Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
There are times when you just let the post speak for itsef
Share:
by The_Cynic | August 30, 2009 at 06:39 pm
336 views | 36 Recommendations | 17 comments
I have never, nor ever will, call myself a libertarian - and if you have these warning signs, you're a right-wing 'Social Conservative' who, in my opinion, doesn't have a clue about the reality of modern life.
Notice a propensity of newly minted Libertarians showing up lately? Perhaps it's just coincidence their ranks swelled in inverse proportion to George Bush's approval rating, ditto that so many are mouthing traditional conservative talking points. But what about the everyday gun toting townhall screamers and taxcutters and deficit hawks we see on cable news: are they really libertarian as so many claim, or just conservatives in glibertarian clothes?
My personal favourite:
If you believe you have an inalienable right to attend Presidential townhalls brandishing a loaded assault rifle, but that arresting participants inside for wearing a pink shirt is an important public safety precaution, there's a chance you're dangerously unbalanced, but no chance you're a Libertarian.
Is it because the conservative of today is actually running scared of calling themselves what they are - or is it they have no idea what a libertarian actually is?
I'll leave that up to you to ponder.
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Related Stories
Recommendations (36)
albertacowpoke
Canada
Paschen
Narita, Chiba, Japan
jazzyzazzy
Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
Karen Hatter
All Locations, Everywhere, United States
a211423
Clearlake, California, United States
smkovalinsky
New York, New York, United States
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (17)
at 19:46 on August 30th, 2009
I smile at your analysis but I understand you.re talking about Americans. Well my friend I'm a small c conservative. Which means, I'm not against abortion and I'm not anti-gay. I am not easily led by labels. I am fiscally conservative and I don't believe that government can solve all of our problems.
On the same token I accept and believe in socialized medicine as we have it in Canada. I believe in looking after our Seniors.
I also don;t agree with labels.
The wingnuts I have on my bicycle are not prejudice they apply equally to the left and to the right.
at 20:01 on August 30th, 2009
And ya know what, ACP? I have nothing at all against conservatives, nothing at all.
You use the word(s) 'socialised medicine', I prefer to call it what it is, to me, Universal Healthcare.
Now, me - I certainly don't believe government can cure anything and certainly not solve societies problems, never have and never will.
As I say, ACP, as I have said to you before - I am a "real" Marxist - and, if anyone would like to read Marx, they will see that he, and I, do believe in a genuinely 'FREE' market place - not the so-called free market we have today.
I won't go into a full on Marx lecture - but he did a lot of scientific research as to how society works, and he foresaw the monopolies we have today. Marx, believe it or not, read Adam Smith with a passion.
My label, of which I am proud is: Marxist, liberal, left, Socialist, free thinker, humanitarian, realist, anti-corruption blah, blah and English!
Oh, and if I can get a deal I will deal - I am also a realist.
at 20:13 on August 30th, 2009
So the bottom line is we're not at odds with each other. The only difference is when I read Das Kapital, my interpretation was totally different and I also took human nature into consideration, which Marx may have too.
Unfortunately corruption is a fact of life, not only in so called free market societies but also in recent socialist socieites or those that patterned themselves that way.
Every society will end up with someone leading it and as disgusting as it may be, power corrupts and creates a class of entitlement even in the Marxist model. My opinion.
at 20:37 on August 30th, 2009
Isn't it always the bottom line? I mean that in societies premise and not an accountants one.
There isn't that much difference in conservative thinking and Marxist thinking - it is, as you say, how you interpret what he has to say. As you read Marx do you read it with the view that "That bastard brought us the USSR" - or do you read it with an open mind(ish).
And, yes, you are correct that in society we will always see leaders, we cannot - because of human nature be all leaders. If, on the other hand, we can fight class segregation at its root cause - I feel that will be beneficial to human kind - I think that is what conservatives and Marxist feel, too.
Neo-Cons, from the 30s onward, are not like that at all, there isn't a pragmatist bone in their body.
Marx in common English for those who would be interested.
at 22:40 on August 30th, 2009
I accept abortion in the first trimester and even in the third if the fetus is dying and will cause the death of an other fetus in the case of twins and so on, but not just as a form of birth control. What does that make me?
I think that a person has the right to use light drugs as he sees fit and that the government should stay out of it except for safety considerations.
I think that the wealthy should pay their own way even when in retirement and that social security and medicare should be means-tested.
I think that alternative medicine is extremely valuable and that we have to stop interfering with people's right to use it.
I think that gays should have civil unions but not be considered totally the same as married heterosexuals.
Not a single one of those attitude is conservative.
I don't support free trade and I want my free market well overseen by the FTC and the SEC and not manned by stooges from Goldman Sachs.
What does that make me?
I don't trust Muslim radicals and don't want the radicals here at all, but I will accept those who are not radical and capable of accepting life in the West as we have it.
I would like to see gun registration, but I also understand the feelings, at this point especially, of distrust of the government.
I liked reading Marx, but Marx would not like reading Jung. We need a genuine community based on real values, not a pseudo-solution to the problem of alienation which is all I see Marx as having come up with, one suited to a Western European Cartesian atheist in the grip of his resentment and his will zur macht.
Speaking of Nietzsche, I have read all he has written a half-dozen times. I like Nietzsche but I don't agree about his godless universe, but at the time I was reading all those books I did since then I was an atheist.
So, Mr Cynic, I think cynically about your observation about "letting the post speak for itself', a flag for the loony left to rally around so that you can deem all of us against Obama as just "conservatives" who are trying to hide because of Bush's unpopularity, whereas the truth is that Bush's popularity hit bottom because of the protests of the independents and the libertarian middle. We are not hiding and we are not a species of idiot.
Won't work. We ain't that here. There are some run-of-the-mill conservatives here, but very, very few that would agree with Bush anyway, which is, as I said, exactly why he was so unpopular. It was the conservative-libertarian revolt that killed off not one, but two attempts to give amnesty to tens of millions of illegals here.
Our little group is really quite libertarian and populist, with some conservative elements. Your attempt to stereotype us has been a failure.
But one last point: everything that I objected to about Bush, the budget deficits, the trade deficits, the off-shoring of jobs under so-called "Free Trade", the sell-out to the big pharmaceutical companies, the lack of supervision of Wall Street, and the so-called "immigration reform" is the same or worse under Obama.
What had Obama pledged? To be bi-partisan, to limit deficits, to post bills on-line to let us read, and study them to make comments and so forth, to not raise taxes and to protect our jobs from out-sourcing. while watching Wall Street like a hawk?
Has he done any of those things?
No, because he ain't as advertised.
at 22:41 on August 30th, 2009
"So, Mr Cynic, I think cynically about your observation about "letting the post speak for itself',"
Classical cynicism or modern, Roy? And, asking a genuine question, how can libertarian be populist?
Jung, through action and, illicit, inaction proved himself to be - shall we say an Aryan believer, though he never did admit it.
Psychoanalysis is still in the realms of 'witchdoctory' in my opinion - but I will tell you of my dreams of standing against a medieval castle door, in full knights armour, trying to push it open with no success if you would like?
Jung was a quack!
at 08:29 on August 31st, 2009
TC, I recall the majority of Jung's work was discredited decades ago due to his racist beliefs.
The progenitors of the so called worlds of psychiatry/psychology have long used scientific racism to attempt to twist science to uphold their racist views.
Many of these theories were published and used to 'teach' each new generation of adherents.
One unbelievable theory, featured at Pbs.org, was Diseases and Peculiarities of the Negro Race By Dr. Samuel Cartwright, from Africans in America :
DRAPETOMANIA, OR THE DISEASE CAUSING NEGROES TO RUN AWAY.
It is unknown to our medical authorities, although its diagnostic symptom, the absconding from service, is well known to our planters and overseers...
In noticing a disease not heretofore classed among the long list of maladies that man is subject to, it was necessary to have a new term to express it. The cause in the most of cases, that induces the negro to run away from service, is as much a disease of the mind as any other species of mental alienation, and much more curable, as a general rule. With the advantages of proper medical advice, strictly followed, this troublesome practice that many negroes have of running away, can be almost entirely prevented, although the slaves be located on the borders of a free state, within a stone's throw of the abolitionists.
The 'logic' used to think that being chattel, forced to work from 'can't see morning 'til can't see night', subject to any number of human indignities, was a benign process, therefore, if you wanted to be free of the condition of slavery, you must be mentally ill, is a form of mental illness within itself.
Of course, as is told, this affliction was only found among the enslaved, therefore, it's diagnosis would be limited in scope.
What is most profound about this 'disease' and its recognition is its 'discoverer' was not a trained psychiatrist or psychilogist yet, his work was used to teach.
Benjamin Rush, deemed 'the father of American psychiatry', gave the world the discovery of a condition called Negritude, a condition that could only be cured by the person so afflicted becoming White. Imagine, an entire continent afflicted with such a condition.
Witchdoctory, if I may borrow your term, indeed, early on in this field(s), I would guess was the order of the day.
As to all of these fact's influence upon the medical world, all that need be noted is the American Medical Association (AMA)'s apology, appearing with an article, published in Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) titled "African-American Physicians and Organized Medicine, 1846-1968: Origins of a Racial Divide."
The American Psychological Association (APA) website is under renovation. I was unable to link their apology for their involvement in this process.
Let's hope all of those old theories/influences die out soon and all of the alleged body of pseudo knowledge, supposedly gleaned from it all, die along with it.
Here, at NowPublic :
AMA Apologizes for Racist History
at 09:26 on August 31st, 2009
Thanks for that, Karen - but I was loath to continue the discussion here because of the intervention of a person with editing rights who seemed to think speaking about the topic, libertarianism, on a topic about libertarianism was off topic.
Oh well, lol.
But,. again. thanks. :)
at 15:32 on September 2nd, 2009
TC, that is truly an interesting dilemma.
So often, NP commenters wander way off into the woods, way, way off the topic path.
I guess one person's meander off topic is another's tangential point of interest.
Anyway, you're welcome, TC, and thank you for posting this.
Although I was unable to locate the apology link to the American Psychological Association (APA), I did find an interesting study offered by the Journal of the National Medical Association (JNMA) , a publication of the National Medical Association (NMA), entitled, Beyond Misdiagnosis, Misunderstanding and Mistrust: Relevance of the Historical Perspective in the Medical and Mental Health Treatment of People of Color.
The National Medical Association (NMA) was formed when doctors of color were not allowed to join the American Medical Association (AMA).
More information about the NMA can be found at the article I linked above about the AMA.
at 10:17 on August 31st, 2009
Have mercy on you for believing that only your references are the world's truths. Let's take a look at just one of thousands of Professors and authors who have influenced my work and life. I do not give a link for I do not want to waste my time anymore with such mindsets Do you know why the "references' you refer to if you are correct minimize Jungs'Work.? They want to medicate disease instead of understanding why it was there. Jungian Analyst also usually do not /will not take insurance...for it does not adhere to using "drugs" they will not pay! If someone is serious and wants to turn away from their addictions etc. they willl go to work with a second job to get the right help. Jungians actually are the new Priests. Teaching people they have the ultimate answers inside. It is a long process of inventory many people cannot and will not take. No one can be a Jungian without going thru a long process of therapy themselves instead of just learning facts. It is a five year process and costs a lot of money.
It is for people who do believe in soul. Anyone who discredits Jung has not read ALL HIS WORK and of course won't. Joseph Campbell too you would have to discredit with your surface search.
Every great evolving human being regrets phases they passed thru in their research. He admits himself of work that was during difficult times.
.
John Beebe From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, searchJohn Beebe, M.D., (born June 24, 1939, in Washington, DC) is a Jungian analyst in practice in San Francisco. He received degrees from Harvard College and the University of Chicago medical school. He is a past President of the C.G. Jung Institute of San Francisco, where he is currently on the teaching faculty, as well as Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the University of California Medical School, San Francisco. He is a Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association .
A popular lecturer in the Jungian world, Dr. Beebe has spoken on topics related to the theory and practical applications of analytical psychology to professional and lay audiences throughout the United States as well as in Canada, China, Denmark, England, France, Italy, Germany, Israel, Mexico, and Switzerland. Dr. Beebe is the Founding Editor of The San Francisco Jung Institute Library Journal, a quarterly of reviews with an international readership, and he was the first American co-editor of the London-based Journal of Analytical Psychology.
He has also published in The Chiron Clinical Series, Dream Time, Fort Da, Harvest, The Inner Edge, Journal of Jungian Theory and Practice, Psychoanalytic Psychology, Psychological Perspectives, The Psychoanalytic Review, Quadrant, Spring, The Journal of Popular Film and Television, Theory and Psychology, Tikkun, Voices, and Writing on the Edge. He has contributed book chapters to The Anne Rice Reader, The Cambridge Companion to Jung, Jungian Analysis, New Approaches to Dream Interpretation, Post-Jungians Today, Soul Moments, The Psychology of Mature Spirituality, The Soul of Popular Culture, and The Vision Thing.
With Donald Sandner, he is the author of “Psychopathology and Analysis,” an article on Jungian complex theory used in many training programs, and with Thomas Kirsch and Joe Cambray the author of “What Freudians Can Learn from Jung.” Dr. Beebe is the author of the book Integrity in Depth, a study of the archetype of integrity.
An avid film buff, Beebe frequently draws upon American movies to illustrate how the various types of consciousness and unconsciousness interact to produce images of Self and shadow in the stories of our lives that Jung called individuation. Dr. Beebe’s reviews and articles about movies have reached a wide audience. He can be seen discussing film in the award-winning documentary “The Wisdom of the Dream.” Among his better-known papers are “The Anima in Film,” “Attitudes Toward the Unconscious,” “The Father’s Anima as a Clinical and as a Symbolic Problem,” “On Male Partnership,” “Primary Ambivalence Toward the Self: Its Nature and Treatment,” “Psychological Types in Transference, Counter-transference and the Therapeutic Interaction,” “Toward a Jungian Analysis of Character,” and “The Trickster in the Arts.”
Beebe is particularly interested in the way an understanding of our typology can foster the development of the capacity to take responsibility for our impact on others. Following up on Jung's theory of psychological types, Beebe developed an archetypal model of a dialogical self wherein conscious functions contend with functions in the shadow. A person's superior (preferred] function is the hero (or heroine), most closely allied with a semi-conscious function called the anima (or animus). An auxiliary function (the good parent) may be counteracted by a shadowy Witch/Senex function, and a child-like tertiary function by a more juvenile Trickster. The Anima may find itself forced to compete with a demonic personality function which threatens to destroy it.
[edit] Bibliography
[edit] Publications on Psychological Types
at 11:04 on August 31st, 2009
Karen
This reminds me of the standardized IQ tests that were given for years that marginalized based on race until they discovered the tests were racially and gender biased.
Then there is the literary bias against women in the 19th century that kept them from writing or at least using their own name when writing. The Yellow Wallpaper is an excellent expose of suppression of women from engaging in anything that was considered to be outside of their male defined mileu, which was just about anything men did.
at 11:23 on August 31st, 2009
Exactly, A. Those thoughts came to my mind as well.
at 22:48 on August 30th, 2009
Well, you don't know what a populist is. Or a libertarian. You condescend and you are wrong about Jung.
You have ignored all my position statements that mark me as outside of conservative thought. So, your opinion has already been falsified.
Libertarians exist. They believe in liberty and responsibility, not the libertine, and a populist believes in small business, family farms and local community being the backbone of a society that can be more than a company town or a socialist animal farm.
So there is no necessary contradiction between being a populist and a libertarian.
Try arguing your points for a change instead of the constant, usual politics of identity.
at 01:31 on August 31st, 2009
Code of Conduct.
Again, I remind you both about NP's code of conduct and keeping the conversation on topic and away from the personal.
at 14:21 on August 31st, 2009
Ma heads spinning from the comements. lol.
at 14:37 on August 31st, 2009
I second that motion.
at 00:38 on September 1st, 2009
I'm not sure what the point of the comments are!
To my reading, Libertarianism is about the emphasis on individual rights and responsibilities, rather than investment in the power of the state. If we look to the horrors of the 20th century, we could count genocide, war and economic ruin among the greatest achievements of centralised states. Where a determined individual can bring ruin and pain to dozens, only the State can institutionalise murder and ruin on a supranational scale.
Does that mean that there is no place for The State? No. But it does mean those who look to it to impose their vision of the world in the name of justice, equality or any other great-sounding ideals must be aware that it puts them on the same spectrum of belief that lead to the gulags of Stalin.
People will say that that's an extreme example - and it is. But lumping libertarianism in with vulgar conservatism is exactly the same kind of rhetorical trap. Just because some social conservatives claim to be libertarians doesn't make it so. The true libertarian principle would be that people are free to be as gay or brown as they like so long as it doesn't impinge on the rights of someone else to be straight and white.