The Unbalanced Left
Timothy Birdnow
What is the nature of Man? This is an oft-debated topic, and it is of paramount importance because it defines how we govern ourselves. Liberals believe Man to be a principally social animal, a creature that is inherently good and wanting to serve his fellow man but is held back by a flawed social system that has been bequethed to us from the barbaric past. As a result, they set up a false dichotamy between loving one's neighbor and remaining an individual.
CATO Institute Pres. Edward H. Crane addresses this in an op-ed in Forbes.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/0606/opinions-edward-crane-capital-flows-actually-not-in-together.html
From the article:
"Set aside the false dichotomy. The choice is hardly between in-thistogether sheep and atomistic indi - vidualism. De Tocqueville was astounded at the many ways Americans loved to work together. Granges, churches, business associations, volunteer fire departments--the list was pretty much endless. That said, these associations were voluntary, and the government had nothing to do with them. If there is one thing that identifies American exceptionalism, it is a fierce individualism. Americans don't like to be told what to do--especially by bureaucrats.
But that is what the left is all about. Hillary Clinton lamented to MSNBC during her failed presidential bid that Americans don't know what our "goals" as a nation are. "We don't know what we're trying to achieve," she complained. After all, "winning the future" is the Obama Administration's theme these days and without national "goals," how can we tell if we've won or not? Indeed, President Obama took professor Reich's advice during his speech on the deficit, citing "a belief that we are all connected; and that there are some things [many, as it turned out] we can only do together, as a nation."
It has been duly noted by scholars that the two great totalitarian philosophies of the 20th century, communism and fascism, had similar methodologies and similar goals, so to speak. Certainly, denigrating the importance of the individual and subsuming his or her personal interests to the greater goals of the national movement were integral to both those horrific philosophies. Yet this underlying anti-individualist, collectivist theme continues, and not just on the left, in today's political environment."
End excerpt.
Therein lies the madness of liberalism; to the liberal individual freedom means very different things than it does to a conservative. Freedom means being allowed to do whatever you wish without societal disapproval. If one wants to fornicate with a sheep, or refuse to bathe, that should be solely the choice of the individual according to the liberal, because a person should be free to do as he or she pleases. The conservative holds to the old standards, that we are not free to do entirely as we please in our personal lives because there is such a thing as Natural Law, a form of order imposed by Nature and Nature's God, and that we aren't free to jump off a cliff without paying the penalty (splattering at the bottom). The liberal believes he can, well, BELIEVE what he wishes about reality, that it will change if he wishes hard enough. Like Dorothy wishing her way out of Oz the liberal can disregard limits imposed by reality itself. That the Church, and even the State, may make something taboo - like sex with barnyard animals - chafes the liberal. They refuse to recognize that those rules were imposed not to be killjoys but to protect society and individuals from the consequences of dangerous actions. Sometimes we do not even understand why those actions are dangerous, but we know the results are terrible. Homosexuality is one example; sickness, suffering, and early death are the fruits thereof. Societies that tolerate rampant homosexuality rarely last long, and people instinctively understand this. The argument for "gay lib" is that we can do it differently this time.
Yet, at the same time, to enforce this absolute freedom (one could argue it is a form of self-deification) we require the help of everyone, and that means a society completely bound by the State. Everything to the liberal must be centrally directed, centrally planned, centrally controlled. Society must be the final arbiter of things because otherwise how can one live in absolute freedom? Another may not willingly assist. For example, if a boy chooses to be a girl, he must be protected by law in this state; given special bathroom privileges, for instance. That everyone agrees he is just a boy dressing and acting like a girl is immaterial; he FEELS he is a girl, and the state must compel his fellows to treat him as he wishes. There must be laws making it illegal to treat him as a boy, even though he has male genitalia. The absolute freedom of the individual guarantees a right to deny reality - and to compel others to accept this denial of reality.
As such, it is the liberal who really holds the dichotomy; they believe in both the atomization of the individual and the collective. The dichotomy has little to do with conservatives, who believe in a society of free individuals associating for their mutual welfare and following Natural Law.
Of course, once one sees freedom as imposing obligations on another it is a small step to taking from others what one wants. We have that today, with taxation, the welfare state, and the whole "social safety net".
The freedom of liberals leads to the ultimate tyranny. There is a reason why the Bible says "the Truth shall set you free"; liberals eagerly deny truty, and that path leads to a slavery to lusts, to madness, to those who would impose their wills.
So any time a liberal speaks of our obligations to help others, point to Joplin Mo. or any place where communities spontaneously come together to help their fellows. These spontaneous outpourings would be banned under a truly liberal system, where only the state holds dominion.
What is the nature of Man? This is an oft-debated topic, and it is of paramount importance because it defines how we govern ourselves. Liberals believe Man to be a principally social animal, a creature that is inherently good and wanting to serve his fellow man but is held back by a flawed social system that has been bequethed to us from the barbaric past. As a result, they set up a false dichotamy between loving one's neighbor and remaining an individual.
CATO Institute Pres. Edward H. Crane addresses this in an op-ed in Forbes.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/0606/opinions-edward-crane-capital-flows-actually-not-in-together.html
From the article:
"Set aside the false dichotomy. The choice is hardly between in-thistogether sheep and atomistic indi - vidualism. De Tocqueville was astounded at the many ways Americans loved to work together. Granges, churches, business associations, volunteer fire departments--the list was pretty much endless. That said, these associations were voluntary, and the government had nothing to do with them. If there is one thing that identifies American exceptionalism, it is a fierce individualism. Americans don't like to be told what to do--especially by bureaucrats.
But that is what the left is all about. Hillary Clinton lamented to MSNBC during her failed presidential bid that Americans don't know what our "goals" as a nation are. "We don't know what we're trying to achieve," she complained. After all, "winning the future" is the Obama Administration's theme these days and without national "goals," how can we tell if we've won or not? Indeed, President Obama took professor Reich's advice during his speech on the deficit, citing "a belief that we are all connected; and that there are some things [many, as it turned out] we can only do together, as a nation."
It has been duly noted by scholars that the two great totalitarian philosophies of the 20th century, communism and fascism, had similar methodologies and similar goals, so to speak. Certainly, denigrating the importance of the individual and subsuming his or her personal interests to the greater goals of the national movement were integral to both those horrific philosophies. Yet this underlying anti-individualist, collectivist theme continues, and not just on the left, in today's political environment."
End excerpt.
Therein lies the madness of liberalism; to the liberal individual freedom means very different things than it does to a conservative. Freedom means being allowed to do whatever you wish without societal disapproval. If one wants to fornicate with a sheep, or refuse to bathe, that should be solely the choice of the individual according to the liberal, because a person should be free to do as he or she pleases. The conservative holds to the old standards, that we are not free to do entirely as we please in our personal lives because there is such a thing as Natural Law, a form of order imposed by Nature and Nature's God, and that we aren't free to jump off a cliff without paying the penalty (splattering at the bottom). The liberal believes he can, well, BELIEVE what he wishes about reality, that it will change if he wishes hard enough. Like Dorothy wishing her way out of Oz the liberal can disregard limits imposed by reality itself. That the Church, and even the State, may make something taboo - like sex with barnyard animals - chafes the liberal. They refuse to recognize that those rules were imposed not to be killjoys but to protect society and individuals from the consequences of dangerous actions. Sometimes we do not even understand why those actions are dangerous, but we know the results are terrible. Homosexuality is one example; sickness, suffering, and early death are the fruits thereof. Societies that tolerate rampant homosexuality rarely last long, and people instinctively understand this. The argument for "gay lib" is that we can do it differently this time.
Yet, at the same time, to enforce this absolute freedom (one could argue it is a form of self-deification) we require the help of everyone, and that means a society completely bound by the State. Everything to the liberal must be centrally directed, centrally planned, centrally controlled. Society must be the final arbiter of things because otherwise how can one live in absolute freedom? Another may not willingly assist. For example, if a boy chooses to be a girl, he must be protected by law in this state; given special bathroom privileges, for instance. That everyone agrees he is just a boy dressing and acting like a girl is immaterial; he FEELS he is a girl, and the state must compel his fellows to treat him as he wishes. There must be laws making it illegal to treat him as a boy, even though he has male genitalia. The absolute freedom of the individual guarantees a right to deny reality - and to compel others to accept this denial of reality.
As such, it is the liberal who really holds the dichotomy; they believe in both the atomization of the individual and the collective. The dichotomy has little to do with conservatives, who believe in a society of free individuals associating for their mutual welfare and following Natural Law.
Of course, once one sees freedom as imposing obligations on another it is a small step to taking from others what one wants. We have that today, with taxation, the welfare state, and the whole "social safety net".
The freedom of liberals leads to the ultimate tyranny. There is a reason why the Bible says "the Truth shall set you free"; liberals eagerly deny truty, and that path leads to a slavery to lusts, to madness, to those who would impose their wills.
So any time a liberal speaks of our obligations to help others, point to Joplin Mo. or any place where communities spontaneously come together to help their fellows. These spontaneous outpourings would be banned under a truly liberal system, where only the state holds dominion.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 6:18 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home