(Huge props to the late great Ayn Rand.)
"I" have rights that no-one else can claim.
For "I" am of one mind, and one body.
"I" choose the friendships and institutions "I" think are of value.
"I" choose them not based on blood or societal influence.
"I" choose them because they are of distinct and selfish pleasure.
If "I" choose to never ever give one ounce of time or monies to charity in my lifetime, that is still a superior ideal than by compulsion.
If "I" choose what is deemed by others to be the wrong path in life, that is still superior than being forced into the right path.
If a god created my existence, "I" thank you, but "I" am not chained to you for "I" am of free will to determine my own fate.
If "I" choose to love another more than myself, "I" still have to consciously relinquish the "I" in me for that other.
No matter how hard bureaucrats, religionists, the majority, or society has tried throughout history to extinguish the "I" with "We", they can never do so, for "I" is mine by natural right.
They can imprison me, or even incinerate me, but they can never take away the "I" in me.
"I" am indeed (self)ish, and "I" apologize to no-one for such an ideal.
For to get to "We" one has to start with "I".
Monday, March 10, 2014
Monday, February 24, 2014
What's wrong with the conservatives? (in quotes)
"Republicans don't believe in capitalism as much as Democrats believe in socialism." -Jason Lewis
"The Republicans stand for nothing except to oppose the Democrats." -self
"The Republican philosophy is not to win back America but to not lose through the 'gradual' erosion of capitalism towards socialism. One example of this is another debt-ceiling increase; another more grotesque example is the reeling from Democratic race-baiting. Republicans would say it's the Democrats fault. I tend to think it's their fault because they refuse to fight back." -self
"If it takes the Tea Party to rejuvenate excitement into the Republicans, that's a problem." -self
"The Democrats are far better at language than Republicans. They have made 'socialism' sound embracing and kind while 'capitalism', as in to capitalize, or prey upon others, be a discouraging word." -self
"The great hypocrisy of the Republicans, as the party of 'individualism', more freedoms, less government controls, advocate a singular definition of marriage through legislated controls. On the other hand, the Democrats, as the party of less individual freedoms, more government controls, are the ones more than any other who spearheaded a plural definition of marriage, which equates to more individual liberties." -self
The following are quotes from the genius Ayn Rand. I have added bold to define the two party's:
"The three rules listed below are by no means exhaustive; they are merely the first leads to the understanding of a vast subject.
- In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins (partisan races).
- In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins (Democrats).
- When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side (Republicans); when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side (Democrats)."
"What are the 'conservatives'? What is it that they are seeking to 'conserve'?
It is generally understood that those who support the 'conservatives', expect them to uphold the system which has been camouflaged by the loose term of 'the American way of life'. The moral treason of the 'conservative' leaders lies in the fact that they are hiding behind that camouflage: they do not have the courage to admit that the American way of life was capitalism, that that was the politico-economic system born and established in the United States, the system which, in one brief century, achieved a level of freedom, of progress, of prosperity, of human happiness, unmatched in all the other systems and centuries combined—and that that is the system which they are now allowing to perish by silent default.
If the 'conservatives' do not stand for capitalism, they stand for and are nothing; they have no goal, no direction, no political principles, no social ideals, no intellectual values, no leadership to offer anyone.
Yet capitalism is what the 'conservatives' dare not advocate or defend. They are paralyzed by the profound conflict between capitalism and the moral code which dominates our culture: the morality of altruism . . . Capitalism and altruism are incompatible; they are philosophical opposites; they cannot co-exist in the same man or in the same society." -Ayn Rand
"There are three interrelated arguments used by today’s “conservatives” to justify capitalism, which can best be designated as: the argument from faith—the argument from tradition—the argument from depravity.
Sensing their need of a moral base, many 'conservatives' decided to choose religion as their moral justification; they claim that America and capitalism are based on faith in God. Politically, such a claim contradicts the fundamental principles of the United States: in America, religion is a private matter which cannot and must not be brought into political issues.
Intellectually, to rest one's case on faith means to concede that reason is on the side of one's enemies--that one has no rational arguments to offer. The 'conservatives' claim that there are no rational arguments to support the American system, no rational justification for freedom, justice, prosperity, individual rights, that these rest on a mystic revelation and can be accepted only on faith--that in reason and logic the enemy is right, but men must hold faith as superior to reason.
Consider the implication of that theory. While the communists claim that they are the representatives of reason and science, the 'conservatives' concede it and retreat into the realm of mysticism, of faith, of the supernatural, into another world, surrendering this world to communism. It is the kind of victory that the communists' irrational ideology could never have won on its own merits....
Now consider the second argument: the attempt to justify capitalism on the ground of tradition. Certain groups are trying to switch the word 'conservative' into the exact opposite of its modern American usage, to switch it back to its nineteenth-century meaning, and to put this over on the public. These groups declare that to be a 'conservative' means to uphold the status quo, the given, the established, regardless of what it might be, regardless of whether it is good or bad, right or wrong, defensible or indefensible. They declare that we must defend the American political system not because it is right, but because our ancestors chose it, not because it is good, but because it is old....
The argument that we must respect 'tradition' as such, respect it merely because it is 'tradition,' means that we must accept the values other men have chosen, merely because other men have chosen them--with the necessary implication of: who are we to change them? The affront to a man's self-esteem, in such an argument, and the profound contempt for man's nature are obvious.
This leads us to the third—and the worst—argument, used by some “conservatives”: the attempt to defend capitalism on the ground of man’s depravity.
This argument runs as follows: since men are weak, fallible, non-omniscient and innately depraved, no man may be entrusted with the responsibility of being a dictator and of ruling everybody else; therefore, a free society is the proper way of life for imperfect creatures. Please grasp fully the implications of this argument: since men are depraved, they are not good enough for a dictatorship; freedom is all that they deserve; if they were perfect, they would be worthy of a totalitarian state.
Dictatorship—this theory asserts—believe it or not, is the result of faith in man and in man’s goodness; if people believed that man is depraved by nature, they would not entrust a dictator with power. This means that a belief in human depravity protects human freedom—that it is wrong to enslave the depraved, but would be right to enslave the virtuous. And more: dictatorships—this theory declares—and all the other disasters of the modern world are man’s punishment for the sin of relying on his intellect and of attempting to improve his life on earth by seeking to devise a perfect political system and to establish a rational society. This means that humility, passivity, lethargic resignation and a belief in Original Sin are the bulwarks of capitalism. One could not go farther than this in historical, political, and psychological ignorance or subversion. This is truly the voice of the Dark Ages rising again—in the midst of our industrial civilization.
The cynical, man-hating advocates of this theory sneer at all ideals, scoff at all human aspirations and deride all attempts to improve men’s existence. “You can’t change human nature,” is their stock answer to the socialists. Thus they concede that socialism is the ideal, but human nature is unworthy of it; after which, they invite men to crusade for capitalism—a crusade one would have to start by spitting in one’s own face. Who will fight and die to defend his status as a miserable sinner? If, as a result of such theories, people become contemptuous of “conservatism,” do not wonder and do not ascribe it to the cleverness of the socialists." -A.R.
"The Republicans stand for nothing except to oppose the Democrats." -self
"The Republican philosophy is not to win back America but to not lose through the 'gradual' erosion of capitalism towards socialism. One example of this is another debt-ceiling increase; another more grotesque example is the reeling from Democratic race-baiting. Republicans would say it's the Democrats fault. I tend to think it's their fault because they refuse to fight back." -self
"If it takes the Tea Party to rejuvenate excitement into the Republicans, that's a problem." -self
"The Democrats are far better at language than Republicans. They have made 'socialism' sound embracing and kind while 'capitalism', as in to capitalize, or prey upon others, be a discouraging word." -self
"The great hypocrisy of the Republicans, as the party of 'individualism', more freedoms, less government controls, advocate a singular definition of marriage through legislated controls. On the other hand, the Democrats, as the party of less individual freedoms, more government controls, are the ones more than any other who spearheaded a plural definition of marriage, which equates to more individual liberties." -self
---
The following are quotes from the genius Ayn Rand. I have added bold to define the two party's:
"The three rules listed below are by no means exhaustive; they are merely the first leads to the understanding of a vast subject.
- In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins (partisan races).
- In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins (Democrats).
- When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side (Republicans); when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side (Democrats)."
---
"What are the 'conservatives'? What is it that they are seeking to 'conserve'?
It is generally understood that those who support the 'conservatives', expect them to uphold the system which has been camouflaged by the loose term of 'the American way of life'. The moral treason of the 'conservative' leaders lies in the fact that they are hiding behind that camouflage: they do not have the courage to admit that the American way of life was capitalism, that that was the politico-economic system born and established in the United States, the system which, in one brief century, achieved a level of freedom, of progress, of prosperity, of human happiness, unmatched in all the other systems and centuries combined—and that that is the system which they are now allowing to perish by silent default.
If the 'conservatives' do not stand for capitalism, they stand for and are nothing; they have no goal, no direction, no political principles, no social ideals, no intellectual values, no leadership to offer anyone.
Yet capitalism is what the 'conservatives' dare not advocate or defend. They are paralyzed by the profound conflict between capitalism and the moral code which dominates our culture: the morality of altruism . . . Capitalism and altruism are incompatible; they are philosophical opposites; they cannot co-exist in the same man or in the same society." -Ayn Rand
---
(I've never fully understood the argument from depravity but have included it to show the complete quote.)
"There are three interrelated arguments used by today’s “conservatives” to justify capitalism, which can best be designated as: the argument from faith—the argument from tradition—the argument from depravity.
Sensing their need of a moral base, many 'conservatives' decided to choose religion as their moral justification; they claim that America and capitalism are based on faith in God. Politically, such a claim contradicts the fundamental principles of the United States: in America, religion is a private matter which cannot and must not be brought into political issues.
Intellectually, to rest one's case on faith means to concede that reason is on the side of one's enemies--that one has no rational arguments to offer. The 'conservatives' claim that there are no rational arguments to support the American system, no rational justification for freedom, justice, prosperity, individual rights, that these rest on a mystic revelation and can be accepted only on faith--that in reason and logic the enemy is right, but men must hold faith as superior to reason.
Consider the implication of that theory. While the communists claim that they are the representatives of reason and science, the 'conservatives' concede it and retreat into the realm of mysticism, of faith, of the supernatural, into another world, surrendering this world to communism. It is the kind of victory that the communists' irrational ideology could never have won on its own merits....
Now consider the second argument: the attempt to justify capitalism on the ground of tradition. Certain groups are trying to switch the word 'conservative' into the exact opposite of its modern American usage, to switch it back to its nineteenth-century meaning, and to put this over on the public. These groups declare that to be a 'conservative' means to uphold the status quo, the given, the established, regardless of what it might be, regardless of whether it is good or bad, right or wrong, defensible or indefensible. They declare that we must defend the American political system not because it is right, but because our ancestors chose it, not because it is good, but because it is old....
The argument that we must respect 'tradition' as such, respect it merely because it is 'tradition,' means that we must accept the values other men have chosen, merely because other men have chosen them--with the necessary implication of: who are we to change them? The affront to a man's self-esteem, in such an argument, and the profound contempt for man's nature are obvious.
This leads us to the third—and the worst—argument, used by some “conservatives”: the attempt to defend capitalism on the ground of man’s depravity.
This argument runs as follows: since men are weak, fallible, non-omniscient and innately depraved, no man may be entrusted with the responsibility of being a dictator and of ruling everybody else; therefore, a free society is the proper way of life for imperfect creatures. Please grasp fully the implications of this argument: since men are depraved, they are not good enough for a dictatorship; freedom is all that they deserve; if they were perfect, they would be worthy of a totalitarian state.
Dictatorship—this theory asserts—believe it or not, is the result of faith in man and in man’s goodness; if people believed that man is depraved by nature, they would not entrust a dictator with power. This means that a belief in human depravity protects human freedom—that it is wrong to enslave the depraved, but would be right to enslave the virtuous. And more: dictatorships—this theory declares—and all the other disasters of the modern world are man’s punishment for the sin of relying on his intellect and of attempting to improve his life on earth by seeking to devise a perfect political system and to establish a rational society. This means that humility, passivity, lethargic resignation and a belief in Original Sin are the bulwarks of capitalism. One could not go farther than this in historical, political, and psychological ignorance or subversion. This is truly the voice of the Dark Ages rising again—in the midst of our industrial civilization.
The cynical, man-hating advocates of this theory sneer at all ideals, scoff at all human aspirations and deride all attempts to improve men’s existence. “You can’t change human nature,” is their stock answer to the socialists. Thus they concede that socialism is the ideal, but human nature is unworthy of it; after which, they invite men to crusade for capitalism—a crusade one would have to start by spitting in one’s own face. Who will fight and die to defend his status as a miserable sinner? If, as a result of such theories, people become contemptuous of “conservatism,” do not wonder and do not ascribe it to the cleverness of the socialists." -A.R.
---
"Today's 'conservatives' are futile, impotent, and, culturally, dead. They have nothing to offer and can achieve nothing. They can only help to destroy intellectual standards, to disintegrate thought, to discredit capitalism, and to accelerate this country's uncontested collapse into despair and dictatorship." -A.R.
---
"So much for those American 'conservatives' who claim that religion is the base of capitalism--and who believe that they can have capitalism and eat it, too, as the moral cannibalism of the altruist ethics demands." -A.R.
---
"The 'neo-conservatives' are now trying to tell us that America was the product of 'faith in revealed truths' and of uncritical respect for traditions of the past (!).
It is certainly irrational to use the 'new' as a standard of value, to believe that an idea or a policy is good merely because it is new. But it is much more preposterously irrational to use the 'old' as a standard of value, to claim that an idea or a policy is good merely because it is ancient. The 'liberals' are constantly asserting that they represent the future, that they are 'new', 'progressive', 'forward-looking', etc.--and they denounce the 'conservatives' as old-fashioned representatives of a dead past. The 'conservatives' concede it, and thus help the 'liberals' to propagate one of today's most grotesque inversions: collectivism, the ancient, frozen, status society, is offered to us in the name of progress--which capitalism, the only free, dynamic, creative society ever devised, is defended in the name of stagnation." -A.R.
"What is the moral stature of those who are afraid to proclaim that they are the
champions of freedom? What is the integrity of those who outdo their enemies in
smearing, misrepresenting, spitting at, and apologizing for their own ideal?
What is the rationality of those who expect to trick people into freedom, cheat
them into justice, fool them into progress, con them into preserving their
rights, and, while indoctrinating them with statism, put one over on them and
let them wake up in a perfect capitalist society some morning?
These are the 'conservatives'—or most of their intellectual spokesmen." -A.R.
---
These are the 'conservatives'—or most of their intellectual spokesmen." -A.R.
---
"Today’s culture is dominated by the philosophy of mysticism
(irrationalism)—altruism—collectivism, the base from which only statism can
be derived; the statists (of any brand: communist, fascist or welfare) are
merely cashing in on it—while the 'conservatives' are scurrying to ride on the
enemy’s premises and, somehow, to achieve political freedom by stealth. It
can’t be done." -A.R.
---
"Capitalism is not the system of the past; it is the system of the future—if
mankind is to have a future. Those who wish to fight for it, must discard the
title of 'conservatives'. 'Conservatism' has always been a misleading name,
inappropriate to America. Today, there is nothing left to 'conserve': the
established political philosophy, the intellectual orthodoxy, and the status
quo are collectivism. Those who reject all the basic premises of
collectivism are radicals in the proper sense of the word: 'radical' means 'fundamental'. Today, the fighters for capitalism have to be, not bankrupt 'conservatives', but new radicals, new intellectuals and, above all, new,
dedicated moralists." -A.R.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Dennis Prager: The Side Not Seen
Dennis Prager is a conservative thinker who has a nationally-syndicated radio program on the Salem Radio Network. His support lies with the Republican Party to which listeners can hear his criticisms of liberals, the Democratic Party, and secularism in general. I had listened to Prager's program extensively for a good 3-5 years during the beginning and middle of the decade. I found his program to be quite insightful and hold many fine moral principles. However, as time went by, I started to question his principles as well as the way his program was presented. In general it wasn't anything I could actually prove, but my sense was things were not quite what they seemed. So after doing a little digging, I've come up with the following on why Mr. Prager isn't all that he seems, especially to his loyal fan base.
There appears to be quite a difference between nationally-aired political programs and what one can find on their local programming. The latter ten to take call-ins without screening their callers. In the experiences that I've had, they just say "Please hold", or something to the effect. Prager claims to have "debated the best", but in order to believe that it begs the question of why his program screens callers. The question has been answered with things like filtering the rude, obnoxious, vulgar callers. However, I have to wonder why these shows already have the technology in place to edit vulgar language out since there is a delay in transmission from the time the call-in takes place to when the listener receives the signal. In effect, the main reason is either censorship, or Prager hasn't ever really debated libertarians.
Although Prager centers himself as a "conservative Republican," opposing modern liberalism and the Democratic Party, his underlying philosophy is quite different and often undetected. As noted below, Prager would best be described as a 'virtue socialist' since he supports government intevention in non-economic areas:
Prager's political philosophy holds remnants of elitism and mysticism (a leader of doing 'God's work'), socialism, totalitarianism, and other examples of religious tryanny (since there is no end in sight to the control over human conduct they seek). He is also a hyprocrite since he claims the 'moral idiocy' of a generation but doesn't consider his own god-driven rule is lacking a visible endorsement from, namely, God. Prager refers to the Bible as the sole truth of his politico actions since human is fallible and cannot be trusted to live in freedom, for freedom is at the core of his disdain. In other words, for humanity to reach its highest heights, suppression needs to be enacted since Prager is citing a 'divine text'.
In his column Internet Anonymity Is As Destructive As Internet Porn, Prager believes that the way to a more civil discourse is through the depletion of free speech. This couldn't be further from the truth:
While not convinced Prager would resort to violence to enforce his values, he nonetheless is a supporter of mandating religion upon society. He has elements of Christian Reconstructionism since he believes "that every area dominated by sin must be 'reconstructed' in terms of the Bible." [6] Prager fails to grasp that only those who benefit from socialist law are the ones on top of the food chain: meaning him. His forcible measure will do little to actually convert society to his thinking since about the only thing humans have ever had in common with one another is that we are human. Prager is making the same mistake history has seen when religion tries to interfere with liberty. It will produce reaction, not conversion. And since biblical adherrents are also often socialists (for they don't believe in the "individual" to begin with), they tend to place the responsibility back on the bible, not themselves. (They believe in their individual rights but not anyone else who differs from their morality.)
In Blasphemy: How the Religious Right Is Hijacking Our Declaration of Independence, Alan Dershowitz highlights some of Prager's faulty reasoning behind Congress-elected Keith Ellingson's decision to use a book other than the Bible on the swearing-in on the oath:
Also...
A few hypocritical examples:
Prager writes a column on Socialism Kills but doesn't see how his own religious rule over society is consider socialist.
His column on Why the Democrats Use 12-year-olds is contradictory since several years back he had his young son on his program and asked if he 'agreed' on one of his political positions. Well of course he's going to agree. He's your son.
Other contradictory examples:
His topic on nature, he states, "We are indeed to be responsible stewards of nature, but for our sake, not its." If Prager were reading the literal truth, the bible quite clearly states we are to caretake nature and its inhabitants not just for our sake, but its.
Here Prager uses a very weak and straw man argument on the basis that since children don't see the "wild" portion of nature, we as humanity shouldn't apparently value nature. He doesn't even begin to address that adults value nature despite knowing 'the survival of the fittest'. Prager's underlying motivation for writing this is because the left control the environmental topic. That has bothered Republicans going back to the '70s and the environmental movement. And they continue to have little voice on the matter due to their own failure. You would think that since God and God's creation, Nature, go hand-in-hand, that Prager would have an appreciation for it. I actually agree with some of his points on green extremism, but it's quite odd to me that Prager isn't very sympathetic to his creator's creation.
In Thank God For Moral Violence, Prager makes some relatively decent points on the use of moral violence vs. immoral violence. However, the title of his column is disturbing because he attributes a moral campaign to fight immorality, with God. Prager once said that there have been far more secular wars than religious wars. Well the point he misses is that there ARE religious wars. And if religion is such a great thing, wouldn't there be like zero wars in history? Because the entire point is a matter of tolerating other view points. Like religion, Prager is a socialist, and since socialism is a "collective" vision, he is continually seeking to push his morality above others. Prager presumably sees no end in sight to the wars America can wage on immoral foreign soils, even if those pocket wars pose no security risk to our country. There is little hindsight to the thought of letting humanity decide their own fate provided it doesn't interfere with the survival of others. I am not trying to attribute Prager to the likes of Hitler or Stalin. I'm simply saying there is no end in sight to the intervention he seeks over other immorals since he ascribes his mission to what he believes God wants, which is stomping out all immorality. While American troops dying for the betterment of other nations is a noble one, it does bring into question why those nations are dependent upon America to do the dying for them.
A person who actively seeks to control who are who cannot marry on a wide scale such as a national level, is a nationalist. Since Prager is bothered by how "other" countries handle this topic too, that makes him a totalitarian for he seeks to control the globe. For such an "expert" on totalitarianism, it is amazing how he doesn't view himself as such. I can be thankful he doesn't have the power to achieve his aims.
Dennis Prager's Inconsistent Arguments
Update:
During the week of 10-5 to 10-9-09, Prager claimed that one can be against same sex marriage while basically not holding prejudisms against said. No, that would be an impossibility. One cannot claim divinity through the use of government coercion (heterosexual mandation). See, his issue is morality (of which many things I agree with), but his actions are just as immoral for he seeks to use government and the socialist method of legislation. Marriage is defined by the individual, and there is no such thing as Prager claims to the sanctity of heterosexual marriage. The only way for heterosexual marriage to be destroyed is if heterosexuals be not able to marry. And since that is not exactly under any serious threat -- guess what? It's a clever engineering to justify to himself that not only is he not a homophobic, but that his goal is of divine origin through biblical terms. One simply cannot say they don't mean any ill will towards another group by preventing certain activities. And there certainly is no ownership over marriage. The only reason a singular definition has allowed to exist this long is through legislation, albeit still tyranny. Mr. Prager certainly has no extraordinary rights over anyone else. It doesn't matter how good it sounds in moralistic terms in the Prager camp. If one has to commit another form of force to maintain the status quo, they're committing a different yet similar immoral.
There appears to be quite a difference between nationally-aired political programs and what one can find on their local programming. The latter ten to take call-ins without screening their callers. In the experiences that I've had, they just say "Please hold", or something to the effect. Prager claims to have "debated the best", but in order to believe that it begs the question of why his program screens callers. The question has been answered with things like filtering the rude, obnoxious, vulgar callers. However, I have to wonder why these shows already have the technology in place to edit vulgar language out since there is a delay in transmission from the time the call-in takes place to when the listener receives the signal. In effect, the main reason is either censorship, or Prager hasn't ever really debated libertarians.
He has been criticized for turning down the volume of callers' phone connections so that he can have the last word. [1]
Although Prager centers himself as a "conservative Republican," opposing modern liberalism and the Democratic Party, his underlying philosophy is quite different and often undetected. As noted below, Prager would best be described as a 'virtue socialist' since he supports government intevention in non-economic areas:
Another justification for socialism is the vague concept of "virtue." Under this kind of socialism, society is manipulated toward the goal of creating a society based on certain religious ideals. The individual is largely left alone in his economic activities, but his non-economic activities are regulated if not banned, even though those activities are conducted between consenting adults with a clear and honest agreement regarding their association.
This form of socialism is as destructive of individual liberty as the more recognized Marxist form of socialism. Bizarrely, the proponents of virtue socialism refuse to recognize their socialism, despite their constant invocation of terms like society, the greater good, and the majority, in the context of manipulating them using government fiat -- classic rhetoric of all socialists. [2]
Europe has given the world Marxism, Communism, Fascism, Nazism, racism, and socialism, all rotten ideas that have caused immeasurable human suffering. But for Europeans and their ideological twins on the American left and at universities, ideas are not judged by their ability to ameliorate human suffering or reduce evil, but by their complexity and apparent profundity. An idea is not good because it produces good – that’s unromantic American pragmatism – it is good because it sounds good. -D.P. [3]
Prager's political philosophy holds remnants of elitism and mysticism (a leader of doing 'God's work'), socialism, totalitarianism, and other examples of religious tryanny (since there is no end in sight to the control over human conduct they seek). He is also a hyprocrite since he claims the 'moral idiocy' of a generation but doesn't consider his own god-driven rule is lacking a visible endorsement from, namely, God. Prager refers to the Bible as the sole truth of his politico actions since human is fallible and cannot be trusted to live in freedom, for freedom is at the core of his disdain. In other words, for humanity to reach its highest heights, suppression needs to be enacted since Prager is citing a 'divine text'.
In his column Internet Anonymity Is As Destructive As Internet Porn, Prager believes that the way to a more civil discourse is through the depletion of free speech. This couldn't be further from the truth:
(excerpt)
There are a number of huge flaws with this idea, though:
1. Incivility on the internet is a nuisance, but not a threat; if you are seriously offended and hurt by something said by an anonymous commenter or blogger, then you need to grow a thicker skin. Not to say you can't be seriously annoyed by this sort of thing- just that we're not usually talking about serious threats to someone's reputation or physical well-being. An ad hominem by an anonymous poster is hardly going to hurt someone's reputation, and it really shouldn't hurt their feelings. The primary effect of the ad hominem nuisance is often that it prevents the anonymous poster's legitimate arguments from ever getting a fair hearing from the "victim." [4]
I have come to realize that the great divide in values is not between those who believe in God and those who do not but between those who believe in a divine text and those who do not. -D.P.
This seemingly innocuous statement of his personal belief is far more dangerous in its sweeping world view that anyone who does not follow a fundamentalist literalist interpretation of the Bible is politically wrong. I have no doubt that Prager would happily endorse violent enforcement of Biblical literalism if he had the power to achieve it. That is what characterizes Christian Reconstructionism, more about it here and here. I find such statements and his advocacy of culture war, and his entrenched position on the air in radio far more disturbing and dangerous than his ludicrous column on married male female sex relations. [5] -Daily Kos
While not convinced Prager would resort to violence to enforce his values, he nonetheless is a supporter of mandating religion upon society. He has elements of Christian Reconstructionism since he believes "that every area dominated by sin must be 'reconstructed' in terms of the Bible." [6] Prager fails to grasp that only those who benefit from socialist law are the ones on top of the food chain: meaning him. His forcible measure will do little to actually convert society to his thinking since about the only thing humans have ever had in common with one another is that we are human. Prager is making the same mistake history has seen when religion tries to interfere with liberty. It will produce reaction, not conversion. And since biblical adherrents are also often socialists (for they don't believe in the "individual" to begin with), they tend to place the responsibility back on the bible, not themselves. (They believe in their individual rights but not anyone else who differs from their morality.)
In Blasphemy: How the Religious Right Is Hijacking Our Declaration of Independence, Alan Dershowitz highlights some of Prager's faulty reasoning behind Congress-elected Keith Ellingson's decision to use a book other than the Bible on the swearing-in on the oath:
As if to demonstrate that intolerance once practiced against Jews can also be practiced by some Jews against other minorities, a Jewish right-wing talk show host named Dennis Prager led a campaign to disallow the first Muslim elected to congress (in November 2006) to take an oath of office on the Koran. Prager insisted that congressman Keith Ellingson should not be allowed to do so—not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress.
Prager’s bigotry was immediately condemned by Jewish organizations across the ideological spectrum. This is what the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith said:
Prager is flat-out wrong when he asserts that Representative Ellingson’s use of a Koran would be “damaging to the fabric of American civilization.” To the contrary, the U.S. Constitution guarantees that “no religious test shall ever be required” to hold public office in America. Members of Congress, like all Americans, should be free to observe their own religious practices without government interference or coercion.
Prager’s patriotic prattling in misinformed on the facts, too. No Member of Congress is officially sworn in with a Bible. Under House rules, the official swearing-in ceremony is done in the House chambers, with the Speaker of the House administering the oath of office en masse. No Bibles or other holy books are used at all. Members may, if they choose, also have a private ceremony with family and friends. At these unofficial ceremonies, Members frequently solemnize the event by taking on oath while holding a personal family Bible.
Prager ridiculously asserts that permitting Rep. Ellingson to take the oath of office would “be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11.” What he fails to understand is that what truly unifies all Americans is a value system built on religious freedom and pluralism, not dogmatism and coercion.
Prager presents intolerant, ugly views. His comparison of Ellison’s desire to “choose his favorite book” to that of the right of racist elected to public office to use Hitler’s Mein Kampf is outrageous.
Also...
In other words, the Constitution—according to the absurd reasoning of Chancellor Kent and Justice Brewer—would allow discrimination against Muslims and Buddhists, because they are religious “impostors,” but not against Christians, because that is the true religion. That, of course, is precisely what Dennis Prager is proposing, though he would probably describe our true religion as ‘Judeo-Christian.’ This is a poor provenance on which on which to base a claim that we are, as a matter of constitutional law, a Christian nation.
A few hypocritical examples:
Prager writes a column on Socialism Kills but doesn't see how his own religious rule over society is consider socialist.
His column on Why the Democrats Use 12-year-olds is contradictory since several years back he had his young son on his program and asked if he 'agreed' on one of his political positions. Well of course he's going to agree. He's your son.
Other contradictory examples:
His topic on nature, he states, "We are indeed to be responsible stewards of nature, but for our sake, not its." If Prager were reading the literal truth, the bible quite clearly states we are to caretake nature and its inhabitants not just for our sake, but its.
The romanticizing of nature, let alone the ascribing of divinity to it, involves ignoring what really happens in nature. I doubt that those American schoolchildren who conducted a campaign on behalf of freeing a killer whale (the whale in the film "Free Willy") ever saw films of actual killer whale behavior. There are National Geographic videos that show, among other things, killer whales tossing a terrified baby seal back and forth before finally killing it. Perhaps American schoolchildren should see those films and then petition killer whales not to treat baby seals sadistically.
If you care about good and evil, you cannot worship nature. And since that is what God most cares about, nature worship is antithetical to Judeo-Christian values. -D.P. [7]
Here Prager uses a very weak and straw man argument on the basis that since children don't see the "wild" portion of nature, we as humanity shouldn't apparently value nature. He doesn't even begin to address that adults value nature despite knowing 'the survival of the fittest'. Prager's underlying motivation for writing this is because the left control the environmental topic. That has bothered Republicans going back to the '70s and the environmental movement. And they continue to have little voice on the matter due to their own failure. You would think that since God and God's creation, Nature, go hand-in-hand, that Prager would have an appreciation for it. I actually agree with some of his points on green extremism, but it's quite odd to me that Prager isn't very sympathetic to his creator's creation.
In Thank God For Moral Violence, Prager makes some relatively decent points on the use of moral violence vs. immoral violence. However, the title of his column is disturbing because he attributes a moral campaign to fight immorality, with God. Prager once said that there have been far more secular wars than religious wars. Well the point he misses is that there ARE religious wars. And if religion is such a great thing, wouldn't there be like zero wars in history? Because the entire point is a matter of tolerating other view points. Like religion, Prager is a socialist, and since socialism is a "collective" vision, he is continually seeking to push his morality above others. Prager presumably sees no end in sight to the wars America can wage on immoral foreign soils, even if those pocket wars pose no security risk to our country. There is little hindsight to the thought of letting humanity decide their own fate provided it doesn't interfere with the survival of others. I am not trying to attribute Prager to the likes of Hitler or Stalin. I'm simply saying there is no end in sight to the intervention he seeks over other immorals since he ascribes his mission to what he believes God wants, which is stomping out all immorality. While American troops dying for the betterment of other nations is a noble one, it does bring into question why those nations are dependent upon America to do the dying for them.
As a graduate student in international affairs at Columbia University, I specialized in the study of totalitarianism, especially, though not only, the communist variety. I found the subject fascinating, but I never for a moment imagined that any expertise gained in this field would prove relevant to American life.
Sad to say, it has turned out to be the most valuable subject I could have studied. The totalitarian temptation is not confined to Nazis and communists; it can rear its head in any society and gradually destroy it. And as the Soviet dissident joke notes, one quick way to identify totalitarian threats to liberty is to identify those who falsify the historical record on behalf of their cause. [8]
A person who actively seeks to control who are who cannot marry on a wide scale such as a national level, is a nationalist. Since Prager is bothered by how "other" countries handle this topic too, that makes him a totalitarian for he seeks to control the globe. For such an "expert" on totalitarianism, it is amazing how he doesn't view himself as such. I can be thankful he doesn't have the power to achieve his aims.
Dennis Prager's Inconsistent Arguments
Update:
During the week of 10-5 to 10-9-09, Prager claimed that one can be against same sex marriage while basically not holding prejudisms against said. No, that would be an impossibility. One cannot claim divinity through the use of government coercion (heterosexual mandation). See, his issue is morality (of which many things I agree with), but his actions are just as immoral for he seeks to use government and the socialist method of legislation. Marriage is defined by the individual, and there is no such thing as Prager claims to the sanctity of heterosexual marriage. The only way for heterosexual marriage to be destroyed is if heterosexuals be not able to marry. And since that is not exactly under any serious threat -- guess what? It's a clever engineering to justify to himself that not only is he not a homophobic, but that his goal is of divine origin through biblical terms. One simply cannot say they don't mean any ill will towards another group by preventing certain activities. And there certainly is no ownership over marriage. The only reason a singular definition has allowed to exist this long is through legislation, albeit still tyranny. Mr. Prager certainly has no extraordinary rights over anyone else. It doesn't matter how good it sounds in moralistic terms in the Prager camp. If one has to commit another form of force to maintain the status quo, they're committing a different yet similar immoral.
Monday, June 02, 2008
In Smite of Our Fore Fathers
Locke, Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson--
their cause hijacked, collectivism won;
"A republic, if you can keep it,"--
Ben must surely be having a fit!;
Aristotle knew, Von Mises did,
Ayn Rand had a clue, the people hid;
God, religion, and mysticism,
Tyranny hasn't produced much wisdom;
The Declaration of Independence,
of which the Religious Right took offense;
The Constitution was written as a taper,
Dubya said, "It's just a god-damn piece of paper!";
Do you remember the Bill of Rights?
"Sorta," and flicks the cigarette light;
War and imperialism were enacted,
our youth were forced into being drafted;
Abroad we fought Russia and Communism,
at home the Smoking Ban equates to Nazism;
Oil prices, healthcare, and gay rights,
stems from which suit has the most might;
The Blues & Reds take credit for being the ones,
but it is closer to the Libertarians;
"All for One, and One for All,"
the saying has been our fall;
We live under a doctrine of hate,
no answers, just circles of debate;
Like droids marching in a world of denial,
our best attempt is to give a plastic smile;
Billy Joel said "We Didn't Start the Fire,"
that depends on if Frank Luntz is for hire;
Where have I heard this song before?
Oh yes, in the pages before.
their cause hijacked, collectivism won;
"A republic, if you can keep it,"--
Ben must surely be having a fit!;
Aristotle knew, Von Mises did,
Ayn Rand had a clue, the people hid;
God, religion, and mysticism,
Tyranny hasn't produced much wisdom;
The Declaration of Independence,
of which the Religious Right took offense;
The Constitution was written as a taper,
Dubya said, "It's just a god-damn piece of paper!";
Do you remember the Bill of Rights?
"Sorta," and flicks the cigarette light;
War and imperialism were enacted,
our youth were forced into being drafted;
Abroad we fought Russia and Communism,
at home the Smoking Ban equates to Nazism;
Oil prices, healthcare, and gay rights,
stems from which suit has the most might;
The Blues & Reds take credit for being the ones,
but it is closer to the Libertarians;
"All for One, and One for All,"
the saying has been our fall;
We live under a doctrine of hate,
no answers, just circles of debate;
Like droids marching in a world of denial,
our best attempt is to give a plastic smile;
Billy Joel said "We Didn't Start the Fire,"
that depends on if Frank Luntz is for hire;
Where have I heard this song before?
Oh yes, in the pages before.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Democrats are overachievers; Republicans are underachievers
The RNP are failures. Our fore fathers built America on a Republic, and it is anything but today. Republicans really don’t even comprehend what America once was. Their really only goal is to be “less worse” than the Democrats. The Constitution, liberty, etc. is a bunch of passé blah to them. (“The Constitution is just a god damn piece of paper.” –George W. Bush)
On the other hand, the Democrats are winners. Not in head-to-head principles per se, but they’ve won the emotional debate. (No? Then ask yourself why Republicans often call themselves “compassionate conservatives.”) Democrats own the media, too. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, etc. all have liberal leanings. The main conservative channel out there is really only FOX.
Despite opposition accounts, Republicans are more unpredictable. It’s true Democrats will not confront their socialism at times, but everyone knows they’re tax & spenders. Everyone basically knows they’re socialists. Democrats really have an internationalist agenda with Europe as its model. Should a Democrat get in office, nobody is really that surprised if spending and/or social programs should explode to the point of setting new records. But if a Republican spends a bunch or becomes decidedly liberal, people are like, WTF?!
Republicans are usually predictable when it comes to giving you more of your tax dollars back. But many other areas you cannot be for certain. Spending is even open game now (if it ever wasn’t in the first place?). You cannot be for certain a Republican will be true to their conservancy. That knowingness of who they truly are isn’t as inherent as it is with the Democrats.
Democrats, like Obama, pride themselves on socialist terms like “we” and greater environmental protections. Republicans kinda hang onto the ends of the blue coattails because they fear losing the compassion debate. Democrats tend to spout all kinds of social ideals on various subjects. As Ayn Rand notes, Republicans still tend to use the jargon “faith” and “tradition.” In that regards, the Blues have better jargon for they think in terms of “future” and “progressive.” Republicans call to the past – whatever that means? But they don’t comprehend what their past is. They just take pride in knowing that polls like approval ratings from say two years ago are a 30-20 percent in favor of them. They’d say, “Well, hahaha, at least we’re not as bad as the Democrats!” The idea that they should have great principles, first, is secondary to the one of being mildly better than the Democrats. The Blues tend to win more by evasion since they know their ideas cannot be debated in the open. The Reds – oh boy! – know they can win the open debate but in the end follow suit many times.
Since the Democrats know their ideas cannot be openly debated, they win the emotions debate, or the vagueness of media and pictures, to get an edge. Republicans haven’t really figured out with any consistency how to beat them over the years. It’s true the RNP have held more presidential offices. That would, to them, account as impressive, worthy of a moral victory. But when you think about what America was built on, and how a party that can offer nothing has slowly transformed America into something other than its beginnings, it is they who are the overachievers.
On the other hand, the Democrats are winners. Not in head-to-head principles per se, but they’ve won the emotional debate. (No? Then ask yourself why Republicans often call themselves “compassionate conservatives.”) Democrats own the media, too. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, etc. all have liberal leanings. The main conservative channel out there is really only FOX.
Despite opposition accounts, Republicans are more unpredictable. It’s true Democrats will not confront their socialism at times, but everyone knows they’re tax & spenders. Everyone basically knows they’re socialists. Democrats really have an internationalist agenda with Europe as its model. Should a Democrat get in office, nobody is really that surprised if spending and/or social programs should explode to the point of setting new records. But if a Republican spends a bunch or becomes decidedly liberal, people are like, WTF?!
Republicans are usually predictable when it comes to giving you more of your tax dollars back. But many other areas you cannot be for certain. Spending is even open game now (if it ever wasn’t in the first place?). You cannot be for certain a Republican will be true to their conservancy. That knowingness of who they truly are isn’t as inherent as it is with the Democrats.
Democrats, like Obama, pride themselves on socialist terms like “we” and greater environmental protections. Republicans kinda hang onto the ends of the blue coattails because they fear losing the compassion debate. Democrats tend to spout all kinds of social ideals on various subjects. As Ayn Rand notes, Republicans still tend to use the jargon “faith” and “tradition.” In that regards, the Blues have better jargon for they think in terms of “future” and “progressive.” Republicans call to the past – whatever that means? But they don’t comprehend what their past is. They just take pride in knowing that polls like approval ratings from say two years ago are a 30-20 percent in favor of them. They’d say, “Well, hahaha, at least we’re not as bad as the Democrats!” The idea that they should have great principles, first, is secondary to the one of being mildly better than the Democrats. The Blues tend to win more by evasion since they know their ideas cannot be debated in the open. The Reds – oh boy! – know they can win the open debate but in the end follow suit many times.
Since the Democrats know their ideas cannot be openly debated, they win the emotions debate, or the vagueness of media and pictures, to get an edge. Republicans haven’t really figured out with any consistency how to beat them over the years. It’s true the RNP have held more presidential offices. That would, to them, account as impressive, worthy of a moral victory. But when you think about what America was built on, and how a party that can offer nothing has slowly transformed America into something other than its beginnings, it is they who are the overachievers.
Religion's socialist tyranny
The Bible was written by many authors over a long period of time, but it was written during a period known for its “Holy Wars.” This was a period of bloodshed and tyranny. It’s important to note many of The Bible’s tones were created by people who wanted to control humanities conduct by injecting fear in the text to prevent/scare people into submission of their supposed sins. (An entry into God’s Kingdom for being good is just one of them, though no one has actually empirically been able to prove this.)
Religious prophets and/or authoritarians have a history of upper class. They seek to find answers that are not necessarily there in the text, justifying biblical tones that contradict logic and common sense. For some it’s based on emotional vices; the need to cling onto their beliefs at all costs. They are special people who are praised for their foresight and desire an everlasting legacy. They seek that attention because to a certain extent it’s natural to want to be loved and appreciated. However, the foundation of their religious values lives in some contradiction.
For instance, Genesis 1:3-5, “On the first day God created light,” but then later in 1:19, “And the evening and the morning were the fourth day,” implying a contradiction since it’s impossible scientifically to have a morning created three days after the sun was created – for light is morning (!). Or from the Infidels website: “In the Bible, words having to do with killing significantly outnumber words having to do with love.” “If the Bible were really the work of a perfect, all-powerful, and loving God, one would reasonably expect it to be obviously superlative in every respect – accurate, clear, concise, and consistent throughout – as compared to anything that could possibly be conceived by human intellect alone.”
Now I could sit here and go through every biblical contradiction, but the reality is some minds just are not going to be changed. Religion is predicated on tribalism (social groups). Caste systems are designed to protect people from reality. Therefore there is a strong association of reality denial between The Bible, religion, and prayer. They seek to engulf the individual’s mind to a higher power, but it usually isn’t God. Rather it’s usually a religious authoritarian claiming to be the cipher of an Almighty. They provide no empirical evidence for their second sight – and they seek none for they loathe the scientific method. They might dismiss the examples above because science asks them to prove their positions. They want not to because otherwise their beliefs start to fall apart at the seams. And yet at the same time they try -- though fail – to use the scientific method to claim the Bible is the truth because the Bible exists and therefore is the truth. No other visible requirement is necessary.
Religionists/prayerists stubbornly adhere to socialism. Neither really believes in the individual. You might hear a religious person talk about how they’ve spoken with God, that they speak “tongues” with their Creator. It rarely – if ever – is questioned what they said, or why they are given special gifts to talk with God while the rest of us are not. They say that you have to be a deep believer in order to communicate with God, though their communications are vague and never given the detail necessary to solidify their position. Notice how some believe prayers are answered while there are a whole host of other examples that are not answered. Disease has been cured. Therefore it was by God’s hand. It had nothing to do with human engineering. But many of the other instances of good Christian people who die of disease-related ailments are simply discarded.
The kind of people I want to be around are the cancer patients who believe they will beat the disease. Those who place their life in God’s hands are essentially saying they do not have the strength to confront their condition. Whatever conclusion they reach, they determine themselves. The man who called his wife on his cell phone right before his hijacked plane hit one of the World Trade Center’s essentially gave his life up because he didn’t have the strength to confront reality and fight back. That of course isn’t suggesting he would’ve lived anyway, but the terrorist pilots course might have been altered had he decided to try and break down the door of the cockpit. In essence, prayer is a good in the sense that it lifts the human spirit. The dark side is that prayer lifts people away from reality.
If a religious person said that they believe religion creates better people, better values, and more peaceful communities—that’s great. But it needs to be left at that. Religion is a private institution, and the unseen, the mystical revelations, the claiming of God’s word, can never be entered into political law for liberty can only be run on the conscious. Since religions quota is socialism, it is always seeking to engulf the individual no matter how kind its intentions. (Religion is anti-individual, anti-mind.) Religionists never really get around to answering that if God is The Almighty power, why does God need humans to speak on its behalf in the first place? Otherwise their socialist tyranny comes into question. The idea that God created humanity with a free will to choose its own fate explains to me that it isn’t religion I fear, but people in religion I fear.
Religious prophets and/or authoritarians have a history of upper class. They seek to find answers that are not necessarily there in the text, justifying biblical tones that contradict logic and common sense. For some it’s based on emotional vices; the need to cling onto their beliefs at all costs. They are special people who are praised for their foresight and desire an everlasting legacy. They seek that attention because to a certain extent it’s natural to want to be loved and appreciated. However, the foundation of their religious values lives in some contradiction.
For instance, Genesis 1:3-5, “On the first day God created light,” but then later in 1:19, “And the evening and the morning were the fourth day,” implying a contradiction since it’s impossible scientifically to have a morning created three days after the sun was created – for light is morning (!). Or from the Infidels website: “In the Bible, words having to do with killing significantly outnumber words having to do with love.” “If the Bible were really the work of a perfect, all-powerful, and loving God, one would reasonably expect it to be obviously superlative in every respect – accurate, clear, concise, and consistent throughout – as compared to anything that could possibly be conceived by human intellect alone.”
Now I could sit here and go through every biblical contradiction, but the reality is some minds just are not going to be changed. Religion is predicated on tribalism (social groups). Caste systems are designed to protect people from reality. Therefore there is a strong association of reality denial between The Bible, religion, and prayer. They seek to engulf the individual’s mind to a higher power, but it usually isn’t God. Rather it’s usually a religious authoritarian claiming to be the cipher of an Almighty. They provide no empirical evidence for their second sight – and they seek none for they loathe the scientific method. They might dismiss the examples above because science asks them to prove their positions. They want not to because otherwise their beliefs start to fall apart at the seams. And yet at the same time they try -- though fail – to use the scientific method to claim the Bible is the truth because the Bible exists and therefore is the truth. No other visible requirement is necessary.
Religionists/prayerists stubbornly adhere to socialism. Neither really believes in the individual. You might hear a religious person talk about how they’ve spoken with God, that they speak “tongues” with their Creator. It rarely – if ever – is questioned what they said, or why they are given special gifts to talk with God while the rest of us are not. They say that you have to be a deep believer in order to communicate with God, though their communications are vague and never given the detail necessary to solidify their position. Notice how some believe prayers are answered while there are a whole host of other examples that are not answered. Disease has been cured. Therefore it was by God’s hand. It had nothing to do with human engineering. But many of the other instances of good Christian people who die of disease-related ailments are simply discarded.
The kind of people I want to be around are the cancer patients who believe they will beat the disease. Those who place their life in God’s hands are essentially saying they do not have the strength to confront their condition. Whatever conclusion they reach, they determine themselves. The man who called his wife on his cell phone right before his hijacked plane hit one of the World Trade Center’s essentially gave his life up because he didn’t have the strength to confront reality and fight back. That of course isn’t suggesting he would’ve lived anyway, but the terrorist pilots course might have been altered had he decided to try and break down the door of the cockpit. In essence, prayer is a good in the sense that it lifts the human spirit. The dark side is that prayer lifts people away from reality.
If a religious person said that they believe religion creates better people, better values, and more peaceful communities—that’s great. But it needs to be left at that. Religion is a private institution, and the unseen, the mystical revelations, the claiming of God’s word, can never be entered into political law for liberty can only be run on the conscious. Since religions quota is socialism, it is always seeking to engulf the individual no matter how kind its intentions. (Religion is anti-individual, anti-mind.) Religionists never really get around to answering that if God is The Almighty power, why does God need humans to speak on its behalf in the first place? Otherwise their socialist tyranny comes into question. The idea that God created humanity with a free will to choose its own fate explains to me that it isn’t religion I fear, but people in religion I fear.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
biblical flaws -- miscellaneous
Jesus is God's Son
Either Jesus was a fictional character or he took far too much credit for being the eyes of God. Mysticism places more value in the unseen than seen. It becomes a problem when one (authors of scripture) claims to be the spokesperson of a higher power that really doesn't require the assistance of its creation(s). It would seem God, The Almighty, can emit the message clearly to its people at any time. That thought either cannot or rarely is ever challenged in biblical circles. Because, to them, "God works in many ways" but the one direct example of just appearing in front of us all on the doorstep. Again this appears to be another creation debate, but in fact I'm suggesting that "God's Plan" is simply a hands-off approach in which humanity is to figure out life's obstacles for themselves. Many of these ideas were self-generated by religious icons who took empowerment too seriously.
Hell
If God is forgiving and loving, then a belief in Hell is contradictory. It establishes once again that God is vengeful and therefore no better than humanity. For God created humanity with a free will to decide the path they so choose. Not to punish them when God had the choice and power to create a same-face collective.
The Devil
The belief in such implies that an entity consumes people whole. However, to believe that people get their evilness from a Devil is to imply they are not responsible for their actions. For example, if a criminal commits a crime, it is deemed the evil spirit caused the problem because they consumed their soul. In effect modern jurisprudence doesn't need to exist for individuals are not responsible for their own conclusions.
Either Jesus was a fictional character or he took far too much credit for being the eyes of God. Mysticism places more value in the unseen than seen. It becomes a problem when one (authors of scripture) claims to be the spokesperson of a higher power that really doesn't require the assistance of its creation(s). It would seem God, The Almighty, can emit the message clearly to its people at any time. That thought either cannot or rarely is ever challenged in biblical circles. Because, to them, "God works in many ways" but the one direct example of just appearing in front of us all on the doorstep. Again this appears to be another creation debate, but in fact I'm suggesting that "God's Plan" is simply a hands-off approach in which humanity is to figure out life's obstacles for themselves. Many of these ideas were self-generated by religious icons who took empowerment too seriously.
Hell
If God is forgiving and loving, then a belief in Hell is contradictory. It establishes once again that God is vengeful and therefore no better than humanity. For God created humanity with a free will to decide the path they so choose. Not to punish them when God had the choice and power to create a same-face collective.
The Devil
The belief in such implies that an entity consumes people whole. However, to believe that people get their evilness from a Devil is to imply they are not responsible for their actions. For example, if a criminal commits a crime, it is deemed the evil spirit caused the problem because they consumed their soul. In effect modern jurisprudence doesn't need to exist for individuals are not responsible for their own conclusions.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
biblical flaws
Deuteronomy is unfortunately one of my least favorite chapters because it is riddled with tyranny, injecting fear, racism, and the occasional promotion of murder. Hopefully the examples I give will explain why.
This parallels "Worshiping Other Gods." The reason this doesn't hold true is relatively simple: Scientific evidence proves that with each new birth creates a seperate, new mind to think and act for one's self (free will). No descent Creator would destroy the very thing, the human mind, that was designed to make those religious choices for themselves. To a Creator, they've already accepted that each human can except or reject creation. Therefore, this was a human-influenced ideal and certainly not a higher power-guided prophet.
Words like "must" and "commanded" are force. If in fact the lord demands these things, why doesn't he come out in the open, in the visible, and physically prove his wishes with spoken word? Hence the enclosed system of belief in tyranny amongst religious dogmas.
In religion this should read to not have idols superior to God. In terms of progress and ingenuity, if humanity didn't have models in achievements in arts, technology, etc., there would be no reason to expand our knowledge.
Pretty self-explanatory really. Children should be punished for things that are out of their control.
In a savage period, religion still cannot be excused for acts of murder. A is A. The Bible is the only book historically that can get away with such grotesque promotions. However, if a pagan forced their values that threatened the survival of a Christian(s), of course defending ones self is right and moral. But neither paragraph really attempts to detail such, possibly due to blind obedience. The first paragraph doesn't even attempt to at all. Hence why their guilty of the promotion of murder. The second, the interpreter, is nearly as guilty. The author acknowledges the offense, mildly, but quickly by-passes it for the upholding of the Bible's principles of tyranny and self-sacrifice. There is no difference between secular and non-secular force. Both deem to engulf the individual. Blind abidance to the Bible is dangerous considering the flawed nature of its authors: humans, who have used it to protect believers from the reality of their customs of tyranny and violence. A "middle ground" is unacceptable to them for threat of divisions in religious circles (an act Morman's practice, amongst others).
"Messengers of God" or "God's agents" were authoritarians who actively promoted the use of force and to suppress secular liberty. (It was secularism, not religion, that attained liberty.) Prophets used their intelligence to overstep their boundaries to acquire power. "God's word" by now is simply a phrase to draw attention to the Bible as the bearer of all morals versus human knowledge that is acquired through experience. These quotes instill fear into people, which is the entire point of religious prophetising. It implies God should be feared for God is vengeful. The problem is if God is so, then God is no better than humanity for we are vengeful. It doesn't quite make logical sense to fear God when God is superior in every way to humanity.
Moses Urges Israel To Obey - 4:3-4
You saw what the Lord did to you at Baal-Peor, where the Lord your God destroyed everyone who had worshiped the god Baal-Peor. But all of you who were faithful to the Lord your God are still alive today.
This parallels "Worshiping Other Gods." The reason this doesn't hold true is relatively simple: Scientific evidence proves that with each new birth creates a seperate, new mind to think and act for one's self (free will). No descent Creator would destroy the very thing, the human mind, that was designed to make those religious choices for themselves. To a Creator, they've already accepted that each human can except or reject creation. Therefore, this was a human-influenced ideal and certainly not a higher power-guided prophet.
4:5
You must obey these laws and regulations when you arrive in the land you are about to enter and occupy. The Lord my God gave them to me and commanded me to pass them on to you.
Words like "must" and "commanded" are force. If in fact the lord demands these things, why doesn't he come out in the open, in the visible, and physically prove his wishes with spoken word? Hence the enclosed system of belief in tyranny amongst religious dogmas.
4:25
...do not corrupt yourselves by making idols of any kind.
In religion this should read to not have idols superior to God. In terms of progress and ingenuity, if humanity didn't have models in achievements in arts, technology, etc., there would be no reason to expand our knowledge.
The Ten Commandments - 5:9
I do not leave unpunished the sins of those who hate me, but I punish the children for the sins of their parents to third and fourth generations.
Pretty self-explanatory really. Children should be punished for things that are out of their control.
Worshipping Other Gods 13:6-10
If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods (god that neither you nor your fathers have known, god's of the people around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. And then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
The Layman's Bible (interpretations):
It must, however, be remembered that idolatry struck at the very foundations of Hebrew national life as founded on the Covenant at Horeb. The religions of the Canaanites and sorrounding peoples was a debased from of nature worship, with revolting moral standards and practices. We may not like the exact way in which the Hebrews sought to deal with their subversives, but we can recognize the legitimacy of their abhorrence of the offense and of their desire to guard against it. They were anxious, therefore, to keep out any marks of pagan customs, even mourning rites of bodily mutilation and shaving of the head. The barriers against standards and practices must be high and thick, lest the nation eventually be engulfed by them.
In a savage period, religion still cannot be excused for acts of murder. A is A. The Bible is the only book historically that can get away with such grotesque promotions. However, if a pagan forced their values that threatened the survival of a Christian(s), of course defending ones self is right and moral. But neither paragraph really attempts to detail such, possibly due to blind obedience. The first paragraph doesn't even attempt to at all. Hence why their guilty of the promotion of murder. The second, the interpreter, is nearly as guilty. The author acknowledges the offense, mildly, but quickly by-passes it for the upholding of the Bible's principles of tyranny and self-sacrifice. There is no difference between secular and non-secular force. Both deem to engulf the individual. Blind abidance to the Bible is dangerous considering the flawed nature of its authors: humans, who have used it to protect believers from the reality of their customs of tyranny and violence. A "middle ground" is unacceptable to them for threat of divisions in religious circles (an act Morman's practice, amongst others).
The Prophet 18:15
The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from amongst your own brothers.
Layman's Commentary:
(excerpt)
The Deuteronomists -- to whom Moses was a figure of colossal proportions, to say the least -- certainly regarded him as the standard by which all messengers of God must be measured.
"Messengers of God" or "God's agents" were authoritarians who actively promoted the use of force and to suppress secular liberty. (It was secularism, not religion, that attained liberty.) Prophets used their intelligence to overstep their boundaries to acquire power. "God's word" by now is simply a phrase to draw attention to the Bible as the bearer of all morals versus human knowledge that is acquired through experience. These quotes instill fear into people, which is the entire point of religious prophetising. It implies God should be feared for God is vengeful. The problem is if God is so, then God is no better than humanity for we are vengeful. It doesn't quite make logical sense to fear God when God is superior in every way to humanity.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Liberty in the 21st Century
http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/117...176&wid=117
Tibor R. Machan
The Libertarian Perspective #75 Tue, 24 Oct 2006
The Common Good
Liberal Democrats are having a conniption fit about the lack of any vision that unites the Democratic Party. So several of their pundit-philosophers are writing essays in which they lament this situation and propose remedies.
Among those doing this is Michael Tomasky, who, in a recent piece for The American Prospect, suggests that "Democrats need to become the party of the common good." Then he goes on to write, as one of his critics put it, "breathlessly," that "We are all in this . . . together, and . . . we have to pull together, make some sacrifices, and, just sometimes, look beyond our own interest to solve our problems and create the future."
I have a better idea. Let Democrats, Republicans, and the rest recover the powerful idea that got the country going in the first place, one laid out pretty neatly in the Declaration of Independence. This idea is that the common good is pursued precisely when government does what justifies its existence—namely, secure our rights. That, indeed, is THE common good in the American political tradition.
There are millions of disparate "goods" that individuals pursue, but only one unites them, only one is their common good: the protection of their fundamental individual rights. This was part of the revolutionary idea that animated the Founders and put the country in opposition to so many others, including those in Europe from which so many of its initial population fled.
In most countries throughout human history the idea was promoted that there is a rich common good, a whole slew of objectives that everyone must pursue. In other words, the common good was really the collective goods of all the people, as if they really did share goods galore that they needed to promote. The one-size-fits-all mentality was encouraged by rulers, monarchs, tsars, and the rest who needed to hoodwink us into thinking that their goals are really our goals and we cannot really, individually, have goals of our own. That was the common good–the leaders' good peddled for the rest as their good, too.
The American Founders, guided by the classical liberal social-political philosophies of John Locke and company, saw through this. They realized that in a big country, the millions of inhabitants share but very few goods. (Of course, small associations—churches, clubs, corporations, professional groups and so forth—can have some common objectives all right. But no such common good or objective exists for the millions of us!) And the most important—probably, in fact, only—common good we share is the protection of our individual rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. It's the one good that's indeed good for us all, that we have in common.
If government, which is instituted to secure these rights, does its job right, it will stick to little more than making sure that everyone's liberty is safe. Why? Because then all the millions of different individuals, and some of the groups they voluntarily form amongst themselves, will quite successfully embark on the task of pursuing all those goods that suit them. Securing our rights does that for us!
But today's public pundit-intellectuals don't get it. They want to find some thick public good—a whole, humongous basket of allegedly common goods—that government will set out to achieve. And they are surprised that there isn't such a basket; in a largely free society people have their own basket of proposed goods they want to obtain for themselves. And this isn't because they are selfish and will not make sacrifices—notice how looking out for yourself is being demeaned in Tomasky's call to arms—but because even in what they consider appropriate objectives for which sacrifices should be made the citizenry differs significantly. They don't need having one idea of what's worthy of a sacrifice shoved down their throats. No, they want to choose those objectives, as well as the ways of making the sacrifices for them if need be.
Maybe the Democrats—and Republicans—ought to recover the Founders' vision. Then they wouldn't have to concoct an impossible one behind which they cannot manage to unite folks.
---------------------------
http://www.strike-the-root.com/61/hancock/hancock1.html
(excerpt)
Libertarians in general knew government had every motivation to grow in size and intrusiveness and lacked any real deterrent against doing so. The Libertarian Party represented a growing understanding that force or the threat of force, in whatever form, was required to maintain control of a population increasingly aware of the illegitimacy of so much government in their lives. Most people simply wish to be left alone, but government cannot leave them alone. Men in uniforms with shiny badges and seal-embossed parchments demanding service to “The King” have always been accompanied by the threat of violence for non-compliance.
The Revolution between the ears won’t take place all at once, but it will take place overnight. One morning everything will be different. Government actions against the people in the form of laws like the USA PATRIOT Act, surveillance of the innocent, controls on communications and the supposed dominion over one's body are creating an explosive environment, and the central planners know it. These police state tactics are not for our protection from outside threats, but for the protection of government from the American people. Government limits on our ability to seek redress and physically defend against tyranny are increasing -- an outcome predicted for decades by libertarians.
There are reasons to avoid being in public office these days. I firmly believe there will be at least a metaphorical guillotining of public officials responsible for destroying the American Dream for tens of millions of Americans. And I do not wish to be affiliated with those standing in line for their turn to have the lever pulled on their fate. I have absolutely no political goal other than to be left alone. My whole family and large circle of friends have invested a great deal of time, effort and money to that end. But I don't see wielding the power of elective office as a path to that goal.
While content to focus my efforts at home in Arizona , I have become increasingly aware of those with a great desire to be a “respected member” of the very system we oppose. The claim that one needs positions of power in order to free individuals is very troubling. We should be the Hobbits who do not seek power over others, and are willing to make great investments to ensure being left alone. Changing the hands on the levers of power won’t eliminate the levers. The abandonment of the principled foundation of libertarianism now would be disastrous and leave us with nothing of value to distinguish us from our ideological competition.
And while most libertarians would welcome a return to the size of government allowed by the US Constitution as championed in the Federalist Papers, many recognize that this document created the opportunity for the powerful central government we oppose today. The liberty-minded people of the American Revolution were profoundly ambivalent about the US Constitution, and detailed their concerns in the Anti-Federalist Papers. What good are checks and balances when all three branches of government are aligned against the rights of the individual? The Bill of Rights was the libertarian compromise. These ten “Thou Shalt Nots” of government was the deal made to avoid conflict. But the document has proven to be binding only on the people, in our forced support of our present government, while every single one of the Bill of Rights is constantly violated without hesitation by government. I am certain that I am not the only one wondering when this “social contract” will finally be declared null and void. –Ernest Hancock
---------------
Every generation has one or two philosophers that transcend time. From Aristotle (The Father of Logic) to Thomas Aquinas. From the Founding Fathers (Creators of the first free nation) to Ludwig Von Mises (The Father of “True” Economics). From Ayn Rand (The Mother of Liberty) to her heir, Leonard Peikoff, and on to the Libertarian Party.
In the 21st Century, I believe there is the beginnings of another. Lo Bastido’s two keystone contributions are essential as not only a guide, but for all of time.
The term "socialism" is not merely an economic term; it has other aspects, which all relate back to its very name.
Any government measure designed to manipulate society into what is deemed to be the ideal is socialism. Leftists -- no matter how moderate -- are socialists, since they support the manipulating of the economy to decrease economic inequality, and thus, presumably, social distinctions between rich and poor. Naturally, they also support some -- but not all -- permissions in regards to non-economic activities, such as marriage. Note that I said permissions, instead of rights. There are no civil rights for individuals under socialism, because socialism takes it for granted that "society" -- whether in the form of all individuals, a majority of individuals, or even some individuals as a group -- is superior to the individual qua individual. Those who call themselves "liberals" do not believe in rights; their perceived entitlements to welfare are certainly not rights; groups of individuals cannot have their own rights as a group; the overall principle is that the individual must kneel before the whims of society (although actually the ruling elite in charge of the government).
We must take into account the wide scope of socialist activities. Economic measures designed to manipulate society are a form of socialism, as we have seen. But there are many justifications for socialism, and Marxism is only one of them. (The term "Marxism" may reasonably be applied to the general concept of wealth redistribution from the wealthy to the poor, with the underlying assumptions that under capitalism there is no middle class; that the rich are always getting richer while the poor are always getting poorer; and that the rich can only get rich at the expense of the poor.)
Another justification for socialism is the vague concept of "virtue." Under this kind of socialism, society is manipulated toward the goal of creating a society based on certain religious ideals. The individual is largely left alone in his economic activities, but his non-economic activities are regulated if not banned, even though those activities are conducted between consenting adults with a clear and honest agreement regarding their association.
This form of socialism is as destructive of individual liberty as the more recognized Marxist form of socialism. Bizarrely, the proponents of virtue socialism refuse to recognize their socialism, despite their constant invocation of terms like society, the greater good, and the majority, in the context of manipulating them using government fiat -- classic rhetoric of all socialists.
Any system which aims to respect individual liberty must accept that society (or the greater good, or the majority) is built up from the basic unit of the individual. There must also be the recognition that no group of individuals -- be it a group of only two individials, or of all other individuals -- has any special rights of its own; and it certainly has no superior rights over the individual. Put briefly: society has no rights; government has no responsibility to safeguard society. The term "social contract" clouds the truth that government is basically a contract between the individual and his government; society itself has no political-cum-legal substance, with no rights, privileges, or responsibilities of its own.
Society must be allowed to take whatever course it will, regardless of the outcome. Representative government is founded on the principle that the constituency deserves whatever it votes for, and should be allowed to freely choose its fate. Society must be treated -- respected -- in the same way: whatever society as a whole wants, society as a whole should get.
Now, socialists believe the worst in humanity: they must, otherwise their policies cannot be justified. They take for granted that, if not for their interventionism, society will collapse into unspeakable horror. This belief is based on a bedrock of rank misanthropy. The prediction just mentioned requires the average individual to be a reckless, cruel idiot with no real ability to control himself: a slave to his own impulses and desires. Socialists justify the enslavement of the individual on the grounds that the individual is already a slave to his own passions. This is true no matter how vigorous a socialist's policies are in enslaving the individual: even if a policy only slightly enslaves the individual, it is assumed that the individual is only slightly a reckless, cruel idiot with a reduced ability to control himself. They call this misanthropy pragmatism, as if pragmatism were an ideal which lifts humanity to its greatest heights. (It only lifts those in charge to the greatests heights, which is the entire point of socialist politics.)
There is no real cure for misanthropy. And socialists refuse to acknowledge the value of liberty -- or if they do, they insist that it is inferior as an ideal to misanthropic pragmatism. For them it is better, in other words, to treat their fellow individuals as irresponsible slaves than to allow them to destroy themselves.
Note irresponsible: liberty and responsibility are inseparable halves. Both Marxist socialists and virtue socialists pay at least some superficial homage to responsibility -- more so with the latter -- but in the end neither truly believes in it. Even if an individual will destroy himself if given the freedom to do so, he must be respected in that choice. And if he hurts someone else's property or person, then he must be respected enough to be prosecuted for it. Socialist fiat is essentially preemptive: it seeks to prevent what are deemed criminous actions before they occur. Some activities often lead to other, harmful activities; it certainly feels good to prevent the latter by banning the former. But what such emotion-driven policy neglects is that freedom-based justice cannot survive under such prosecutorial policy. By preventing action B by banning action A, one has essentially declared all actors of A -- all of them! -- to be guilty ahead of the fact. Thus two sacred principles of Western jurisprudence are violated: prosecution on an individual basis, with the opportunity to confront one's accuser; and the presumption of innocence until one has been proven guilty. Briefly: socialism replaces proof of guilt with presumption of guilt.
Assume that, say, 80% of crack users will commit robberies while high, or to support their habit, or both; government still has no right to use statistics to prosecute all crack users. (It should use actual evidence, something which socialists tend to dismiss as irrelevant.) One of the defining qualities -- and evils -- of socialism is that it punishes the innocent (those who would not commit other crimes) along with the guilty (those who were going to commit other crimes). Modern jurisprudence should not run on statistics; a prosecutor should not charge someone with the possibility that he might mug someone in the future. (Those of you whom I am describing in this post, please take a moment to re-read the previous sentence objectively; and ask yourself honestly if such a system as described horrifies you.)
Thus, the man who snorts coke in his apartment, and has no inclination to hurt anyone else or their property, is as wicked as the man who stabs someone on the street to pay for his next heroin fix. No socialist can claim that absolutely all users of such hard drugs commit secondary crimes; and even a 99% possibility of a future crime is no justification for prosecution. It is scarcely appreciated by socialists that people should be prosecuted as individuals for the crimes they have already committed, using evidence collected against them, and with the chance to confront their accusers. No, that whole irrelevant -- to them -- rigamarole should be avoided by simply preventing people from doing things which often lead to those other crimes.
These socialist policies on criminal justice are an indication of how hostile socialism is to responsibility. If an individual manages to get his hands on cocaine, and goes on a shooting spree using a prohibited firearm, socialists studiously avoid putting the responsibility on the individual: the Marxist socialist blames the firearm, while the virtue socialist blames the cocaine. From that kind of perspective, it's not the individual who failed in his responsibilities (for he has none, since he deserves none), it's the government who failed in its responsibilities! No socialist commentator would say "Well, it's his own fault; he chose to do the coke, and so he's responsible for whatever he does even if he's hopped up." Instead a socialist would say "Government failed this man, and failed the people he shot; government must work harder to live up to its responsibilities."
In other words, government is assumed to be more responsible than the individual -- even though the enormous mass of human history has proven the reverse. Misanthropists-as-socialists do not trust people; and since according to human nature they must trust in something to make things right, they place their trust in government. Beware those who would take away responsibility from the individual, for they are putting responsibility into the one human institution which least deserves it: government, which has the power to arrest or even kill those who dare violate the tyranny guarding the current social ideal. –Lo Bastido
---------------------------
- Murder
- Assault
- Property damage and theft
- Copyright and patent infringement
- Breach of contract
All these activities violate one fundamental precept: that we all have the rights to our own bodies and property, and nothing else. (None of us, of course, have any rights toward other people's bodies and property.) The principle is that adults of sound mind may consent to activities with other adults with no interference from government except as an arbiter in case of dispute. –Lo Bastido, on the only areas of government intervention
Tibor R. Machan
The Libertarian Perspective #75 Tue, 24 Oct 2006
The Common Good
Liberal Democrats are having a conniption fit about the lack of any vision that unites the Democratic Party. So several of their pundit-philosophers are writing essays in which they lament this situation and propose remedies.
Among those doing this is Michael Tomasky, who, in a recent piece for The American Prospect, suggests that "Democrats need to become the party of the common good." Then he goes on to write, as one of his critics put it, "breathlessly," that "We are all in this . . . together, and . . . we have to pull together, make some sacrifices, and, just sometimes, look beyond our own interest to solve our problems and create the future."
I have a better idea. Let Democrats, Republicans, and the rest recover the powerful idea that got the country going in the first place, one laid out pretty neatly in the Declaration of Independence. This idea is that the common good is pursued precisely when government does what justifies its existence—namely, secure our rights. That, indeed, is THE common good in the American political tradition.
There are millions of disparate "goods" that individuals pursue, but only one unites them, only one is their common good: the protection of their fundamental individual rights. This was part of the revolutionary idea that animated the Founders and put the country in opposition to so many others, including those in Europe from which so many of its initial population fled.
In most countries throughout human history the idea was promoted that there is a rich common good, a whole slew of objectives that everyone must pursue. In other words, the common good was really the collective goods of all the people, as if they really did share goods galore that they needed to promote. The one-size-fits-all mentality was encouraged by rulers, monarchs, tsars, and the rest who needed to hoodwink us into thinking that their goals are really our goals and we cannot really, individually, have goals of our own. That was the common good–the leaders' good peddled for the rest as their good, too.
The American Founders, guided by the classical liberal social-political philosophies of John Locke and company, saw through this. They realized that in a big country, the millions of inhabitants share but very few goods. (Of course, small associations—churches, clubs, corporations, professional groups and so forth—can have some common objectives all right. But no such common good or objective exists for the millions of us!) And the most important—probably, in fact, only—common good we share is the protection of our individual rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. It's the one good that's indeed good for us all, that we have in common.
If government, which is instituted to secure these rights, does its job right, it will stick to little more than making sure that everyone's liberty is safe. Why? Because then all the millions of different individuals, and some of the groups they voluntarily form amongst themselves, will quite successfully embark on the task of pursuing all those goods that suit them. Securing our rights does that for us!
But today's public pundit-intellectuals don't get it. They want to find some thick public good—a whole, humongous basket of allegedly common goods—that government will set out to achieve. And they are surprised that there isn't such a basket; in a largely free society people have their own basket of proposed goods they want to obtain for themselves. And this isn't because they are selfish and will not make sacrifices—notice how looking out for yourself is being demeaned in Tomasky's call to arms—but because even in what they consider appropriate objectives for which sacrifices should be made the citizenry differs significantly. They don't need having one idea of what's worthy of a sacrifice shoved down their throats. No, they want to choose those objectives, as well as the ways of making the sacrifices for them if need be.
Maybe the Democrats—and Republicans—ought to recover the Founders' vision. Then they wouldn't have to concoct an impossible one behind which they cannot manage to unite folks.
---------------------------
http://www.strike-the-root.com/61/hancock/hancock1.html
(excerpt)
Libertarians in general knew government had every motivation to grow in size and intrusiveness and lacked any real deterrent against doing so. The Libertarian Party represented a growing understanding that force or the threat of force, in whatever form, was required to maintain control of a population increasingly aware of the illegitimacy of so much government in their lives. Most people simply wish to be left alone, but government cannot leave them alone. Men in uniforms with shiny badges and seal-embossed parchments demanding service to “The King” have always been accompanied by the threat of violence for non-compliance.
The Revolution between the ears won’t take place all at once, but it will take place overnight. One morning everything will be different. Government actions against the people in the form of laws like the USA PATRIOT Act, surveillance of the innocent, controls on communications and the supposed dominion over one's body are creating an explosive environment, and the central planners know it. These police state tactics are not for our protection from outside threats, but for the protection of government from the American people. Government limits on our ability to seek redress and physically defend against tyranny are increasing -- an outcome predicted for decades by libertarians.
There are reasons to avoid being in public office these days. I firmly believe there will be at least a metaphorical guillotining of public officials responsible for destroying the American Dream for tens of millions of Americans. And I do not wish to be affiliated with those standing in line for their turn to have the lever pulled on their fate. I have absolutely no political goal other than to be left alone. My whole family and large circle of friends have invested a great deal of time, effort and money to that end. But I don't see wielding the power of elective office as a path to that goal.
While content to focus my efforts at home in Arizona , I have become increasingly aware of those with a great desire to be a “respected member” of the very system we oppose. The claim that one needs positions of power in order to free individuals is very troubling. We should be the Hobbits who do not seek power over others, and are willing to make great investments to ensure being left alone. Changing the hands on the levers of power won’t eliminate the levers. The abandonment of the principled foundation of libertarianism now would be disastrous and leave us with nothing of value to distinguish us from our ideological competition.
And while most libertarians would welcome a return to the size of government allowed by the US Constitution as championed in the Federalist Papers, many recognize that this document created the opportunity for the powerful central government we oppose today. The liberty-minded people of the American Revolution were profoundly ambivalent about the US Constitution, and detailed their concerns in the Anti-Federalist Papers. What good are checks and balances when all three branches of government are aligned against the rights of the individual? The Bill of Rights was the libertarian compromise. These ten “Thou Shalt Nots” of government was the deal made to avoid conflict. But the document has proven to be binding only on the people, in our forced support of our present government, while every single one of the Bill of Rights is constantly violated without hesitation by government. I am certain that I am not the only one wondering when this “social contract” will finally be declared null and void. –Ernest Hancock
---------------
Every generation has one or two philosophers that transcend time. From Aristotle (The Father of Logic) to Thomas Aquinas. From the Founding Fathers (Creators of the first free nation) to Ludwig Von Mises (The Father of “True” Economics). From Ayn Rand (The Mother of Liberty) to her heir, Leonard Peikoff, and on to the Libertarian Party.
In the 21st Century, I believe there is the beginnings of another. Lo Bastido’s two keystone contributions are essential as not only a guide, but for all of time.
The term "socialism" is not merely an economic term; it has other aspects, which all relate back to its very name.
Any government measure designed to manipulate society into what is deemed to be the ideal is socialism. Leftists -- no matter how moderate -- are socialists, since they support the manipulating of the economy to decrease economic inequality, and thus, presumably, social distinctions between rich and poor. Naturally, they also support some -- but not all -- permissions in regards to non-economic activities, such as marriage. Note that I said permissions, instead of rights. There are no civil rights for individuals under socialism, because socialism takes it for granted that "society" -- whether in the form of all individuals, a majority of individuals, or even some individuals as a group -- is superior to the individual qua individual. Those who call themselves "liberals" do not believe in rights; their perceived entitlements to welfare are certainly not rights; groups of individuals cannot have their own rights as a group; the overall principle is that the individual must kneel before the whims of society (although actually the ruling elite in charge of the government).
We must take into account the wide scope of socialist activities. Economic measures designed to manipulate society are a form of socialism, as we have seen. But there are many justifications for socialism, and Marxism is only one of them. (The term "Marxism" may reasonably be applied to the general concept of wealth redistribution from the wealthy to the poor, with the underlying assumptions that under capitalism there is no middle class; that the rich are always getting richer while the poor are always getting poorer; and that the rich can only get rich at the expense of the poor.)
Another justification for socialism is the vague concept of "virtue." Under this kind of socialism, society is manipulated toward the goal of creating a society based on certain religious ideals. The individual is largely left alone in his economic activities, but his non-economic activities are regulated if not banned, even though those activities are conducted between consenting adults with a clear and honest agreement regarding their association.
This form of socialism is as destructive of individual liberty as the more recognized Marxist form of socialism. Bizarrely, the proponents of virtue socialism refuse to recognize their socialism, despite their constant invocation of terms like society, the greater good, and the majority, in the context of manipulating them using government fiat -- classic rhetoric of all socialists.
Any system which aims to respect individual liberty must accept that society (or the greater good, or the majority) is built up from the basic unit of the individual. There must also be the recognition that no group of individuals -- be it a group of only two individials, or of all other individuals -- has any special rights of its own; and it certainly has no superior rights over the individual. Put briefly: society has no rights; government has no responsibility to safeguard society. The term "social contract" clouds the truth that government is basically a contract between the individual and his government; society itself has no political-cum-legal substance, with no rights, privileges, or responsibilities of its own.
Society must be allowed to take whatever course it will, regardless of the outcome. Representative government is founded on the principle that the constituency deserves whatever it votes for, and should be allowed to freely choose its fate. Society must be treated -- respected -- in the same way: whatever society as a whole wants, society as a whole should get.
Now, socialists believe the worst in humanity: they must, otherwise their policies cannot be justified. They take for granted that, if not for their interventionism, society will collapse into unspeakable horror. This belief is based on a bedrock of rank misanthropy. The prediction just mentioned requires the average individual to be a reckless, cruel idiot with no real ability to control himself: a slave to his own impulses and desires. Socialists justify the enslavement of the individual on the grounds that the individual is already a slave to his own passions. This is true no matter how vigorous a socialist's policies are in enslaving the individual: even if a policy only slightly enslaves the individual, it is assumed that the individual is only slightly a reckless, cruel idiot with a reduced ability to control himself. They call this misanthropy pragmatism, as if pragmatism were an ideal which lifts humanity to its greatest heights. (It only lifts those in charge to the greatests heights, which is the entire point of socialist politics.)
There is no real cure for misanthropy. And socialists refuse to acknowledge the value of liberty -- or if they do, they insist that it is inferior as an ideal to misanthropic pragmatism. For them it is better, in other words, to treat their fellow individuals as irresponsible slaves than to allow them to destroy themselves.
Note irresponsible: liberty and responsibility are inseparable halves. Both Marxist socialists and virtue socialists pay at least some superficial homage to responsibility -- more so with the latter -- but in the end neither truly believes in it. Even if an individual will destroy himself if given the freedom to do so, he must be respected in that choice. And if he hurts someone else's property or person, then he must be respected enough to be prosecuted for it. Socialist fiat is essentially preemptive: it seeks to prevent what are deemed criminous actions before they occur. Some activities often lead to other, harmful activities; it certainly feels good to prevent the latter by banning the former. But what such emotion-driven policy neglects is that freedom-based justice cannot survive under such prosecutorial policy. By preventing action B by banning action A, one has essentially declared all actors of A -- all of them! -- to be guilty ahead of the fact. Thus two sacred principles of Western jurisprudence are violated: prosecution on an individual basis, with the opportunity to confront one's accuser; and the presumption of innocence until one has been proven guilty. Briefly: socialism replaces proof of guilt with presumption of guilt.
Assume that, say, 80% of crack users will commit robberies while high, or to support their habit, or both; government still has no right to use statistics to prosecute all crack users. (It should use actual evidence, something which socialists tend to dismiss as irrelevant.) One of the defining qualities -- and evils -- of socialism is that it punishes the innocent (those who would not commit other crimes) along with the guilty (those who were going to commit other crimes). Modern jurisprudence should not run on statistics; a prosecutor should not charge someone with the possibility that he might mug someone in the future. (Those of you whom I am describing in this post, please take a moment to re-read the previous sentence objectively; and ask yourself honestly if such a system as described horrifies you.)
Thus, the man who snorts coke in his apartment, and has no inclination to hurt anyone else or their property, is as wicked as the man who stabs someone on the street to pay for his next heroin fix. No socialist can claim that absolutely all users of such hard drugs commit secondary crimes; and even a 99% possibility of a future crime is no justification for prosecution. It is scarcely appreciated by socialists that people should be prosecuted as individuals for the crimes they have already committed, using evidence collected against them, and with the chance to confront their accusers. No, that whole irrelevant -- to them -- rigamarole should be avoided by simply preventing people from doing things which often lead to those other crimes.
These socialist policies on criminal justice are an indication of how hostile socialism is to responsibility. If an individual manages to get his hands on cocaine, and goes on a shooting spree using a prohibited firearm, socialists studiously avoid putting the responsibility on the individual: the Marxist socialist blames the firearm, while the virtue socialist blames the cocaine. From that kind of perspective, it's not the individual who failed in his responsibilities (for he has none, since he deserves none), it's the government who failed in its responsibilities! No socialist commentator would say "Well, it's his own fault; he chose to do the coke, and so he's responsible for whatever he does even if he's hopped up." Instead a socialist would say "Government failed this man, and failed the people he shot; government must work harder to live up to its responsibilities."
In other words, government is assumed to be more responsible than the individual -- even though the enormous mass of human history has proven the reverse. Misanthropists-as-socialists do not trust people; and since according to human nature they must trust in something to make things right, they place their trust in government. Beware those who would take away responsibility from the individual, for they are putting responsibility into the one human institution which least deserves it: government, which has the power to arrest or even kill those who dare violate the tyranny guarding the current social ideal. –Lo Bastido
---------------------------
- Murder
- Assault
- Property damage and theft
- Copyright and patent infringement
- Breach of contract
All these activities violate one fundamental precept: that we all have the rights to our own bodies and property, and nothing else. (None of us, of course, have any rights toward other people's bodies and property.) The principle is that adults of sound mind may consent to activities with other adults with no interference from government except as an arbiter in case of dispute. –Lo Bastido, on the only areas of government intervention
Does prayer work?
Does prayer work?
I personally believe prayer has subverted reason for the mystical. Now I want to make it clear that I believe prayer is important to lifting one's spirit; but not when mysticism has been passed over as concrete evidence throughout religionist history. For example: if a cancer survivor is so certain in the power of prayer, the power to heal from God's hands, why did they need radiation treatments in the first place? It would seem to me, at most, that a Creator created humanity with the tools to develop said radiation treatment; but any medical successes are to the credit of human knowledge and free will. These "miracles" are more likely works of invention than any purported hand from God.
The big question that is asked by religionists is: "Why does God allow evil to happen?" He doesn't. Humanity does. In fact, you could say to a certain extent religion has. Because prayer (mysticism) often suspends thought--and more importantly, action--"faith" offers complacency, and hiding, as comfort. Those believing evil emanates from secularism also allow the most heinous of tyranny to go on untouched. ("If we all just pray, things will get better.") In the 20th Century, we've been through two World Wars, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and the globe is under the constant threat of teetering on a nuclear World War III. We have the tools to choose, to think, and to act for ourselves. Yet mysticism hides in an impenetrable bubble of reality denial to which reason disintegrates.
If my biblical knowledge is correct, "The Great Flood" was an invention passed over from generation to generation by the mystic intellectuals, in order to scare the non-believers into believing God unleashed his wrath upon human sin. Yet weather patterns by some religionists are deemed to be "set in motion" with no true discrimination in mind other than just the right elements of cool and warm temperatures creating natural disasters. (If the American central belt is under constant tornado threat, are these people greater "sinners" than the rest of Americans?) Those who unfortunately are in the wrong place at the wrong time lose their life--and not by predicted design. On a global weather scale, the earth is trying to keep a constant yin and yang balance. Those geographs lacking or having an abundance of moist/dry or cool/warm temperatures, will eventually have enough, or an extreme, of the other. Yet we're suppose to be sensitive to the religionist's beliefs; but why does the non-believer not deserve the same sensitivity when unsubstantiated mysticism is shoved down our throats via creation stories and biblical-as-legislated-people-control-rule? (Namely forced prayer in schools.)
A dear friend of mine had brain cancer. Her treatments had cured her--or so we thought. She claimed "God saved her." Later, the doctors found more cancer, and she died. Where are the prayerists now? No reply. Even worse, a friend of mine is battling in a custody case. She believes--get this--that "God is amongst" her lawyer, but she isn't preparing herself, or more immediately, the case, for appropriate action. Meaning, again, that individual responsibility is subverted for prayer in hopes everything will turn out in the end. Whatever positive outcomes are gifts from God; whatever negatives are deemed Devil worship, or simply are forgotten in the context of prayer.
So if you want prayer in your life, that's great; but please don't replace it with free will and the power of the human mind.
I personally believe prayer has subverted reason for the mystical. Now I want to make it clear that I believe prayer is important to lifting one's spirit; but not when mysticism has been passed over as concrete evidence throughout religionist history. For example: if a cancer survivor is so certain in the power of prayer, the power to heal from God's hands, why did they need radiation treatments in the first place? It would seem to me, at most, that a Creator created humanity with the tools to develop said radiation treatment; but any medical successes are to the credit of human knowledge and free will. These "miracles" are more likely works of invention than any purported hand from God.
The big question that is asked by religionists is: "Why does God allow evil to happen?" He doesn't. Humanity does. In fact, you could say to a certain extent religion has. Because prayer (mysticism) often suspends thought--and more importantly, action--"faith" offers complacency, and hiding, as comfort. Those believing evil emanates from secularism also allow the most heinous of tyranny to go on untouched. ("If we all just pray, things will get better.") In the 20th Century, we've been through two World Wars, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and the globe is under the constant threat of teetering on a nuclear World War III. We have the tools to choose, to think, and to act for ourselves. Yet mysticism hides in an impenetrable bubble of reality denial to which reason disintegrates.
If my biblical knowledge is correct, "The Great Flood" was an invention passed over from generation to generation by the mystic intellectuals, in order to scare the non-believers into believing God unleashed his wrath upon human sin. Yet weather patterns by some religionists are deemed to be "set in motion" with no true discrimination in mind other than just the right elements of cool and warm temperatures creating natural disasters. (If the American central belt is under constant tornado threat, are these people greater "sinners" than the rest of Americans?) Those who unfortunately are in the wrong place at the wrong time lose their life--and not by predicted design. On a global weather scale, the earth is trying to keep a constant yin and yang balance. Those geographs lacking or having an abundance of moist/dry or cool/warm temperatures, will eventually have enough, or an extreme, of the other. Yet we're suppose to be sensitive to the religionist's beliefs; but why does the non-believer not deserve the same sensitivity when unsubstantiated mysticism is shoved down our throats via creation stories and biblical-as-legislated-people-control-rule? (Namely forced prayer in schools.)
A dear friend of mine had brain cancer. Her treatments had cured her--or so we thought. She claimed "God saved her." Later, the doctors found more cancer, and she died. Where are the prayerists now? No reply. Even worse, a friend of mine is battling in a custody case. She believes--get this--that "God is amongst" her lawyer, but she isn't preparing herself, or more immediately, the case, for appropriate action. Meaning, again, that individual responsibility is subverted for prayer in hopes everything will turn out in the end. Whatever positive outcomes are gifts from God; whatever negatives are deemed Devil worship, or simply are forgotten in the context of prayer.
So if you want prayer in your life, that's great; but please don't replace it with free will and the power of the human mind.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
John Roberts on Homosexuality and AIDs
After reading Roberts' column on AIDs, it wasn't the issue of the disease spreading that scared me most, but John Roberts himself. I'll explain why as I comment on his ideas.
There's no denying Roberts is an intelligent person and holds many fine values I'm sure. But it's the idea he claims to have such experience with homosexuals that bothers me. ("During a lifetime of working with people, I have met many homosexual people.") Then Roberts says:
First he acknowledges that some cases of homosexuality are "genetic" and "naturally effeminate," and then proceeds to say:
Almost as though there are "other" justifiable times when 'stones can be thrown' at people who do not have the same moral code. (I'm probably overpicking on this one, but in the Old Testament there are instances in the scripture, like in Deuteronomy 16:17 "Worshiping Other Gods," when stone throwing is deemed an acceptable action to those who worship "other" God's. A local priest once told me part of reading the Bible is how you "interpret" the scripture, as though there is anything to interpret with mandated killing.)
On top of that - and after acknowledging the "genetic" makeup of homosexuals - he says this is a problem for geneticists and psychologists. He essentially contradicts his own words with whisking away the problem off to two of the areas (science and mind) that have never been able to "cure" something that has never been scientifically or psychologically curable. Maybe it just is. But no...
Religionists do not have an "ordain" right of any kind over anyone else. This is the extremist religious view: they believe secular law is totalitarian but ordain law isn't.
Which is where he can only fail. Legislated virtues are force (aka tyranny), and with government mandating and removing laws at the device of the two-party system, the values John Roberts enacts might also be removed by another who doesn't share those values. Morality cannot be legislated because everyone has their own moral code.
If Roberts wants to do something, he's better off educating people and legislating to remove all discrimination laws. (Because discrimination laws only candy over the truth: human racism. Believe it or not, the individual is within their rights to discriminate against whomever and for whatever reasons. The individual is entitled to their liberty.)
Roberts is a pragmatist. Here's why:
----------
You homosexuals out there. Innit good to know yer nothing more than "dead twigs." Hmmm...lovely.
Not much. Education. But the reality is it has always existed. Roberts just doesn't want to accept it and let liberty run its course. Unless you want to turn the world into a police state - which usually ends in gang warfare because virtuists want to mess with freedoms.
Virtuists subconsciously are trying to create a heaven on Earth by controlling people. They are acting as 'messengers from God', and they do not believe their force of others is a "sin". It would be deemed an acceptable virtue to turn the landscape into something which ironically mirrors Nazi concentration camps; a police state with hired gunmen slapping their rifles on their hands because they love power over others. This vision comes from the same people who believe they have a seat reserved for them in heaven.
Because there are a few bad apples out there who consciously are spreading the contagion doesn't mean others should suffer with fisticuffs. Evil does not emanate from the majority, but the minority who want to control the majority. This is why I fear John Roberts more than AIDs: He would rather control and reduce liberties - which has a direct 'trickle down effect' on "other" freedoms by developing the mindset that force is acceptable - than believe the good nature of the majority will keep the contagion contained.
There's no denying Roberts is an intelligent person and holds many fine values I'm sure. But it's the idea he claims to have such experience with homosexuals that bothers me. ("During a lifetime of working with people, I have met many homosexual people.") Then Roberts says:
1 The genetically sexually indeterminate. (Chromosome abnormality).
2 The emotionally homosexual. Those naturally effeminate (or female masculinity).
First he acknowledges that some cases of homosexuality are "genetic" and "naturally effeminate," and then proceeds to say:
It will be apparent that those persons coming within the first category may be regarded as unfortunate individuals. Those who suffer from a distinctly biological condition are deserving of public compassion. One can throw no stones at these people: nor does it appear that much can be done, medically speaking, to alleviate the condition. It is a problem for geneticists and psychologists."
Almost as though there are "other" justifiable times when 'stones can be thrown' at people who do not have the same moral code. (I'm probably overpicking on this one, but in the Old Testament there are instances in the scripture, like in Deuteronomy 16:17 "Worshiping Other Gods," when stone throwing is deemed an acceptable action to those who worship "other" God's. A local priest once told me part of reading the Bible is how you "interpret" the scripture, as though there is anything to interpret with mandated killing.)
On top of that - and after acknowledging the "genetic" makeup of homosexuals - he says this is a problem for geneticists and psychologists. He essentially contradicts his own words with whisking away the problem off to two of the areas (science and mind) that have never been able to "cure" something that has never been scientifically or psychologically curable. Maybe it just is. But no...
That is my belief: the personal responsibility for all human activity
Religionists do not have an "ordain" right of any kind over anyone else. This is the extremist religious view: they believe secular law is totalitarian but ordain law isn't.
The hidden, concealed and underhand nature of the "evil" makes it incumbent upon legislatures to carefully consider the alternatives.
Which is where he can only fail. Legislated virtues are force (aka tyranny), and with government mandating and removing laws at the device of the two-party system, the values John Roberts enacts might also be removed by another who doesn't share those values. Morality cannot be legislated because everyone has their own moral code.
Has anything been done to limit or control such behaviour? By no means! One must not comment upon the moral perversity of such behaviour. Society must not interfere with the lawful right of these people to engage in their obnoxious, disease-spreading activities. However, it has a weighty obligation to do all in its power to find a cure for this disease, which is a continuous threat to all mankind.
If Roberts wants to do something, he's better off educating people and legislating to remove all discrimination laws. (Because discrimination laws only candy over the truth: human racism. Believe it or not, the individual is within their rights to discriminate against whomever and for whatever reasons. The individual is entitled to their liberty.)
Roberts is a pragmatist. Here's why:
Now, socialists believe the worst in humanity: they must, otherwise their policies cannot be justified. They take for granted that, if not for their interventionism, society will collapse into unspeakable horror. This belief is based on a bedrock of rank misanthropy. The prediction just mentioned requires the average individual to be a reckless, cruel idiot with no real ability to control himself: a slave to his own impulses and desires. Socialists justify the enslavement of the individual on the grounds that the individual is already a slave to his own passions. This is true no matter how vigorous a socialist's policies are in enslaving the individual: even if a policy only slightly enslaves the individual, it is assumed that the individual is only slightly a reckless, cruel idiot with a reduced ability to control himself. They call this misanthropy pragmatism, as if pragmatism were an ideal which lifts humanity to its greatest heights. (It only lifts those in charge to the greatests heights, which is the entire point of socialist politics.)
There is no real cure for misanthropy. And socialists refuse to acknowledge the value of liberty -- or if they do, they insist that it is inferior as an ideal to misanthropic pragmatism. For them it is better, in other words, to treat their fellow individuals as irresponsible slaves than to allow them to destroy themselves.
Note irresponsible: liberty and responsibility are inseparable halves. Both Marxist socialists and virtue socialists pay at least some superficial homage to responsibility -- more so with the latter -- but in the end neither truly believes in it. Even if an individual will destroy himself if given the freedom to do so, he must be respected in that choice. -Lo Bastido
----------
Some wise person once described homosexual people as, 'The dead twigs on the tree of life'.
You homosexuals out there. Innit good to know yer nothing more than "dead twigs." Hmmm...lovely.
Conclusion: What then, is to be done about the problem of Homosexuality and Aids?
Not much. Education. But the reality is it has always existed. Roberts just doesn't want to accept it and let liberty run its course. Unless you want to turn the world into a police state - which usually ends in gang warfare because virtuists want to mess with freedoms.
Governments must discourage all forms of sexual activity that are likely to result in the spread of the contagion. In the absence of a cure, there will, sooner or later, have to be some control over the extent of homosexual practices. Amongst the alternatives are :
1 Greater discipline and segregation in Prisons.
2 Compulsory Aids testing before international travel.
3 Segregation of sexually active Aids patients. Use of mental hospitals (now empty) as Aids hospitals for these patients.
4 Public education as to the manner in which Aids is spread and as to the dangers of homosexual conduct.
5 Compulsory registration of Aids carriers.
6 A Public denial of the “normality” of homosexual conduct and a public rejection of the suggestion that homosexual relationships are proper or acceptable to Society as a whole. There can be no such status as that of homosexual or lesbian "marriage", which is an affront to Society. Nor should consideration be given, under any circumstances, to the adoption of children by persons living in such relationships.
Virtuists subconsciously are trying to create a heaven on Earth by controlling people. They are acting as 'messengers from God', and they do not believe their force of others is a "sin". It would be deemed an acceptable virtue to turn the landscape into something which ironically mirrors Nazi concentration camps; a police state with hired gunmen slapping their rifles on their hands because they love power over others. This vision comes from the same people who believe they have a seat reserved for them in heaven.
Because there are a few bad apples out there who consciously are spreading the contagion doesn't mean others should suffer with fisticuffs. Evil does not emanate from the majority, but the minority who want to control the majority. This is why I fear John Roberts more than AIDs: He would rather control and reduce liberties - which has a direct 'trickle down effect' on "other" freedoms by developing the mindset that force is acceptable - than believe the good nature of the majority will keep the contagion contained.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Beginning of the end of Freedom to Speech
Picture a kid on a sled reaching the tipping point of a tall snow hill, and this is the end of America as we've known it, heading slowly, than faster, downhill. It was nice knowing you, Americans.
Congress Wants to Blame the Grassroots for Its Own Corruption
MANASSAS, Va., Jan. 16 /
PRNewswire-USNewswire/
-- The following is a
statement by Richard A. Viguerie, Chairman of GrassrootsFreedom.com,
regarding legislation currently being considered by Congress to regulate
grassroots communications:
"In what sounds like a comedy sketch from Jon Stewart's Daily Show, but
isn't, the U. S. Senate would impose criminal penalties, even jail time, on
grassroots causes and citizens who criticize Congress.
"Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the
Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to
500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report
quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists. Section 220
would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive
intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history,
critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself.
"The bill would require reporting of 'paid efforts to stimulate
grassroots lobbying,' but defines 'paid' merely as communications to 500 or
more members of the public, with no other qualifiers.
"On January 9, the Senate passed Amendment 7 to S. 1, to create
criminal penalties, including up to one year in jail, if someone 'knowingly
and willingly fails to file or report.'
"That amendment was introduced by Senator David Vitter (R-LA). Senator
Vitter, however, is now a co-sponsor of Amendment 20 by Senator Robert
Bennett (R-UT) to remove Section 220 from the bill. Unless Amendment 20
succeeds, the Senate will have criminalized the exercise of First Amendment
rights. We'd be living under totalitarianism, not democracy.
"I started GrassrootsFreedom.com to fight efforts to silence the
grassroots. The website provides updates in the legislation and has a
petition to sign opposing Section 220.
"Thousands of nonprofit leaders, bloggers, and other citizens have
hammered the Senate with calls in opposition to Section 220, which seeks to
silence the grassroots. The criminal provisions will scare citizens into
silence.
"The legislation regulates small, legitimate nonprofits, bloggers, and
individuals, but creates loopholes for corporations, unions, and large
membership organizations that would be able to spend literally hundreds of
millions of dollars, yet not report.
"Congress is trying to blame the grassroots, which are American
citizens engaging in their First Amendment rights, for Washington's
internal corruption problems."
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
defending individual liberties
These are examples of how the American political system has lost sight of what the Founders intended decades ago. The only true freedom is individual freedom, and gov't was established only for the purpose of defending our individual liberties.
Words Get Around II
Then...
Words Get Around II
Free Market News
Tibor R. Machan
The Libertarian Perspective #75 Tue, 24 Oct 2006
The Common Good
Strike the Root
I do not surrender my treasures, nor do I share them. The fortune of my spirit is not to be blown into coins of brass and flung to the winds as alms for the poor of the spirit. I guard my treasures: my thought, my will, my freedom. And the greatest of these is freedom.
I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask none to live for me, nor do I live for any others. I covet no man's soul, nor is my soul theirs to covet.
-Ayn Rand, Anthem
Words Get Around II
The following is something I posted at RN in response to this article:
(Mad dope props to Ayn Rand for inspiration)
(excerpt)
Any system which aims to respect individual liberty must accept that society (or the greater good, or the majority) is built up from the basic unit of the individual. There must also be the recognition that no group of individuals -- be it a group of only two individials, or of all other individuals -- has any special rights of its own; and it certainly has no superior rights over the individual. Put briefly: society has no rights; government has no responsibility to safeguard society. The term "social contract" clouds the truth that government is basically a contract between the individual and his government; society itself has no political-cum-legal substance, with no rights, privileges, or responsibilities of its own.
Society must be allowed to take whatever course it will, regardless of the outcome. Representative government is founded on the principle that the constituency deserves whatever it votes for, and should be allowed to freely choose its fate. Society must be treated -- respected -- in the same way: whatever society as a whole wants, society as a whole should get.
Then...
In other words, government is assumed to be more responsible than the individual -- even though the enormous mass of human history has proven the reverse. Misanthropists-as-socialists do not trust people; and since according to human nature they must trust in something to make things right, they place their trust in government. Beware those who would take away responsibility from the individual, for they are putting responsibility into the one human institution which least deserves it: government, which has the power to arrest or even kill those who dare violate the tyranny guarding the current social ideal.
-Lo Bastido, on individual freedom and the negatives of socialism
Words Get Around II
- Murder
- Assault
- Property damage and theft
- Copyright and patent infringement
- Breach of contract
All these activities violate one fundamental precept: that we all have the rights to our own bodies and property, and nothing else. (None of us, of course, have any rights toward other people's bodies and property.) The principle is that adults of sound mind may consent to activities with other adults with no interference from government except as an arbiter in case of dispute.
-Lo Bastido, on the five areas gov't are needed
Free Market News
Tibor R. Machan
The Libertarian Perspective #75 Tue, 24 Oct 2006
The Common Good
I have a better idea. Let Democrats, Republicans, and the rest recover the powerful idea that got the country going in the first place, one laid out pretty neatly in the Declaration of Independence. This idea is that the common good is pursued precisely when government does what justifies its existence—namely, secure our rights. That, indeed, is THE common good in the American political tradition.
There are millions of disparate "goods" that individuals pursue, but only one unites them, only one is their common good: the protection of their fundamental individual rights. This was part of the revolutionary idea that animated the Founders and put the country in opposition to so many others, including those in Europe from which so many of its initial population fled.
In most countries throughout human history the idea was promoted that there is a rich common good, a whole slew of objectives that everyone must pursue. In other words, the common good was really the collective goods of all the people, as if they really did share goods galore that they needed to promote. The one-size-fits-all mentality was encouraged by rulers, monarchs, tsars, and the rest who needed to hoodwink us into thinking that their goals are really our goals and we cannot really, individually, have goals of our own. That was the common good–the leaders' good peddled for the rest as their good, too.
The American Founders, guided by the classical liberal social-political philosophies of John Locke and company, saw through this. They realized that in a big country, the millions of inhabitants share but very few goods. (Of course, small associations—churches, clubs, corporations, professional groups and so forth—can have some common objectives all right. But no such common good or objective exists for the millions of us!) And the most important—probably, in fact, only—common good we share is the protection of our individual rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. It's the one good that's indeed good for us all, that we have in common.
If government, which is instituted to secure these rights, does its job right, it will stick to little more than making sure that everyone's liberty is safe. Why? Because then all the millions of different individuals, and some of the groups they voluntarily form amongst themselves, will quite successfully embark on the task of pursuing all those goods that suit them. Securing our rights does that for us!
But today's public pundit-intellectuals don't get it. They want to find some thick public good—a whole, humongous basket of allegedly common goods—that government will set out to achieve. And they are surprised that there isn't such a basket; in a largely free society people have their own basket of proposed goods they want to obtain for themselves. And this isn't because they are selfish and will not make sacrifices—notice how looking out for yourself is being demeaned in Tomasky's call to arms—but because even in what they consider appropriate objectives for which sacrifices should be made the citizenry differs significantly. They don't need having one idea of what's worthy of a sacrifice shoved down their throats. No, they want to choose those objectives, as well as the ways of making the sacrifices for them if need be.
Maybe the Democrats—and Republicans—ought to recover the Founders' vision. Then they wouldn't have to concoct an impossible one behind which they cannot manage to unite folks.
Strike the Root
Libertarians in general knew government had every motivation to grow in size and intrusiveness and lacked any real deterrent against doing so. The Libertarian Party represented a growing understanding that force or the threat of force, in whatever form, was required to maintain control of a population increasingly aware of the illegitimacy of so much government in their lives. Most people simply wish to be left alone, but government cannot leave them alone. Men in uniforms with shiny badges and seal-embossed parchments demanding service to “The King” have always been accompanied by the threat of violence for non-compliance.
The Revolution between the ears won’t take place all at once, but it will take place overnight. One morning everything will be different. Government actions against the people in the form of laws like the USA PATRIOT Act, surveillance of the innocent, controls on communications and the supposed dominion over one's body are creating an explosive environment, and the central planners know it. These police state tactics are not for our protection from outside threats, but for the protection of government from the American people. Government limits on our ability to seek redress and physically defend against tyranny are increasing -- an outcome predicted for decades by libertarians.
There are reasons to avoid being in public office these days. I firmly believe there will be at least a metaphorical guillotining of public officials responsible for destroying the American Dream for tens of millions of Americans. And I do not wish to be affiliated with those standing in line for their turn to have the lever pulled on their fate. I have absolutely no political goal other than to be left alone. My whole family and large circle of friends have invested a great deal of time, effort and money to that end. But I don't see wielding the power of elective office as a path to that goal.
While content to focus my efforts at home in Arizona , I have become increasingly aware of those with a great desire to be a “respected member” of the very system we oppose. The claim that one needs positions of power in order to free individuals is very troubling. We should be the Hobbits who do not seek power over others, and are willing to make great investments to ensure being left alone. Changing the hands on the levers of power won’t eliminate the levers. The abandonment of the principled foundation of libertarianism now would be disastrous and leave us with nothing of value to distinguish us from our ideological competition.
And while most libertarians would welcome a return to the size of government allowed by the US Constitution as championed in the Federalist Papers, many recognize that this document created the opportunity for the powerful central government we oppose today. The liberty-minded people of the American Revolution were profoundly ambivalent about the US Constitution, and detailed their concerns in the Anti-Federalist Papers. What good are checks and balances when all three branches of government are aligned against the rights of the individual? The Bill of Rights was the libertarian compromise. These ten “Thou Shalt Nots” of government was the deal made to avoid conflict. But the document has proven to be binding only on the people, in our forced support of our present government, while every single one of the Bill of Rights is constantly violated without hesitation by government. I am certain that I am not the only one wondering when this “social contract” will finally be declared null and void.
-Ernest Hancock
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Terri Schiavo, Part 3
Another important Schiavo column on what really went down.
QandO (see column for links)
Michael Schiavo’s Evolution into a Republican Kos Kid: Harbinger for Libertarians?
GUEST POST by Mona
We libertarians are frequently caricatured as “Republicans who just want to smoke dope and have orgiastic sex.” Actually, we hold fealty to many serious general principles, including: the rule of law, basic human rights, federalism, and, yes, the individual adult’s liberty interest in making all manner of personal decisions sans interference from the state; we are also usually skeptical of moralistic social crusades. Many of us, historically, have concluded that our principles and attitudes are best, if imperfectly, upheld by the GOP. Political conditions, however, have changed, and today’s GOP violates libertarian values with promiscuous abandon (but this post focuses on only one of myriad examples of such abandonment). Most intriguingly, we are receiving what could be taken as an invitation from soi disant “libertarian Democrat” Markos Moulitsas that has excited some discussion in our ranks.
Well, I am one libertarian who is cautiously receptive to the Donkey Team’s lure. The canary in the GOP coal mine for me was Michael Schiavo and the (predominantly) GOP grotesqueries imposed on him, his family and his friends during the jihad to “save” his former wife, Terri Schiavo. Not surprisingly, life-long Republican Michael himself seems to agree that the contemporary GOP has become malignant, and he has been both posting a diary at Daily Kos , and last week attended the YearlyKos Convention. What libertarian could blame him? (And please don’t suggest that he could make recourse to the Libertarian Party; Michael is obviously interested in a political force potent enough to evict the current, populist GOP extremists from some branches of the federal government, as am I.)
Let us recall how the Bush/Frist GOP utterly savaged Michael, gleefully joined by its handmaidens at Fox news, the latter of which virtually drove the hysteria , with no little bit of assistance from some pro-Bush blogs. Armed with absurd conspiracy theories, pure lies and faux experts, as well as outrageous and repugnant accusations (“Sean Hannity accused Schiavo of abusing and possibly killing his wife while broadcasting Hannity & Colmes from outside Terri Schiavo's Hospice”), the GOP and its media minions turned a family tragedy that was being competently and properly adjudicated in the Florida Courts by a Republican probate judge, into a fevered national circus.
Most of the Bush-worshipping denizens of the leading conservative journal, National Review, were on board with "saving Terri." But there was one dissenter in the NR stable, and that is John Derbyshire, whose acid review of NR senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru’s execrable book, Party of Death, is as scathing as it is accurate. (Do read the whole thing, and note it was not published at NR.) (h/t David Weigel at Hit ‘n Run) Writes Derb:
Does Ponnuru denounce his co-ideologues’ deranged atmosphere that generated hatred and death threats against Michael Schiavo? Derb again (emphasis in original):
About the medical charlatanry peddled by the GOP regarding Terri Schiavo’s status, another life-long Republican — physician Elizabeth Whelan, president and founder of the American Council on Science and Health — had this to say at TCS:
The GOP-led federal madness that ensued in the wake of Frist and Fox’s reprehensible antics is well-described by Reason’s Ron Bailey:
And, just as life-long Republican Dr. Whelan deplored the medical codswallop of the Bush/Frist GOP spewed forth during l’affaire Schiavo, arch-conservative, pro-life, Republican Constitutional Law scholar Douglas Kmiec rejected the GOP’s attack on both the rule of law and federalism as “a constitiutional abomination”:
Michael certainly will find no GOP restraint from the "federalist lawyers" at Powerline, which declared:
Nor would he encounter anything but shrill, hyperbolic contempt from pro-Bush blogger LaShawn Barber, who, in a post titled Death Culturists Say Michael Schiavo ‘Vindicated’ wrote:
And in another post, instead of denouncing death threats directed at Michael, and the climate that produced them, Barber more than hinted that he deserved them and excuses the “emotions” that drive some to such lawless and vicious behavior:
(In fairness, it must be noted that a comparative handful of pro-Bush bloggers were disgusted by the Schiavo mania and the slander of Michael Schiavo, as reflected by these collected quotes and links at The Politburo Diktat. And, pro-Bush blogger Jeff Goldstein, with whom I disagree about a great deal, wrote: “…an autopsy could very well prove that Michael Schiavo abused his wife—or, more likely, such a procedure will clear Michael Schiavo of some of the more pernicious pieces of conjecture I’ve heard floated during the ongoing coverage of this case.” )
But, it was it was a left-of-center blogger, Matt Stoller, who interviewed the Republican Michael Schiavo at Stoller’s MyDD blog, and from that interview I leave newly minted Kos Kid, Michael Schiavo, with both a challenge to Republicans (which might also apply to libertarians), and the last word:
QandO (see column for links)
Michael Schiavo’s Evolution into a Republican Kos Kid: Harbinger for Libertarians?
GUEST POST by Mona
"They [the “Save Terri!” movement] asserted that Schiavo's coma may have been caused by abuse from her husband, Michael. With their cries of "medical terrorism" and their comparisons to Nazi Germany, these so-called champions of life created an atmosphere in which some of their supporters made death threats not only to Michael Schiavo but to judges and legislators who had been on the "wrong" side of the dispute.
-Cathy Young
Reason
We libertarians are frequently caricatured as “Republicans who just want to smoke dope and have orgiastic sex.” Actually, we hold fealty to many serious general principles, including: the rule of law, basic human rights, federalism, and, yes, the individual adult’s liberty interest in making all manner of personal decisions sans interference from the state; we are also usually skeptical of moralistic social crusades. Many of us, historically, have concluded that our principles and attitudes are best, if imperfectly, upheld by the GOP. Political conditions, however, have changed, and today’s GOP violates libertarian values with promiscuous abandon (but this post focuses on only one of myriad examples of such abandonment). Most intriguingly, we are receiving what could be taken as an invitation from soi disant “libertarian Democrat” Markos Moulitsas that has excited some discussion in our ranks.
Well, I am one libertarian who is cautiously receptive to the Donkey Team’s lure. The canary in the GOP coal mine for me was Michael Schiavo and the (predominantly) GOP grotesqueries imposed on him, his family and his friends during the jihad to “save” his former wife, Terri Schiavo. Not surprisingly, life-long Republican Michael himself seems to agree that the contemporary GOP has become malignant, and he has been both posting a diary at Daily Kos , and last week attended the YearlyKos Convention. What libertarian could blame him? (And please don’t suggest that he could make recourse to the Libertarian Party; Michael is obviously interested in a political force potent enough to evict the current, populist GOP extremists from some branches of the federal government, as am I.)
Let us recall how the Bush/Frist GOP utterly savaged Michael, gleefully joined by its handmaidens at Fox news, the latter of which virtually drove the hysteria , with no little bit of assistance from some pro-Bush blogs. Armed with absurd conspiracy theories, pure lies and faux experts, as well as outrageous and repugnant accusations (“Sean Hannity accused Schiavo of abusing and possibly killing his wife while broadcasting Hannity & Colmes from outside Terri Schiavo's Hospice”), the GOP and its media minions turned a family tragedy that was being competently and properly adjudicated in the Florida Courts by a Republican probate judge, into a fevered national circus.
Most of the Bush-worshipping denizens of the leading conservative journal, National Review, were on board with "saving Terri." But there was one dissenter in the NR stable, and that is John Derbyshire, whose acid review of NR senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru’s execrable book, Party of Death, is as scathing as it is accurate. (Do read the whole thing, and note it was not published at NR.) (h/t David Weigel at Hit ‘n Run) Writes Derb:
... the grotesque carnival surrounding the death of Terri Schiavo last year, when a motley menagerie of quack doctors, bogus “Nobel Prize nominees,” emoting relatives, get-a-life monomaniacs, keening mobs of religious fanatics, death-threat-hissing warriors for “life,” dimwitted TV presenters straining to keep their very best my-puppy-just-died faces on while speaking of “Terri” as if they had known her personally from grade school, pandering politicians, and shyster lawyers all joined forces in a massive effort to convince the American public that [Right to Life] was a thing no sane citizen ought to touch with a barge pole while wearing triple-ply rubber gloves.
Does Ponnuru denounce his co-ideologues’ deranged atmosphere that generated hatred and death threats against Michael Schiavo? Derb again (emphasis in original):
In fact, Ponnuru has nothing to say at all about the monstrous character assassination, carried out by utterly unscrupulous RTL propagandists, of a decent man [Michael Schiavo] who coped humanely and well with a terrible life calamity. Well, not quite nothing: “It cannot be denied that pro-lifers were guilty of some excesses,” Ponnuru murmurs. Some excesses? I would say. Here the author sounds like nothing so much as a Soviet Communist Party apparatchik, circa 1960, offering a grudging admission that Stalin and his cronies might, just once or twice, have been a tad over-zealous in dealing with class enemies…I came away more convinced than ever that Michael Schiavo is a good man criminally traduced by brutal, unprincipled RTL fanatics, from whose number, on the evidence of this chapter, Ponnuru cannot with certainty be excluded.
About the medical charlatanry peddled by the GOP regarding Terri Schiavo’s status, another life-long Republican — physician Elizabeth Whelan, president and founder of the American Council on Science and Health — had this to say at TCS:
While the family video [of Terri] repeatedly shown on television suggests otherwise, her non-functioning cortex precludes cognition, including any ability to interact or communicate with people or show any signs of awareness. Dozens of experts over the years who have examined Ms. Schiavo agree that there is no hope of her recovering — even though her body, face and eyes (if she is given food and hydration) might continue to move for decades to come.
Those are the harsh facts.
Thus it was shocking that Sen. Bill Frist — a heart surgeon before becoming Senate majority leader — went to the Senate floor twice last week to argue that Florida doctors had erred in saying that Terri is in a "persistent vegetative state." How did Frist arrive at this diagnosis? From watching the family videotapes.
Frist's comments were picked up by journalists, including FoxNews's Fred Barnes, who cited Sen. Frist as an authority in a debate with Morton Kondracke on The Beltway Boys last week.
The GOP-led federal madness that ensued in the wake of Frist and Fox’s reprehensible antics is well-described by Reason’s Ron Bailey:
After making their video diagnoses, our legislators got busy. After all, a leaked memo from a Republican staffer had also diagnosed Schiavo's plight as "a great political issue" that would help the GOP rally conservative Christians for the 2006 election. In March, three Senators during an extraordinary Palm Sunday session passed "emergency" legislation to throw the Schiavo case into the federal courts by a "unanimous" vote. The members of the House of Representatives rushed back from their Easter holiday to vote 203 to 58 for the bill. Those voting in favor included 156 Republicans and 47 Democrats. And President George W. Bush melodramatically flew back from his Texas ranch to sign the legislation. All for naught, because the federal courts all quickly ruled in favor of Michael Schiavo.
And, just as life-long Republican Dr. Whelan deplored the medical codswallop of the Bush/Frist GOP spewed forth during l’affaire Schiavo, arch-conservative, pro-life, Republican Constitutional Law scholar Douglas Kmiec rejected the GOP’s attack on both the rule of law and federalism as “a constitiutional abomination”:
... Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University and prominent conservative, called it a "constitutional abomination," because, he said, Congress had overstepped its authority.
The Constitution grants to Congress only certain powers, leaving the rest to the states. Kmiec said nothing in the Constitution gave Congress the power to pass the law, which, he said, sets a troubling precedent that Congress can simply order a federal judge to direct a person's fate.
"What Congress has said is, 'We can take that away from you. We can make the decision not yours, but that of a federal judge,'" Kmiec said. "That is a profound thing to say, and not just for the Schiavo case."
Michael certainly will find no GOP restraint from the "federalist lawyers" at Powerline, which declared:
Disgusting... That's the only word to describe the conduct of Michael Schiavo and his crusade to end the life of his wife Terri.
Nor would he encounter anything but shrill, hyperbolic contempt from pro-Bush blogger LaShawn Barber, who, in a post titled Death Culturists Say Michael Schiavo ‘Vindicated’ wrote:
Look at the thing itself, to paraphrase a fictional man-eater paraphrasing Marcus Aurelius. What is it in itself? What is its nature, this culture of death?
It is dark, dank, and putrid. And hungry....
And in another post, instead of denouncing death threats directed at Michael, and the climate that produced them, Barber more than hinted that he deserved them and excuses the “emotions” that drive some to such lawless and vicious behavior:
A man has been arrested for making threats against Michael Schiavo via the Internet. In that case, he shouldn’t be the only one. How many people have said or written such things about Schiavo in the past week out of emotion? Should they all be arrested?”
(In fairness, it must be noted that a comparative handful of pro-Bush bloggers were disgusted by the Schiavo mania and the slander of Michael Schiavo, as reflected by these collected quotes and links at The Politburo Diktat. And, pro-Bush blogger Jeff Goldstein, with whom I disagree about a great deal, wrote: “…an autopsy could very well prove that Michael Schiavo abused his wife—or, more likely, such a procedure will clear Michael Schiavo of some of the more pernicious pieces of conjecture I’ve heard floated during the ongoing coverage of this case.” )
But, it was it was a left-of-center blogger, Matt Stoller, who interviewed the Republican Michael Schiavo at Stoller’s MyDD blog, and from that interview I leave newly minted Kos Kid, Michael Schiavo, with both a challenge to Republicans (which might also apply to libertarians), and the last word:
Interfering with families' rights to make private, personal decisions shouldn't be any politician's platform.
There are many good Republicans - where I work, in my family and all over the place. And many of them were sickened by what they saw their party doing to the rights of individuals and families. But the people leading the Republican party in Washington D.C. and in Florida today aren't like the Republicans I know.
The leaders of that Republican party are, in my opinion, out of touch, mean spirited and very selfish. To do what they did just so they can win re-election is the lowest kind of politics. And it cost them the support of at least this Republican.
I have gotten hundreds of letters and emails from other Republicans who agree with me and many of them have joined me in leaving the party.
My message to moderate Republicans is: Pay attention. Learn what these people are doing in your name and with your votes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)