Hogeland on the Whiskey Rebellion

The Whiskey Rebellion: The writer makes some good points about abuse of executive power and violation of the Bill of Rights, but 'libertarianism' is a dumb-ass philosophy if ever there was one.

Nothing but a tool of the republican hard right. Get these dimwits to fail to understand the world and vote Republican. They are as silly and manipulated as the American evangelicals. In fact the Republican vote is made up of a coalition of corporate oligarchs, protestant evangelicals and right 'libertarians'. The 'libertarians' are probably held in greater contempt by oligarchical operatives than even the evangelicals because of the pretence of a philosophy and an education that they hold out.

He uses the word 'liberal' in the derogatory sense of the modern Republicans. Surely any serious thinker would avoid this. The name-calling of people as 'liberals' is an empty political and polemical tactic which brands the speaker as a Republican tool.

In reality classical liberalism, or enlightenment and the rights of man, is what the US Constitution and democratic republic is about (not 'libertarianism').

Quote:

"Can the rise of the welfare state, say, be only coincidentally related to the simultaneous rise of rogue operations of the CIA?"

Hello. There is more than one country in the world besides the United States. Every developed country has a welfare state, and a better one than the US has (lucky for us).

Maybe the CIA has got something to do with American empire and global hegemony instead of the welfare state?

And from where on earth comes this whackjob idea that the welfare state (aged, sickness, unemployment benefit; health and education) is a bad thing? I know, I already said: it comes from the reactionary oligarchy that is trying to wind things back to the good ole days of monopoly capitalism and wage slavery. What I don't understand is why anybody who wasn't a fully-propertied member of the oligarchy could have any interest in such ideas.

Regarding the Supreme Court, it seems to have been packed almost to absolute majority with extremist rightists, people who are prepared to endorse the concept of the 'unitary executive', ie Fuhrer Principle.

Its a tragedy of modern america that issues like abortion have been used as a trojan horse to get these extremists into the court.

I think the world will conclude that a Constitution Bill of Rights is not a good idea - it inevitably leads to a politicisation of the judiciary. A statutory bill of rights is a better way to go.

We might also conclude that an elected president with powers of executive, military and pardon is also a serious error. This is virtually a military monarchy or an elected dictatorship. The head of state and head of government should be separated; and the head of government be a member of and fully answerable to parliament or congress, ie they must have the power to dismiss him by no confidence. This is the Westminster system and surely is better.

In the latter part of the article when he partially drops the strictures of libertarian dogma and discusses aspects of the rebellion the writer gets more interesting. Obviously, an anarchist, georgist or socialist reading of the rebellion makes a lot of sense.

The Whiskey Rebellion: The writer makes some good points about abuse of executive power and violation of the Bill of Rights, but 'libertarianism' is a dumb-ass philosophy if ever there was one.

Nothing but a tool of the republican hard right. Get these dimwits to fail to understand the world and vote Republican. They are as silly and manipulated as the American evangelicals. In fact the Republican vote is made up of a coalition of corporate oligarchs, protestant evangelicals and right 'libertarians'. The 'libertarians' are probably held in greater contempt by oligarchical operatives than even the evangelicals because of the pretence of a philosophy and an education that they hold out.

He uses the word 'liberal' in the derogatory sense of the modern Republicans. Surely any serious thinker would avoid this. The name-calling of people as 'liberals' is an empty political and polemical tactic which brands the speaker as a Republican tool.

In reality classical liberalism, or enlightenment and the rights of man, is what the US Constitution and democratic republic is about (not 'libertarianism').

Quote:

"Can the rise of the welfare state, say, be only coincidentally related to the simultaneous rise of rogue operations of the CIA?"

Hello. There is more than one country in the world besides the United States. Every developed country has a welfare state, and a better one than the US has (lucky for us).

Maybe the CIA has got something to do with American empire and global hegemony instead of the welfare state?

And from where on earth comes this whackjob idea that the welfare state (aged, sickness, unemployment benefit; health and education) is a bad thing? I know, I already said: it comes from the reactionary oligarchy that is trying to wind things back to the good ole days of monopoly capitalism and wage slavery. What I don't understand is why anybody who wasn't a fully-propertied member of the oligarchy could have any interest in such ideas.

Regarding the Supreme Court, it seems to have been packed almost to absolute majority with extremist rightists, people who are prepared to endorse the concept of the 'unitary executive', ie Fuhrer Principle.

Its a tragedy of modern america that issues like abortion have been used as a trojan horse to get these extremists into the court.

I think the world will conclude that a Constitution Bill of Rights is not a good idea - it inevitably leads to a politicisation of the judiciary. A statutory bill of rights is a better way to go.

We might also conclude that an elected president with powers of executive, military and pardon is also a serious error. This is virtually a military monarchy or an elected dictatorship. The head of state and head of government should be separated; and the head of government be a member of and fully answerable to parliament or congress, ie they must have the power to dismiss him by no confidence. This is the Westminster system and surely is better.

In the latter part of the article when he partially drops the strictures of libertarian dogma and discusses aspects of the rebellion the writer gets more interesting. Obviously, an anarchist, georgist or socialist reading of the rebellion makes a lot of sense.

Hogeland on the Whiskey Rebellion