SO; rights protection, freedom, and liberty on one hand, and socialist theories and fantasies of utopia and power on the other, cannot co exist. One concept, as Ayn Rand put it, destroys the other. The problem we face is that the pro force crowd isn’t going to just sit idly while the pro rights movement takes hold. The problem is that there is a pro force movement. Which will it be then? Who wins? Or rather, does the pro rights philosophy win or do we all lose? To put it more succinctly; will the pro force movement lose, or will we all lose?
This is the real bitch of it all. The socialist movement is one that, at its core, wants to fuck things up that other people have built. That doesn’t take much to succeed. Hatred and chaos spread more easily than respect and order. Our ideal of liberty, with government as the protector of rights, is much more fragile. You can spend a lifetime building an estate, meticulously, piece by piece, lovingly assembled, ready to pass it on to your children, and one angry, jealous, socialist fuckwit, or some jihadist, or one of Obama’s communist revolutionary friends, can wipe it all out in a heartbeat. We will tend to lose by default.
Lyle @ UltiMAK
September 8, 2009
In the comments.
[Lyle has been hitting quite a few home runs in the comments recently. I wish he would make more blog posts.–Joe]
The problem as I see it is this: the pro-rights side tends to be people who want to be left alone to live their lives as free people. They just want government to get the hell out of the way. This is inherently a more passive mode than the other side operates in. They don’t want to leave people alone, they’re constantly looking for ways in which to make this a “better” world, which necessarily involves (from their point of view) an activist government.
The argument is essentially this: Entropy wins.
However, as the existence of human civilization demonstrates, entropy and chaos can be overcome temporarily by the directed expenditure of effort. Just compare a suburban lawn to a roadside vacant lot.
The fools may be ingenious, but the hardworking non-fools produce ongoing civilization more, faster, and better than the fools can mess it up.
Soviet Union is an example of fools being overcome by the hardworking.
One Bernie Madoff can wipe you out in a second too. Where does he fit in? Is he a Socialist or a pure Capitalist? Wouldn’t it have been better if our government had been MORE activist with regards to Mr. Madoff?
All that liberty and freedom sound really good until you need something or bad luck catches up to you, then you become a Socialist.
You’ll never find the perfect balance – the joy and sorrow is in watching people struggle to define what it is – all those schemers, trying to control their little worlds.
Socialists breed government corruption at a rate faster than an individual-rights & capitalist government, because socialists use their power to limit individual action, and individuals will continue to find ways to do what they want (including corruption of government workers with those lovely permit stamps).
Madoff is an interesting example of corruption. Where is that $787 BILLION in stimulus spending going, while we are on the subject of corrupt financial practices?
“One Bernie Madoff can wipe you out in a second too. Where does he fit in?”
Are you kidding? Madoff is a criminal. Criminals exist. They have nothing to do with one political philosophy or another, unless you view fraud as a political philosophy (some might argue that fraud is the political philosophy of Democrats and Republicans). I hope you’re not saying that since we have crime (or other risks) there should be no liberty. Though I understand that the Democrats and the Republicans are saying it, I think you should know better.
“Wouldn’t it have been better if our government had been MORE activist with regards to Mr. Madoff?”
If by activist, you mean enforcing the law, then yes, assuming there was knowledge of his scam long before his arrest. If by activist you mean pushing for victim restitution, then I fully agree. If by activist you mean prior restraint (setting up or attempting to set up a condition in which crime is physically impossible) then no. Prior restraint is a crime in and of itself.
This has become a common theme; I get into a conversation about freedom verses force, and someone brings up an example of a criminal, saying, “Yeah well, what about THIS guy– he really sucked now, didn’t he. So much for your silly theories of freedom, then, huh?” or some variation thereof.
Uh…Bullshit. Madoff is to capitalism as Jeffrey Dahmer is to fine American cuisine. I think any reasonable and prudent person could make the distinction without hesitation.
Let me tell you want capitalism is, since you apparently haven’t quite got it; capitalism is peaceable, voluntary exchange between emancipated adults. Another way of putting it is to say capitalism is a system in which no one may knowingly violate the rights of another, which is to say that property rights are protected, which is to say that willful property rights violations are punished in a predictable and consistent system of law enforcement.
This is (or should have been) elementary school level education in the American system. Instead we get mostly the opposite– you have a “right” to live at the expense of another by force of law, meaning you have a “right” to a job, a “right” to a house, to food, to medical care, and so on and on.. The obvious question that follows those assertions of “rights” is, “At who’s expense, and under which particular threats, and who will unsure that those people forced to pay the freight will continue to produce under such an arrangement?”
Madoff’s scheme fails the definition of capitalism in a massive way because the “voluntary” part was violated. His victims didn’t volunteer to gift their money to him– he stole it via fraud. Fraud and capitalism are vastly different concepts, with a very, very wide chasm in between.
Robbing a bank isn’t capitalism either. Though it often involves cooperation, involves an investment, risk, and potential “profit” it is neither peaceable nor voluntary, nor are trespassing, vandalism, arson, drunk driving, extortion, or murder. Every one of those crimes is a violation of someone else’s rights, and so are more akin to socialism, Fascism or communism and not at all related to capitalism (meanwhile; the Republican Party says, “Whu?”).
But you probably knew this stuff already, so why ask the question? With that, we get into the deep, dark recesses of the leftist thinking that has permeated every nook and cranny of our society.
Hitler spoke of hope and change, social justice and humanitarism. The burden of responcibility was to much for many. His cult of personality and redemptive promises attracted millions. I no longer wonder how all this was accomplished. We are living this nightmare. Only one side can win. I pray for liberty.