Libertarianism and communism at first sight don’t seem to have much in common. Upon closer look, however, one finds that they’re both based on human idolatry.
Libertarianism believes in the (eventual) infallibility of the Will of the Ego. The individual, omnipotent, omniscient and self-contained, Master of his own destiny. Worship Ego and paradise will follow.
Communism believes in the (eventual) infallibility of the Will of the State. The Party, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, designing society. Worship the State and paradise will follow.
In the end, Communism ignores the worth of all individuals, while Libertarianism ignores the worth of all individuals minus one. Both ideologies usurp the natural relational structures between people at a fundamental level. This can only lead to tragedy, which in the case of Communism has already happened. The ravages of Libertarianism still awaits us.
October 7th, 2007
|
politics |
2 comments
What would you think of the following conversation?
Dad: “Timmy, murder is absolutely wrong.”
Timmy: “Yes, Dad.”
Dad: “Timmy, get my shotgun. Mommy shouldn’t live after sleeping with the milkman.”
Timmy: “Understood, Dad. Do as you say, not as you do.”
Implementing the death penalty is just not congruent with civilized society. How could it be? Civilized society proclaims and implements protection of life and liberty. The death penalty takes away both. No life and no chance of redemption. The death penalty in a civilized society is like glasnost in a Communist system; it’s fundamentally incompatible. Only in this case, it is not an evil system that will be brought down, but an enlightened one that will be diminished. Kill a lawbreaker and you have just made society a little bit less civil. Less civility correlates with increased barbarity. In the final analysis, pumping poison into a lawbreaker is pumping poison in the very soul of civil society.
August 28th, 2007
|
politics |
one comment
Political Correctness (PC) purports to be about taking responsibility for the effects of your speech on others. At first sight, this seems a lofty goal.
What strikes me about proponents of PC though, is their lack of trust in their fellow man. They seem to see people as evil little critters whose speech must be constantly managed, lest it wreaks havoc on the Good.
Question is, who gets to define the Good, and who chooses the enforcers? What are the limits of this speech code enforcement? Guess what? It’s Good’s little helpers that get to define and defend Good. And since the Good is limitless, so are they.
For all their negativity towards the people, they themselves have grand plans for society. Very positive visions. Society and Man are perfectible.
I find this most puzzling. On the one hand humans cannot be trusted with something as simple as words, but at the same time they can be trusted to engineer the lives of others on an unprecedented scale. This does not compute.
A flash of insight! They’re not the same humans. Now I see. They are different. Now I understand.
This is proto-fascist, Hobbesian. The master that cannot do wrong.
Such deluded thinking. Regarding fundamentals, all are equal. All are sinful. To elevate oneself like this is the height of arrogance.
PC is just fundamentally undemocratic.
April 8th, 2007
|
politics |
one comment
Found this little gem floating around on the Internet. Seems to describe President Bush to a tee…
You befouled, vitiated poltroon. You blighted, malodorous, mephitic recreant. You are a festering boil on the ass of all humanity. You have all the backbone of a jellyfish. You moribific, feculent simpleton. Would that I could change my species, just so that I might not be associated with you. The stupendous, confounding magnitude of your insipidness astonishes me.
Read more…
March 15th, 2007
|
politics, humour |
one comment