I
InternetHero
Guest
Hmm, this is very eloquently put, but I would revise it a bit. Both Fawlty and I come from somewhat rough origins, so I would say that we both have at-least-average levels of realism. I would, however, agree that Fawlty is a bit more of a pragmatist than I am (except in the area of First Amendment law, where I would say he's more of an ideologue and I'm more of a pragmatist). But I think that reflects the fact that Fawlty is very empirically inclined, as I have always considered myself a pragmatist, even if a forward-looking one. I have actually wondered whether Fawlty has been over-influenced by Jack V Savage in that regard, because I often feel that Jack is less rigid than Fawlty now, even though JVS sometimes gets the reputation or gives off the impression of being a rigid empiricist. (Part 1)
That's a genuinely strange statement to me, to be honest.
As @Fawlty can vouch, I named him as the most functionally libertarian poster on the board, which he disclaimed under the impression that I was calling him a right-libertarian.
There are rhetorical libertarians like Greoric and Cubo, and that kind of libertarianism is at best meaningless and at worst openly contradictory. But I would say that, functionally, Fawlty is or strives to be the most libertarian poster on this board. (Part 2 )
Part 1 analysis - I agree with how you see all of that for the most part. Your opinion kind of brings things into clarity and gives some solid background.
Fawlty is, admirably in many respects, a free speech radical. I would expect no less from someone who appears to have Lenny Bruce as an avatar.
Jack V Savage, hmm, a complicated figure indeed. I think you're right in this respect - that in internal discussions on the left he is reasonable, has clarity, and will compromise. He also has a good to very good command of his strong points - economics and some political policy.
However, in discussions with the right, he often seems like an uncomfortable interstellar explorer who crash landed on planet "Gods, Guts, and Guns." Finding the ray gun clinging dwellers of this Red State among the stars to be backward, and soon frustrated by the bizarre habits and beliefs of the other. I think he could "get" the philosophy of the right, and really add another dimension to his thought, but, I think some part of Jack V Savage would rather not.
Maybe there is a purest (in the ideological sense) nobility in that move, however, I prefer to know the two sides of any way of thought, even if one has far more advantages for humanity ad infinitum and beyond the stars.
Part 2 - I do not think we exactly disagree or diverge.
Fawtly fits that mold, and has just tilted a bit to the left on a few issues. Perhaps largely as a result of a strong, disgusted reaction to Emperor Don and the nakedly "might makes right" political coalition he formed. Or, maybe more as a result of favoring the ideas and reasoning of JVS and others.
Kind of ironic really. The intellectual, serious media (Not counting Fox), and respectable leadership figures of the right were in lockstep complaining about how Barack Obama was being repugnant tribal in the clever "salad bowl" divisions of his coalition.
A lot of truth there, and then, how does the base of the right respond? Not well.
At that point though, the intellectuals split between denouncing the figure who was culturally against what they stood for, and others who suggested the programmatic grab for power was more palatable, often against their own writing and opinions.
The leaders just collapsed to the far right, or worse alt-right figures of the mob, and the "strong" sources all fell in line. The left does this too, however, the right is supposed to have different principles that remain unchanging.
And too many went and changed their principles. That is hard to respect, + 2 Supreme Court Justices, but who are they fooling long term as their base ages and their principles disintegrate into Nationalist furor?
Maybe there is a hidden ace in the right's hands, but I get the feeling they will fold.
As someone who wants deep and fundamental social change in the United States, I would imagine you would favor this.
Yet I would urge caution.
As "iron sharpens iron," I prefer to see the best ideas of the left and the right in such a mixed and pluralistic society. I get the feeling the left will ascend... and then do, hmm how to put it, "Shit all" for the poor, destitute, ECT. and triple down on group divisions, or else pander to them while segregating themselves with ever higher internal walls. Most of the leaders are operating under the power foundations of Machiavelli as we slide ever further towards corpratist torpor.
That's not too cool, but the right just looks reactionary and angry. Maybe in response to the lefts provocations, however, who cares? The one pushing the facemask is not who gets noticed, the one who blows up and takes off his helmet is.
Maybe they'll get it together but more likely in my estimation the left wins out nationally in the long run (30 odd years,) the right is ever more shrill in enclaves, and the collective weight of empire slowly unscrews over the fundamental divisions.
Wait, what was I talking about?
Oh right, sure, Fawlty is still a libertarian in a functional sense, but with sharper left characteristics. His (largely rightful) loathing of the alt-right has seemingly fed the ideological revaluation.
I was maybe 90% libertarian in the Fawlty mode before swinging, improbably, or perhaps impossibly towards the "Evangelical Right" socially from my more ancharcho-libertarian background, and then politically drifting left in some dimensions, because too often the right just does not care about the results of governance.
Last edited by a moderator: