In Craig Biddle's article from _The Objective Standard_ Vol. 3, No. 3. entitled "McBama vs. America", he claims that the major Presidential candidates are fundamentally the same. Biddle considers the candidates' respective positions on major issues of recent concern. While it is very obviously true that both Barack Obama and John McCain count on the philosophies of altruism, pragmatism, and Socialism to form their respective policies, there is more to consider. For example, are the concerns over general foreign policy or general medical care _absolutely_ fundamental?
While there can be some tangential benefits in noting how two (or more) candidates are similar, that tactic belies the greatest importance of each of the respective candidates' policies. For example, seeing what those candidates agree on can indicate what the wider culture considers important. (No doubt that Americans largely accept altruism as morally valid despite the overwhelming preponderance of how dangerous that philosophy is.) It is incumbent on voters to at least try to find essential differences in candidates. I don't want to focus on mechanics, but if readers are curious, then they can follow-up by researching Ayn Rand's "measurement omission" technique which is required for proper essentialization. Some indications are here:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/measurement.html
From _Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology_, page 59, here's some of what Ayn Rand has to say about evaluating fundamental concepts:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/definitions.html
"Now observe . . . the process of determining an essential characteristic: the rule of fundamentality. When a given group of existents has more than one characteristic distinguishing it from other existents, man must observe the relationships among these various characteristics and discover the one on which all the others (or the greatest number of others) depend, i.e., the fundamental characteristic without which the others would not be possible. This fundamental characteristic is the essential distinguishing characteristic of the existents involved, and the proper defining characteristic of the concept.
Metaphysically, a fundamental characteristic is that distinctive characteristic which makes the greatest number of others possible; epistemologically, it is the one that explains the greatest number of others."
Certain issues _are_ more fundamental to any human than other issues. While personal context is always of major import to each voter, it would be utterly relativistic to figure that those personal concerns eliminate the interest in issues that are not only universal but are of sheer survival value. For example, American voter C may be particularly concerned about the growth of the welfare state while American voter D may be concerned about American military involvement in parts of Asia. Certainly, it can be argued that neither the welfare state should be allowed to grow unabated nor should military be funded to go anywhere and everywhere in the world when (noting AR's recognition of the rule of fundamentality again) certain countries pose greater foreign threats to Americans than others. (Today, the greatest foreign threat is still Iran of course. See Dr. Leonard Peikoff's writing on Islamic terrorism for more information on this subject.) The rights to self-protection and self-preservation are so wholly basic to human survival that any talk of other issues necessarily begs this question of fundamentality as Ayn Rand indicated.
Since _I_ am not willing to overlook them, I'm highlighting some of the differences on a fundamental issue of freedom that hits closer to a person than many other issues do...
Note the dates...
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/John_McCain.htm
"Pro-life and an advocate for the Rights of Man everywhere. (Feb 2008)"
"Prosecute abortion doctors, not women who get them. (Jan 2000)"
"Overturn Roe v. Wade, but keep incest & rape exceptions. (Jan 2000)"
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Barack_Obama.htm
"Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases. (Aug 2007)"
"Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007. (Jan 2008)"
"Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998)"
What this indicates is that while there may appear to be some common ground between the candidates even on the issue of abortion, the truth exists elsewhere: It is in the basic differences where a voter can begin to establish comparative value between McCain and Obama. Note that Obama has continued to affirm the individual woman's right to abortion. At the same time, McCain has a history of ignoring and even expressly attempting to violate that most basic right of an individual to control their body.
Also of relevance, it wasn't an Islamicist (or an atheist) that did the following...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/abortviolence/stories/gunn.htm
"A doctor was shot to death outside his abortion clinic here today when a man who prayed for the physician's soul stepped forward from a group of antiabortion protesters and opened fire, according to police and witnesses..."
Skeptics might want to review what Ayn Rand said about abortion as a political issue (and in particular for elections.) Also, thanks in no small part to Ronald Reagan (and the Christian Coalition), America is at the cultural point which it is at today.
Of further note, here is an excerpt from an Ayn Rand interview: Again, note the date.....
The Objectivist Forum, June 1980, _Interview with Ayn Rand (part 1)_
"Q. Would you please (elaborate)? You have said many times that you are not a conservative and you are not an admirer of Ronald Reagan who seems to have, in a sense, preempted the "right" in this country. Can you explain?
A. Yes, certainly. I am not an admirer of Ronald Reagan, and I will not vote for him, because he is the representative of the worst kind of conservatism. I am opposed to him on the same grounds as I am opposed to conservatism, that is, to the mixture of religion and politics. I am, as you know an atheist. I do believe in a man's right to believe a religion, if he wants to. But he has no right to bring his religion into politics, which means to impose it on other people by force. Political power is the power to initiate the use of physical force. If you bring religion into politics, it means that you are forcing religion on people at the point of a gun, and destroying the intellectual freedom of your citizens.
The combination of religion and politics is the worst possible combination in our society...."
Ayn Rand died in 1982, so it's very likely that the interview I just excerpted is the last or certainly among the most recent interviews she ever gave. She gave that interview at the very time when American Christians were starting to engage politics in a more serious way. With the greater affluence of Americans in the 1970's and the follow-up of President Jimmy Carter's destructive economic policies, it's not so surprising that conservatives would think that the time was right for them to swing into action. That they did.......and Christianity is here in this country as a major factor _now_ still to this very day.
If anyone doubts this, then they can ask Nicholas Provenzo at the Rule of Reason weblog if abortion opponents strike him as rational. A few weeks ago, Provenzo discussed what he thought of Sarah Palin's attempts to elevate her raising of a disabled infant to the level of great moral virtue. The religious zealots came out in droves and not only scolded him for his position, several dozen of them went as far as offering Mr. Provenzo death threats. Did as many supposedly even-handed religious advocates come out to offer him sympathetic support for what their cohorts had done? As far as I can tell, hardly any of the supporters of Palin's rhetoric offered consideration for him. They also did not substantiate their arguments with reasonable premises though they certainly resorted to blind faith and emotionalism! My point here is that we are a long way from seeing religious Americans come across as believable when they supposedly advocate peaceful living.
Considering that Craig Biddle's essay notes the similarities between McCain and Obama while neglecting the differences, one would have to figure that he would expect us to figure that those similarities to be of greater (or even greatest) significance when it comes to comparative moral evaluation. Given that a mother who is prohibited from exercising her right to abortion will hardly be able to live the life she would have otherwise figured on, there is little reason to argue that she (or her significant romantic other) would consider other issues as being equal or even greater in value. If Biddle would have maintained proper context, then his argument would have at least come off as plausible. If he would have focused on how Americans are actually required to live their lives in terms of their respective hierarchy of values, then he would have been able to see that his warning is misdirected.
If he had shown contextual consideration for the ramifications of the very policy positions he did note, then he would have been able to offer a proper and more immediately identifiable perspective. As it is, it would seem that Craig Biddle needs to check _his_ premises. Let's get really practical here: In reality, there are actual women who have foreign policy concerns who are also facing the prospect of bearing and raising children. If someone is in the situation where she found out that she is pregnant and she wants to further her career, then will ANYTHING that a foreign politician says be of greater immediate concern to her over and above her attempt to reconcile her pregnancy? In reality, even under the most dire circumstances, if another nation threatens America, then it will have to engage in some long-term planning in attacking us. Meanwhile... that woman (and untold thousands of others) will have to deal with whether or not they are even allowed to utilize a perfectly moral and medically viable option for terminating pregnancy.
Shall we wait until things get even culturally worse? Given that we are in the midst of an economic crisis, and the current Republican President has gone farther than anyone to strong-arm legislators into supporting a massive bail-out which is of course an example of naked Socialism, are people still convinced that there are no _fundamental_ differences between the two major Presidential candidates and their respective parties in 2008?
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Monday, March 10, 2008
From Homeschooling to No Schooling
In recent insanity, the Second District Court of Appeal of California has made a new ruling that prohibits parents from controlling their children's education. On the contrary and to put it positively, a parent has the right and obligation to control how their children are raised. End of story. To put it negatively, no one else has any authority over this parental right. The new resolution runs entirely contrary to the basic decency and good sense of proper child development. The act of requiring a child to go to a public school (or any day school for the matter) against his family's desires entails (among other things) that: 1) That child is prohibited from receiving his guardian(s)' provision for physical well-being viz. the parent's concern for the child as it involves safety, exercise, food, nutrition, and special medical needs 2) That child can not refer to his parents/guardians for conceptual points of comparison and other follow-up questions. It isn't entirely unusual for a teacher to offer up a subject matter in a manner that is offensive to both the child and his parents. Consider the trend of giving sexual education to increasingly younger children with greater explication and frequency. 3) Further, consider the extra burden that this involves. A parent who invariably already has his and his child's daily routine set, now has to disorganize that and start over. The parent would have to take additional time for scheduling and come up with requisite transportation. He'd also have to consult with a variety of public school agents for his own comprehension of how the school administers its programming. Plus, he would have to further consult with school staff in meetings instigated by their whims and arbitrary scheduling. 4) Then, there's additional financial costs. The public school scheme as we know it is more of a 20th century manifestation of multi-tentacled Modernism than anything the American Founding Fathers could have envisioned. That is, it amounts to an excuse for greater taxation which in itself will likely beget more taxation and regulation as it always has. Obviously, all of the aforementioned would invoke sudden psychological turmoil for the members of an affected family as well.
It should be noted that any legislative Constitution can only acknowledge and protect individual rights. It's a total and fundamental self-contradiction for legislators to write laws that "give" rights. Rights are not given by a legislative body or anyone else for the matter. Rights are derived from an individual human's nature i.e. his conceptually-oriented ability to negotiate reality, and those rights exist prior to society. In fact, as Ayn Rand indicated, society is held back by rights so that any individual may live according to his own respective consciousness as he sees fit so long as he doesn't violate others' rights.
A parent raising his own child in no way violates anyone's rights. Again, a parent is, if anything, morally obligated to look after a child's education. Legislators most certainly do not know of and couldn't possibly keep track of every parent's particular pedagogical agenda. It's simply off-the-charts ludicrous to suggest that a governmental bureaucracy could even begin to have a hope of properly raising children. Consider the track record of modern government these days. Governments around the world constantly violate individual rights even while they operate under the color of supposedly objective laws. (The laws themselves are to be questioned as well as the execution of the laws.) This new court opinion leads to nothing more than another trial balloon and naked power grab.
Politics is derived from ethics. Does the State of California attempt to substantiate its claim with rational morality? No, not at all. What California government has instead given us is an edict from on high via rationalizations i.e. an initiation of force based on the logical fallacy of argument from authority. The appellate court is apparently resting its argument at least in part on the following excerpt from the California Constitution: "A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the Legislature shall encourage by all suitable means the promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral, and agricultural improvement." Really now? This is entirely presumptuous. Again, leaving aside the complete impossibility and the abject ineptitude of a governmental body in attempting to provide any of the previous enumerated values, the law is illogical. (...so much for the intellect, ethics and science!)
Note the bait and switch here: If there is an "authority" to be concerned with, then it would be of a pedagogical nature, but that is in using the term authority in the sense of being an expert. When the government claims authority, those agents are entirely depending on the threat of force to coerce parents to follow orders. Also, who decides what educational paradigms and practitioners are best? Caveat emptor! Education, as is the case with every other commodity, must be traded commercially for everyone involved to get the values they seek to obtain. The California government is not only insulting the intelligence of parents by suggesting that they don't have rights to educate their children but that even if they were allowed freedom to choose among competing private educational institutions, those parents wouldn't have the intelligence to decide which organization is best in aiding their children's education.
There's another logical fallacy that the state's argument rests on, and that is that of an anti-concept. In this case, the anti-concept in question is "group rights". In particular, the appellate court invokes that specious idea of public welfare. What is this welfare? For that matter, what is the public? These terms are themselves anti-conceptual. That is, "public" and "public welfare" are undefinable, and they are only used to obfuscate issues. As Ayn Rand indicated in her _The Virtue of Selfishness_ book on page 102,
A group, as such, has no rights. A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights which he does possess. The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations.
Any group that does not recognize this principle is not an association, but a gang or a mob …
The notion of "collective rights" (the notion that rights belong to groups, not to individuals) means that "rights" belong to some men, but not to others—that some men have the "right" to dispose of others in any manner they please—and that the criterion of such privileged position consists of numerical superiority.
http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/collectiverights.html
...so the idea of "group rights" is used to mutually reinforce the state's authority (the group's supposed agent) as that authority is used to prop up "group rights". Also, "public welfare" merely skirts the essential issue which is that of man's rights. In effect, the state is saying: "You, the parent, must cede your right to parent to the whim of a nebulous idea of society... because we, the state, say so." Education is not a right in the sense that it's something to be extricated from others by force. There isn't any such "right". As the Founding Fathers noted, a person qua parent has the right to _pursue_ values e.g. the value of education as against having the value handed over to the child at the expense of someone else's life. This itself involves still another logical fallacy of begging the question. That is, the state's argument is a circular and baseless argument. The state legislature is ultimately counting on a conceptual shell game to keep parents confused and preventing them from identifying the root cause of the decline of American education.
A child stands to benefit more from greater interaction with his parent(s). Why punish a parent for trying to offer his child more support? There's a larger context at play here. Along with the problems that the recent appellate court resolution involves, there's the fact that education has been up for grabs in political circles for decades. There are pressure groups including those of the teachers' unions that wish to gain ever greater authority over the decision-making possibilities that are yielded by past governmental encroachment.
From the related San Francisco Chronicle article at
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/07/MNJDVF0F1.DTL, we have this:
The ruling was applauded by a director for the state's largest teachers union.
"We're happy," said Lloyd Porter, who is on the California Teachers Association board of directors. "We always think students should be taught by credentialed teachers, no matter what the setting."
Of course, this further begs the question of "What is the basis of teachers' credentials?" It just so happens that I personally was raised in a family of teachers. I know from hearing stories from my family and their co-workers that there's entirely too many parties pulling at teachers for them to do their job properly these days. ...and that is leaving aside the condition of school curricula.
What's also disheartening is that the teachers themselves are unlikely to fight the trend of greater state control. They are beholden to the state for their jobs since the state has what nearly amounts to being a monopoly. In recent decades, it isn't as if homeschooling parents have ever represented the numerical majority of parents, so neither homeschooling parents nor the teachers who are sympathetic to those parents have much leverage in this situation (unless they protest the infernal legislation which the several courts depend on of course!)
Parents and teachers alike need to understand that if they are sincere in having children receive proper education they must not get in the way of laissez-faire Capitalism. That is, everyone involved must take responsibility for their own respective role (and only that personal role!) in educating children. They must also understand that government has no value to offer; it can only take away values if it's improperly directed. At best, government can only protect an ideal educational system... rather an educational _industry_ if it's ever allowed to develop. Parents must continue to fight for greater recognition of the fact that they are the first and last authority in respect to their own children's development. That means, parents must have a minimal understanding of the basis for laissez-faire, and they must be willing to speak out in support of such a theory.
It should be noted that any legislative Constitution can only acknowledge and protect individual rights. It's a total and fundamental self-contradiction for legislators to write laws that "give" rights. Rights are not given by a legislative body or anyone else for the matter. Rights are derived from an individual human's nature i.e. his conceptually-oriented ability to negotiate reality, and those rights exist prior to society. In fact, as Ayn Rand indicated, society is held back by rights so that any individual may live according to his own respective consciousness as he sees fit so long as he doesn't violate others' rights.
A parent raising his own child in no way violates anyone's rights. Again, a parent is, if anything, morally obligated to look after a child's education. Legislators most certainly do not know of and couldn't possibly keep track of every parent's particular pedagogical agenda. It's simply off-the-charts ludicrous to suggest that a governmental bureaucracy could even begin to have a hope of properly raising children. Consider the track record of modern government these days. Governments around the world constantly violate individual rights even while they operate under the color of supposedly objective laws. (The laws themselves are to be questioned as well as the execution of the laws.) This new court opinion leads to nothing more than another trial balloon and naked power grab.
Politics is derived from ethics. Does the State of California attempt to substantiate its claim with rational morality? No, not at all. What California government has instead given us is an edict from on high via rationalizations i.e. an initiation of force based on the logical fallacy of argument from authority. The appellate court is apparently resting its argument at least in part on the following excerpt from the California Constitution: "A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the Legislature shall encourage by all suitable means the promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral, and agricultural improvement." Really now? This is entirely presumptuous. Again, leaving aside the complete impossibility and the abject ineptitude of a governmental body in attempting to provide any of the previous enumerated values, the law is illogical. (...so much for the intellect, ethics and science!)
Note the bait and switch here: If there is an "authority" to be concerned with, then it would be of a pedagogical nature, but that is in using the term authority in the sense of being an expert. When the government claims authority, those agents are entirely depending on the threat of force to coerce parents to follow orders. Also, who decides what educational paradigms and practitioners are best? Caveat emptor! Education, as is the case with every other commodity, must be traded commercially for everyone involved to get the values they seek to obtain. The California government is not only insulting the intelligence of parents by suggesting that they don't have rights to educate their children but that even if they were allowed freedom to choose among competing private educational institutions, those parents wouldn't have the intelligence to decide which organization is best in aiding their children's education.
There's another logical fallacy that the state's argument rests on, and that is that of an anti-concept. In this case, the anti-concept in question is "group rights". In particular, the appellate court invokes that specious idea of public welfare. What is this welfare? For that matter, what is the public? These terms are themselves anti-conceptual. That is, "public" and "public welfare" are undefinable, and they are only used to obfuscate issues. As Ayn Rand indicated in her _The Virtue of Selfishness_ book on page 102,
A group, as such, has no rights. A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights which he does possess. The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations.
Any group that does not recognize this principle is not an association, but a gang or a mob …
The notion of "collective rights" (the notion that rights belong to groups, not to individuals) means that "rights" belong to some men, but not to others—that some men have the "right" to dispose of others in any manner they please—and that the criterion of such privileged position consists of numerical superiority.
http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/collectiverights.html
...so the idea of "group rights" is used to mutually reinforce the state's authority (the group's supposed agent) as that authority is used to prop up "group rights". Also, "public welfare" merely skirts the essential issue which is that of man's rights. In effect, the state is saying: "You, the parent, must cede your right to parent to the whim of a nebulous idea of society... because we, the state, say so." Education is not a right in the sense that it's something to be extricated from others by force. There isn't any such "right". As the Founding Fathers noted, a person qua parent has the right to _pursue_ values e.g. the value of education as against having the value handed over to the child at the expense of someone else's life. This itself involves still another logical fallacy of begging the question. That is, the state's argument is a circular and baseless argument. The state legislature is ultimately counting on a conceptual shell game to keep parents confused and preventing them from identifying the root cause of the decline of American education.
A child stands to benefit more from greater interaction with his parent(s). Why punish a parent for trying to offer his child more support? There's a larger context at play here. Along with the problems that the recent appellate court resolution involves, there's the fact that education has been up for grabs in political circles for decades. There are pressure groups including those of the teachers' unions that wish to gain ever greater authority over the decision-making possibilities that are yielded by past governmental encroachment.
From the related San Francisco Chronicle article at
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/07/MNJDVF0F1.DTL, we have this:
The ruling was applauded by a director for the state's largest teachers union.
"We're happy," said Lloyd Porter, who is on the California Teachers Association board of directors. "We always think students should be taught by credentialed teachers, no matter what the setting."
Of course, this further begs the question of "What is the basis of teachers' credentials?" It just so happens that I personally was raised in a family of teachers. I know from hearing stories from my family and their co-workers that there's entirely too many parties pulling at teachers for them to do their job properly these days. ...and that is leaving aside the condition of school curricula.
What's also disheartening is that the teachers themselves are unlikely to fight the trend of greater state control. They are beholden to the state for their jobs since the state has what nearly amounts to being a monopoly. In recent decades, it isn't as if homeschooling parents have ever represented the numerical majority of parents, so neither homeschooling parents nor the teachers who are sympathetic to those parents have much leverage in this situation (unless they protest the infernal legislation which the several courts depend on of course!)
Parents and teachers alike need to understand that if they are sincere in having children receive proper education they must not get in the way of laissez-faire Capitalism. That is, everyone involved must take responsibility for their own respective role (and only that personal role!) in educating children. They must also understand that government has no value to offer; it can only take away values if it's improperly directed. At best, government can only protect an ideal educational system... rather an educational _industry_ if it's ever allowed to develop. Parents must continue to fight for greater recognition of the fact that they are the first and last authority in respect to their own children's development. That means, parents must have a minimal understanding of the basis for laissez-faire, and they must be willing to speak out in support of such a theory.
Monday, February 04, 2008
On the precipice of American Sobriety
1 October, 2007
Yes, I am about to actually make a (potentially unfounded) speculation. (Gasp!) Far be it for I to be someone to make too much of the recent press references to Ayn Rand. (Watch me as I rub my hands together.) After all, anyone could figure that the major press (as the collective that they truly are!) would in their infinite Leftism find that they would feel guilty if they didn't at least pay such a literary nemesis some lip service for fear of being "derelict of duty". Oh irony, sometimes I can not but help love you! (In case someone is slow on the uptake, Ayn Rand equals sales.) What the Hell am I _really_ on about? Well, leaving aside that no fundamental cultural change is likely to happen in the next decade, and it will take at least part of another decade for all of those students who have been getting ARI's book donations to get to that age where they really get serious about politics (due to having established careers, houses, families, etc.), I think we have good evidence that the intellectual vacuum will get filled in the near future! (No, no one could even begin to know specifically when...)
This is, of course, no small matter. If we are to have a political revolution (which apparently many sentient people are longing for), then that can _only_ come after an intellectual revolution has gone into full swing. You don't get a Mussolini or Hitler without a Marx going to work beforehand, for example. Likewise, you will never get another American revolution without a substantial American minority becoming well-aquainted with Ayn Rand's work. (Yes, please do refer to Dr. Peikoff's _Ominous Parallels_...) What I am getting at is the realization that there truly is "no alternative" circa 2020 or thereabouts. Okay, America is not lead by a papacy now, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what is yielded by the aftermath of Presidents Reagan and George Bush, Jr. It's not hard NOW ..after so much has transpired legally! Also, (big surprise) the Dems. are following suit in advocating religion...., and there shouldn't be a doubt why that is. Please. The consequences of this path-switch are to come eventually (barring the very interference which Objectivists hope to provide.)
Consider this: Objectivists are already lamenting the Democratic absorption of religious ethics. Well, aside from witnessing what is likely the inevitable, is there anything to fear in the short-term by having the Democrats in power? NO! It will very predictably play out... (as awful as that certainly is), and the result will be the same. There are two fears; each correspond to each party's use of religion, and we already know plenty about the respective future outcomes.
Let's say the Democrats get and retain the White House for 3 successive terms. (Yes, that would actually be the sound of Hillary having an orgasm..., but never you mind....) What precisely will they do that could be significantly worse than what we would likely get otherwise? More restrictions due to future Patriot Acts? Table that concern! Haha, more spending... yes, as if anyone on the face of the Earth can actually come remotely close to quantifying the spending of the American government. What else is there to say except that the flood gates have been open for decades? Who are we kidding here...? You couldn't possibly rocket into space that much money as we have wasted.... You couldn't begin to burn it... If you are number-crunching, then you are wasting your time. We are FAR beyond that as a nation. (One of the several reasons why Libertarians are fools is that these sorts of issues first depend on principles of basic philosophy not of economics, but that's a tangent...) As I've said before, the Democrats are following the Republicans' lead. I have to emphasize this further. As Objectivists have said in recent years, the Left doesn't have new ideas (and that's leaving aside that hardly any of their recent ideas are good regardless of sources.) The Left has and will continue to merely mimic the Conservatives. Yes, it sounds implausible and harsh, but the Left is that myopic actually. The Left couldn't find a new idea if it was held in front of their respective faces. Oh no? Go back and read my earlier blog postings... ...or merely recount the news of the past two decades. Oh ye, of too much faith...lose that drunken altruistic stupor! ...and I hear the calling that the Democrats will wreak havoc via medical legislation. No doubt that they would. ..and still it was this administration under President Bush, Jr. that implemented new provisions for prescription drug issues, yet my words fall on deaf ears I suppose. Meanwhile, the "comatose" believe that there are substantial differences between the two major parties... in ideology?!?!? Madness! I could go on for ages... Let's move forward...
What of the Republicans? Suppose that they have total control of the federal government for the next decade. Would that be different than that of Democratic control? Yes and no. Initially there isn't going to be much of a difference worth noting. The problem is that Republicans have the very things that the Democrats used to have. Republicans have a comprehensive agenda, they have fortitude, they have a well-worn morality to fall back on, and they have more (such as filled coffers.) Looking down the road, it is very unlikely that the Democrats will put up much of a fight. It's simply not in the cards. The Democrats blew their chance. For freedom-loving people, the situation is much more dire. We actually give more than a damn about our own respective futures, and we can visualize those future directions. Does it scare you to know that there is a political party that relies on the idea that the greatest rewards can only come in the "afterlife"? This should terrify you. It's the 21st century folks; it's not supposed to be the Dark Ages. There's more to be said, and still I have to keep moving...
Do you realize what this all begins to add up to? The Republicans have a situation where all they have to do is merely "show up", and they are automatically going to look like American saviors. After all, the citizenry has _no other viable political alternative_ to rely on. Absolutely nothing else. As I have said before, both parties are anathema to American freedom. Still, when you are presented with a problem, you are morally obligated to cut it down at its source i.e. its root lest you welcome your own demise. The root is the politicization of altruism. It's been this way for most of a century, but what is different now is that that theory is finally being manifested into ultimate practice. We _are_ seeing the beginnings of theocracy in America. ...and if this process is not averted, there will be no turning back for generations to come.
Fortunately, America just might get the white knights it has been pining for. Make no mistake that no philosophy will or can be a panacea for those who are weak of will. Still, if we can dare presume that Americans can hold onto enough resolve for a few more decades, then maybe they can also summon enough intelligence to recognize that it is time for a real paradigm shift. At best and at the necessary least, the following must transpire: 1) Americans must discover philosophy i.e. they must realize that Objectivism just so happens and necessarily must be their solution for establishing the mode of life that they spend so much time dreaming of. (Did they actually think that freedom doesn't require work? ...that it's a metaphysical given? ...that the Founding Fathers were just merely in the right place at the right time?!? MADNESS!) 2) Americans must _finally_ act like grown adults and follow-through i.e. they must take responsibility for their own ideas. They must claim freedom in theory and be willing to execute the provisions to better ensure the protection thereof in practice. To put it in yet another way, they must recognize the right ideas, they must recognize _that they then have_ the right ideas, and THEN they must forcibly (and legally) employ those ideas in social terms. 3) They must still further educate every person they can possibly reach about the dangers of Statism with EXACTLY the same demeanor that Jews educate their children about the perils of Nazism. That is, freedom must be promulgated as the life-or-death issue which it is.
Nothing less than total commitment is required. This is the final consequence of "Give me Liberty or give me Death." as well as "The price of Liberty is eternal vigilance." If Americans don't want to be free, then be assured, they won't be free. In other words, if you don't want to do the work to keep yourself alive, then someone else will gladly take over that responsibility ...at the cost of your life.
It's your choice. I've certainly long since made mine....
Yes, I am about to actually make a (potentially unfounded) speculation. (Gasp!) Far be it for I to be someone to make too much of the recent press references to Ayn Rand. (Watch me as I rub my hands together.) After all, anyone could figure that the major press (as the collective that they truly are!) would in their infinite Leftism find that they would feel guilty if they didn't at least pay such a literary nemesis some lip service for fear of being "derelict of duty". Oh irony, sometimes I can not but help love you! (In case someone is slow on the uptake, Ayn Rand equals sales.) What the Hell am I _really_ on about? Well, leaving aside that no fundamental cultural change is likely to happen in the next decade, and it will take at least part of another decade for all of those students who have been getting ARI's book donations to get to that age where they really get serious about politics (due to having established careers, houses, families, etc.), I think we have good evidence that the intellectual vacuum will get filled in the near future! (No, no one could even begin to know specifically when...)
This is, of course, no small matter. If we are to have a political revolution (which apparently many sentient people are longing for), then that can _only_ come after an intellectual revolution has gone into full swing. You don't get a Mussolini or Hitler without a Marx going to work beforehand, for example. Likewise, you will never get another American revolution without a substantial American minority becoming well-aquainted with Ayn Rand's work. (Yes, please do refer to Dr. Peikoff's _Ominous Parallels_...) What I am getting at is the realization that there truly is "no alternative" circa 2020 or thereabouts. Okay, America is not lead by a papacy now, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what is yielded by the aftermath of Presidents Reagan and George Bush, Jr. It's not hard NOW ..after so much has transpired legally! Also, (big surprise) the Dems. are following suit in advocating religion...., and there shouldn't be a doubt why that is. Please. The consequences of this path-switch are to come eventually (barring the very interference which Objectivists hope to provide.)
Consider this: Objectivists are already lamenting the Democratic absorption of religious ethics. Well, aside from witnessing what is likely the inevitable, is there anything to fear in the short-term by having the Democrats in power? NO! It will very predictably play out... (as awful as that certainly is), and the result will be the same. There are two fears; each correspond to each party's use of religion, and we already know plenty about the respective future outcomes.
Let's say the Democrats get and retain the White House for 3 successive terms. (Yes, that would actually be the sound of Hillary having an orgasm..., but never you mind....) What precisely will they do that could be significantly worse than what we would likely get otherwise? More restrictions due to future Patriot Acts? Table that concern! Haha, more spending... yes, as if anyone on the face of the Earth can actually come remotely close to quantifying the spending of the American government. What else is there to say except that the flood gates have been open for decades? Who are we kidding here...? You couldn't possibly rocket into space that much money as we have wasted.... You couldn't begin to burn it... If you are number-crunching, then you are wasting your time. We are FAR beyond that as a nation. (One of the several reasons why Libertarians are fools is that these sorts of issues first depend on principles of basic philosophy not of economics, but that's a tangent...) As I've said before, the Democrats are following the Republicans' lead. I have to emphasize this further. As Objectivists have said in recent years, the Left doesn't have new ideas (and that's leaving aside that hardly any of their recent ideas are good regardless of sources.) The Left has and will continue to merely mimic the Conservatives. Yes, it sounds implausible and harsh, but the Left is that myopic actually. The Left couldn't find a new idea if it was held in front of their respective faces. Oh no? Go back and read my earlier blog postings... ...or merely recount the news of the past two decades. Oh ye, of too much faith...lose that drunken altruistic stupor! ...and I hear the calling that the Democrats will wreak havoc via medical legislation. No doubt that they would. ..and still it was this administration under President Bush, Jr. that implemented new provisions for prescription drug issues, yet my words fall on deaf ears I suppose. Meanwhile, the "comatose" believe that there are substantial differences between the two major parties... in ideology?!?!? Madness! I could go on for ages... Let's move forward...
What of the Republicans? Suppose that they have total control of the federal government for the next decade. Would that be different than that of Democratic control? Yes and no. Initially there isn't going to be much of a difference worth noting. The problem is that Republicans have the very things that the Democrats used to have. Republicans have a comprehensive agenda, they have fortitude, they have a well-worn morality to fall back on, and they have more (such as filled coffers.) Looking down the road, it is very unlikely that the Democrats will put up much of a fight. It's simply not in the cards. The Democrats blew their chance. For freedom-loving people, the situation is much more dire. We actually give more than a damn about our own respective futures, and we can visualize those future directions. Does it scare you to know that there is a political party that relies on the idea that the greatest rewards can only come in the "afterlife"? This should terrify you. It's the 21st century folks; it's not supposed to be the Dark Ages. There's more to be said, and still I have to keep moving...
Do you realize what this all begins to add up to? The Republicans have a situation where all they have to do is merely "show up", and they are automatically going to look like American saviors. After all, the citizenry has _no other viable political alternative_ to rely on. Absolutely nothing else. As I have said before, both parties are anathema to American freedom. Still, when you are presented with a problem, you are morally obligated to cut it down at its source i.e. its root lest you welcome your own demise. The root is the politicization of altruism. It's been this way for most of a century, but what is different now is that that theory is finally being manifested into ultimate practice. We _are_ seeing the beginnings of theocracy in America. ...and if this process is not averted, there will be no turning back for generations to come.
Fortunately, America just might get the white knights it has been pining for. Make no mistake that no philosophy will or can be a panacea for those who are weak of will. Still, if we can dare presume that Americans can hold onto enough resolve for a few more decades, then maybe they can also summon enough intelligence to recognize that it is time for a real paradigm shift. At best and at the necessary least, the following must transpire: 1) Americans must discover philosophy i.e. they must realize that Objectivism just so happens and necessarily must be their solution for establishing the mode of life that they spend so much time dreaming of. (Did they actually think that freedom doesn't require work? ...that it's a metaphysical given? ...that the Founding Fathers were just merely in the right place at the right time?!? MADNESS!) 2) Americans must _finally_ act like grown adults and follow-through i.e. they must take responsibility for their own ideas. They must claim freedom in theory and be willing to execute the provisions to better ensure the protection thereof in practice. To put it in yet another way, they must recognize the right ideas, they must recognize _that they then have_ the right ideas, and THEN they must forcibly (and legally) employ those ideas in social terms. 3) They must still further educate every person they can possibly reach about the dangers of Statism with EXACTLY the same demeanor that Jews educate their children about the perils of Nazism. That is, freedom must be promulgated as the life-or-death issue which it is.
Nothing less than total commitment is required. This is the final consequence of "Give me Liberty or give me Death." as well as "The price of Liberty is eternal vigilance." If Americans don't want to be free, then be assured, they won't be free. In other words, if you don't want to do the work to keep yourself alive, then someone else will gladly take over that responsibility ...at the cost of your life.
It's your choice. I've certainly long since made mine....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
