AnCaps
ANARCHO-CAPITALISTS
Bitch-Slapping Statists For Fun & Profit Based On The Non-Aggression Principle
 
HomePortalGalleryRegisterLog in

 

 How to Kill an Idea

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
CovOps

CovOps

Female Location : Ether-Sphere
Job/hobbies : Irrationality Exterminator
Humor : Über Serious

How to Kill an Idea Vide
PostSubject: How to Kill an Idea   How to Kill an Idea Icon_minitimeSun Jan 06, 2008 1:46 am

While President Bush praises individual rights in words, he violates
individual rights in action. Like all tyrants since the French
Revolution, he talks about freedom and liberty, and gives you the
opposite: “Total Information Awareness” monitoring your financial
transactions, “National Security Letters” which compel businesses to
surrender confidential information on you without a court order,
warrantless searches, unlimited detention without charge or trial,
torture, etc., combined with socialist welfare programs beyond anything
FDR would have dared dream about. “Freedom and liberty” become mere
decorative words uttered by the all-powerful state, and the idea of
real freedom becomes confused and moribund.
Which brings us to what is probably the ugliest essay to date by an ARI associate:

“Bush’s Speech on Freedom” by Harry Binswanger (Capitalism Magazine March 14, 2005).

On March 8, 2005, says Mr. Binswanger,
“President Bush gave an important, and generally excellent, speech on our foreign policy re the middle east. He reiterated, and further explained, his
Forward Strategy of Freedom.

“The highlight of the speech was this remarkable passage, strategically placed near the end:

‘Americans, of all people, should not be surprised by freedom’s power.
A nation founded on the universal claim of individual rights should not
be surprised when other people claim those rights.’ ”
We interrupt Mr. Binswanger quoting Bush praising individual rights.
America was indeed founded on the idea of individual rights, but the
man saying it here violates individual rights as much as he can
get away with, and he gets away with a lot. The above quote is not just
hypocrisy. By mixing up individual rights with their violation, Bush
helps undermine the very idea of individual rights.
Mr. Binswanger explains his admiration for Bush as follows:
“Terminology is important. The term ‘individual rights,’ as it gets more use and acceptance, orients people to the individualist frame of reference,
rescuing social-political thought from collectivist practice of
thinking in terms of community ...”
Terminology is important, important enough that terms like “individual rights” ought
to be used properly, sincerely, with understanding. From his past
actions either President Bush uses “individual rights” with intent to
deceive or else he hasn’t a clue what “individual rights” really means.
He utters the phrase as you would press a button on a vending machine
to get a bag of peanuts. Say it and boost your ratings in opinion polls
of the uninformed. Say it and fool people into thinking America isn’t
turning into a police state.
Mr. Binswanger continues:
“Bush has now stated that America was founded upon individual rights. In an age in which intellectuals vilify America as the most violent, racist,
imperialist nation in history, it takes courage to proudly assert that
America was founded upon the principle of rights. Making that point
means something; it takes a stand.”
“Courage” ?! Mr. Binswanger gives no example to illustrate the practice of Bush’s courageous stand, nothing to flesh out what Bush means by “individual
rights.” Mr. Binswanger fails to note that in the speech from which he
quotes, Bush promotes about a dozen new federal welfare programs every
one of which violates individual rights.
As
it happens, the very day I read Mr. Binswanger’s essay a local
newspaper carried the story that the U.S. Education Department is
considering creating a “national student unit record system,” a federal
database of “all higher education students in the nation.” Is this an
example of individual rights in action? Was the Patriot Act’s
suspension of habeas corpus?
In
her essay “The Wreckage of the Consensus,” written at the height of the
Vietnam war, Ayn Rand noted the perversity of “conservatives,” the
alleged defenders of freedom and capitalism, supporting the draft, and
the extreme “left” opposing it.
“In line with the anti-ideological methods of all other groups, the
Vietniks – whose sympathies are on the side of Russia, China and North
Vietnam – are screaming against the draft in the name of their
‘individual rights’ – individual rights, believe it or not. ...
What is still worse is the fact that they are the only group that even
mentions individual rights ... .”
Clearly Ayn Rand took a dim view of hypocrites spouting about individual rights.Bush’s pronouncement and Mr. Binswanger’s praise reminds me of the following by Prodos Marinakis (ironically an ARI advocate), only instead of
“Left” read “Neocons”:
“The Left does with words and language what it does with people’s lives and properties: It takes, confiscates, hijacks, perverts, twists, destroys.
It has no creative power, and no sense of honesty or honor.”
After muddying the language of political discourse Mr. Binswanger ends his essay egocentrically:
“... for proclaiming that America was founded upon individual rights, he [Bush] has my gratitude.”
And for praising such monumental hypocrisy, and engaging in it himself, Mr.
Binswanger will have any decent person’s condemnation.

http://ariwatch.com/HowToKillAnIdea.htm
Back to top Go down
 

How to Kill an Idea

View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
 :: Anarcho-Capitalist Categorical Imperatives :: AnCaps On Rights, Individualism & Lifestyles-