Yet another religious cult raided

[Occhidiangela]

Believe in a lie, ignorant masses, it's for your own good.

Many a mass has believed in the Lie of the Revolution. It was for their own good, of course, even the hundred million who died under Mao's benevolent leadership.

Goodbye Thomas Jefferson, hello Leo Strauss.

Hello Utopia, or a variation on a hope of some "better world."

I am with Mal Reynolds: human beings are not perfectable.

Your choice of Strauss is rather predictable. Get over it, Bush be gone in less than half a year. Find a new icon to whinge about, this BDS is getting stale.

Occhi

[Jester]

Many a mass has believed in the Lie of the Revolution. It was for their own good, of course, even the hundred million who died under Mao's benevolent leadership.

Hello Utopia, or a variation on a hope of some "better world."

I am with Mal Reynolds: human beings are not perfectable.

Your choice of Strauss is rather predictable. Get over it, Bush be gone in less than half a year. Find a new icon to whinge about, this BDS is getting stale.

Occhi

Wow. If I whine about Bush, it's BDS. If I whine about someone associated with Bush, it's BDS. If I so much as reference someone associated with someone else associated with Bush, in a context that has nothing to do with Bush, it's BDS. This is quite the diagnosis, Dr. Occhi. Maybe you're suffering from BDSDS.

My post was taking a jab at Kandrathe, a supposed and professed Jeffersonian, for voicing the cynical opinion that the great masses of people need to be fed comforting untruths lest they become lost little lambs. Jefferson (and Mal Reynolds) would have found that revolting. That's the extent of my comment.

What this has to do with Mao and the rest, I don't really know.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

My post was taking a jab at Kandrathe, a supposed and professed Jeffersonian, for voicing the cynical opinion that the great masses of people need to be fed comforting untruths lest they become lost little lambs. Jefferson (and Mal Reynolds) would have found that revolting. That's the extent of my comment.

What this has to do with Mao and the rest, I don't really know.

-Jester

I'm not advocating keeping them in the dark, but if they choose to be sheep, then they need a shepherd. I think what we see now in politics now is mostly the battle of the shepherds (or wolves I guess). Two things that we cannot force are an ignorant person to become wise, and an uneducated person to better themselves against their will.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I think what we see now in politics now is mostly the battle of the shepherds (or wolves I guess).

Not much difference between shepherds and wolves. Either way, it's mutton for dinner.

Two things that we cannot force are an ignorant person to become wise, and an uneducated person to better themselves against their will.

Looks like there's a third; an educational system to educate.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Wow. If I whine about Bush, it's BDS. If I whine about someone associated with Bush, it's BDS. If I so much as reference someone associated with someone else associated with Bush, in a context that has nothing to do with Bush, it's BDS. This is quite the diagnosis, Dr. Occhi. Maybe you're suffering from BDSDS.

Given the amount of BS offered up from North of the border, why does that surprise you?

My post was taking a jab at Kandrathe, a supposed and professed Jeffersonian, for voicing the cynical opinion that the great masses of people need to be fed comforting untruths lest they become lost little lambs. Jefferson (and Mal Reynolds) would have found that revolting. That's the extent of my comment.

OK.

What this has to do with Mao and the rest, I don't really know.

Your opener about the Lie to the Mob, which easily dovetails into the Lie of the Revolution that was perpetuated for about two centuries, on the masses, after the French Revolution.
Let's try this response again: use an applicable analogy.

Goodbye Thomas Jefferson, hello Leo Strauss.

Not quite.

Goodbye Thomas Jefferson, hello Woodrow Wilson.

Compare apples to apples.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

... Your opener about the Lie to the Mob, which easily dovetails into the Lie of the Revolution that was perpetuated for about two centuries, on the masses, after the French Revolution.
Let's try this response again: use an applicable analogy.

Goodbye Thomas Jefferson, hello Leo Strauss.

Not quite.

Goodbye Thomas Jefferson, hello Woodrow Wilson.

Compare apples to apples.

Occhi

I'd agree. We gave up the principles of TJ with the advent of the Great Society. The quaint notion that we would be a nation of free people who would have the opportunity to succeed or fail based on our application of brain power or horse power was set aside sometime during the World Wars, and Great Depression time period. The Civil War, was a turning point when the Federal government took the opportunity to severely curtail States rights in the name of opposing slavery. Then, consequently, with the rise in power of the Federal system, so too have the citizens of the US been systematically over the years deprived of more and more liberty. This trend continues, and will continue until enough people reclaim their rights and limit those of the government. It is no accident that 90% of politicians are lawyers, and that Title 26 of the United States Code (the US tax code) is now at 16,845 pages. Every additional law on the books is another shackle on freedom. I'm not advocating the Anarchy of zero laws, but against the Anarchy of too many laws. We've become a nation of criminals, and not due to moral decline.

I do think Leo Strauss is a modern genius of political philosophy and worthy of study, but I'm also not his fan boy. I'd say the same of Marx, Engels, Nietzsche, Kant, Popper, Locke, Hume, Rousseau, Hayek, Nozick and some others.

[Occhidiangela]

I do think Leo Strauss is a modern genius of political philosophy and worthy of study, but I'm also not his fan boy. I'd say the same of Marx, Engels, Nietzsche, Kant, Popper, Locke, Hume, Rousseau, Hayek, Nozick and some others.

Rand, perhaps?

*ducks*

Strauss a genius? Hmmm. Not convinced. A serious student of the overlap of politics and philosophy, sure.

I find the reductionist charge that so and so is "a Straussian" or "a disciple of Leo Strauss" an overused attack on any number of political personalities. It's sorta like "you're a commie" or "you're a Nazi" as a slam, an attempt to pigeonhole someone you disagree with into some abyss of evil and vileness.

As though anyone relies on a single mind, a single ideator, for inspiration and baseline principles. Most people aren't that shallow.

Granted, there are some self professed fans / disciples of Strauss running amok in Washington, some of whom I'd like to meet in person just once: I'll see the doctor for the broken hand later.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

Rand, perhaps?

*ducks*

I was thinking Rand as well. But, then I shrugged having listed half my philosophy section on the shelf.

Strauss a genius? Hmmm. Not convinced. A serious student of the overlap of politics and philosophy, sure.

I think his work on relativism leading to nihilism, both brutal and hedonistic qualifies.

I find the reductionist charge that so and so is "a Straussian" or "a disciple of Leo Strauss" an overused attack on any number of political personalities. It's sorta like "you're a commie" or "you're a Nazi" as a slam, an attempt to pigeonhole someone you disagree with into some abyss of evil and vileness.

Yup. If you've read Strauss you must be a Neocon, right? If you've read Marx and Engels you must be a socialist, and if you've read Nietzsche you must be a Nazi. If you've read "Catcher in the Rye" you must be a serial killer.

If you read period, there must be something wrong with you!

[Jester]

Given the amount of BS offered up from North of the border, why does that surprise you?

Please refrain from attaching peoples' nationality to their posts, and dismissing them on that basis. That's about the best I can reply to that without being outright insulting.

Your opener about the Lie to the Mob, which easily dovetails into the Lie of the Revolution that was perpetuated for about two centuries, on the masses, after the French Revolution.

And... what? This still doesn't seem to go anywhere. It seems to be Occhi-style free association, which while I'm sure it's fascinating, doesn't seem to be of relevance to what I said.

I say it's not right to lie to people because you think they need the security of comforting lies, and that Jefferson would have agreed.

You say... that Mao lied to people "for their own good"? That Robespierre did the same? That this was bad? That this was business as usual for authoritarian assholes? I agree. But in what sense is this a relevant reply, counter or comment to what I said? If you were agreeing with me, you picked an odd way to do it. If you were disagreeing, I don't see how.

Goodbye Thomas Jefferson, hello Woodrow Wilson.

Compare apples to apples.

That's a little broad. Care to elaborate? I don't remember Wilson's administration for being particularily bad about lying to people "for their own good", but then that's not a period I know very well.

And, per the apples to apples, is it not reasonable to contrast the ideas of one famous political philosopher with another? How is that apples to oranges? Or are you just using that as some kind of generic criticism to throw at a comparison you don't like?

-Jester

[Vandiablo]

*ducks*

I've had enough of your fowl posts!

Strauss a genius? Hmmm. Not convinced.

What?? Yer crazy. Just listen to the Emperor Waltz.

-V

[Vandiablo]

Poor Jester -- first Occhi free-association, and now Van free-association. Welp, let's get it over with...

That's a little broad.

Where?? .. oh.. You're wrong. I love little broads. I even married a little broad. And you, Thomas Jefferson, are no little broad. Same for you, Wilson. You could argue that maybe Mao was a little broad, with everybody wearing the same hair and outfits. But as for U.S. presidents, the only one who could have been a little broad was Madison.

-V

Keep Association Free!

[kandrathe]

... But as for U.S. presidents, the only one who could have been a little broad was Madison.

Well there was James Buchanan who maybe dressed up like a broad, who had shacked up with Rufus King prior to being President (Rufus was also called "Miss Nancy" by Andrew Jackson). So, while Rufus was a King, James maybe was our first Queen.