Dear Senator McSally:
I've sent you a $100 contribution to thank you for standing up to CNN reporter Manu Raju. The American media has deteriorated to the point at which treating them with contempt or ignoring them are the best options for those who are not antagonistic toward the United States, freedom of speech, and freedom of enterprise.
The American media does not serve an informational purpose but rather is a state-supported publicity industry for the Democratic Party and the Deep State, including both RINOs and Democrats. To restore the possibility of progress and of freedom, there needs to be a rethinking as to the monopoly privileges the state has bestowed on the tech industry, on the air-wave networks, and on the cable networks.
The New Deal marked the beginning of Deep State subsidization of the media through litmus tests concerning support of treaty-globalization, state-subsidized finance, and big government in exchange for monopoly privileges. Those subsidies need to end, and the media needs to be rebalanced.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Sunday, January 19, 2020
Saturday, December 14, 2019
Need for an Antitrust Action against Comcast, TimeWarner, and Disney
Dear Mr.
President:
The deterioration of the American media and its open partisanship should be addressed through an antitrust action. More than 75 percent of airwave and cable broadcasters are in practice affiliated with the Democratic Party. This came about because in the 1930s the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration illegally required ideological litmus tests in its granting of airwave monopolies.
The deterioration of the American media and its open partisanship should be addressed through an antitrust action. More than 75 percent of airwave and cable broadcasters are in practice affiliated with the Democratic Party. This came about because in the 1930s the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration illegally required ideological litmus tests in its granting of airwave monopolies.
When the
country had something of a dominant, bipartisan consensus, perhaps from the
candidacy of Wendell L. Wilke through the George W. Bush administration,
partisan monopoly of the airwaves was unimportant, although conservatives have
never been happy. When the cable monopolies were established by local
governments in the 1970s and 1980s, the extension of the New Deal system seemed
natural, although by then the media was increasingly at odds with moderate
Republicans. Moreover, the major parties had not diverged ideologically to the
degree that they have since Goldwater and McGovern--and to a greater degree
since Obama. Conservatives have lived with an unresponsive, monopolistic media
for the past ninety years.
The recent handling of the
impeachment hoax and the legacy media’s deceitful coverage of your presidency
has intensified the issue. At present, the Democratic media monopoly is
becoming an embarrassment, a system at odds with the preferences of the
majority of Americans. Given that the media lacks professionalism and
intersects with state influence—via the Democratic Party---the current system
makes a mockery of Constitutional protection of freedom of the press. The
current system is a state-granted monopoly that favors one party and is much like
a totalitarian system. This is especially so of the stations owned by Comcast, TimeWarner, and Disney.
There
needs to be an antitrust action and a divestiture of airwave and cable
networks from the Democrats so that airwave and cable control are wrested from
Comcast and Disney and fairly distributed among Republicans, Democrats,
Libertarians, Greens, and others in rough proportion to their numbers in the
population.
Sincerely,
Cc:
Robert Iger, The Walt Disney Co.
Brian L. Roberts, Chairman, Comcast
CorporationJoseph J. Simons, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission
Sunday, July 28, 2019
TV News Becoming a Fringe Source
It is time to revisit the Pew poll in 2016 that found that 57% of Americans get their news from television. Pew found an age-related trend, with 50% of those 18-29 relying on Internet sources but 85% of those 65 and over relying on television.
The recent Mueller testimony and the American media's embarrassing, deceitful performance with respect to the Russia collusion hoax have blown the lid open: Big media is a partisan, deceitful force. That was always true, but they have never before been so sloppy and so open about their pro-Democratic Party and pro-deep state lying and propaganda.
The Mueller investigation may be a watershed in Americans' recognition that their press is fraudulent, TV news is fraudulent, and leading Internet sites are fraudulent. We may be looking at a future in which TV news is so discredited that that it will become a fringe, crank source like the National Enquirer or left-wing tabloids sold at the gates of college campuses.
Tuesday, April 30, 2019
Ayn Rand on the Fake Media
I have been rereading Atlas Shrugged, and I have reached the chapter, "This is John Galt Speaking," in which John Galt makes his grand speech. I noticed a passage on page 916 of the Signet edition, a few pages before the speech, that describes the media in the Atlas Shrugged world right after Hank Rearden disappears. The description sounds like the media in today's America. As a child Rand had lived under Soviet totalitarianism, and the media in today's America likely has much in common with the USSR's media, which is likely the model for this description:
It was strange, she thought, to obtain news by means of nothing but denials, as if existence had ceased, facts had vanished, and only the frantic negatives uttered by officials and columnists gave any clue to the reality they were denying. 'It is not true that the Miller Steel Foundry of New Jersey has gone out of business.' 'It is not true that the Jansen Motor Company of Michigan has closed its doors. 'It is a vicious, anti-social lie that the manufacturers of steel products are collapsing under the threat of a steel shortage. There is no reason to expect a steel shortage.' 'It is a slanderous, unfounded rumor that a Steel Unification Plan had been in the making and that it had been favored by Mr. Orren Boyle. Mr. Boyle's attorney has issued an emphatic denial and has assured the press that Mr. Boyle is now vehemently opposed to any such plan. Mr. Boyle, at the moment is suffering from a nervous breakdown.' But some news could be witnessed in the streets of New York...
It was strange, she thought, to obtain news by means of nothing but denials, as if existence had ceased, facts had vanished, and only the frantic negatives uttered by officials and columnists gave any clue to the reality they were denying. 'It is not true that the Miller Steel Foundry of New Jersey has gone out of business.' 'It is not true that the Jansen Motor Company of Michigan has closed its doors. 'It is a vicious, anti-social lie that the manufacturers of steel products are collapsing under the threat of a steel shortage. There is no reason to expect a steel shortage.' 'It is a slanderous, unfounded rumor that a Steel Unification Plan had been in the making and that it had been favored by Mr. Orren Boyle. Mr. Boyle's attorney has issued an emphatic denial and has assured the press that Mr. Boyle is now vehemently opposed to any such plan. Mr. Boyle, at the moment is suffering from a nervous breakdown.' But some news could be witnessed in the streets of New York...
Friday, March 15, 2019
Letter to Rupert Murdoch Re Tucker Carlson
PO Box 130
West Shokan, NY 12494
March 15, 2019
Mr. Rupert Murdoch, Chairman
Fox News
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Dear Mr. Murdoch:
I support Tucker Carlson, and by
copy of this letter I am urging President Trump to award Carlson with the Presidential
Medal of Freedom. However, I have a
criticism of Fox News that is related to the recent adverse publicity.
Antifa is a new kind of terrorist
organization that uses erosion of privacy arising from the communication power
of the Internet to uncover supposedly embarrassing information about people
with whom it disagrees. Of course,
socialism is the greatest evil of the past millennium, yet Antifa and the media
are untroubled by its advocacy. What is
embarrassing in the opinion of America’s failing media ain’t necessarily so,
and I can attest to that because I easily survived one of their dumbed-down
assaults.
Antifa has cultivated links with
the media; many in the media are sympathetic to Antifa’s far-left aims; members
of Antifa work in the media. Many in
Antifa have criminal records or associate with people with criminal
records. In other words, much of the
American media, including some of your employees, have been willing to work
with left-wing extremists, some of whom have criminal records, in order to
boost ratings or further aims that the journalists share with Antifa.
I urge your organization to
develop a data base, to work with the FBI, and to identify links among
journalists, Antifa extremists, and criminals.
The same goes for professors with criminal affiliations and even convictions. The relationships exist, and Fox has dropped
the ball. Most of the media capable of investing time into investigating these
claims are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
As far as Carlson, give him a raise
and a promotion. I’ve read his book, and although I disagree with much of it,
if you ask me whether I’d prefer a country dominated by a Tucker Carlson or an Arthur
Sulzberger, I have little trouble answering.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.
Cc:
Tucker Carlson
Tucker Carlson
The President
Sunday, February 17, 2019
Decline in Media, American Culture
The New York Post reported last week that employment in the media declined by 15,000 in 2018. Much of the reason, according to the Post, is substitution of social networking advertising for traditional media advertising. Technology available through Facebook and Instagram enables advertisers to directly go to consumers rather than rely on media to serve as intermediaries. The decline in the economic stability of the media comes at a time when its credibility is questioned by conservatives and even by the president. Yet, news organizations hope to convince consumers that they offer unbiased news so that consumers will subscribe.
Perhaps there are opportunities for new forms of news. I subscribe to two online newspapers, but I read them infequently. I more often rely on subscription newsletters like Jim Rickards's Strategic Intelligence and David Stockman's Deep State Unclassified as well as specialized investment sites like Morningstar and Kitco.
A Lockean or conservative alternative to the leading newswire services might energize individual conservatives to start their own newsletters and blogs. The advantage the socialist-and-pro-Fed press has is its funding base, which enables it to obtain breaking news. A news service that is made available at low cost to conservatives might help break the left's monopoly on news and information.
I have been listening to the audio version of Tucker Carlson's Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution. As I've previously reported, the book is well written. I disagree with Carlson's take on economics, but his account of American culture upset me. Carlson seems to be making a case for New Deal-Roosevelt "liberalism" (I prefer the term "social democracy") to become the new conservatism, which is a mistake. Many of today's core problems, such as income inequality, are the direct result of Progressivism and of New Deal centralization and subsidization of special interests. Also, immigration restrictions, which are central to Carlson's narrative, are not the solution, although I increasingly see immigration as a cultural threat, albeit one that could be eliminated by an education system that, unlike the current one, emphasizes a shared American culture.
At the same time, Carlson eloquently tears apart militarists Max Boot and Bill Crystal, and his caricature of Chelsea Clinton, dumbed-down child of white privilege, is hilarious. His depiction of American elite ideology as a version of left-wing extremism mixed with militarism and some liberalism (as in immigration) suggests a convergence of Democratic and Republican elite ideology, and the elite's selfish indifference to the harm its money printing and confused economic policies have caused is why Trump won. Unfortunately, while I like Trump, while I admire his courage in the face of media attacks, while I admire his contempt for both the media and policy elites, his emphasis on protectionism and immigration restrictions won’t change much, and protectionism will make things worse if not corrected down the road.
Carlson's book scores many points when it comes to American culture, which is in disarray. Unwed mothers have become a critical voting block, and the policies that they advocate will be corrosive to economic growth and progress. On a social and cultural level, I'm now convinced that immigration poses a serious threat to American culture and American freedom. The attacks on boys and men, the intolerance of feminist extremists, the absurd environmentalist religion—none of this is news, but put it all together, and it seems that the country is in serious moral trouble.
At the same time, Carlson's premise is ultimately elitist. He concludes that elites need to do a better job of caring for the average American. In a free country without a Fed, big government, or the other Progressive paraphernalia of Progressivism and the New Deal, Americans would be able to care for themselves, as they did in the 19th century.
Perhaps there are opportunities for new forms of news. I subscribe to two online newspapers, but I read them infequently. I more often rely on subscription newsletters like Jim Rickards's Strategic Intelligence and David Stockman's Deep State Unclassified as well as specialized investment sites like Morningstar and Kitco.
A Lockean or conservative alternative to the leading newswire services might energize individual conservatives to start their own newsletters and blogs. The advantage the socialist-and-pro-Fed press has is its funding base, which enables it to obtain breaking news. A news service that is made available at low cost to conservatives might help break the left's monopoly on news and information.
I have been listening to the audio version of Tucker Carlson's Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution. As I've previously reported, the book is well written. I disagree with Carlson's take on economics, but his account of American culture upset me. Carlson seems to be making a case for New Deal-Roosevelt "liberalism" (I prefer the term "social democracy") to become the new conservatism, which is a mistake. Many of today's core problems, such as income inequality, are the direct result of Progressivism and of New Deal centralization and subsidization of special interests. Also, immigration restrictions, which are central to Carlson's narrative, are not the solution, although I increasingly see immigration as a cultural threat, albeit one that could be eliminated by an education system that, unlike the current one, emphasizes a shared American culture.
At the same time, Carlson eloquently tears apart militarists Max Boot and Bill Crystal, and his caricature of Chelsea Clinton, dumbed-down child of white privilege, is hilarious. His depiction of American elite ideology as a version of left-wing extremism mixed with militarism and some liberalism (as in immigration) suggests a convergence of Democratic and Republican elite ideology, and the elite's selfish indifference to the harm its money printing and confused economic policies have caused is why Trump won. Unfortunately, while I like Trump, while I admire his courage in the face of media attacks, while I admire his contempt for both the media and policy elites, his emphasis on protectionism and immigration restrictions won’t change much, and protectionism will make things worse if not corrected down the road.
Carlson's book scores many points when it comes to American culture, which is in disarray. Unwed mothers have become a critical voting block, and the policies that they advocate will be corrosive to economic growth and progress. On a social and cultural level, I'm now convinced that immigration poses a serious threat to American culture and American freedom. The attacks on boys and men, the intolerance of feminist extremists, the absurd environmentalist religion—none of this is news, but put it all together, and it seems that the country is in serious moral trouble.
At the same time, Carlson's premise is ultimately elitist. He concludes that elites need to do a better job of caring for the average American. In a free country without a Fed, big government, or the other Progressive paraphernalia of Progressivism and the New Deal, Americans would be able to care for themselves, as they did in the 19th century.
Tuesday, October 23, 2018
Why I Support Republicans in 2018 and Trump in 2020, and Why I Oppose Sissified Democrats
Last year Tom Ross wrote a piece in the Examiner in which he quoted William Weld, the former governor of Massachusetts and the 2016 Libertarian Party vice presidential candidate, as claiming that data showed that 75% of LP voters would have voted for Trump rather than Clinton. As a result, Trump would have won a net majority in the absence of minor parties.
I am one of the culprits who did not vote for Trump. Until recently, I tended not to vote in presidential elections. When I did, I supported the Libertarian candidate. However, I served on my county Republican committee, worked for the Republican Party locally, and voted during the three nonpresidential years. I have opposed the evident corruption in the GOP both locally and nationally, but I have also contributed to GOP candidates.
As a libertarian, there were three features of Trump's candidacy that turned me off: his proposed wall, his animus toward immigration, and his suspicions about free trade. These are anti-libertarian positions, and I still oppose them.
However, there are two areas in which Trump has demonstrated valuable instincts: his attitudes toward political correctness and the media. Political correctness is a polite name for the totalitarian control and authoritarianism that have always been associated with socialism, communism, and the left in general. One does not advocate a strong government because one is shy of control; one who desires control is as likely to desire it with respect to civil as well as economic matters.
The left's thoroughgoing and consistent authoritarianism is seen in its rationalization architecture. Scholars like Adorno call all who oppose left-wing authoritarianism "authoritarian"; meanwhile, Herbert Marcuse advocates intolerance. A movement that claims to be intolerant in the name of opposing authoritarianism is a spinning top capable of anything. Indeed, the left, when it gains power, has accomplished every horror imaginable, beginning with mass murder in the nine digits.
Accelerating left-wing totalitarian patterns have been evident to me since I entered higher education in the early 1990s, and they continued to escalate up to the point when the Obama administration began to prosecute professors for expression of views that had no connection to teaching or the campus. Laura Kipnis was accused of creating a hostile environment at Northwestern University simply because she wrote two articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education.
These rules have now changed. The Trump administration is the first in my lifetime to reverse the march toward totalitarianism in American universities. The exclusion of Republicans from leading universities, which I have studied, is symptomatic of Democratic Party-subsidized groupthink. In turn, the subsidization reflects a historical impetus from corporate-linked foundations, which were eager to homogenize education and eject Christianity from American colleges in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
The media has a similar history. It was consolidated by investment banking interests, and the centralization and left orientation received subsequent support from the Democratic Party, which censored libertarian positions during the New Deal. The centralization and homogenization of higher education and journalism converge on the needs of large financial institutions and one of their twin handmaidens, the Democratic Party.
Trump is the first elected official to threaten the status quo. Perhaps this was a ploy to gain votes--but perhaps Trump understands that the media, the universities, the so-called deep state, and especially the Democratic Party have interests that are as really aligned with the interests of ordinary Americans as the interests of Septimius Severus were really aligned with the ordinary Romans who received free bread.
By coincidence I have recently been listening to a lecture series about Roman history, and the thought occurred to me that a parallel might be made between the decline of Rome and the sissification of American culture, especially in the Democratic Party. I googled a related combination of words and came across a series of news items that tell a story similar to the dumbed-down attacks I have suffered at the hands of the fake-news media.
In 2011 the Italian historian Roberto de Mattei, based on a lifetime of study of Roman history, concluded that the decline of Rome was caused by a parallel process. De Mattei, who was head of the Italian Research Council, was treated to threats and calls for his sacking by Mussolini's fascio descendants, the Italian left wing.
America's dumbed-down journalists are tools of globalist financiers who delight in American indebtedness, decline, authoritarianism, and socialism. The delight about the indebtedness part ends when Republicans follow the same destructive policies as the Democrats, but it holds when the Democrats are in office
American journalists worry endlessly about their supposed freedom of the press, which is constrained to the point of zero by centralized credit, centralized financial controls, regulated cable television monopolies, regulated airwaves, and dumbed-down journalists, who are economic and historical illiterates trained by ideological, totalitarian institutions.
The Internet, which was originally thought to be a decentralizing force, is increasingly concentrated on social media that has proven even more authoritarian and subject to centralizing control than television.
Trump's use of Twitter turns this dynamic on its head. Bless him.
I am one of the culprits who did not vote for Trump. Until recently, I tended not to vote in presidential elections. When I did, I supported the Libertarian candidate. However, I served on my county Republican committee, worked for the Republican Party locally, and voted during the three nonpresidential years. I have opposed the evident corruption in the GOP both locally and nationally, but I have also contributed to GOP candidates.
As a libertarian, there were three features of Trump's candidacy that turned me off: his proposed wall, his animus toward immigration, and his suspicions about free trade. These are anti-libertarian positions, and I still oppose them.
However, there are two areas in which Trump has demonstrated valuable instincts: his attitudes toward political correctness and the media. Political correctness is a polite name for the totalitarian control and authoritarianism that have always been associated with socialism, communism, and the left in general. One does not advocate a strong government because one is shy of control; one who desires control is as likely to desire it with respect to civil as well as economic matters.
The left's thoroughgoing and consistent authoritarianism is seen in its rationalization architecture. Scholars like Adorno call all who oppose left-wing authoritarianism "authoritarian"; meanwhile, Herbert Marcuse advocates intolerance. A movement that claims to be intolerant in the name of opposing authoritarianism is a spinning top capable of anything. Indeed, the left, when it gains power, has accomplished every horror imaginable, beginning with mass murder in the nine digits.
Accelerating left-wing totalitarian patterns have been evident to me since I entered higher education in the early 1990s, and they continued to escalate up to the point when the Obama administration began to prosecute professors for expression of views that had no connection to teaching or the campus. Laura Kipnis was accused of creating a hostile environment at Northwestern University simply because she wrote two articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education.
These rules have now changed. The Trump administration is the first in my lifetime to reverse the march toward totalitarianism in American universities. The exclusion of Republicans from leading universities, which I have studied, is symptomatic of Democratic Party-subsidized groupthink. In turn, the subsidization reflects a historical impetus from corporate-linked foundations, which were eager to homogenize education and eject Christianity from American colleges in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
The media has a similar history. It was consolidated by investment banking interests, and the centralization and left orientation received subsequent support from the Democratic Party, which censored libertarian positions during the New Deal. The centralization and homogenization of higher education and journalism converge on the needs of large financial institutions and one of their twin handmaidens, the Democratic Party.
Trump is the first elected official to threaten the status quo. Perhaps this was a ploy to gain votes--but perhaps Trump understands that the media, the universities, the so-called deep state, and especially the Democratic Party have interests that are as really aligned with the interests of ordinary Americans as the interests of Septimius Severus were really aligned with the ordinary Romans who received free bread.
By coincidence I have recently been listening to a lecture series about Roman history, and the thought occurred to me that a parallel might be made between the decline of Rome and the sissification of American culture, especially in the Democratic Party. I googled a related combination of words and came across a series of news items that tell a story similar to the dumbed-down attacks I have suffered at the hands of the fake-news media.
In 2011 the Italian historian Roberto de Mattei, based on a lifetime of study of Roman history, concluded that the decline of Rome was caused by a parallel process. De Mattei, who was head of the Italian Research Council, was treated to threats and calls for his sacking by Mussolini's fascio descendants, the Italian left wing.
America's dumbed-down journalists are tools of globalist financiers who delight in American indebtedness, decline, authoritarianism, and socialism. The delight about the indebtedness part ends when Republicans follow the same destructive policies as the Democrats, but it holds when the Democrats are in office
American journalists worry endlessly about their supposed freedom of the press, which is constrained to the point of zero by centralized credit, centralized financial controls, regulated cable television monopolies, regulated airwaves, and dumbed-down journalists, who are economic and historical illiterates trained by ideological, totalitarian institutions.
The Internet, which was originally thought to be a decentralizing force, is increasingly concentrated on social media that has proven even more authoritarian and subject to centralizing control than television.
Trump's use of Twitter turns this dynamic on its head. Bless him.
Monday, October 1, 2018
More on Kavanaugh Hearing
Tom Fitton on Fox Business News claims that an FBI investigation will be incapable of revealing additional information concerning Kavanaugh's 15-year-old spin-the-bottle activities. Fitton characterizes Dianne Feinstein as corrupt because she withheld the allegations until right before the vote or because she knows the allegations to be false and released them anyway.
The selective exaggeration of personal information about politicians with whom the Democrats disagree--no matter how dated or irrelevant--is about power, not about morality or concern about a youngster's sexual misdeeds.
The issue here is that the Democrats do not want the Republicans to appoint a justice who abides by the written Constitution and does not favor the so-called "living Constitution," the penumbra theory of Griswold v. Connecticut. The penumbra theory is dictatorial and places excessive power in the hands of the judiciary.
The Constitutional process for amendement requires ratification by three-fourths of the states. How much easier it is to subvert democracy in the interest of any policy that satisfies the Democrats' dictatorial whims.
The Democrats are a demagogic, slandering party that subverts the democratic change processes in the Constitution and favors a dictatorship by judges and the president--a dictatorship of 10 people out of more than 300 million.
The Romans reserved the role of dictator to war or crisis situations. The Democrats know no such limitation. They believe in permanent dictatorship, and they will slander anyone who threatens it. Republicans need to start thinking like Longinus, Albinus, and Brutus--sic semper tyrannis.
The issue here is that the Democrats do not want the Republicans to appoint a justice who abides by the written Constitution and does not favor the so-called "living Constitution," the penumbra theory of Griswold v. Connecticut. The penumbra theory is dictatorial and places excessive power in the hands of the judiciary.
The Constitutional process for amendement requires ratification by three-fourths of the states. How much easier it is to subvert democracy in the interest of any policy that satisfies the Democrats' dictatorial whims.
The Democrats are a demagogic, slandering party that subverts the democratic change processes in the Constitution and favors a dictatorship by judges and the president--a dictatorship of 10 people out of more than 300 million.
The Romans reserved the role of dictator to war or crisis situations. The Democrats know no such limitation. They believe in permanent dictatorship, and they will slander anyone who threatens it. Republicans need to start thinking like Longinus, Albinus, and Brutus--sic semper tyrannis.
The American media's cooperation with the Democrats' dictatorial display is a disgrace, and it deserves little commentary. The media is a lost cause.
Friday, October 30, 2015
Moderation as Vacuity
Americans sometimes claim to be moderate in their views. "I don't believe in abolishing the Fed, for I am a moderate," is an example. Moderation means limiting change to a moderate distance from present policy. But what if present policy is extreme? Franklin Roosevelt might have said: "I don't believe in ending concentration camps for Japanese Americans. I believe in a more moderate course." Andrew Jackson might have said: "I don't believe in ending my policy of banishing all Native Americans east of the Mississippi. I believe in the moderate course of extending the Indian Removal Act to just one more tribe."
Is moderation as a mere increment meaningful in the context of policies whose effects are devastating or reprehensible?
There are other possible meanings, though. Perhaps moderation underlies a claim that state action is not a moral but a pragmatic question. "Only extremists hold that theft is wrong under all circumstances. We moderates hold that taxing some to redistribute to others is a pragmatic course." Here, however, the claim is contradictory. If morality that prohibits theft is extreme, why is the morality that motivates redistribution of wealth not an extreme? If it is wrong to say that theft is wrong, why is right to say that income inequality is wrong?
Since all government action involves violence, and since the elimination of violence is a prerequisite to the foundation of civilization, all government action involves moral choice. Choice about violence,murder, or theft is inherently moral, and all government action involves violence, murder, or theft. Therefore, all government action is extreme if extreme is to be defined as making state decisions on the basis of morality.
A third possible meaning of moderation is that it accords with the majority. The majority in America believe the claims made on television and in newspapers. The writers in these sources are not well educated, and they have demonstrated a repeated capacity for advocating erroneous courses of action. One example was the Vietnam War. Another was, in New York City, the urban renewal policies of Robert Moses. A third was the Iraqi War and the strategy behind it. A fourth is America's monetary policy. Ancient Athens lost the Peloponnesian War because it chose to invade Sicily, a decision that was politically popular. America's disastrous invasion of Iraq was similarly popular, and I was among the mistaken supporters.
In other words, defining moderation as incremental decision making, pragmatism, or accordance with majority rule potentially leads to policies that are extreme. A fourth definition is mathematically certain, but it is also self-contradictory and equally vacuous. The ancient Greeks defined sophrosyne (σωφροσύνη) as temperance or moderation in the sense of being well balanced. Aristotle spoke of a range of virtues such as prudence, justice, and courage as well as sophrosyne. Moderation, in Aristotle's view, is the mean between two extremes. Courage is the mean between rashness and cowardice, for instance.
Perhaps moderation in state action can mean the mean between two extreme courses of action. In this sense, though, current American policies are not moderate. An economy in which public debt is in excess of $55,000 per man, woman, and child, forty-four percent of whom have no savings, is hardly a mean between two extremes. It is an extreme. The same may be said of monetary policy. The tripling of the money supply in 2008 and 2009 can hardly be called a mean between two extremes: Historically, monetary expansion of that magnitude has led to economic collapse. Nor can we say that a nation that subsidizes one industry, banking, to the extent that the US government has is taking actions that are the midpoint between two extremes.
Moderation can be defined as a small increment over current policy, pragmatism, majority rule, or the mean between two extremes, but none of these meanings is inconsistent with policies that are genocidal, horrific, radically redistributive, or economically destructive. Americans' claim that their choices are moderate, like their claim that they are free or their claim that they are prosperous, is a chimera.
Is moderation as a mere increment meaningful in the context of policies whose effects are devastating or reprehensible?
There are other possible meanings, though. Perhaps moderation underlies a claim that state action is not a moral but a pragmatic question. "Only extremists hold that theft is wrong under all circumstances. We moderates hold that taxing some to redistribute to others is a pragmatic course." Here, however, the claim is contradictory. If morality that prohibits theft is extreme, why is the morality that motivates redistribution of wealth not an extreme? If it is wrong to say that theft is wrong, why is right to say that income inequality is wrong?
Since all government action involves violence, and since the elimination of violence is a prerequisite to the foundation of civilization, all government action involves moral choice. Choice about violence,murder, or theft is inherently moral, and all government action involves violence, murder, or theft. Therefore, all government action is extreme if extreme is to be defined as making state decisions on the basis of morality.
A third possible meaning of moderation is that it accords with the majority. The majority in America believe the claims made on television and in newspapers. The writers in these sources are not well educated, and they have demonstrated a repeated capacity for advocating erroneous courses of action. One example was the Vietnam War. Another was, in New York City, the urban renewal policies of Robert Moses. A third was the Iraqi War and the strategy behind it. A fourth is America's monetary policy. Ancient Athens lost the Peloponnesian War because it chose to invade Sicily, a decision that was politically popular. America's disastrous invasion of Iraq was similarly popular, and I was among the mistaken supporters.
In other words, defining moderation as incremental decision making, pragmatism, or accordance with majority rule potentially leads to policies that are extreme. A fourth definition is mathematically certain, but it is also self-contradictory and equally vacuous. The ancient Greeks defined sophrosyne (σωφροσύνη) as temperance or moderation in the sense of being well balanced. Aristotle spoke of a range of virtues such as prudence, justice, and courage as well as sophrosyne. Moderation, in Aristotle's view, is the mean between two extremes. Courage is the mean between rashness and cowardice, for instance.
Perhaps moderation in state action can mean the mean between two extreme courses of action. In this sense, though, current American policies are not moderate. An economy in which public debt is in excess of $55,000 per man, woman, and child, forty-four percent of whom have no savings, is hardly a mean between two extremes. It is an extreme. The same may be said of monetary policy. The tripling of the money supply in 2008 and 2009 can hardly be called a mean between two extremes: Historically, monetary expansion of that magnitude has led to economic collapse. Nor can we say that a nation that subsidizes one industry, banking, to the extent that the US government has is taking actions that are the midpoint between two extremes.
Moderation can be defined as a small increment over current policy, pragmatism, majority rule, or the mean between two extremes, but none of these meanings is inconsistent with policies that are genocidal, horrific, radically redistributive, or economically destructive. Americans' claim that their choices are moderate, like their claim that they are free or their claim that they are prosperous, is a chimera.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
