Commodities for sale

[Stephen]

I am sure that, were I to adverise my latest litter of puppies or my used motorcycle on this forum, I would get myself ejected rather quickly. Right ?

On the other hand, we do advertise monthly libertarian dinners and annual conventions like FreedomFest here. So... how close are gold and silver to our hearts ? In other words, can I advertise my surplus commodities / money here ?

S.

[Roland Kroon]

I would be interested in your surplus money, provided the price was right
!!!!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libsa?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Trevor Watkins]

I would be interested, provided the price was ridiculous...

Trevor Watkins - Base Software
bas...@gmail.com 083 44 11 721 - 042 293 1405 - (fax)0866 532 363
PO Box 3302, Jeffreys Bay, 6330

[Stephen vJ]

> Some people call gold money and bank notes fiat money... so in that sense the price of money would be whatever exchange rate exists for those notes to the commodity in question. Either way, I'm happy to trade.
>
> S.

[Stephen vJ]

Since prices are subjective, they cannot be ridiculous to those involved in the transaction and have to be ridiculous at least to some extent to those outside of it.

S.

Sent from an electronic device located somewhere on earth...

[Mark Heaton]

Comrade Mario Ambrosini did his best in Parliament today to object to the Secrecy Bill.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcTlG9PeA9Q

 

Pearls before swine ...

 

 

[Julian le Roux]

"Pearls before swine ..."

Indeed.

Good for you, Mario

--

[Paul AH Hjul]

Surely your puppies would be eligible for discussion here if they were Golden Retrievers

:D

Although you may soon need a business licence from your dear municipality.

[Stephen vJ]

Ha, ha, Golden Retrievers, yes. Come to think of it, motorcycles are symbols of freedom too.

S.

Sent from an electronic device located somewhere on earth...

[Colin Bower]

Wonderful Mario. Heartfelt thanks.
Colin B.

[Trevor Watkins]

A great and passionate speech, worthy of a Garibaldi or a Thatcher. Widely ignored by a complacent and cynical ANC majority,who I hope will live to bitterly regret their stupidity and complacency when the state comes for them.

Lets try to send this video viral.

Trevor Watkins

[Jaco Strauss]

Simply another example of what Trevor aptly refers to as the "complacent and cynical ANC majority".

Whether it is this latest assault on liberty, Nkandla, Marikana, CAR troop deployment, labour unrest, increased corruption, rising race obsession (if that is possible) or just the general run-of-the-mill cronyism and incompetence, I am often reminded of Ivo's immortal words of praise for the ANC's supposed track record of "racial justice and democratic fairness".

I can't wait for the next instalment of his annual pro ANC piece to see how he now tries to soft soap the increasingly foul smelling manure....

J

2013/4/26 Trevor Watkins <bas...@gmail.com>

--

Jaco Strauss
Kaapstad

[Stephen vJ]

Firstly, it is important to distinguish between the ANC before 2009 and the ANC after 2009, since that was the year the party was swallowed up in a hostile take-over and effectively became and old brand on a brand new party. The pre-2009 ANC deserved some praise. The post-2009 ANC scares the shit out of me.

Secondly, the scary, post-2009 ANC is still demonstrably better than the DA. The stuff those buggers have introduced in the Western Cape has convinced me that opposition is meaningless when it is Hitler opposing Stalin on how much to oppress the citizenry.

S.

Sent from an electronic device located somewhere on earth...

[Julian le Roux]

Whoa, Stephen, you seriously need to do some reading about SA and ANC history.  What you just said exhibits breathtaking ignorance and lack of understanding, especially for a South African libertarian.  I can give you a bunch of book recommendations (which I'm sure I've brought up on this forum already), but Wikipedia would be a good start.

I had a similar discussion with David Chaplin recently:
https://www.facebook.com/david.chaplin.148/posts/640973342596266

My mouth hangs in shock when so many educated libertarians believe this fantasy that pre-1994 ANC was virtuous.  When even they (even now!) have drunk the Kool-Aid, then it is inevitable that South Africa would be so screwed up.

"Secondly, the scary, post-2009 ANC is still demonstrably better than the DA." - I sincerely hope that this is a bitter joke.

[Paul AH Hjul]

The mark of pre-2009 and post-2009 is over simplistic, a lot of the post-Polokwane nationalist sentiment was taking hold between 2004 and 2009. The ANC of the 1960s was also a very very different organization and in the 1930s and early 1940s the ANC was probably the most anti-communist organization in South Africa [IIRC Mahabane  was as paranoid of communism as McCarthy]. The reality is that the ANC is an organization which is governed by a faction at all times - so we can identify things by elections - Polokwane to Mangaung in recent years but also quite significantly Xuma to Moroka (who was expelled for selling out after removing the previous one with the help of the militant youth league ...). Looking at the presidents gives some insight into the image of the ANC but it is to the SGs that you must look for the ethos (or under Gwede the lack thereof)

The biggest change in the ANC in my view took place in 1991. Before 1991 the ANC was a political movement with webs of interconnectedness to other organizations (whose work they generally take credit for), at the behest of the nats and in an act of absolute self interest the ANC became a political party. The clause declaring that a person cannot belong to a political party outside of the ANC became part of the ANC in 1991 - the effect of this has included what organizations ANC members can belong to - - you cannot join AMCU and not face disciplinary action with the ANC. The ANC cult is a necessary product of this and with the ANC cult comes the pressing need to adopt a revisionist history :: Biko is suddenly an ANC icon despite the fact that two political parties outside the ANC will be contesting the election with leaders that have a greater claim to Biko legacy and more importantly Biko was a member of the PAC; Sobukwe was PAC and broke from the ANC. The ANC has a history of alienating large sections of its leadership while keeping the sh1ts in for ever on the notion of nuturing etc ... (Juju was given how much love and attention vs Holimisa?) largely because it is an organization aimed at maintaining cohesion rather than promoting the good of the membership - it is fundamentally somewhere between the Roman Catholic Church and a cult in its core nature.

The DA has many, many things wrong with it and I have difficulty advocating that anybody vote for the DA. Many of their economic policies are outright idiotic - take a good look at DA policies and you'll see the worst traits of Krugmanisms possible - and fundamentally their political machine is geared towards idiocy. In many constituencies the DA relies on white fear to maintain safe seats - which in turn return half-competent councillors. Their recent policy wanting CVs for MPs etc ... is going to create a disjuncture between the smoke room politicians side of the party (who will increasingly resemble Tammany Hall) and the "professionals" they hire (the situation being that the politician kingmakers will handle the deployments of the professional class).

Both the ANC and the DA are afraid of democracy. The DA expresses this fear by being fixated on securing a two party system and the ANC does it by brandishing bullshit (again in the philosophical sense) about representative democracy - ignoring the clauses of the constitutional. If the DA was less afraid of democracy it could actually unseat the ANC but neither the ANC nor the DA have good track record with coalitions.

However the DA of today is significantly better than the ANC of today and if you adopt the cynical proposition that you have to find a horse to bet on and reform from inside the DA is a better bet than the ANC - - a lot of people seem to misunderstand this.

[Stephen vJ]

I did not say that the ANC was perfect, I  said they deserved some praise. They opposed the Nats out of power, semi-privatised Telkom et al, prevented civil war around the time Hani was killed, nationalized nothing for their first term in power, etc. so now you can go and list all the bad things they did and the I'll say I knew about those, but you miss my point and keep in mind the circumstances at the time and the pressure from their overtly communist alliance partners... Let's shortcut the debate and appreciate that no ruler can satisfy libertarians. That does not make them 100% bad, especially if you evaluate performance given circumstances and comparison with others. Thabo could have done a lot more, but that would have gotten him kicked out a lot sooner, so being better would have worked out worse.

I'm dead serious about the DA and their quasi-fascism in the Western Cape. Sorry if it hurts, but I have no emotional attachment to them and will say it as I see it.

S.

Sent from an electronic device located somewhere on earth...

[Stephen vJ]

Yes, well that is well written. Of course the pre- and post-2009 distinction is an oversimplification. I was not in a mood to write a thesis on the history of the ANC, particularly since we were focusing (in my view) on governance and thus only post-1994 ANC... but you are correct and well stated Paul. The only thing I disagree with is thinking that the DA is the best way to reform the mess. I don't like the ANC at all right now, but when I look at the DA right now, I find myself thinking, better the devil you know. There is something to be said for incompetence, when compared to eager reformers with self-righteous moralizing on their consciences, for they will try to do good without restraint.

S.

Sent from an electronic device located somewhere on earth...

[Stephen vJ]

Oh, I re-read your piece and think you meant that reforming the DA will be easier than reforming the ANC... That could be true, but would that win them support ? When communism and statism has become generally accepted by the population at large, the only way to increase political support is reform towards tyranny rather than away from it.

S.

Sent from an electronic device located somewhere on earth...

[Colin Bower]

With respect to Helgard, when he writes the following:

" ...and I think libertarians - who are naturally skeptical and hard on politicians - can sometimes be a bit naive about politics and what it actually takes to be successful - it is mostly not about ideas/rational discourse or even successful policies - but about rhetoric, emotions, identity, organisation/management and raw manipulation of these things at the level of electoral politics ..."

he provides neither explanation nor insight. We do not reject the politics of power as a consequence of our naivete, but as a consequence of simple honesty. I don't think we are naive for one moment. In fact I reject the allegation with a fair degree of contempt (sorry Helgard). It is not being naive to demand honesty in politicians or indeed of anyone. Nor is it naive to detest rhetoric. Nor is it naive to to reject manipulation as a means of getting what we want. And I do not like his pejorative use of the word "emotions", as if emotion were the opposite of reason. Being emotional is an intrinsic part of being human, and I would welcome evidence of real emotion in politicians who were brave enough to be emotional about the things they cared for - just as Mario was so impressively emotional in his recent invective against the Secrecy bill in Parliament. In using the word "emotion" in the way that he does, Helgard simply buys into the dishonest use that politicians make of it.

I see absolutely no reason why a political party could not exist on the basis of the propositions it places before the electorate and if being "successful" is measured simply by the ability to gain and wield power, I want to be unsuccessful and I want to mix with unsuccessful people as my friends and associates and I want to vote for an unsuccessful political party. For the DA, the price it pays for every new voter it attracts by selling itself as a "brand" is a further betrayal of the liberal principles it (presumably) once stood for. Finally, when it beats the ANC in a national election, it will itself have just become a different version of the ANC. In a lifetime in business and to a small extent in mainstream politics without ever pretending to be an angel I have never seen reason to betray the ends I serve by the means I use, which is what Helgard recommends to us as the path to success ion politics.

Colin B.

On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Helgard <helgard...@gmail.com> wrote:

Also notice the rise of the Zulu faction under Zuma and the continued isolation of the Mbeki Xhosa faction, as reflected in senior government positions (especially security services), cabinet and business interest. (RW Johnson has written about this and the possible tribalisation of the ANC into a rural and KZN based party)

Mbeki the exile and intellectual, was essentially concerned with the advancement of SA and the Africa agenda. He demanded loyalty to his intellectual program and agenda. He tolerated, supported and appointed other intellectuals and policy guru's in his administration that broadly supported his intellectual/political program. The Presidency (the unit serving the presidency) had extensive influence with Joel Netshitenzhe at the helm and helped drived Mbeki's policy agenda. Other policy institutes like the Africa Institute also flourished under Mbeki. The security services and intelligence was not considered in high esteem by Mbeki, nor did he particularly rely on the securocrats. The ANC Today was crucial to understanding policy debate in SA and Mbeki regularly took on his opponents in the weekly publication. For all his flaws, you knew where Mbeki stood on most things. He was concerned with governance and policy making...   

Zuma the spy and underground operative have always been a survivor. Politics for Zuma, must be seen from this perspective - not to a political or intellectual program, but much more in line with something like the raw politics of the TV series/books "A Game of Thrones". Zuma has built a strong ethnic faction around him, played factions off one another and used political power frequently to secure his position. Notice for instance how many senior government officials are in acting capacity in the Zuma administration - most notably the securocrats, but also at other crucial government departments (this often escapes political reporting that tend to focus more on the Cabinet and much less at the influential DG level and clusters). This will remain the case until after the elections. Zuma is not interested in a specific policy program or the nuances of public policy making - this is reflected in the policy vacuum, confusion and disorganisation that can sometimes characterise his administration. In fact the policy making process in some instances at the meta level is just another front at which factional battles are played out and political alliances managed. Probably best reflected in the ongoing battles related to the NDP and economic/labour policy, but you could point to various other departments where very little coordination or discipline from the Presidency/Cabinet is visible on a meta level with regards to whipping people in line. (Again policy making at bureaucratic level - in that absence of political paralysis from senior decision makers / principals at the meta level - will take place...). It is also reflected in how Zuma have interact with figures like Vavi, Malema and Manuel.   

Now of course these aspects intertwine and apply to some extend in politics in most countries, but the big difference between pre/post 2009 seem to me to be reflected in these different political management styles (in terms of emphasis). What is worrying is that Zuma appears to be preoccupied with short term power politics at the expense of governance at arguably the most decisive period for SA democracy and development since the Mandela (Mbeki) administration.        

Certainly some of the tendencies in the DA is worrying from a libertarian/classic liberal perspective. However, the DA under Zille are no longer contend to be principled opposition - they feel they can make a considerable shift in the political landscape and crucial to that strategy is gaining political office. That game requires some ideological sacrifices, populist rhetoric and clever marketing - the best libertarians/classic liberals can hope for is that a strain of principled classic liberalism survives in the DA (I think there is reason to be hopeful). That is the realpolitik of South African politics. (Although this is a finer and more nuanced debate - I am not implying that the DA cannot promote classic liberalism and be successful - but that it requires understanding of what the electorate looks like, actually belief, can be sold and the realpolitik of the day. Leon/Zille both got this and I think libertarians - who are naturally skeptical and hard on politicians - can sometimes be a bit naive about politics and what it actually takes to be successful - it is mostly not about ideas/rational discourse or even successful policies - but about rhetoric, emotions, identity, organisation/management and raw manipulation of these things at the level of electoral politics. Of course being politically successful doesn't necessarily translate into economic and socio-economic success)   

[Trevor Watkins]

I agree with Helgard that Zuma is a gangster, and will probably only be defeated by gangster means. I seriously doubt whether the DA will ever be sufficiently gangsterish to accomplish the removal of him and his fellow hoodlums. 

However, I agree with Colin. You do not defeat your enemy by becoming him. If you have to compromise your principles in order to achieve your objectives, why bother with principles at all. 

So, as Libertarians, what do we do about the bad guys who rule the roost? We provide a reasonable and honest and principled alternative. We keep the flame of principle burning in the gale of corruption and opportunism. We attempt to starve the beast to death by refusing to feed it with taxes or support,  by denying it credibility, by exposing its vileness. 

History will judge this ANC regime just as harshly as it judged the apartheid regime before it. It will count the deaths at the hands of the police, the deaths in failed hospitals, the stunted students, the widespread poverty, the narrowspread wealth, with the same cold precision that shamed our past politicians. History will judge Zuma liked it judged Mussolini, another vainglorious buffoon destined to be hung upside down in the marketplace. The trick, as libertarians, is to avoid being complicit in that history because we compromised our long-held principles for some short term gain.

Trevor Watkins - Base Software
bas...@gmail.com 083 44 11 721 - 042 293 1405 - (fax)0866 532 363
PO Box 3302, Jeffreys Bay, 6330

[Paul AH Hjul]

The gangster situation - big man syndrome, thugarchy etc ... - has a particular dimension that is often overlooked. 

You can't remove a gangster without somebody who is able to act the part of the gangster - and usually this means violence (or at least the use of violent physical force , or its threat - affecting an arrest of body and person is not by its nature a "peaceful" act) which should be a problem for anybody ascribing to be a libertarian. We threaten gangsters with incarceration and every form of deprivation of liberty. In the process we create a culture where one gangster is replaced with another - the later claims legitimacy. Political philosophers have complex and profound ways of expressing this phenomena (a states monopoly on the legitimate use of violence for example) and in most cases of either finding a legitimate case for some form of leviathan or posturing their political project as somehow good whilst their opponents are violent and dangerous. 

Frankly the ANC was the selected gang to take power from the more dangerous gang that the Nats represented. Some turfs were drawn up and South Africa represents a concord to prevent certain gangs from unleashing more violence on each other. Of course an internecine gang war within the ANC is breading ground for particularly dangerous thugs - a batch of whom we are seeing control the show, unfortunately a more harmful guard is waiting behind them.

However gangs survive and gang culture survives because people idol worship and\or fear the chief thug. What happens is that whoever replaces the chief thug can very often assume the same foot soldiers. In order to truly make headway gang culture needs to be addressed and a regard for things like the Rule of Law, Individualism, Human Dignity. 

My problem with the DA over many years is the lack of coherent principles and policies in its politics - most DA politicians can be divided into the following camps:

(1) political survivors; (2) jaded cynics; (3) ambitious "energetics"

Unfortunately all three camps lends itself to a politics of petty rather than a party of principles

In many instances where the DA has taken over from the ANC there has only been marginal improvements precisely because to achieve lasting change is to build a culture that values people as individuals with a free will and agency; a culture which demands that those exercising public power justify every action whilst those acting in the private domain be afforded privacy and respect. As people living in a society I think there is a need to make a decision of the course of action which will produce the least evil thug if a thug must be had while at the same time building a culture that prevents thugs from flourishing. For the most part in SA I believe that means heavily criticising the DA and ANC while voting in any respective election against complacency and for accountability - in national elections and provincial that means anybody except for the ANC and in local elections for the DA unless you are in a DA-domineered ward in which case you have to evaluate the candidates.

[Stephen vJ]

I just finished reading Francis Fukuyama's "Origins of political order". It has convinced me that Paul is correct below and that we cannot expect a libertarian solution any time soon. Gangs are gangs. Other recent reading leads me to conclude that it is human nature to bully and to want to be bullied. Gangs are part of who we are. We Libertarians are the minority - the freaks of nature. Being logically correct is not the norm and will never be. Social interactions, including speech, is as deeply rooted in our DNA as is the creation of gangs. It is not a matter of building a good party, since that is as impossible as appointing a libertarian king. It is not a matter of establishing a libertarian example country somewhere else or convincing voters either, since it is not in human nature to be libertarian. Gangs are the norm. And by leaving you forsake your relatives, leaving part of your genetics in an even less libertarian place on account of you not being in it. So what do you do if you realize that you cannot beat them, you cannot join them, you cannot forsake them and you, to some deep extend, are them ? In my view, exactly what the FMF have been doing - stay and fight. Not fighting will make things naturally progress down the road to serfdom. But know that your battle will be endless and that there will be small victories from time to time, in a battle which cannot be won, because it is the battle against human nature.

S.

Sent from an electronic device located somewhere on earth...

[Stephen vJ]

I am applauding. Very well said.

S.

Sent from an electronic device located somewhere on earth...

[Colin Bower]

Helgard - noted with appreciation. But you say -  quite correctly - that the DA is not a libertarian party. But in your view do we have a rightful expectation that it is a liberal party?

Colin B.

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Helgard <helgard...@gmail.com> wrote:

Colin + Trevor,

My point is rather simple, but perhaps not clearly put across. The DA is not a libertarian party - holding it to libertarian standards is pointless - especially in the South Africa context, but I would argue more broadly in terms of politics. I agree that libertarians should hold politics to a higher standard - in fact that is one of the better contribution we make to the discourse on politics (public choice theory, individual rights, private property etc...). However, this is not the standard by which the game is played or evaluated from by large parts of academia, pundits, analyst, policy types or the talking classes. Put in Gramscian terms, the "common sense" of our historical epoch is not libertarian politics. Sure, our tasks is to change the picture - but please show my a principled libertarian politician that have made serious inroads into political discourse. I am a big Ron Paul fan, but he is considered out of the mainstream of US politics and often caricatured as a loony/crazy - not representing policies that deserve any serious discussion. (Please I am not arguing that this is valid criticism, but merely that this is the political realm that we are dealing with out there...and yes I know you can make a case for the impact of the Paul revolution). Now take his son Rand Paul - now there is a libertarian leaning politician that can potentially make a difference and that gets taken slightly more seriously. But many libertarian are already fairly hard on the younger Paul. South Africa is an even harder nut to crack for a political party / politician that wants to campaign on a libertarian platform. My comments must be seen in this narrow party political / electoral context. 

As for explanation, I take my views from a combination of Jonathan Haidt (Morals/Politics), Jeffrey Friedman (Public Ignorance and Politics - studies of public opinion/policy literacy), Buchanan and the "realist" political philosophy of people like Raymond Geuss and others that emphasize the trappings of ethic first political theorizing. It is why I prefer Hayek over Rothbard and a classical liberal political program over an libertarian political program (intellectually sure I can entertain the ideas of anarcho capitalism and defend them - in isolation they are more coherent and internally consistent, but lets be "realistic" about what political programs are feasible in South Africa). I am also not arguing that these principles are not worth fighting for on the battle field of ideas in academia and other forums - libertarian ideas still have their biggest impact in this terrain. Nor that smart fight cannot be won on principled libertarian grounds - but it takes the realisation that most people are not even classic liberals and are in the words of Buchanan "Afraid to be Free" - that the state is the new religion for many people... 

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/policy-report/1999/7/cpr-21n4.html

http://www.esi2.us.es/~mbilbao/pdffiles/buchanan.pdf

http://philosophybites.com/2010/05/raymond-geuss-on-realism-in-political-philosophy.html

http://philosophybites.com/2008/10/raymond-geuss-o.html

Stephen 

Agree and if you read Fukayama you will understand the perspective that I am coming from. My reference to "naive" perhaps clumsily just tried to capture this element of the debate...(Again, it doesn't mean principled battles cannot be won or shouldn't be encouraged).        

On Sunday, 28 April 2013 17:13:39 UTC+2, Trevor Watkins wrote:

[Frances Kendall]

Very well put! Except the younger Rand is showing some nasty right wing leanings.

On 29 Apr 2013, at 7:13 PM, Helgard <helgard...@gmail.com> wrote:

Colin + Trevor,

My point is rather simple, but perhaps not clearly put across. The DA is not a libertarian party - holding it to libertarian standards is pointless - especially in the South Africa context, but I would argue more broadly in terms of politics. I agree that libertarians should hold politics to a higher standard - in fact that is one of the better contribution we make to the discourse on politics (public choice theory, individual rights, private property etc...). However, this is not the standard by which the game is played or evaluated from by large parts of academia, pundits, analyst, policy types or the talking classes. Put in Gramscian terms, the "common sense" of our historical epoch is not libertarian politics. Sure, our tasks is to change the picture - but please show my a principled libertarian politician that have made serious inroads into political discourse. I am a big Ron Paul fan, but he is considered out of the mainstream of US politics and often caricatured as a loony/crazy - not representing policies that deserve any serious discussion. (Please I am not arguing that this is valid criticism, but merely that this is the political realm that we are dealing with out there...and yes I know you can make a case for the impact of the Paul revolution). Now take his son Rand Paul - now there is a libertarian leaning politician that can potentially make a difference and that gets taken slightly more seriously. But many libertarian are already fairly hard on the younger Paul. South Africa is an even harder nut to crack for a political party / politician that wants to campaign on a libertarian platform. My comments must be seen in this narrow party political / electoral context. 

As for explanation, I take my views from a combination of Jonathan Haidt (Morals/Politics), Jeffrey Friedman (Public Ignorance and Politics - studies of public opinion/policy literacy), Buchanan and the "realist" political philosophy of people like Raymond Geuss and others that emphasize the trappings of ethic first political theorizing. It is why I prefer Hayek over Rothbard and a classical liberal political program over an libertarian political program (intellectually sure I can entertain the ideas of anarcho capitalism and defend them - in isolation they are more coherent and internally consistent, but lets be "realistic" about what political programs are feasible in South Africa). I am also not arguing that these principles are not worth fighting for on the battle field of ideas in academia and other forums - libertarian ideas still have their biggest impact in this terrain. Nor that smart fight cannot be won on principled libertarian grounds - but it takes the realisation that most people are not even classic liberals and are in the words of Buchanan "Afraid to be Free" - that the state is the new religion for many people... 

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/policy-report/1999/7/cpr-21n4.html

http://www.esi2.us.es/~mbilbao/pdffiles/buchanan.pdf

http://philosophybites.com/2010/05/raymond-geuss-on-realism-in-political-philosophy.html

http://philosophybites.com/2008/10/raymond-geuss-o.html

Stephen 

Agree and if you read Fukayama you will understand the perspective that I am coming from. My reference to "naive" perhaps clumsily just tried to capture this element of the debate...(Again, it doesn't mean principled battles cannot be won or shouldn't be encouraged).        

On Sunday, 28 April 2013 17:13:39 UTC+2, Trevor Watkins wrote:

[Colin Bower]

Thanks Helgard. Your explanation helps me understand why i find it so painful and compromising trying to serve the people of Prince Albert as a DA councillor, and why I am so permanently at loggerheads with what is nominally my political party. I should resign, but that is another story. Anyway, if you are correct then I find it very sad that one cannot use a word like "liberal" and count on a ready understanding of what one means by it. I recently had occasion to write the following in a document to the DA. It was profoundly ignored:

"I guess I should take a moment to explain what I mean by “liberal” (although on second thoughts that might hardly seem necessary in the context of a liberal party, but the evidence is that liberalism is not necessarily a shared value within the DA). Liberalism was formed by, and takes its inspiration from the following:

·         The Golden Age of Athens, where democracy was born, and in the humanistic values expressed by Pericles.

·         The civic virtues that characterised the Roman Republic.

·         The wondrous and thrilling achievement of Roman Law, that fed into the Common Law, undoubtedly one of the very greatest achievements of the human mind.

·         The great codification of the Salic Law of the Early Middle Ages, which helped regulate by common consent the disagreements which bedevil the human condition.

·         The Magna Carta of 1215, which even at that early age in the evolution of the constitutional state, made a king subject of the same law that governed his subjects.

·         The British Glorious Revolution of 1688,  the American War of Independence of 1783 and the formulation of the Constitution of the United States of America, and the French Revolution of 1789.

·         The gradual erosion and final termination of the tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church.

·         The philosophical contributions to freedom and the eventual establishment of constitution states the world over by people such as John Locke, Adam Smith, Baruch Spinoza, John Stuart Mill, and others.

·         The role played by brave men, social reformers and independent thinkers such as Benjamin Franklin, Tom Paine, Alan Paton and Nelson Mandela.

·         The Suffragettes.

·         The millions upon millions of unspeakably brave men and women who stood up against state tyranny in the 20^th Century, and who died in the attempt to bring about freedom.

·         The 1955 Freedom Charter.

·         The writings of Friedrich Hayek, Karl Popper, and in our own day, Thomas Sowell.

It is a selective list, of course, but no less real and powerful for that, and it represents for me the political air that I breathe. And yet the DA takes this great and wonderful tradition created by the power of the human conscience, and from it forms what it calls a “blue machine”! Well, not in my name."

My idea of a political party is (for instance)  a party that enunciates such a list as this, or its own version of such a list, pins it to the notice board, and says to the population: "This is what we believe. If you share our political and economic values, please feel free to join us", and then acts every day in every way to live and act by these values. But don't worry to try and educate me further - I concede that I am politically naieve!

.

Colin B.

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Helgard <helgard...@gmail.com> wrote:

Colin

What is a liberal party? The word "liberal" has become contentious, meaning different things to different people. The internal debate within the DA regarding what is "liberal" that played out on the blogosphere is illustrative of this minefield. Look at this forum where people frequently debate the "correct" libertarian position. Look at the various political parties across the political spectrum internationally that claim to be "liberal". 

Again, my point is simply to hold political parties to strict principled positions is going to give you headaches, given that political office often requires appealing to a broad base of people by offering them a shopping basked of policies which at least contain some items that they want to "buy" or moderating rhetoric to fit target audiences and create coalitions. Of course parties need to maintain some semblance of ideological principles, but studies show that parties can get away with being ideologically inconsistent a lot of the time - the only people that really care are the minority of deeply ideological activists/supporters, than often any way care more about beating the adversary than ideological consistency. (Obama and the anti-war left; small government conservatives under Bush). 

I do happen to think the DA is guilty of straying away from some of its rather broad "liberal" principles at times (especially in Cpt), I think criticism in this regards is appropriate, but I think it is harsh to write the party off on these grounds - it is still the best hope for a "liberal" political alternative to the ANC, even if it needs reminding from time to time that it is straying away from its "liberal" roots. Maybe the SAIRR's Frans Cronje is correct and we will end up with a DA that is not too different from an ANC - but that is still better than a radical left alliance that can easily tap into history, socio-economic conditions, identity and all round malaise to be a real threat...(As I said, I happen to think there is enough "classic liberals" in the DA to be hopeful for the faction to survive with some influence, but it requires vigilance). 

http://inside-politics.org/2013/04/17/an-erosion-of-the-das-liberal-values-a-response/

Frances

Sure, but there are some elements of GOP politics which you just have to appease/engage (at least strategically), if you want to be a force in the party. Again, I would like to think that Rand Paul in an ideal world would have far more libertarian platform, but he is a more clever politician than his father, building a relevant coalition within the GOP that might just have a longer impact and not be based around a single personality - and I am sure he knows that is the price he has to pay (moderate some of his libertarian views) if he wants to make a serious mark in electoral politics. Just as being principled comes with its own consequences...