WTH ? How do you get from RC.org to show trials and mass killings ? There is no connection at all. The question I was asking had to do with keeping the "movement, " such as it is, free of crackpots, and free of people who like the phrase "Radical Centrism" since it is starting to get popular, but who are about as much committed to RC as a Philadelphia Eagles fan is committed to the Redskins. So, how do we do this ? Go off on a tear and discuss show trials ? How does that make any sense ? The problem is not exactly pressing just now, but it would seem to be inevitable. And I gave a couple of examples. Another example is a journalist in Seattle who calls himself RC but who really is a Ventura-ist ( social liberal, fiscal conservative ). For that matter, in 2008, on a few occasions, BHO spoke favorably of RC while not knowing diddle about what it is. We need to find effective ways to keep the concept RC from being compromised in this way. Similar to problems that businesses sometimes have. Xerox, for example, did not want the noun, "Xerox," which is proprietary, to become a verb, "xeroxed." The fight was not all that successful, but it did, to some extent, establish the company's position in the marketplace and in the public mind. Christians have this problem, too, hence one reason why there is a lot of noise these days to the effect that Mormonism is not really Christian. Not a 100 % successful campaign,either, but at least a few million people now get the idea that didn't get it previously. We need to do at least this much. It would be better if we could come up with a more effective strategy, however, but damned if I know what it might be. Still, it is worthwhile to identify the problem so that we can think about it and maybe, down the road, a bright idea will arise. I mean, why in the world did you make the assumption you did ? Hate to say it, but it has nothing at all to do with the issue. Billy ==================================================== 11/22/2011 2:39:04 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
You keep it pure by purges and show trials, comrade. I think that I'm about ready to be purged. David "Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine."--P. J. O’Rourke On 11/21/2011 2:22 PM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: Kevin : This is actually apropos to your e-mail. Someone I never could stand was William F Buckley. However, he once did something important that contributed to the successes of the Conservative movement. This was back in the 1950s and into the 1960s. All of the fringe groups that were claiming affiliation with the Republican Party were summarily disavowed. Including, maybe especially, the Birch people. The point is that there is such a thing as the mainstream and that is where elections are won, not on the margins. Who controls the center, controls. By this way of thinking, today neither party CAN control the center because neither party disavows extreme elements. The public sees this and understands that their choice is always some lesser of two evils. How different is this principle for Libertarians ? Not a problem for Radical Centrists so far, the movement is still small and no chance yet for a bandwagon effect, but I don't see where we would be immune. As it is, here and there "anti-Radical Centrists" have arisen, like a homosexual activist in Iowa, think this is the location, which recasts the homosexual cause as RC in nature , which is ridiculous. Much less negatvely, there was a journalist in California who rode the coattails of Schwarzenegger's popularity and called himself a Radical Centrist for a few years. He actually was sorta RC, in fact. But he had no interest in the movement at all, just in capitalizing on the then-popularity of the phrase in California. In the future we can expect this kind of thing many times over. So, how do we keep RC "pure" ? Strikes me that the problem for Libertarians is that they are willing to play ball with various Anarchists. Not that, say, Anarcho-Syndicalists are bad news, you can make a case for them, maybe also for the pacifists influenced by Tolstoy-Kropotkin, but beyond that you get into Never-Never Land territory with all kinds of Anarchist idiots. The Left has this problem, too, with its own Anarchist faction, the really violent ones, which are never disavowed either. ------------------------------------------- About religion,. let me defer comment until Christian believers have the chance to comment on the Great Commission and the Kingdom. Billy ================================================== 11/21/2011 5:25:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) writes: I think this is correct, Billy - and why Deism by so many other names is becoming more popular. It is the evangelism/supremacy aspect of all revealed religion that is most troubling to Deists. Our coupling at A Place for Possibilities, classical liberalism and Deism is onto something dontcha think? As the article you sent earlier illustrates there was an earlier coupling of energies at the beginnings of libertarianism. Supremacists and anarchists found a home. Many of those folks are still around (and attracted to Ron Paul). The John Birch'ers for instance are Christian Libertarians for the most part. The anarchists and anarcho-capitalists, akin to Rothbard are also attracted to Paul. Objectivists, similarly. Each of these groups sees Paul as about the best choice out there right now. I like him because I believe a libertarian sensibility is what we need right now to unwind the inevitable statist buildup that happens in all systems over time. Kevin Christianity is a missionary religion. This statement ought to be non-controversial. Unfortunately, I think because of libertarian influence more than any other factor, this viewpoint is denied. That is, at least as I understand it, Libertarians tell us that religion should be a private affair, that no-one should seek to convert others, and especially should keep their noses out of non-Christian cultures because what Muslims or Hindus, etc, may do, is their own business and Christians should respect their rights to practice their traditional faiths. Indeed, some ( or most ) Libertarians go further and deny any value to religion whatsoever, and hence want religious believers not to proselytize at all. Murray Rothbard noted this kind of attitude at one time : "...I am getting tired of the offhanded smearing of religion that has long been endemic to the libertarian movement. Religion is generally dismissed as imbecilic at best, inherently evil at worst. The greatest and most creative minds in the history of mankind have been deeply and profoundly religious, most of them Christian.” At any rate, I have heard the refrain from Libertarians that seeking to convert others to one's religion is objectionable. Leaving aside the fact that Buddhism is also a missionary religion, as is Islam, the Baha'i Faith, that in the past so was Judaism, that sometimes Hinduism has a missionary dimension, etc., this prohibition effects Christians directly and is most relevant here. It so happens, of course, that the New Testament commands believers to seek to convert others AND to persuade everyone to follow Biblical morality. Here ( emphasis added ) is the quote : _Matthew 28:16-20_ (javascript:{}) So the eleven disciples went to Galilee to the mountain Jesus had designated. When they saw him, they worshiped him, but some doubted. Then Jesus came up and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age” Libertarians are fond of citing other verses, and while other passages are clear that people should not be coerced into religion nor in any way sacrifice their legitimate personal freedoms, the Great Commission carries special weight. Christians who actually believe in the Bible are supposed to convert others. Not only this, they are supposed to seek to bring about a massive social movement that converts the world to Biblical morality. That is, rather than being "morally libertarian" the New Testament commands Christians to seek a common morality for everyone. To make this clear all you need to do is read I Corinthians some time. The Apostle Paul criticized the Corinthian congregation for tolerating "anything goes" morality. To Paul such liberty was the exact opposite of what Christian faith should be all about. I simply do not see where actual Christian faith, or actual Buddhist faith, etc., can be compatible with Libertarianism. The foundation of Libertarianism is anything goes ( minus punching out the other guy ). The foundation of Christian faith is the over-reaching goal of converting the world to faith in Christ and to observance of a clearly defined set of moral principles. It is not OK by this morality to do or favor any number of things that Libertarians say are perfectly OK. In fact, Christians are supposed to oppose a number of the things Libertarians advocate. Such as anti-statism. The great model of society that we are presented with in the Bible is the Hebrew monarchy, after all. Jesus, furthermore, seeks to bring the Kingdom of Heaven to the world and partly is justified as messiah because of his royal lineage, a descendent of King David. The subtext surely is that any state to which we give authority ought to be as well-conceived and well-managed as the Kingdom of Israel in Solomonic times. That, as model for political order, is a far cry from Libertarian preachments about a minimalist state with no ( or very little ) centralized authority. The entire book of Deuteronomy is about the necessity of establishing a centralized state with a virtuous and strong government. So it seems to me Billy -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
