You consider the founding fathers "liberals"?
By the dictionary definition. For that matter, I consider practically the entirety of American mainstream politics to be "liberal", except for a handful of social conservatives and hardcore "national security" types like Vice President Cheney. Both "liberals" and "conservatives" today are born out of the American liberal tradition established by our Founding Fathers, differing only in interpretation of their writings and legal documents.
i actually agree with this. Violance is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived. The has indeed been a shift in force from the people and states to the federal government.
Of course. Funny thing, everyone wants to blame Roosevelt for this, except some small number of people who go back to Lincoln. It started with
Jefferson himself, with both the Louisiana Purchase and the Whiskey Rebellion.
Well in the true meaning of liberalism yes I agree, but these current so called liberalists are nothing more then progressives...
... but conservatives within the U.S. political scale wish to secure those political liberalism...
How do you square these two statements with the progressive position on civil liberties for women and homosexuals, and the conservative position on the enforcement of religious morality and teaching of religious moral values by the State? There's an authoritarian streak in both movements, but they're both fundamentally liberal.
For the record, I consider myself an authoritarian progressive, but I don't square with a lot of modern progressive ideals concerning identity politics and multiculturalism. I'm a staunch nationalist who believes that the ideal of the melting pot requires immigrants and minorities to assimilate into mainstream society and to consider themselves Americans first and foremost. The modern movement has lost sight of the ideals of President Theodore Roosevelt.
Gail Wynand, a character in Rand's novel, thought he had a lot power since he had wealth and a nationwide newspaper chain. When he tried to use the chain to say something that the people didn't like, he found out that they actually had the power over him.
That's a result of deriving all of his power from a single source, that was itself dependent upon public opinion-- and thinking that he was in control of the people who provided his wealth and power. If he'd maintained resources outside of his newspaper and approached his unpopular ideas more subtly, he would have retained and even expanded his power.
And the problem with Rand's fiction is that all of it is written in support of her intended moral, so of course the plot resolves in such fashion to "prove" it.
The need to control others puts you in the power of others, I guess is my muddy ill-expressed point. Can ya hose it off and take a look at it ?
Your existence puts you in the power of others. Unless you are entirely self-sufficient, you are under the power-- and under the mercy-- of other people... and one of the things that you require as a human being is the companionship and esteem of other people. At best, you can-- through exercise of power, mind you-- achieve near total self-sufficiency for your family group, but then you still require the cooperation of the outside world to obtain mates.
The moral of the Wynand story, as I understand it, is that failing to recognize the source and nature of your power means risking the misuse and sudden failure of that power. Everyone should know and understand the source of their power, and the limits of it, in order to exercise and develop it prudently. The fact that so many people fail at this is what provides opportunities for upstarts and rogues.
Moral authority is a very sticky source of power, because while it gives you tremendous influence over the thoughts and actions of others, that power is conditional upon their
recognition of your moral authority-- which means that you cannot contradict the moral values they have imbued you with. Major changes in ideology or goals must be approached slowly and carefully.
On the other hand, moral authority is the best kind of power to wield... because if you are attacked, even people who do not accept your authority directly will spring to your defense. It is the safest and most enduring form of power that a human being can wield, as long as they acknowledge its limits.