Sign up
The Tea Party Community is a conservative hub for sharing ideas, unifying a movement and organizing strategies to keep the United States of America in her rightful place as the greatest nation on earth. "We The People - Don't Tread on US!"

All-American Pragmatism Discussion

New Thread.


 


I recognize that I’m positing a new approach to old problems via my All-American Pragmatism (which is the marrying of the philosophy of First Principles with American Pragmatism).  Ad-hominem is both too easy and too superficial.  I’m guilty of this, as well.   You swing at me and I’ll swing back, it’s that easy, and with conservative minded persons this goes both ways.  This is foolishness.  So, this thread is going to focus on the philosophy itself and many points made in prior discussions.  Attack the points and the ideas point-for-point.  No emotional appeals.  If you counter an idea have a position as to WHY.  If you don’t have a WHY then that’s probably because you’re using your feelings.  Feelings are what got us here.  So, no dice.


 


Ad-hominem childishness will be deleted.


 


 


Now, my two First Principles, which are free to be attacked at any layer as you see fit:


1. Government exists to serve the Justice of its people, constraining the fiery passions of the people from becoming abusive of each other.


2. Liberty exists to constrain government from becoming abusive of the people.


 


In both cases, constraint refers to the active utility or the threat of the active utility of violent force, in the pragmatic context.  Therefore, we have a Second Amendment.  Consequences.  It’s why law enforcement have guns while enforcing the legislative powers of the State, and why we have the military (to secure our National Liberty).


 


Establishing this while being concerned about the expression of power via Law Enforcement and Military, while also recognizing the need to begin preparing for an irregular asymmetrical conflict when things go sideways are consistent views.  As logical diagrams go it’s a one-to-one or one-to-many relationship, which is generally how you boil things down with First Principles.  The first layer of rationalization must be the most atomized within the context of what you’re discussing.


 


From the First Principle of Government we can deduce that all government power is effectively violent power, and therefore, as it pertains to the state, all political force is effectively violent force.  From taxes, tariffs, fees, fines, debts, and inflation – government is funded via compulsory power.  In any equation of compulsory power of government, we can trace the logical relationships back to the barrel of a gun, which is to say: enforcement.  Only if you have the freedom to say “NO” without legal consequences can that be considered as a consensual relationship.


 


This is the angle I’m coming from on my other threads.  Want to discuss the idea?  Let us discuss the idea.  Ad-hominem solves nothing and is pointless.  We wouldn’t be on a TPC website if we didn’t like the idea of small, limited, fiscally responsible government.  Everyone has their different views of the outstanding circumstances, and necessary mobilization and responses to these stimuli, but we all – in the very least – identify with such views.  The ad-hominem is unnecessary.  Let us figure out where the divergence resides.  From there we identify the problem.  Simply attacking people because they don’t agree isn’t very effective, in the long term, and what’s coming for America is going to require people who can make those distinctions.  Might not be any of us, probability makes this an almost certainty, but, again, there is no harm in getting into the mindset of discourse and substance.

David #AlwaysConstitution
I don't see many TPC members who still care about small, limited, fiscally responsible government anymore. If it was Obama signing these big government spending bills, they would've been screaming from the rooftops.
Marcus Lzuru
 
I agree with that argument. The spending is a big issue and is indicative, in a bad way.

I'll post something here I responded to someone on Facebook with (regarding the outcome of the recent election and how people could be so incompetent):

"It’s power politicking. Nothing new under the sun. When...
David #AlwaysConstitution
For me, they already crossed that threshold. Most of the NC Republicans are nowhere near conservative enough to earn my vote. I vote for conservatives in the primaries, but I seem to be only one of the few. There are normally no general election candidates out there who will represent my principles.
Marcus Lzuru
 
The plus side is you're not nearly alone as you might think from the data. Politicking plays into fear and uncertainty and division. There are polls out there where a majority of right-wing voters respond with something very close to what you just said. They don't believe the "representatives" ar...
Lisa Alabama
 
"What the power players do not seem to understand is that we’re not willing to go any further to the left. They’re approaching that threshold." I don't think they care, Marcus. Perhaps we haven't made them care, and maybe we couldn't if we tried.
Marcus Lzuru
 
Which explains Trump. I hate bringing him into this, but he's a powerful expression of the underlining vectors in-play. He's a ruling class insider and political outlier who gave voice to all of this in his own fishing-for-direction style.

Burdensome regulation, overbearing taxation, selling America ...
Lisa Alabama
 
Vendetta. There it is, the word that I’ve yet to hear anyone say. Your insight is chew-worthy, Marcus. If only more members would take the time and hone their reading comprehension skills to digest your posts...
Marcus Lzuru
 
Much of that is my fault. I summarize a lot of the time because addressing every single dynamic point would take novels. My posts are generally long enough, as it is.

Such as with the CFR. They are globalist, but they are most powerful in the military and armament industries. This is why, with ver...