the looks: a monstrous level of taxation, huge government bureaucracy is characterized by a breathtaking arrogance, and - as we have seen over the past few months, all too well - incompetence ***, slaying the industry comprising lawyers collective actions for damages, stealing other people's property the government regulators, labor saudyarabizacja (God forbid! to an American born in America, washed cars, cleaned toilets, pucował shoes or picking fruit - we have 13 million illegal immigrants who **** this will take) and choke-free mind disciplined by the Government sets the rules for "diversity", "sensitivity" and "correctness". We have reached the stage provided by Tocqueville, in which "the supreme authority of [...] covers the surface of society, the network of small complicated rules, detailed and consolidated people [...] do not tyrannize, but it oppresses them, weakens, deprives them of hope and makes them in dementia - until the moment when each nation is reduced to the level of the herd suddenly docile and diligently working animals whose government is the shepherd. " And - apart from malkontentami few, such as Fred Reed, G. Gordon Liddy - none of us do not mind.
Fred ends his text saying: "As a species simply can not be overcome. But for some time, we lived well. " So far I agree with him. But what of the future? Our society can not stand still. Or freedom will continue to shrink until the biotechnology and science of the nervous system does not lead us to the state-controlled infantile hedonism Brave New World ? (A few weeks ago when I read once again the master Huxley's work, suddenly I realized why I am absolutely not able to watch the television series Friends . Phoebe, Chandler, and the company would be shining examples of a State of the World in 632 Lord of Our Ford.) And maybe it is way back, leading to a rebirth of freedom? And - if so - whether we want it to go?
really hard is, of course, that last question. In any case, I am sure that way back exist. evil in the past actually took place, but the use of a favorite remedy of the twentieth century - increasing government power - has led to a situation in which gains exceed the losses began, long before the end of last century. In many cases, this means not only proved to be a cure, but even worse case. Readers of the book by Charles Murray'ao libertarianism remember "test the trend line" [ "trend line test" ]. You're doing something like this: You specify any quantitative social phenomenon - poverty, educational attainment, road accidents, infant mortality - and draw a graph of its occurrence over several decades. Then, staring intently at the chart, trying to identify the moment at which the government began to intervene. Usually, you fail.
All this is, of course, at odds with "official" history. For example, the "official" version on race relations says that the nation [the U.S.] generally discriminated against black Americans - until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 destroyed the power of legalized racism. In fact, segregation and the associated evils were in constant back from the moment World War II, and their ultimate end was approaching more rapidly in the late fifties [twentieth century]. The civil rights movement and its activities related to legislation is not driven this process, but followed him, or at best were only a part of it - secondary phenomena, not first causes. Bull Connor, Lester Maddox and George Wallace [2] did not really fight with the government, but with the inevitable social change - lose these anyway.
The twentieth century was full of such processes. Trivial statement in the field of political science says that revolutions almost never explode, when the worst happens - comes to them when things start to go in the right direction. That has always been the government's meddling in our lives. Reference is an undesirable phenomenon and causes a stir; adopt a law ... And yet, while this process continues - perhaps even before it began - the trend line is already moving down and ended up in the same place, regardless of whether that created a new bureaucratic state office with a budget of 40 billion U.S. dollars, regardless of if enacted by this bust of the new laws, regardless of whether the next piece zrezygnowalibyśmy freedom.
farmer cultivating his own land as an essential part of our society gone for good. Met the same fate, thanks to God, a glowing coal loader for change after nine pence in the carriage. Reducing government intervention to the level before its massive intrusion in the twentieth century does not mean a return to the shelters, the rules of racial segregation, deprivation of women's voting rights and the brutalization of working conditions. Technological advances, more sophisticated financial systems and spare change in consciousness us this, and probably oszczędziłyby us this and so - without any need for rapid progress of socialism in the past few decades. We can live, and live well, enjoying much more freedom and much less government interference, if you want. The problem, which decides the shape of the new century, is this: Do we want?
_______
FOOTNOTES * Forgive me if you have already mentioned this, but one of my all time favorite krzyżówkowych passwords in the London Times was: "Do not describe it any vulgarity." Answer: unspeakable.
** BTW, I noticed that when I read the text of Fred's network, my mouse cursor all the time takes the form of a small hourglass. Presumably, this means that Fred secretly loaded on my hard drive called a "cookie" containing, I believe, tips on cleaning the weapons, cops life stories, recipes for pate raccoon, promotional offer for sale of diving equipment and computer graphics depicting Mexican a raven-haired beauty.
*** This incompetence meets at all levels - to the existing long, the most basic services. I asked recently at the post office that examined whether a letter which I sent as registered, has reached the addressee. I filled out the form and brought the original proof of origin, which, it assured me, will allow the post office to trace the fate of the consignment. Six weeks later, I returned to form with a stamp "unknown fate of the consignment." Since &*!!#@/?%*# the fate of this letter is unknown, then what I paid, so he was sent as registered? **** Sam
trash your lawn. This means that I am the increasingly shrinking minority on Long Island. Most of my neighbors work in the garden has such groups Aztecs.
[1] It is difficult to agree with the opinion Derbyshire'a; activities of any officers of the state stands in sharp contrast with the "libertarian dream," which is the only loss of the state and voluntary relationships with others - editor. crowd.
[2] Theophilus "Bull" Connor (1897-1973), Lester Maddox (1915-2003), George Corley Wallace Jr. (1919-1998) - American politicians in favor segregation Race - editor. crowd.
_______
Translation by:
John Derbyshire, Liberty , http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/derbyshire/derbyshire122102.asp
published on Liberty website National Review Online 21 December 2002
I just finished reading Suicide Marlboro Man Fred Reed, who in turn drew inspiration from the full minionymi sometimes longing for G. Gordon Liddy book When I was a kid, it was a free country [ When I Was a Kid, This Was a Free Country ]. (So \u200b\u200bthis article is inspired by the conservative commentary conservative commentary on the book written by a conservative commentator. Give me some slack, christmas soon.) Fred unspeakable * ** Shares Liddy longing for the old American independence and self-sufficiency, but it shows that the distribution and the eventual loss of this way of life were inevitable. I hope that Fred will not be offended if I quote the last paragraph of the text in its entirety. Fred uses the words in a way that I admire, but do not deceive myself that I manage to match him. Here are his words:
again I would like to live in a world of Mr. Liddy. Unfortunately, this world has a tendency to samolikwidacji. Freedom is in the long run inconsistent with freedom, because inevitably be used in such a way that creates a control. As a species simply can not be overcome. But for some time, we lived well.
Under the influence of the reading I began to wonder about freedom, longing and uncompromising independence of our ancestors. Unfortunately, my ancestors were not working on their own land farmers from the hills of West Virginia, but in most English miners, so I approach the subject from the other side. However, I believe I can shed some light on these issues.
Thinking of freedom always begin on the first page History of England from 1914-1945 AJP Taylor (one of the volumes Oxford History of England ) [ Angielski History, 1914-1945 ]. Let me quote the entire page. I can not bear the thought that I would summarize it or shortening. Here it is:
By August 1914, a reasonable, law-abiding Englishman could have survived all his life and hardly notice the existence of countries outside the post office and police. He could live where he wanted and how he wanted. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country forever - without a passport or any kind of official authorization. Able to exchange your money into any currency without restriction. He could buy goods from any country in the world on an equal footing, As in the homeland. Speaking of which - a foreigner could spend his life in England without having to apply for a residence permit and without informing the police. In contrast to countries on the European continent, country English is not przymuszało its citizens to military service. An Englishman could enlist the regular army, navy, or to volunteer territorial defense forces. If he wanted, he could also choose to ignore the requirements of national defense. Owners of large estates called upon occasionally to sit on the jury. In other cases, you only help one wanted. The Englishman paid taxes on moderate: in 1913-1914 it was less than £ 200 million, or less than 8 percent of national income. State intervened to prevent the intake of food by a citizen of the composition other than that indicated by him, or the onset of certain diseases. Dictate the rules of safety in factories and forbade women and adult men employed in certain industries, work by the excessive amount of time. You watched the children to receive education to the completion of the thirteenth year of life. From 1 January 1909 provided a modest pension the needy, who crossed the 70th years of age. Since 1911 he helped to cover selected groups of workers in the event of illness or job loss. This trend towards increasing state intervention grew. Since we took power in 1905, the Liberals social spending has increased more or less doubled. However, generally speaking, the state took its action only in order to help those who could not help themselves. Left the adult citizen alone.
At first glance, this sounds like an idyll - the dream of the libertarian [1]. Now let's look on a little bit more. As it happens, I grew up among the English, the oldest of whom worked and founded the family in the times described by Taylor - shortly before the outbreak of World War [World War I ] (or, as they always said, "Great War" [ "The Great War" ]). They presented a lot of socially conservative attitudes in this respect agree with G. Gordon Liddym. For our youth - were accustomed to speak - the beer was stronger, people cared about each other, the country was not full of foreigners, the children know that adults should not shoot one's mouth, murderers were judged, sentenced and hanged - all within a month, and so on. Yet all these older people were socialists. In matters of public policy has never been quite the government. Nationalization of the mines? State pensions for the elderly? State disability insurance? State housing? Free education? The National Health Fund [National Health Service ]? You're welcome.
If you try to examine where did these socialist tendencies, did figure scary stories. Down the road lived the poor widow with eight kids to feed - none of them had a single pair of shoes. He was old Sam Matthews, who died in agony, because he could not afford the operation. He was a cousin of Alfred, the smartest and most well-read man I ever met, who had to quit school at the age of fourteen and exit "to hell" (that is, to work in a coal mine), because the family lacked the money. They were work-related hazards - fires in the shafts, for example: "The changes people crawling behind iron carriages, each of which is wyrywający forward to put in the carriage shovel hot coals, then returning at the end of the series - all nine pence in the carriage. "(From the notes, which I did once at a family meeting. In 1914, nine pence was worth fifteen cents American.) Worst everything was shelter - a word uttered with such dread and terror that to this day I feel chills. Shelter was the only form of social care in the Victorian (though, as Taylor points out, the decreasing extent) Edwardian England - The Community House was managed by the parish in which the poor received a symbolic shelter and meager meals in exchange for low-skilled work.
historians - including Taylor, who, by the way, he was a socialist - confirm that the libertarian idyll in essence boiled from the discontent and injustice. The best book on this subject is the classic position of George Dangierfielda strange death of liberal England [ The Strange Death of Liberal England ], resumed today, 66 years since the first edition. Dangerfield reveals hidden dark side of the vast Edwardian idyll. Trade unions tighten your muscles begin to work towards universal strikes and demanded nationalization of industry. Participants campaign for voting rights for women to smoke puszczały rural houses, attracted to the fence in public places, threw themselves under the hooves of racehorses. Ireland was a festering wound - a large group of Irish people demanded more autonomy, the second large group of them objected to this, in the British army mutiny occurred when soldiers were ordered to shoot loyal Ulsterczyków. The very constitution - yes, Britain has a constitution, but no one ever bothered transcribe it - began to totter, and a constitutional monarch was forced to use their authority to carry out reforms.
certainly possible to identify some common points above description with the image of the former, more free America, he remembers with such fondness G. Gordon Liddy. "Farmer cultivating their own land" sounds very nice and after jeffersonowsku until I think about Ethanie Frome Joadów or family. Freedom is a beautiful thing, but, like any other good, has its price, and for many people, this price was too high. Sold their freedom for a little security, making America and Britain as they are today. Nobody forced them to do so by force. Accepted the exchange smoothly, we would - in fact many of them fought bravely, and some even died, so that the market managed to finish off. The former, richer way of life in freedom was, as Fred puts it succinctly, "condemned the suicide."
why America today is like the looks: a monstrous level of taxation, huge government bureaucracy is characterized by a breathtaking arrogance, and - as we have seen over the past few months, all too well - incompetence ***, slaying the industry comprising lawyers collective actions for damages, stealing other people's property the government regulators, labor saudyarabizacja (God forbid! to an American born in America, washed cars, cleaned toilets, pucował shoes or picking fruit - we have 13 million illegal immigrants who **** this will take) and choke-free mind disciplined by the Government sets the rules for "diversity", "sensitivity" and "correctness". We have reached the stage provided by Tocqueville, in which "the supreme authority of [...] covers the surface of society, the network of small complicated rules, detailed and consolidated people [...] do not tyrannize, but it oppresses them, weakens, deprives them of hope and makes them in dementia - until the moment when each nation is reduced to the level of the herd suddenly docile and diligently working animals whose government is the shepherd. " And - apart from malkontentami few, such as Fred Reed, G. Gordon Liddy - none of us do not mind.
Fred ends his text saying: "As a species simply can not be overcome. But for some time, we lived well. " So far I agree with him. But what of the future? Our society can not stand still. Or freedom will continue to shrink until the biotechnology and science of the nervous system does not lead us to the state-controlled infantile hedonism Brave New World ? (A few weeks ago when I read once again the master Huxley's work, suddenly I realized why I am absolutely not able to watch the television series Friends . Phoebe, Chandler, and the company would be shining examples of a State of the World in 632 Lord of Our Ford.) And maybe it is way back, leading to a rebirth of freedom? And - if so - whether we want it to go?
really hard is, of course, that last question. In any case, I am sure that way back exist. evil in the past actually took place, but the use of a favorite remedy of the twentieth century - increasing government power - has led to a situation in which gains exceed the losses began, long before the end of last century. In many cases, this means not only proved to be a cure, but even worse case. Readers of the book by Charles Murray'ao libertarianism remember "test the trend line" [ "trend line test" ]. You're doing something like this: You specify any quantitative social phenomenon - poverty, educational attainment, road accidents, infant mortality - and draw a graph of its occurrence over several decades. Then, staring intently at the chart, trying to identify the moment at which the government began to intervene. Usually, you fail.
All this is, of course, at odds with "official" history. For example, the "official" version on race relations says that the nation [the U.S.] generally discriminated against black Americans - until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 destroyed the power of legalized racism. In fact, segregation and the associated evils were in constant back from the moment World War II, and their ultimate end was approaching more rapidly in the late fifties [twentieth century]. The civil rights movement and its activities related to legislation is not driven this process, but followed him, or at best were only a part of it - secondary phenomena, not first causes. Bull Connor, Lester Maddox and George Wallace [2] did not really fight with the government, but with the inevitable social change - lose these anyway.
The twentieth century was full of such processes. Trivial statement in the field of political science says that revolutions almost never explode, when the worst happens - comes to them when things start to go in the right direction. That has always been the government's meddling in our lives. Reference is an undesirable phenomenon and causes a stir; adopt a law ... And yet, while this process continues - perhaps even before it began - the trend line is already moving down and ended up in the same place, regardless of whether that created a new bureaucratic state office with a budget of 40 billion U.S. dollars, regardless of if enacted by this bust of the new laws, regardless of whether the next piece zrezygnowalibyśmy freedom.
farmer cultivating his own land as an essential part of our society gone for good. Met the same fate, thanks to God, a glowing coal loader for change after nine pence in the carriage. Reducing government intervention to the level before its massive intrusion in the twentieth century does not mean a return to the shelters, the rules of racial segregation, deprivation of women's voting rights and the brutalization of working conditions. Technological advances, more sophisticated financial systems and spare change in consciousness us this, and probably oszczędziłyby us this and so - without any need for rapid progress of socialism in the past few decades. We can live, and live well, enjoying much more freedom and much less government interference, if you want. The problem, which decides the shape of the new century, is this: Do we want?
_______
FOOTNOTES * Forgive me if you have already mentioned this, but one of my all time favorite krzyżówkowych passwords in the London Times was: "Do not describe it any vulgarity." Answer: unspeakable.
** BTW, I noticed that when I read the text of Fred's network, my mouse cursor all the time takes the form of a small hourglass. Presumably, this means that Fred secretly loaded on my hard drive called a "cookie" containing, I believe, tips on cleaning the weapons, cops life stories, recipes for pate raccoon, promotional offer for sale of diving equipment and computer graphics depicting Mexican a raven-haired beauty.
*** This incompetence meets at all levels - to the existing long, the most basic services. I asked recently at the post office that examined whether a letter which I sent as registered, has reached the addressee. I filled out the form and brought the original proof of origin, which, it assured me, will allow the post office to trace the fate of the consignment. Six weeks later, I returned to form with a stamp "unknown fate of the consignment." Since &*!!#@/?%*# the fate of this letter is unknown, then what I paid, so he was sent as registered? **** Sam
trash your lawn. This means that I am the increasingly shrinking minority on Long Island. Most of my neighbors work in the garden has such groups Aztecs.
[1] It is difficult to agree with the opinion Derbyshire'a; activities of any officers of the state stands in sharp contrast with the "libertarian dream," which is the only loss of the state and voluntary relationships with others - editor. crowd.
[2] Theophilus "Bull" Connor (1897-1973), Lester Maddox (1915-2003), George Corley Wallace Jr. (1919-1998) - American politicians in favor segregation Race - editor. crowd.
_______
Translation by:
John Derbyshire, Liberty , http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/derbyshire/derbyshire122102.asp
published on Liberty website National Review Online 21 December 2002
0 comments:
Post a Comment