Tom Woods: Am I Too Hard on the Left?

[FrankRep]

http://www.tomwoods.com/images/author_sm.jpg


Am I Too Hard on the Left? (http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/am-i-too-hard-on-the-left/)


Tom Woods
June 7, 2011


Having watched the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp5hMiTS2dg) of my recent speech in L.A., a critic writes:



Woods isolates himself by insulting the “Left,” since he’s still brainwashed by that false Left-Right paradigm.

I don’t know anyone – Left or Right – who appreciates being groped by the TSA, or who wants their food genetically modified, or wants to bailout banksters, or who embraces never-ending war.

Let’s grow up politically and recognize what we agree on, instead of dividing us further with these insults based on a 200-yr-old French label that no longer fits anyone today.


It may be a bit harsh to call me “brainwashed,” especially when at the end I went out of my way to look for people on the New Left who might have been sympathetic to my message, and given that I did, after all, do this:



We Who Dared to Say No to War
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods95.html


Now part of me agrees with “the Left-Right spectrum is meaningless” argument. But another part of me thinks as follows: someone watches the Rachel Maddow Show, and those people do describe themselves as being on the Left. And — having experienced this myself, courtesy of thought-control websites that expressly identify themselves with the Left — I can testify that 99.9% of such people are disposed to demonize nullification (http://www.tomwoods.com/nullification-answering-the-objections/), an idea they know zero about, even though it could be used to bring about “progressive” goals. Further, 99.9% of them are nationalists, who cannot imagine a decentralist approach to human affairs. Hardly any of them have had a single unconventional thought in their lives. They fully deserve the ridicule I dished out to them.

And many of those people, Maddow included, certainly did support the bailouts. Has my critic missed all the perverse “I told you so” articles about how wonderful TARP turned out to be? As for “never-ending” war, it depends on whether a Democrat is in charge. We all know what happened to the “antiwar” movement under Obama.

Now I did not invent these people. They do exist. While considering themselves cheeky, they dutifully repeat every foundational myth of the regime. They are beneath contempt intellectually and morally. Perhaps the objection is to calling them “leftists.” Would it make things better if I called them wuzzles, and then criticized wuzzles?


SOURCE:
http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/am-i-too-hard-on-the-left/

[VBRonPaulFan]

haha i love this guy.

[LibertyEagle]

Me too. :)

[TheDrakeMan]

Let’s grow up politically and recognize what we agree on, instead of dividing us further with these insults based on a 200-yr-old French label that no longer fits anyone today.

Haha, complete bullshit. The Left-Right paradigm is still real and alive. Even amongst Anarchist & Libertarian groups.

[oyarde]

Doubtful one could ever be hard enough on the left. Bottom line is , they openly support excessive taxation to support a big govt to redistribute 20 cents of each dollar they steal. I view them no differently than someone leaving out my front door with my tv.

[AuH20]

I live in a prison created by the left. I hate them. Their strain eventually infiltrated the Republican Party and created neoconservatism. So no Tom, you're not being too hard on them.

[mczerone]

Haha, complete bullshit. The Left-Right paradigm is still real and alive. Even amongst Anarchist & Libertarian groups.

This is true, and partly why the Nolan Chart was conceived. I think the problem might be alleviated if we started using "quadrants" instead of left-right.

Our problems would be with the "lower-left" and "lower-right". Or maybe "authoritarian-left" and "authoritarian-right". Speech like this does two things: (1) it makes it more clear to listeners that we're not demonizing them personally as they might when we criticize simply the "left" or "right", and (2) it invites them to learn that a simple left-right division is insufficient to describe the political thought space.

[nobody's_hero]

If anyone thinks Tom Woods is too hard on the left, they need to close their eyes whenever he corners a neoconservative RINO. Talk about a beat down.

[PermanentSleep]

If anyone thinks Tom Woods is too hard on the left, they need to close their eyes whenever he corners a neoconservative RINO. Talk about a beat down.

^^^that. Lol, t'is so true.

[heavenlyboy34]

This is true, and partly why the Nolan Chart was conceived. I think the problem might be alleviated if we started using "quadrants" instead of left-right.

Our problems would be with the "lower-left" and "lower-right". Or maybe "authoritarian-left" and "authoritarian-right". Speech like this does two things: (1) it makes it more clear to listeners that we're not demonizing them personally as they might when we criticize simply the "left" or "right", and (2) it invites them to learn that a simple left-right division is insufficient to describe the political thought space.
This is a reasonable idea, but not adequate. A simple, accurate measure of political leanings would be a line with totalitarian on one end and statelessness(pure liberty) on the other. "Left" and "right" are very subjective terms. People nowadays often consider libertarianism "right", but it began its existence as a radical system of thought and belief (what Mises called the "Liberal Program" in his tome on Liberalism), what would be called "left" in this country.

[Travlyr]

I live in a prison created by the left. I hate them. Their strain eventually infiltrated the Republican Party and created neoconservatism. So no Tom, you're not being too hard on them.
The prison you live in was created by central bankers.

The Republican Party has never been in favor of lower taxes and less government. They always say it to get votes, but their first pick, President Lincoln, expanded the role of government immensely. And his administration was the first to debase currency through the $10,000 poster child of the Federal Reserve ... Salmon P. Chase. You know... Chase Bank.

The Republicans and the Democrats both work for the same master, and they have for a long, long, time.

[FrankRep]

http://www.redicecreations.com/ul_img/1625cfrquigley.jpg



The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.

- Professor Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/094500110X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=094500110X) (1966), p. 1247-1248

[Pericles]

Haha, complete bullshit. The Left-Right paradigm is still real and alive. Even amongst Anarchist & Libertarian groups.

Yes - primarily because they see themselves that way.

[heavenlyboy34]

http://www.redicecreations.com/ul_img/1625cfrquigley.jpg


The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.

- Professor Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/094500110X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=094500110X) (1966), p. 1247-1248
Your most sensible cut-and-paste job yet. :) :cool:

[heavenlyboy34]

Haha, complete bullshit. The Left-Right paradigm is still real and alive. Even amongst Anarchist & Libertarian groups.

What groups do you speak of? I don't know any who agree with the left-right paradigm (except for certain LP-ers).

[heavenlyboy34]

The prison you live in was created by central bankers.

The Republican Party has never been in favor of lower taxes and less government. They always say it to get votes, but their first pick, President Lincoln, expanded the role of government immensely. And his administration was the first to debase currency through the $10,000 poster child of the Federal Reserve ... Salmon P. Chase. You know... Chase Bank.

The Republicans and the Democrats both work for the same master, and they have for a long, long, time.
qft, +rep

[TheDrakeMan]

What groups do you speak of? I don't know any who agree with the left-right paradigm (except for certain LP-ers).

I would say there are more Libertarian Socialists worldwide than Libertarian Capitalists. They definitely see themselves as Lefties.


Yes - primarily because they see themselves that way.

I don't think it's some kind of coincidence that Anarcho-Socialists, Libertarian Socialists, State Socialists, Progressives tend to group together. I think it's due to their ideological similarities, opposing property rights and 'tyranny' of the market.

[AuH20]

The prison you live in was created by central bankers.

The Republican Party has never been in favor of lower taxes and less government. They always say it to get votes, but their first pick, President Lincoln, expanded the role of government immensely. And his administration was the first to debase currency through the $10,000 poster child of the Federal Reserve ... Salmon P. Chase. You know... Chase Bank.

The Republicans and the Democrats both work for the same master, and they have for a long, long, time.

The very idea of a central bank is the key plank of Karl Marx, one of the founding fathers on the left. Everyone of the chains you see is tied to your leg and hands is one way or another tied to the so-called progressive movement which emerged at the turn of the past century. You have to understand that the bankers need to be provided a medium to commit theft. Progressives gladly provided this rich medium to operate within, which is an all-powerful state with very long tentacles. The alteration of the 16th amendment which was never intended to tax individual labor, the eugenics movement, the creation of the Federal Reserve, the creation of the United Nations/IMF/World Bank, resource plundering via an aggressive foreign policy. Progressivism goes hand in hand with wanton imperialism. Look at the razing of South America at the turn of the century that Smedley Butler spoke of. As of today, we essentially have two political parties in charge, operating with these age old "progressive" principles.

[Travlyr]

The very idea of a central bank is the key plank of Karl Marx, one of the founding fathers on the left. Everyone of the chains you see is tied to your leg and hands is one way or another tied to the so-called progressive movement which emerged at the turn of the past century. You have to understand that the bankers need to be provided a medium to commit theft. Progressives gladly provided this rich medium to operate within, which is an all-powerful state with very long tentacles. The alteration of the 16th amendment which was never intended to tax individual labor, the eugenics movement, the creation of the Federal Reserve, the creation of the United Nations/IMF/World Bank, resource plundering via an aggressive foreign policy. Progressivism goes hand in hand with wanton imperialism. Look at the razing of South America at the turn of the century that Smedley Butler spoke of. As of today, we essentially have two political parties in charge, operating with these age old "progressive" principles.

Indeed, but it started in America even earlier than that through the National Banking Acts of 1863 & 1864. Wall Street was propelled forward at that time.


https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/National_Bank_Act

The National Banking Acts of 1863 and 1864 were two United States federal laws that established a system of national charters for banks, and created the United States National Banking System. They encouraged development of a national currency backed by bank holdings of U.S. Treasury securities and established the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency as part of the United States Department of the Treasury and authorized the Comptroller to examine and regulate nationally chartered banks. The legacy of the Act is its impact on the national banking system as it stands today and its support of a uniform U.S. monetary policy.