About This Blog

Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) was the greatest economist of my time. His greatest works can be accessed here at no charge.

Mises believed that property, freedom and peace are and should be the hallmarks of a satisfying and prosperous society. I agree. Mises proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the prospect for general and individual prosperity is maximized, indeed, is only possible, if the principle of private property reigns supreme. What's yours is yours. What's mine is mine. When the line between yours and mine is smudged, the door to conflict opens. Without freedom (individual liberty of action) the principle of private property is neutered and the free market, which is the child of property and freedom and the mother of prosperity and satisfaction, cannot exist. Peace is the goal of a prosperous and satisfying society of free individuals, not peace which is purchased by submission to the enemies of property and freedom, but peace which results from the unyielding defense of these principles against all who challenge them.

In this blog I measure American society against the metrics of property, freedom and peace.
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts

Thursday, April 26, 2012

"not a point of view but virtue itself"

Melanie Phillips is a brilliant, intellectually honest, British journalist and author. I've been following her blog for years. Being British and middle age, Ms. Phillips has a unique perspective. She's experienced the Left's conquest of Britain. She recognizes what is happening and about to happen in the United States. She writes about it rationally and analytically.

Today Ms. Phillips published an article on her website titled "The New Intolerance." The article is worth reading in its entirety. It cogently describes the "war of religion" which is currently raging in both Britain and the United States. The article expertly dissects this war and lays bare its philosophical and psychological roots. What I found especially revealing was her description of the individuals who are waging this war. Of course, I am referring to those on the philosophical Left.

Ms. Phillips writes:
Medieval Christianity — like contemporary Islamism — stamped out dissent by killing or conversion; Western liberals do it by social and professional ostracism and legal discrimination. It is a kind of secular Inquisition. And the grand inquisitors are to be found within the intelligentsia — the universities, the media, the law and the political and professional classes — who not only have systematically undermined the foundations of Western society but are heavily engaged in attempting to suppress any challenge or protest.

It is hard to overstate the influence of these left-wing doctrines on our culture. They form the unchallengeable orthodoxy within academia, from which base-camp they have set forth on their "long march through the institutions" which they have colonised with stunning success. They have managed, furthermore, to shift the centre of political gravity so that anyone who does not share these values is defined as extreme.

For the Left believes that its secular, materialistic, individualistic and utilitarian values represent not a point of view but virtue itself. No decent person can therefore oppose them. Anyone who does so is automatically "right-wing". In fact, such opponents may have no ideological position. But the Left cannot acknowledge such a possibility. In Manichean fashion it divides the world into two opposing and exclusive camps, good and evil; and so it creates as the sole alternative to itself a demonic political camp, to which everyone who challenges it is automatically consigned. Since anything that is not the Left is therefore "the Right", and since "the Right" is by definition evil, to challenge any left-wing shibboleth is to be labelled "right-wing" and put oneself totally beyond the moral pale.

So there can be no dissent or argument at all. Only one world-view is to be permitted and all other views are to be suppressed or destroyed. And because all that is evil is "right-wing" and all that is "right-wing" is evil, anyone who supports Israel or the Americans in Iraq, is sceptical of anthropogenic global warming, opposes multiculturalism or utilitarianism, supports capitalism or is a believing Christian is not only evil but also "right-wing". [Emphasis mine]

Ms. Phillips has put her finger on an issue that has troubled me for quite some time: Why are leftists and progressives so intransigent in their beliefs even when they are presented with a logical argument or empirical evidence that exposes the absurdity of their position?

We've all seen it. We've all experienced it. Gone are the days in academia or in polite society when logic and evidence hold sway in an argument and those with intellectual integrity recognize their error and accept the truth. Leftists today barely engage anymore in argument. When presented with one, they respond with timeworn and disproved memes. When the memes are challenged, they are likely to immediately respond with an arrogant indifference and, if pressed, with an ad hominem attack. I could never quite understand this nasty habit.

Yesterday, Erick Erickson at Redstate posted an article called "The Second Coming of American Liberal Fascism?" The article describes what happens when leftists gain political power. They no longer have to bother with making ad hominem attacks on their opponents because they have beaten their opponents, not by force of reason, but by the political force of majority rule. So they become righteous and absolutely intolerant of dissent. They ostracize those who persist in dissent and even imprison them. Erickson points out that this is not new. It's happened before in the era of Woodrow Wilson's presidency.

Melanie Phillips explains the nature of this vicious behavior. Leftist ideology is not a political idea but a belief, as religion is a belief. Leftists are exactly the same as medieval Christians and modern day Islamists: There mission is to stamp out evil, i.e., opposing opinion, by any means possible. Forced conversion of the evil dissenters or killing them is impossible in polite society, so leftists resort to the next most effective means, coerced participation, enforced silence or imprisonment.

Politics in America today is no longer a sport in which both sides agree to engage in friendly governance once the election is over. Politics today is a blood sport. The stakes are high. Not only are the livelihoods of politicians threatened by an adverse, electoral outcome, but individuals on the losing political side are at risk of being literally and legally pillaged and plundered or incarcerated for their dissent. Principles upon which this country was founded are at stake in our modern elections, principles like the rule of law, individual liberty and private property. Modern day politics has literally become a life and death proposition.

This is what so many who are immersed in politics today do not understand. They view politics as a panacea. They naively expect their political opponents to graciously concede political defeat and work with them in the future in common cause. They expect all will be well and good provided the right candidate -- the wise and conciliatory leader -- is elected to office. This was possible in times past when political differences were honest and principled, when political argument turned upon alternate means to attain the same end. Today, most on the left do not share the goals of their political opponents. They consider politics a war in which the spoils belong to the victors and in which the defeated have no rights at all.

The truth is that a society that relies on this kind of politics to resolve disputes cannot long survive. The end game will not be pretty.

The only peaceful means I see of preserving our Constitutional republic is to turn over the rock under which these vermin on the left and the right are hiding. That rock is an ideology that is impervious to logic and evidence. As Ms. Phillips suggests, the left-wing especially has taken cover under an "unchallengeable orthodoxy within academia," which shelters it from truth. The solution is to speak that truth relentlessly and fearlessly, and to remind these vermin of the fate that awaits them should they not discard their anti-cooperative religious ideology.

The other day legal expert Professor Alan Dershowitz appeared on the Glenn Beck show. Prof. Dershowitz and Mr. Beck represent opposite sides of the political spectrum. Prof. Dershowitz is a moderate leftist. Despite his political ideology, Prof. Dershowitz courageously stood up against the left's demagoguery of the Trayvon Martin murder case in Florida.

All rational people recognize that it was their ideology that drove leftists, like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Rep. Bobby Rush, President Obama and others to rush to judgement in this unfortunate incident. They were quick to accuse Mr. Martin's admitted killer, George Zimmerman, of "racism." They made the accusation comfortably and forcefully before hardly any evidence had come to light. The leftist media mindlessly publicized their accusations. The Florida prosecutors, apparently, knuckled under to public pressure and produced charges against Mr. Zimmerman that the evidence does not support. Prof. Dershowitz condemned the prosecutor's action as "unethical" and possibly "criminal." He calmly explained the legal principles involved and how the prosecution had violated them.

This is the way to crack the dome of orthodox ideology that protects the left. Not only did Prof. Dershowitz expose that orthodoxy for what it is, he courageously disavowed it by his appearance on Beck's program.

It's useless to argue with leftists. Our job is not to persuade them by means of logic and evidence. Such a thing is impossible. Our mission should be to expose them as fervent ideologues and challenge those among them who have any remnant of intellectual honesty and integrity to disavow their cultish belief system.

As I said, if these ideologues persist in their quest for dominating power, the consequences will not be pretty. Their victims will eventually act to defend themselves and the fundamental principles that enable a cooperative society to exist in the first place. 

     

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

On Believing In Something Greater Than Self

My wife and I had a long and deep discussion last night. It was occasioned by my father's depression. He's in his upper 80's and in failing health. He had seen a television report on euthanasia and had asked me to research the possibility for euthanizing him.

As you can imagine, such a request could spur a whole range of topics, but the one we got stuck on was the "why" of my father's depression. Yes, when health breakdowns begin to severely restrict an elderly person's options for life activities, depression is understandable. However, as my wife and I talked, we began to realize that different people react to such circumstances in different ways. Many elderly people we know are dealing with old age and it's vicissitudes quite admirably.

My mother, for instance, is only two years younger than my father, but she does not tend to be depressed. She is upbeat and outgoing. She is also deeply religious, which my father is not.

My wife and I concluded that in general not only the elderly but also people in general handle life's curve balls in different ways. It seems the common denominator, at least by my and my wife's reckoning, is a committed belief in something or Someone greater than one's self.

Both my father and her mother, who is quite younger, are prone to fits of depression or, more accurately, periods when they are mad at the world for one reason or another. They are both self-centered individuals who are quick to blame others or circumstances for their misery. Neither is the type who will accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Neither can see the world for what it is with a healthy perspective that they are a small part of that world. They take life's bumps and bruises personally. Neither is able to love unconditionally, or commit themselves to a specific philosophy of life greater than their own ego. As a consequence, they tend to be needy. When they get in one of their moods they can drain the energy out of whoever is nearby because they feel the world owes them a better shake.

Unfortunately, my dad is an old dog and adopting a healthy belief in a God greater than himself or even a philosophical principle greater than himself is not going to happen. Such attitudes must be learned and committed to early in life, or at least early enough to be sincerely cultivated in order to deal with the ravages of advancing age.

My wife and I then realized something profound, but extremely scary. Many of our young people today are being brought up in an environment where they are catered to and coddled. They are being taught in our schools to be self-centered egoists with an entitlement mentality. The further they advance in our educational institutions, the more they are trained by leftists who disparage family, religion, self-reliance, self-responsibility, meekness and humility. They begin to feel the world literally owes them things, if not a living, at least an education, health care and security in their old age.

In short, many young people today are being groomed and trained to be individuals exactly like my dad and my wife's mom, bitter individuals unable to see any Being or principle greater than their own self.

It's a sad situation that doesn't bode well for either their future or the future of our society.

NOTE: Unfortunately, it is necessary to point out to over sensitive readers that I am not saying ALL young people are self-centered and heading for an unhappy old age. Many young people today have excellent parents with their heads screwed on straight. Consequently, these young people have acquired strong morals and a healthy sense of prospective and self. They are our hope for a healthy future society.

Thursday, March 1, 2012

We've Lost Our Way

There is a scene in the movie "The Good Earth" in which townspeople, ravished by famine, break into the home of one of their own, a peasant with a reputation for prudence, hard work and frugality. They suspect their friend of hoarding food. Amid righteous demands that their friend share his "good fortune," they tear the cover off the pot on the stove and discover it contains nothing but simmering water and earth.

Those of us with grey hair remember an America quite different than it is today. Neighbors respected each others privacy and their private property. They kept to themselves but were, nevertheless, friendly and quick to lend a helping hand if warranted. They were God-fearing people who understood the difference between right and wrong. They taught their children self-reliance, self-discipline, enterprise, tolerance and the Golden Rule. They insisted their schools do the same.

They failed.

Today even adults are brats, spoiled by a lifetime of coddling, privilege and a righteous sense of entitlement. Schools don't teach civics and godliness anymore. They teach reverence for the self and for what the collective can provide the self. In the old days of America what citizens demanded and fought for was simple opportunity. Now the brats demand their natural-born right to everything from health care to transportation to food -- free of charge -- and they are willing to bash in the skulls of others who have the wherewithal to provide it.

In the old days shame was real. It was what you were made to feel when you let your parents down, or slacked off, or accepted help without the solemn intent to return the favor in kind. Today, no one feels shame because no behavior -- no matter how undignified or raunchy -- is considered shameful.

I got an email today from some brat named Stephanie Cutter. Apparently, she's the Deputy Campaign Manager for something called Obama for America. Stephanie emphatically reminded me that having to pay for something yourself -- in this case, birth control pills -- amounts to a "dangerous overreach" and someone else "having the power to decide what's best for you."

In Stephanie's new America getting what you need free of charge from someone else is a human right. No American today should find this philosophy shocking or disagreeable. For years we've dutifully allowed our taxes to support free-of-charge public schools where "progressive" educators fill our children's heads with such tripe. That these children graduate spouting the values of Karl Marx rather than Ben Franklin should not be surprising.

When times are good, when the harvest is lush and plentiful, these newfangled ideas are mere laughable curiosities. No one could possibly take seriously the idea that charity can be righteously coerced by a government bureaucrat, or that the demands of a hungry and needy majority can trump an individual's right to his own private property, or that having to pay for something yourself can be construed as tyranny.

However, when times turn bad, when famine hits, normally reasonable individuals lose their heads. They band together with their neighbors to form a mob. The come to your house knocking, shouting, demanding. Then, the sudden fearful realization hits you that these people are not only serious but they are also willing to kill you and your family to get what they want.

Don't worry. It is but a fleeting fear. For soon these brats will discover the laugh's on them. Why? Unbeknownst to them, their coddling victims have embraced their brat philosophy. As a result, the cupboards are empty. There is nothing left to steal but a simmering pot of water and good earth.