Into this world of stone and petrifaction flock ever-growing crowds of peasant folk uprooted from the land, the "masses" in the terrifying sense, formless human sand from which artificial and therefore fleeting figures can be kneaded:
If that were true, the US wouldn't have been so dead set on property rights and not needing to increase population density. He's talking about the Progressive Era's period of Human Commodification, not Liberalism as a philosophy.
but in fact it is the mere non- existence of a conscious responsible authority, a government – that is, a true State.
He's reaching more into the idea that a state can only work with an Aristocracy, which Liberalism does seek to remove. However, this is because the aristocracy simply can't be trusted to be responsible, and literally never are. The European Liberal admission is that responsible governance can only be preserved in the state by local accountability, while the American Liberal position is that the government is almost impossible to be held accountable and must instead be held in ferocious check by local forces.
The point that Liberalism is hitting is: states aren't fucking responsible, and shouldn't be trusted to be as such.
I agree. They are weapons, and should be treated as such. No state, and no weapon, is your care-taker. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar pointing a weapon at you. Guns don't shoot "healing bullets".
The political Bohemia of Western Europe
Conflating Liberalism and Leftism again. They are utterly incompatible.
They have been replaced by formless parliamentarism, a dust-heap of what was once authority, art of governing and wisdom of State. And on it the parties, those hordes of business-politicians, scramble for the booty. Dynastic sovereignty has been replaced by election that each time brings new hordes of the unfit into State affairs.
Again, he's a slave seeking a master and lamenting that he can't find a sovereign for which to boss him around. Yes, politics is ugly. At least it's ugly in our face. The lie of authoritarianism is the fake credibility and fake stability inside of a horrific shifting morass of all the same people and problems he's complaining about in """Liberalism""".
for this is a Liberal form of the fight against high society, of class war since 1770
Meanwhile, actual Liberals like Lafayette who explicitly did not want a class war, and repeatedly showed mercy to captured aristocrats by: not harming them and letting them keep their property, was summoned to Paris for execution by the Leftists.
Again: Leftism isn't Liberalism.
for the herd against the master.
Again, slave mentality. Desperate for a master to be his god. #SAD!
Yet we're at the point where capitalists are buying out entire neighborhoods and renting them out to people. Fun that. oh, right "socialism."
Yes, follow the money.
liberalism does away with the state as it should exist, and replaces it with managerialism where in the jesters serve $$$.
Authoritarianism creates a managerial state run by criminals and cowards. Liberalism actually tries to remove bureaucracy by limiting the power of the state entirely.
The fundamental issue is that everything since has only been worse, not better,
You don't know what you're talking about because you don't understand why the Thirty Years War caused the Age of Enlightenment, follies and all. If you did know, you wouldn't make such a silly argument.
That anything opposing it is evil, and that only solution is dictatorship of bourgeois with mass-scale manipulation, exploitation, and suffering of populace, mental and otherwise.
Rousseau is explicitly illiberal.
That's because you're a lib and thus a leftist
Liberalism literally pre-dates Leftism.
egoism and liberalism go hand in hand.
Opposing slavery is not Egoism.
Being able to watch the political theater and being told you have influence over it doesn't actually manifest in influence over it.
Yes, yes, Italian Elite Theory. In reality, people do have power over incentives and pressures. A republican system that guarantees property rights conflicts with that state power to force political forces to account. Even under shit Democratic systems, the mob still has to be placated. Under an authoritarian regime, they would never have any influence at all, so you and Spangler are just asserting the conclusion and working backwards to justify your premise. Under the world that Spangler is arguing for, the elites would never have any kind of accountability mechanism at all, nor should they. The state is the God of the people and the state must be immune from the consequences of their decisions because that makes the state responsible.
The whole argument behind a Sovereign falls flat because it is hardly ever true that any Sovereign perceives his people as subjects to be cared for. Instead, they are typically just as ruthless, uncaring, and cynical as any Leftist. It's why the King of England had to be executed: treason against his own people. That's what happens when you invade your own country with a foreign army and burn your own subjects homes.
None the less, Spangler is so desperate for his slavery that he would prefer being burned alive in his farm house by foreigners so long as there was a guy with a crown ordering it.
If that were true, the US wouldn't have been so dead set on property rights and not needing to increase population density. He's talking about the Progressive Era's period of Human Commodification, not Liberalism as a philosophy.
He's reaching more into the idea that a state can only work with an Aristocracy, which Liberalism does seek to remove. However, this is because the aristocracy simply can't be trusted to be responsible, and literally never are. The European Liberal admission is that responsible governance can only be preserved in the state by local accountability, while the American Liberal position is that the government is almost impossible to be held accountable and must instead be held in ferocious check by local forces.
The point that Liberalism is hitting is: states aren't fucking responsible, and shouldn't be trusted to be as such.
I agree. They are weapons, and should be treated as such. No state, and no weapon, is your care-taker. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar pointing a weapon at you. Guns don't shoot "healing bullets".
Conflating Liberalism and Leftism again. They are utterly incompatible.
Again, he's a slave seeking a master and lamenting that he can't find a sovereign for which to boss him around. Yes, politics is ugly. At least it's ugly in our face. The lie of authoritarianism is the fake credibility and fake stability inside of a horrific shifting morass of all the same people and problems he's complaining about in """Liberalism""".
Meanwhile, actual Liberals like Lafayette who explicitly did not want a class war, and repeatedly showed mercy to captured aristocrats by: not harming them and letting them keep their property, was summoned to Paris for execution by the Leftists.
Again: Leftism isn't Liberalism.
Again, slave mentality. Desperate for a master to be his god. #SAD!
Yes, follow the money.
Authoritarianism creates a managerial state run by criminals and cowards. Liberalism actually tries to remove bureaucracy by limiting the power of the state entirely.
You don't know what you're talking about because you don't understand why the Thirty Years War caused the Age of Enlightenment, follies and all. If you did know, you wouldn't make such a silly argument.
Rousseau is explicitly illiberal.
Liberalism literally pre-dates Leftism.
Opposing slavery is not Egoism.
Yes, yes, Italian Elite Theory. In reality, people do have power over incentives and pressures. A republican system that guarantees property rights conflicts with that state power to force political forces to account. Even under shit Democratic systems, the mob still has to be placated. Under an authoritarian regime, they would never have any influence at all, so you and Spangler are just asserting the conclusion and working backwards to justify your premise. Under the world that Spangler is arguing for, the elites would never have any kind of accountability mechanism at all, nor should they. The state is the God of the people and the state must be immune from the consequences of their decisions because that makes the state responsible.
The whole argument behind a Sovereign falls flat because it is hardly ever true that any Sovereign perceives his people as subjects to be cared for. Instead, they are typically just as ruthless, uncaring, and cynical as any Leftist. It's why the King of England had to be executed: treason against his own people. That's what happens when you invade your own country with a foreign army and burn your own subjects homes.
None the less, Spangler is so desperate for his slavery that he would prefer being burned alive in his farm house by foreigners so long as there was a guy with a crown ordering it.