tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-281276752024-03-21T17:43:30.985-04:00ROBERT BIDINOTTONovelist * Essayist * EditorRobert Bidinottohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11777797272563802442noreply@blogger.comBlogger139125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-39016064060285230142024-03-13T01:45:00.005-04:002024-03-14T17:53:55.978-04:00From Emotions, to Narratives, to Ideologies<p style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505; white-space-collapse: preserve;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRy75V-hil2MhHMkefWLbGd6KTZ8oDi33fuvurhwG_hAlirstK-uIcZuJoBgy777bUuwrpcIxL2_mdm2-U3CsXUAcwVLU3jLYzawl4Nx-67-q09ysUnyx0b56PXPb8hVn0NU60w3_tueJZF2W7WjAi403CZjoxfNOZ5odZ6_m1zo3S0HnPicgXAw/s1920/glowing%20book.jpg" style="background-color: #f3f3f3; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1920" height="211" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRy75V-hil2MhHMkefWLbGd6KTZ8oDi33fuvurhwG_hAlirstK-uIcZuJoBgy777bUuwrpcIxL2_mdm2-U3CsXUAcwVLU3jLYzawl4Nx-67-q09ysUnyx0b56PXPb8hVn0NU60w3_tueJZF2W7WjAi403CZjoxfNOZ5odZ6_m1zo3S0HnPicgXAw/w375-h211/glowing%20book.jpg" width="375" /></a></div><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></span><p></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="white-space-collapse: preserve;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: arial;">In intellectual circles, it is common to believe that ideology is a decisive social force on its own -- that abstract philosophical systems underlie societies and cultures; and that to change a society, you need only promulgate a different philosophy/ideology.</span></span></p><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a" style="margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-align: left; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><p><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: arial;">Of course, intellectuals <i>want</i> to believe in the decisive "power of ideas," because as promulgators of ideas, this belief confirms their lofty view of their own social <a style="cursor: pointer;" tabindex="-1"></a>importance and power. And certainly the connection of ideologies to societies, movements, and governments is obvious and undeniable -- which is why, for decades, I accepted this conventional view, too.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: arial;">But a lifetime of promoting philosophical ideas has caused me to reconsider my views about the role of philosophy/ideology in human life and society. Introspection, observation of people close to me, and sobering realizations about how marginal and fleeting the impacts of philosophical persuasion (by myself and by many other skilled communicators) have been -- all of that has led me to conclude that personal and cultural change is much more complicated than simply spreading the "right" philosophy.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: arial;">Summarized simply, I now believe...<br /></span></p><p><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: arial;">...that the vast majority of people, including intellectuals, are actually driven not by ideas, but by emotions, often fairly crude ones, rooted in values, often only implicit;<br /></span></p><p><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: arial;">...that over time, these emotions and values, if shared widely in a society, become concretized and popularized in the form of Narratives -- of myths, legends, and stories that are causally </span><span style="font-family: arial;">instructive, personally motivational, and socially unifying</span><span style="font-family: arial;">;</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: arial;">...that only later do the more intellectual believers in these emotionally appealing, values-laden stories, myths, and Narratives try to buttress them with more sophisticated, abstract, theoretical rationalizations -- that is, with explanatory philosophies, ideologies, or theologies. They do this to flesh out and support the core themes and underlying motives of their Narratives, granting them the social weight and gravitas of an "intellectual" image and justification.<br /></span></p><p><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: arial;">You see this pattern manifested historically with every creed that has attracted a significant following and become a mass movement. They start with a set of core emotions, rooted in values broadly shared across a large social group; then follows the development of a popular mythology that dramatizes and evokes the group's shared emotions and values; and finally comes a complex theoretical rationalization for the mythological Narrative (and its values-driven emotions), which is crafted by the social group's intellectuals. In this last stage, the abstract system can take on a life of its own: it is taught and promoted in "movement" schools and texts, and believers cling to it tightly, because it offers reassuring intellectual support and explanations for the core Narratives that give their lives meaning, identity, and purpose.<br /></span></p><p><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: arial;">But the foundational appeal of philosophical, ideological, or theological systems does not lie in their theoretical abstractions themselves; pure abstractions carry no emotional appeal or motivational power. Instead, the believers' commitments are fundamentally to their core Narrative -- to their inspirational mythology, or <i>story</i> -- and to the emotions and values it embodies and evokes. All that the theoretical abstractions offer are rationalizations and reassurances that their story is valid.<br /></span></p><p><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: arial;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif">Why is this so? It is </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">important to come to grips with the fact that we humans </span><i>are "</i><span face="Arial, sans-serif">the </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">storytelling animal" -- that our earliest childhood grasp of causal relationships in the world, like that of primitive peoples, is </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">enmeshed in storytelling. It's only later in life (or in human civilization) that we </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">begin to abstract a systematic, scientific, causal understanding of the world apart from our </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">storytelling roots. But our brains remain wired by storytelling patterns </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">established from infancy, and even in adulthood we are still drawn like moths back toward </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">the light (enlightenment?) that stories provide.</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: arial;"><span>The indelible power of Narratives explains why so often </span><span>you </span><span>can </span><span>argue with someone using reason, logic, and overwhelming facts, until you are blue in the face, yet get nowhere. Or why a person's "intellectual" commitments can seem so shallow and fleeting. Or why politicians and dictators rely so heavily on storytelling about their target constituencies' collective "identity," in the form of a high-stakes drama about villains (their political adversaries), victims (their constituents), and heroic rescuers (themselves). Or why a person's "conversion" requires not just a new ideological argument, but instead begins with an emotional upheaval rooted in profound personal dissatisfaction with their status quo -- which then leads them to an encounter with some appealing new Narrative that promises the dissatisfied individual a fresh identity: a meaningful new life role and purpose. The philosophical argument then comes along as a reassuring explanation for the wisdom of their conversion; but it alone is not the </span><i>motivator</i><span> of the conversion.</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: arial;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif">Abstract theory alone has little persuasive power to motivate </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">major, enduring changes in individuals or societies. Karl Marx's global </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">influence on millions came with <i>The Communist Manifesto, </i>his rabble-rousing </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">Narrative about capitalist oppressors and the working-class oppressed -- and not with </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">his <i>Das Kapital</i>, a theoretical tome read by only a tiny fraction of those whom the </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">former pamphlet brought under his spell. Ditto the Gospels of the Christian Bible, </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">whose stories touched more people, by many orders of magnitude, than did </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">Aquinas's <i>Summa Theologica</i>, which used Aristotelian logic to provide supporting </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">arguments for the Christian worldview. Ditto Ayn Rand's fiction: her novels have inspired and influenced </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">many times the number of "Rand reader" fans than </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">her nonfiction </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">philosophical writings have produced "Objectivists," who are more</span><span face="Arial, sans-serif"> intellectually inclined</span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">. </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">Indeed, the overwhelming majority of self-described </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">Objectivists got interested in Rand's philosophy only <i>after</i> becoming captivated </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">by her Promethean fictional narratives.</span></span></p><p><span face="Arial, sans-serif"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: arial;">Here's another example to ponder. Decades ago, in a lecture that touched on this topic, I observed that it was the seminal storyteller Homer, writing in the 8th century BC, whose mesmerizing epic poems inspired the birth of Ancient Greek culture and of Western civilization. By contrast, Aristotle -- Greece's greatest philosopher, the father of logic and systematic rational thinking, and of countless scientific fields -- came along hundreds of years later, during the decline of Greek civilization. If abstract philosophy were truly the source of cultural transformation, then in the chronology of Western civilization, Aristotle should have appeared long before Homer, and perhaps paved the way for him. But the chronology is precisely the reverse: it was the storytelling giant who preceded the philosophical giant; and the greatest philosopher's boundless contributions to human knowledge still were not sufficient to prevent the fall of Greek civilization. </span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: arial;"><span>Let me emphasize that an abstract philosophy </span><i>can</i><span> serve legitimate and important purposes; it does not have to offer merely sophistic rationalizations for a bogus Narrative. If the Narrative is grounded in reality, then philosophy can provide a valid </span><i>rationale</i><span> for it. A rationale differs from a rationalization, because the former is true (rooted in reality), while the latter is false. And a valid rationale can flesh out and clarify our understanding, teasing out many important and helpful implications of a good Narrative.</span><span><br /></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">To sum up, I now believe that the objective of promoting personal and/or cultural change requires us to effectively present a compelling alternative Narrative to those people who may be open to its emotional appeal. But not everyone is -- not by a long shot. People who are emotionally committed to a Narrative that defines their identity and life purpose -- but which is hostile to one's own values -- aren't going to change, no matter how skillful and logical your presentation of facts and arguments. Abstract arguments will never penetrate the emotional/values barriers surrounding and insulating a contrary Narrative. Even a compelling counter-Narrative may not prove persuasive -- not unless the target of your communication is already deeply dissatisfied with his own Narrative, and thus searching for (or at least open to) a fresh worldview.</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: arial;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif">One important, corollary </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">point. I believe people with good values, and </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">correspondingly good emotions, will be attracted to good Narratives -- and </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">perhaps later, to good philosophies. But the fact that they, too, may be only </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">"Narrative-driven" rather than intellectually persuaded is <i>not</i> necessarily a bad thing: that doesn't mean </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">they are <i>irrationally </i>driven. If a kid is raised without any explicit </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">philosophy, or even with a bad one, yet becomes enamored of heroes in TV shows, </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">movies, and graphic novels -- and then, inspired, </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">goes on to do great things -- is that irrational?</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: arial;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif">Specifically, to my many </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">Objectivist friends, I would point out that I've just described the </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">childhood-to-adulthood trajectory of your heroine, Ayn Rand. If you know </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">her biography, you'll realize that <i>she</i> didn't start out in life with a </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">conceptual, philosophical understanding of the world; she started out, in the </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">hellish environment of post-revolutionary Soviet Russia, simply as a brilliant </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">child who became captivated by heroic literature and movies. That <i>emotional</i> </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">orientation, driven by some core values she didn't understand at the time, were </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">sufficient to propel her on a remarkable journey to becoming, as an adult, a great </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">storyteller and seminal philosopher whose worldview was the opposite of everything around her.</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: arial;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif">And her </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">values-driven emotions first took form as a romantic Narrative of heroic </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">individualism. That Narrative became a core part of her character by the time she </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">reached her early teens. Rand didn't even encounter Aristotle, Aquinas, </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">Spinoza, and other thinkers who influenced her philosophical thinking until </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">college -- by which time <i>her character and sense of life was already established</i>. </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">Her systematic philosophy did not fully take form until she was middle-aged, </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">during the writing of <i>Atlas Shrugged</i>; and I would argue that she had managed to </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">become a heroic individualist long before figuring it all out.</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: arial;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif">So Ayn Rand's </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">life and character were shaped, initially and indelibly, by a Narrative -- not </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">by abstract philosophy or ideology. If that is true of her, then how can it not </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">be true of others? And what is wrong with that? Do we need formal, systematic philosophy in order to be </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">rational, honest, independent, just, and productive? Were there no such people </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">on Planet Earth before Rand incorporated those virtues formally into her </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">Objectivist system? And let's be honest: what percentage of those who have spent years diligently studying, even teaching, that philosophical system have become living exemplars of its virtues?</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: arial;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif">To those Objectivists who remain unpersuaded, I suggest that you read, or reread, </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">her book <i>The Romantic Manifesto</i>, especially its opening chapters, where -- </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">in words different from mine here, but very similar in meaning -- Rand </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif">explains the enormous power of stories, and of core Narratives, in shaping the human </span></span><span face="Arial, sans-serif"><span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">soul and our world. While she declared that art was not a substitute for philosophical thought, she also said that "without the assistance of art, ethics remains in the position of theoretical engineering: art is the model-builder."
Specifically, the <i>narrative arts </i>-- stories -- can most fully present good models for our actions. Philosophical thought may provide an abstract rationale for positive actions; but a rationale is not enough. Just as a road map is no substitute for fuel in the gas tank, abstract philosophical guidance is no substitute for the inspiring vision and motivational energy that can be provided by a compelling Narrative.
--March 13, 2024</span><span style="background-color: #fce5cd;">
</span></span><span style="background-color: #fce5cd; font-family: arial;">
</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></span></p></div>Robert Bidinottohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11777797272563802442noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-73887997377516025192021-11-19T11:55:00.006-05:002021-11-19T11:59:12.166-05:00Can We Please Stop Using the Term "Identity Politics"?<p style="font-family: inherit; text-align: left;"></p><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: inherit; font-size: 16.875px; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></div><div style="text-align: left;">One thing neo-Marxist collectivists understand is the power of language. They know that if they can redefine concepts, they can manipulate how we think about things, and thus infiltrate their worldview into billions of uncritical minds. It's a strategy straight out of Orwell's <i>1984.<br /></i><br />The collectivists do this redefinition game constantly, across a wide swath of issues. Take "progressive" (a term I always put in sarcastic quotation marks), which they use to assert they are in favor of some undefined social progress -- which, when actually defined, means a neo-Marxist, social-engineering agenda. Or "liberal," which long ago used to mean favoring freedom, but which today means the opposite: subordinating individual freedom to politically defined, coercively imposed, collectivist ends. "Gender" has supplanted "sex," because the former can be proclaimed subjectively and inflated infinitely, while the latter has an objective biological basis in one's chromosomes and genitalia (which are now dismissed as merely "assigned" at birth, apparently at the whim of the attending medical personnel). "Hate speech" is a term invented to criminalize, hence censor, any expressed opinion that conflicts with that of the collectivists. The charge of "hate speech" rests on psychologizing: ascribing malicious <i>motives</i> to opinions one doesn't like. Similarly, "hurtful speech," a term which attempts to criminalize any expression that allegedly hurts someone's proclaimed <i>feelings</i>.<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Again, there is no objective, fact-rooted basis for any of this. But once personal subjectivity is elevated to the status of moral-legal supremacy, then anyone's mere assertions acquire the weight of unquestionable legitimacy.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />What offends me most is that many people, including those on the so-called political right, tacitly accept this wholesale hijacking of language without critical consideration or pushback.<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">A while back, for example, I took issue with the term <i>virtue signaling</i>. This term was actually minted by the political right to criticize the common practice by "liberals" and "progressives" of making a public, symbolic show of their various philosophical and political commitments. Yet the term "virtue signaling" tacitly accepts the premise that what those people are practicing <i>is</i>, in fact, virtuous. That concedes morality to their motives and their causes -- exactly opposite what the political right intends. I suggested the term be replaced with <i>virtue posturing</i>, which indicates the behavior is a <i>phony</i> claim to virtue.<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">A similar way the political right tacitly, thoughtlessly concedes the premises of the political left is when they use the term <i>identity politics</i>. This term is intended to criticize the left's constant focus on race, sex, and ethnicity in their arguments and agendas. However, what their use of this term actually does is tacitly accept the premise that one's "identity" is equivalent to one's genetic attributes -- and nothing more.<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">But "identity" is <i>individual</i>, not collective. When we "identify" something, we distinguish it from everything else by focusing on its unique, particular attributes. Your identity is not my identity. But a so-called identity resting on widely shared attributes, like race or sex, is no "identity" at all. It is homogenized class membership.<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Using the term "identity politics" thus concedes that identity is, in truth, nothing more than collectively shared attributes. It tacitly ratifies our thinking about identity in terms of groups and classes -- which is exactly the goal of the collectivists. In addition, it is too narrow a term: "identity politics" reduces to mere politics what is actually a much broader worldview and outlook.<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Today's "woke" collectivists want to obliterate <i>individualism</i> -- seeing and judging people as individuals -- and instead to substitute <i>tribalism</i>: seeing and judging people as members of DNA-based groups, classes, and collectives. We need to employ language that makes this clear.<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">To that end, I suggest critics of collectivists use terms like <i>racial tribalism/tribalists</i> or <i>sexual tribalism/tribalists</i> to specify the mindset and worldview they oppose. "I oppose identity politics" is vague and misleading. However, "I see and judge people as individuals, not as racial and sexual tribes" is an easy-to-grasp, appealing, and ultimately winning position.<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">One caveat: There is a subset of collectivist tribalists on today's political right, too. It's understandable that they'd be uncomfortable with my suggestion that we identify ourselves as individualists who are opposed to all forms of tribalism. But those of us who <i>are</i> individualists can, by publicly rejecting "racial tribalism" or "ethnic tribalism" or "national tribalism," at least get right-wing collectivists to identify themselves. It's always good to know who your real friends and foes are, and it's time we smoked them out.</div> <p></p>Robert Bidinottohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11777797272563802442noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-35323349713343899082021-03-30T18:04:00.024-04:002021-03-30T18:36:39.453-04:00Thoughts About Stories, Myths, Narratives…and Ourselves<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: scroll; background-clip: border-box; background-image: none; background-origin: padding-box; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: repeat; background-size: auto; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">I haven't read Jordan Peterson sufficiently to know exactly how he uses the term "Narrative," and how it may differ from how I use it. But capitalized, I use "Narrative" quite expansively, to mean a fundamental "story" that explains for each individual the basic nature of reality, and of his or her own place in the world, and that provides a vision of "right and wrong" (hence, moral guidance) by which to navigate the world. Each of us experiences this worldview in the form of a usually implicit "story," in which the individual casts himself or herself as the main character.<br /><br />What a "Narrative" is for the individual, a myth is for a culture. I believe they serve the same basic purposes.<br /><br />Briefly, I believe that the initial source of Narratives (on the individual level) and myths (on the social level) lies in the nature of the human subconscious, and its interaction with lived experience.<br /><br />Our subconscious automatically processes our lived experience in the form of concretes -- that is, in terms of perceptions and sensations, rather than abstractions. Our dreams are windows into that subconscious processing. We have no conscious control over dreams when we sleep, but our daily lived experiences become elements that our subconscious automatically, involuntarily sorts, associates, and integrates.<br /><br />Also, during these associations, certain of our underlying emotions and past experiences -- often deeply buried in memory -- become fodder for psychological projections, in the form of symbols: images and "stories" that allude to what we have felt and experienced.<br /><br />Again, we have no conscious control over any of this. That's just the way the human subconscious works. It is what makes we humans "the storytelling animal."<br /><br />Unlike dreams -- which are subconscious, involuntary, automatic, and individual -- myths are consciously guided, symbolic projections that draw upon our subconscious reservoir of widely shared human experiences. But what "experiences" am I talking about?<br /><br />I believe that the primary purpose of myth-making -- of storytelling in general -- is to help us grapple with causality in the world. Cause-and-effect is the universal "life experience" that stories are trying to sort out; and myths are accounts, in story form, of the most fundamental causal relationships in the world.<br /><br />The relationship between abstract theory and story is important to understand. Both provide accounts of causal relationships in the world. You might say (crudely, and not entirely accurately) that a story is a populated theory, and a theory is a depopulated story. What an abstract theory does is generalize about causal relationships in the world. What a story (including a myth) does is personalize an abstract theory, showing the direct (or analogous) relationships and impacts of a causal process upon individuals, and its meaning for their lives.<br /><br />For example, look at what may be the most popular or core myth: "the hero's journey" or "The Quest." It is a projection, in symbolic form, of the life experience of most individuals.<br /><br />We are all born in a helpless state of sensory bombardment and confusion. As infants, we slowly begin to sort out sensations into perceptions, and then into very basic causal interactions. In myth, this primal chaos and early sorting-and-integration process is captured symbolically in the opening verses of "Genesis."<br /><br />As infants and young children, we are utterly dependent upon our parents to meet our basic life needs. This is the comfort zone of our early lives, when we are taken care of and nurtured, and when we are not forced to take action -- hence, when we face no risks and exert no effort. In mythology, this is commonly symbolized as the "Golden Age," or "Garden of Eden": a past, primitive state of automatic wish-fulfillment that, in memory, seems like blissful "perfection." In the classic three-act storytelling structure, this is the "Ordinary World" at the start of every tale, in Act One -- the comfort zone of the protagonist.<br /><br />But as we mature, we become more aware of the larger world outside of our little home-bound Eden. We become curious about it and wonder whether there are values out there to be obtained. So, we become more exploratory and active.<br /><br />However, activity intrinsically entails effort and risk. To satisfy our curiosity and to achieve any of our individual goals, we must slowly venture forth from our comfort zone, from the automatic security of parental nurturing. We must begin a slow process of separation from them, and launch our independent life's adventure. In Greek mythology, this is the Iliad and the Odyssey; in Genesis, this is Adam and Eve; in the three-act storytelling structure, this is the Act One "inciting incident" or "Call to Adventure," followed by the protagonist's passage through a "Doorway of No Return," into the Act II "World of Adventure."<br /><br />And on the story goes, along a course clarified by mythologists such as Joseph Campbell (drawing upon Jung's subconscious "archetypes"). Along the way, the life passages during our Hero's Quest lead us to encounter enemies, allies, mentors, shape-shifters, etc. We face mounting challenges and confrontations; encounter setbacks and betrayals; experience reversals of fortune, major turning points, and the darkest lows of failure. Yet in heroic stories and myths, the protagonist -- a projection of our own life journey -- presses on; faces the challenges and evil enemies; finds hidden resources and abilities within; and, in a climactic confrontation, overcomes all adversity to achieve his vital goals.<br /><br />So this seminal myth, the Heroic Quest, is really a psychological projection of the basic course of our lives. Its source is the universal experience of all individuals in the world, from birth to maturity to death. We cling to this core myth because it speaks to our deepest experience and emotions as we navigate life -- which is why it is retold again and again, in novels, plays, songs, and films. In each telling, the story has its circumstantial variations, as does the protagonist: He is "The Hero with a Thousand Faces," as Campbell titled his seminal book. But it is a story we need to see and hear, again and again -- for encouragement, inspiration, and reminder of who we are and why we are here, and how we can create a life of meaning, purpose, and identity.<br /><br />"The Hero's Journey" obviously is not the only myth. But if you examine the most popular, you'll find they are projections of common, widely shared human experiences. And most of them seek to grapple with the fundamental fact of causality. How does the world work? Why? What explains the natural processes we see around us? What are we going to do about it?<br /><br />Seeing that humans and animals are causal agents in the world, it's only natural that primitives -- and children -- would personify natural processes, attributing to unseen spirits and demons control and causal power over them. That desire to understand the world has thus given birth to countless explanatory myths and fables.<br /><br />But so too has the need for correct guidance in navigating the world: our need for a moral code. Through experience, societies realize that certain human traits are helpful and to be celebrated (virtues), while others are destructive and to be condemned (vices). These become symbolized in stories of heroes and villains, with their actions (and the consequences) becoming either sources of instruction and inspiration, or cautionary tales of evil and harm.<br /><br />From our earliest childhood, we are exposed to these lessons in causality in the form of interesting stories: fairy tales, fables, myths, songs, cartoons, TV shows, films, novels, plays. Those that capture a common human experience and resonate most broadly with a vast number of people, become our cultural myths. Those that speak to us privately and intimately become our own personal "Narrative" -- our individualized "story" of how the world works, and our place in it.<br /><br />This is why the most important battle of our time is the struggle to craft and establish a guiding myth for our society, and a Narrative for each of us as individuals. This battle is well-known to those whom historian Paul Johnson labeled the "Enemies of Society," in a book of that title. Their most consuming passion is "narrative control." They are telling an ugly tale about our civilization and its heroes, knowing that their success will deprive us of a unifying myth and tear our society apart.<br /><br />Storytellers who understand what is at stake need to get busy. By providing a fresh, inspiring mythology for our time, they will become heroes of tales that will be told and retold to children in the future -- and the shapers of personal Narratives for generations to come.<br /></span></p><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span></span></span><br />Robert Bidinottohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11777797272563802442noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-46206742624372114342020-04-27T17:55:00.000-04:002020-04-27T17:58:41.329-04:00A Meditation About the Popularity of "Self-Sacrifice"<br />
<div data-contents="true">
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="44ao7" data-offset-key="7mb1p-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="7mb1p-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="7mb1p-0-0"><span data-text="true"></span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="44ao7" data-offset-key="db88a-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="db88a-0-0">
<br data-text="true" />
<span data-offset-key="db88a-0-0"><span data-offset-key="3rkm-0-0"><span data-text="true"><i><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xf-geyCKbTw/XqdUeVtUIRI/AAAAAAAAAjU/7nCFdmk7RhkwNZDWGK-e4MgnPFiRHnNlQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Exploit.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1192" data-original-width="1200" height="317" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xf-geyCKbTw/XqdUeVtUIRI/AAAAAAAAAjU/7nCFdmk7RhkwNZDWGK-e4MgnPFiRHnNlQCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Exploit.jpg" width="320" /></a></i></span></span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="44ao7" data-offset-key="n4k6-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="n4k6-0-0">
</div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="n4k6-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="n4k6-0-0"><span data-text="true">Politics is force -- and the initiation of force necessarily creates classes of victims and their victimizers. Politics invariably results in "zero sum," or "win/lose" relationships, where some people succeed only at the expense of others. Politics thus fuels resentments, hatred, and social polarization -- which we see all around us, as our society has become so thoroughly politicized. </span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="44ao7" data-offset-key="4og0-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="4og0-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="4og0-0-0"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="44ao7" data-offset-key="edvtf-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="edvtf-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="edvtf-0-0"><span data-text="true">The coercive interactions that characterize the political world are exactly the opposite of the peaceful, voluntary trade transactions that characterize a free market, which are "win/win" relationships to mutual benefit. Every day at checkout counters we willingly exchange our money for goods or services, and both parties to the transaction customarily smile and say, "Thank you." Why? Because we have both gained something we wanted from the transaction. Neither party has taken something from the other, against his will. It's a peaceful, "win/win" trade, to mutual benefit.</span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="44ao7" data-offset-key="5dr2c-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="5dr2c-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="5dr2c-0-0"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="44ao7" data-offset-key="2e1oo-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="2e1oo-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="2e1oo-0-0"><span data-text="true">So, you'd think that people who truly want a peaceful, benevolent, harmonious society would realize this, embrace free market capitalism, and reject coercive political interventions that pit people against each other. But no.</span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="44ao7" data-offset-key="3jpps-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="3jpps-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="3jpps-0-0"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="44ao7" data-offset-key="1lke-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="1lke-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="1lke-0-0"><span data-text="true">Why?</span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="44ao7" data-offset-key="ahnhk-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="ahnhk-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="ahnhk-0-0"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="44ao7" data-offset-key="af5bu-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="af5bu-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="af5bu-0-0"><span data-text="true">Here's where I think Ayn Rand and her followers got things a bit wrong about the popularity of "self-sacrifice." They believe that all value-preferences are driven by philosophical ideas. And they believe intellectuals have spread the moral doctrine of altruistic self-sacrifice, which lies at the heart of various collectivist ideologies. They conclude that to fight the left effectively, they must train their fire upon the moral idea of self-sacrifice, philosophically refuting it, thus undermining its appeal. </span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="44ao7" data-offset-key="23meg-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="23meg-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="23meg-0-0"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="44ao7" data-offset-key="bgcfn-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="bgcfn-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="bgcfn-0-0"><span data-text="true">But I think this interpretation is mistaken. On its face, self-sacrifice seems unattractive and nonsensical. I believe few people ever become liberals or leftists because they find self-sacrifice to be <i>appealing</i>, or because they've become persuaded of its merits through philosophical argument. Instead, I think their affinity for "selflessness" is a conclusion they've derived -- perhaps even reluctantly, but quite logically -- from their broader worldview or "Narrative" about how the world works.</span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="44ao7" data-offset-key="bph2-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="bph2-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="bph2-0-0"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="44ao7" data-offset-key="cjk5l-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="cjk5l-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="cjk5l-0-0"><span data-text="true">What worldview? </span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="44ao7" data-offset-key="3ke2m-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="3ke2m-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="3ke2m-0-0"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="44ao7" data-offset-key="1t8du-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="1t8du-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="1t8du-0-0"><span data-text="true">A huge percentage of people harbor the misguided view that economic transactions are zero-sum, winner-loser relationships. They believe human economic interests are fundamentally in conflict, so that the "self-interest" and gain by some necessitates the "exploitation" and sacrifice of others. They therefore see socio-economic interactions in terms of a binary choice: either gain power over others, or submit to the power of others. And that's why they gravitate to the "class conflict" theories of Marx and other collectivists. Those political theories ratify and rationalize their underlying core belief about the inherent predatory "unfairness" of economic relationships.</span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="44ao7" data-offset-key="2kpt2-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="2kpt2-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="2kpt2-0-0"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="44ao7" data-offset-key="3e1q6-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="3e1q6-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="3e1q6-0-0"><span data-text="true">This inherent-conflict-of-interests Narrative is rooted deep within humanity's tribal past, when human relationships <i>were </i>all about dominance or submission. We have to remember that, historically, free-market, win-win capitalism is very new -- and from the outset it was misinterpreted through the distorting lens of the traditional zero-sum, win-lose worldview. Early capitalists were thus "robber barons," not society's creative benefactors. Marx, and generations he influenced, construed capitalism and social relationships in terms of class warfare. Today, "identity politics" rests on the same view of inherent tribal conflicts of interest among demographic groups.</span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="44ao7" data-offset-key="fv457-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="fv457-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="fv457-0-0"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="44ao7" data-offset-key="5681a-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="5681a-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="5681a-0-0"><span data-text="true">So, if I'm right about this, then many people's idealization of the ethics of self-sacrifice makes a warped kind of sense. They come to it not from philosophical/ideological persuasion, but from their deep-seated belief in inherent conflicts of interest among men -- and the corollary conclusion that the only way for people to live in social harmony is for all sides to sacrifice their "selfish" interests for the sake of "the common good."</span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="44ao7" data-offset-key="fm2jo-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="fm2jo-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="fm2jo-0-0"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="44ao7" data-offset-key="a5gf6-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="a5gf6-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="a5gf6-0-0"><span data-text="true">This puts a different interpretive spin on the popularity of the morality of altruistic self-sacrifice. Again, on its face, self-sacrifice makes no sense. Deliberately sacrificing one's own best interests and well-being is bizarre, and why people should want to accept it as a moral ideal is even more bizarre. Ayn Rand and her followers, who have viewed human action as powered entirely by philosophical ideas, tried to explain the popularity of self-sacrifice by arguing that philosophers and thinkers have pushed it upon the gullible in the form of various religious and philosophical "isms." They have written countless books and articles trying to refute it as a moral idea. Yet we see that their critiques have had little societal influence.</span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="44ao7" data-offset-key="bt9i7-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="bt9i7-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="bt9i7-0-0"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="44ao7" data-offset-key="6qap0-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="6qap0-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="6qap0-0-0"><span data-text="true">My explanation for their failure is that their attacks on self-sacrifice, though philosophically accurate, are strategically misguided. Altruistic self-sacrifice is less a moral cause than a moral <i>conclusion</i>, for those who believe that socio-economic relationships necessarily involve inherent conflicts of interest. If that's your Narrative about the social world -- if you see transactions as nothing but power relationships about dominance and submission -- then you have a logical choice to make: either to become a cold-blooded predatory brute, or to remain "nice" and allow yourself to be an exploited victim. Those who truly believe in this Narrative may conclude they'd prefer to keep their self-respect by being victimized, rather than join the criminals and brutes. Such erroneous premises and conclusions would explain, for example, the rise of Christianity and the appeal of its altruistic ethics, as summarized in "the Sermon on the Mount." </span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="44ao7" data-offset-key="4s7pm-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="4s7pm-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="4s7pm-0-0"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="44ao7" data-offset-key="7r406-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="7r406-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="7r406-0-0"><span data-text="true">Is my view of this so far-fetched? In a discussion on Facebook with Objectivists, I found many participants recoiled from the view that even emergency situations are zero-sum conflicts that might require us to become brutes, surviving at the expense of others. That is not the Randian view of "selfishness": Most principled individualists, in fact, would prefer to keep their humanity and self-esteem by dying nobly rather than survive like predatory beasts.</span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="44ao7" data-offset-key="1drtu-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="1drtu-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="1drtu-0-0"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="44ao7" data-offset-key="45oh3-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="45oh3-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="45oh3-0-0"><span data-text="true">Well, to them I say: Imagine how you'd live if you truly believed that <i>normal life </i>was all about zero-sum conflicts of interest -- that each transaction under capitalism entailed someone gaining at someone else's expense. You'd conclude, logically, that economic winners would have to be rapacious robber barons. You'd conclude, logically, that to keep your soul, you'd have to sacrifice your prospects for economic well-being, doing your work solely for the love of it, and not for commercial success. You'd conclude, logically, that to keep the economic predators in check, we need a strong cop to suppress predatory "greed": a powerful government to regulate Evil Businessmen.</span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="44ao7" data-offset-key="cm191-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="cm191-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="cm191-0-0"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="44ao7" data-offset-key="62le9-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="62le9-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="62le9-0-0"><span data-text="true">If my interpretation of altruism's appeal is correct, then the real target of individualists' moral criticism ought to be the zero-sum Narrative -- the false belief in inherent economic conflicts of interest -- and not altruistic self-sacrifice per se, which is mainly an emotionally driven reaction arising from the zero-sum worldview. We need to show that economic relationships in a free society are "win/win," not "win/lose." We need to explain what 19th-century economist Frederic Bastiat labeled "economic harmonies."</span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="44ao7" data-offset-key="2hjfn-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="2hjfn-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="2hjfn-0-0"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="44ao7" data-offset-key="3rkm-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="3rkm-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="3rkm-0-0"><span data-text="true">And we need to teach that the "win/win" marketplace is the moral antithesis of the coercive world of politics, where all relationships <i>are </i>in fact zero-sum and "win/lose." The more relationships we can keep outside the political realm of force and coercion, and within the private sector of peaceful production and trade, the better for our social harmony.</span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
Robert Bidinottohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11777797272563802442noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-35795801030944298312020-04-19T17:37:00.003-04:002020-04-23T15:28:04.083-04:00The Real Meaning of "Natural Rights"<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JVSbrn9z154/XqHrx5SihPI/AAAAAAAAAi4/ka3WHIfcH-cLFjUNE0CPSuYDzgtV5SH4gCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/boundaries-700x468.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="468" data-original-width="700" height="213" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JVSbrn9z154/XqHrx5SihPI/AAAAAAAAAi4/ka3WHIfcH-cLFjUNE0CPSuYDzgtV5SH4gCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/boundaries-700x468.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody">In
the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, devotees of individual liberty rightly
became concerned about the kinds of drastic restrictions that were placed on
our personal and economic freedoms. Is such interference with freedom ever
justified? If so, what restrictions are excessive? And how long should they
remain in force?</span></span><br />
<br />
There
are no easy answers to such questions. But they do raise broader and more
fundamental questions about the nature and meaning of “rights.”<br />
<br />
Some
people object to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">any </i>restrictions on
individual freedoms, even during emergencies, seeing them as violations of
their fundamental individual rights. That objection usually arises from the
traditional view of individual rights, as being “natural” and/or “God-given” in
origin. By this view—broadly accepted by most conservatives, libertarians, and
even Objectivists—individual rights are elements or aspects of human nature
itself. They are “intrinsic” or “inherent” parts of human beings; thus, they
are “absolute” and may not be abridged or curtailed by anyone, at any time, for
any reason—not even in an emergency.<br />
<br />
This
belief—that rights are <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">intrinsic </i>to
human nature, and thus immutable and inviolate “by nature”—owes its appeal
among liberty lovers to their justifiable fear of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">socially subjective </i>theories of rights. This latter view, promoted
by the political left, holds that rights are merely <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">grants</i> from some authority figure or from “society,” which confer
special privileges, freedoms, goods, or services upon designated individuals.
Viewing a right as a socially granted <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">privilege</i>
implies that the source of rights is the granting authority. That, in turn,
implies that the granting authority—whether it is a king, dictator, or social
majority—is morally and legally entitled to exercise unlimited dominion over
individuals. It means that individuals may act only by the authority’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">permission.</i><br />
<br />
But
equating “rights” with “permissions” negates the very meaning of rights. To act
“by right” means <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">to act autonomously,
without further permission. </i>A right is a moral-legal entitlement—not a
social permission slip.<br />
<br />
It
is therefore understandable that lovers of liberty would reject the left’s
bogus interpretation of rights as socially subjective and instead seek some
objective basis for the concept. Since the days of John Locke, those
freedom-lovers of a secular bent have tried to ground the concept of rights in
nature itself; those of a religious bent argue that individuals’ rights are
“endowed by their Creator.”<br />
<br />
But
both err in thinking that their respective approaches provide the concept of
rights with an unassailable, objective foundation.<br />
<br />
Let
me state up front that I believe the concept of rights <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">does </i>have an objective basis in certain facts of human nature.
However, while my perspective draws from Ayn Rand’s seminal writings on this
topic, I don’t believe the presentation she offered in her essay “Man’s Rights”
(Ch. 12, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Virtue-Selfishness-Ayn-Rand-ebook/dp/B002OSXD64/">The
Virtue of Selfishness</a></i>, November 1964) distinguishes her view unambiguously
from traditional “natural rights” theories. And I do not accept theories of
“natural rights” or “God-given rights” as they almost always are expounded.<br />
<br />
First,
the “God-given rights” view is problematic, not only because it reduces claims
of rights to mere articles of faith, but also because I don’t believe there is
any biblical reference to a concept or principle of “individual rights” that
supports such claims by religious believers. Such assertions are, at best,
shaky interpretations that believers have merely <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">inferred </i>from cherry-picked passages or ideas in the Bible, then
inflated in meaning and elevated in status to become religious doctrine. Even a
devout Christian ought to find such interpretations disturbingly
arbitrary—especially when elaborated into full-blown theories of rights nowhere
in evidence in their Bible. One does not successfully counter the left’s
subjective notions of rights by offering, in their place, equally subjective
appeals to faith.<br />
<br />
That
said, I want to focus at greater length upon the broader, more inclusive claims
that “natural rights” are essences or elements of human nature itself. I do not
accept that view, either. For me, rights are not aspects or parts of nature, or
some sort of essences that exist in or arise from human nature.<br />
<br />
Rather,
I hold that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">rights are objectively
derived moral principles</i>.<br />
<br />
What
do I mean by that?<br />
<br />
To
illustrate: Does something called “honesty” exist in nature, as a kind of
actual <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">thing</i>? Of course not. Honesty
is an abstract moral principle, devised by men to govern certain kinds of
actions. However, this moral principle is not subjective or arbitrary: It is
rooted in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">objective facts.</i> What
facts? These: To survive and thrive, we humans must face reality—that is, face
facts, and deal with them. Likewise, to survive and thrive within a human
society, we must be truthful with each other. Why? Because civilized society
rests upon mutual trust, and mutual trust rests in turn upon our honesty with
each other. Without honesty and trust, all the values we gain from social
relationships are threatened and undermined. If dishonesty and mistrust become
the norm, civilization unravels. So, there is an objective, fact-based,
life-serving need for us to uphold the moral principle of honesty—to root our
social relationships in facts, not in fantasies, lies, and deception. It is
therefore in our own natural best interests to uphold that principle firmly and
consistently, as a “moral absolute” in normal circumstances.<br />
<br />
But
not in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">all </i>circumstances. For
instance, you don’t owe honesty to a criminal or dictator who is trying to harm
you by force. The principle of honesty serves a vital purpose: It is meant to
further our lives and well-being in social interaction. That principle can’t be
applied unilaterally, in circumstances where our lives and well-being are being
threatened by those who don’t recognize the principle of honesty—or any other
moral principles—and who would use our honesty against us. Exercised
unilaterally, honesty would assist aggressors and thus become a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">threat </i>to our lives and well-being.<br />
<br />
Here’s
the point: We don’t live in order to practice honesty; we practice honesty in
order to live. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Abstract moral principles
exist to serve our lives; our lives do not exist to serve abstract moral
principles</i>. The latter is a “platonic” view of principles—a view of
principles as ends in themselves, rather than <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">human life </i>as an end in itself.<br />
<br />
The
same goes for the moral principle of individual rights. Like honesty, rights
are not things that exist somewhere in Nature. They are moral principles,
devised by men, but rooted in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">objective
facts. </i>What facts? These: To create and then survive and thrive in a human
society, we need to view and respect each individual as an end in himself—not
as sacrificial prey for others. Why? Because a predatory, kill-or-be-killed
society is to no one’s long-term best interests. So, to avoid reverting to
primitive savagery, we must recognize, as basic principles of social morality,
that each individual has a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">moral right</i>
to live for his own sake (the right to life); a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">moral right</i> to take non-predatory actions to further his life (the
right to liberty); and a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">moral right</i>
to transform the resources of nature into the products he requires to sustain
his life, including the right to keep, use, and/or trade such creative products
with others (the right to property).<br />
<br />
In
other words, the moral purpose of the concept of rights is to establish
essential <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">moral boundaries</i> among
people, so that within his own personal boundaries each sovereign individual
may act freely to support his own existence, well-being, and happiness. (This
is what I understand Ayn Rand to have meant in her essay “Man’s Rights” when
she defined a “right” as “a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s
freedom of action in a social context.”)<br />
<br />
That
is the “natural,” objective source of the moral principles we call “rights.” And we need to hold these principles firmly and consistently, too, as “moral absolutes” in normal circumstances.<br />
<br />
But
again, not in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">all </i>circumstances. For
example, no concept of—or need for—“rights” would ever arise in the mind of a
Robinson Crusoe living alone on a desert island, because there are no others
present who could pose a threat to him, or argue with him about food and
shelter and land boundaries. The moral issue of rights arises only in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">social relationships</i>: only when other
people are around to dispute or transgress upon the protective moral boundaries
between and among individuals.<br />
<br />
Also,
the principle of rights cannot apply during catastrophes that break down all
civilized boundaries and institutions—such as a war, when invading enemies
transgress all boundaries and threaten all lives. Warfare is a crisis
circumstance in which rights are under such direct and dire assault that they
can no longer be applied and exercised by the combatants, and often by those
caught in the crossfire. During such chaotic emergencies, the only moral
mandate for those under attack must be to stop the aggressors, to end or escape
the emergency situation, and to restore the moral order and normal civilized
life. At such times, when the survival of the entire civilized framework of
rights is at stake, it may temporarily become necessary for the defending
forces to take drastic actions that transgress the rightful boundaries that
normally apply among individuals—such as sending the defending army across
private property to engage enemy forces, or enforcing curfews, or risking
collateral harm to non-combatants by bombing the enemy. Horrible as these
things are, the alternative is morally unthinkable: to let the aggressor
prevail to harm and enslave all. The only options, then, are among degrees of
short-term or long-term harm to individuals; and the ultimate long-term <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">moral </i>objective is to minimize and end
that harm. So, the morally proper course for the defenders is to terminate the
threat as quickly as possible, in order ultimately to restore and protect the
rights of the threatened individuals.<br />
<br />
I
see the same principle applying during a deadly epidemic. In a situation where
a potentially lethal virus is spread rapidly by individuals through normal socializing,
it may become necessary—temporarily—to impose rational social restrictions in
order to get the disease under control, or suppressed to at least a manageable
level. Nobody has a “right” to engage freely in conduct that poses an
unreasonable risk of harm to others. And during a deadly epidemic, that’s
exactly what normal social behavior does. This does not mean a total, long-term
lockdown of society, which would cause its own catastrophic harm and death. But
prudent, temporary requirements, such as “social distancing,” wearing face
masks in certain public areas, and short-term closures of places where people
congregate, make sense—again, only until the disease is brought under
manageable control (e.g., sufficient medical supplies and tests are available,
hospitals and emergency services are no longer overrun, etc.).<br />
<br />
To
sum up: “Rights” are not arbitrary social privileges and subjective
conventions; nor are they elements, aspects, or metaphysical essences existing within
nature itself. What we call “natural rights” should be understood instead as <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">moral principles</i>, defined and applied by
men, but arising from our identification of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">objective, factual</i> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">requirements
</i>of human nature in social relationships. To survive and thrive in society,
we humans require moral boundaries to protect us from predatory aggression and
to resolve disputed property claims peacefully. Rights are the moral principles
we employ to establish such moral boundaries between and among individuals.<br />
<br />
We
can debate exactly how such principles apply, or where and when emergency
conditions arise that might require temporary exceptions. But this view of the
basis and meaning of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">objective natural
rights </i>is, I believe, rationally defensible. And it establishes firm
moral-legal barriers to stop would-be predators, tyrants, and mobs.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="line-height: 107%; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; tab-stops: .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in 6.5in 7.0in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(Copyright
2020 by Robert Bidinotto. All rights reserved.)</i></b></div>
Robert Bidinottohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11777797272563802442noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-13117397023453446472017-09-17T14:42:00.000-04:002020-04-23T15:01:21.230-04:00Am I Still an "Objectivist"?<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody">As a college freshman way back in 1967, I became enamored of the novels and ideas of Ayn Rand. In the decades since, my writing and speaking has been influenced in profound ways by that late philosopher and novelist's fertile mind and artistic sensibilities. I also held positions in various organizations and publications promoting her work.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody">During those years, I referred to myself by the name she gave to her philosophy. I was an "Objectivist" and I promoted "Objectivism."</span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody">But I no longer use those terms in self-description. N</span></span><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody"><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody"><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody">or am I involved in any Objectivist organizations, publications, or "movements." </span></span></span></span>For anyone interested, I'd like to explain precisely why, and where I now stand. </span></span><br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody"><br /></span></span>
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody">Without getting into complicated specifics, my
essential philosophical ideas have not much changed, as anyone reading my nonfiction <i>or </i>fiction would quickly realize. The Randian influence is deep and unmistakable.<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody"> </span></span></span></span><br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody"><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody"> </span></span><br />However, my views about the
validity, usefulness, and desirability of a formal <i>movement</i> of "individualists" who are organized in ideological groups and hierarchies, which are run and policed by designated "representatives" or "intellectual heirs" (including self-proclaimed
ones), have changed, and radically. In fact, even during the years I was mired within the
"movement," I argued against any such organizational structures,
as being in contradiction with the substance of individualism. (For
example, if you can find a copy, in a recorded lecture, "Organized
Individualism? Building the Objectivist Community.")<br /><br />Anyone
who takes seriously the lessons of Rand's novel <i>The Fountainhead</i> would have to reject any such
creature as an "organized Objectivist movement." (For those familiar with the novel: Can you imagine its individualist hero, Howard Roark ,
subjugating himself as a "member" or "follower" or even "student of Objectivism"?) For some years, Ayn Rand allowed such an organized movement to be established to promote her philosophy; it was called the Nathaniel Branden Institute. It later imploded disastrously -- ostensibly because of personal issues between herself and its founder, but actually because of the issue of "intellectual representation." </span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody">Rand had designated the eponymous head of NBI as her "intellectual heir and representative," her public spokesman and champion -- the supposed embodiment of her ideas. In practice, that meant he was a professional yes-man, required to perfectly reflect and champion <i>her </i>ideas -- not his own. That inevitably proved to be untenable: A philosophy of individualism cannot be promulgated as a dogma. Yet the nature and structure of an organization aiming to perfectly embody somebody's <i>entire philosophy </i>-- to the letter and without deviation -- mandates and encourages dogmatism. <br /><br />If you read Rand's own
published statements in the immediate wake of the NBI debacle, you'd see
that she learned that lesson <i>explicitly</i>. She wrote that she always
had been dubious about an "organized movement of Objectivists" and never
wished to be the head of one, let alone forced into the role of trying
to police "misrepresentations" of her philosophy. She also -- again
explicitly -- stated she would never again authorize or endorse any such
Objectivist organization. But she was barely cold in her coffin before a new, <i>self</i>-proclaimed "intellectual heir" (never and nowhere
did she ever designate him as such) declared that, with her death, that
restriction no longer applied. He then created an organization, the Ayn Rand Institute, which essentially mirrored the disastrous approach of NBI.</span></span><br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody"><br />I
participated for a long time in a different, competing Objectivist organization, one that
positioned itself as hostile to the notion of any intellectual gurus,
hierarchies, and dogmas. But I still found the core problem had not been
effectively addressed -- because it began with the label of the philosophy itself. <br /><br />Ayn Rand had developed her personal philosophical system and
slapped a label on it, one in which she also declared a proprietary
interest: "Objectivism." This put her admirers in a moral quandary. Were
only those who agreed with Rand's every significant utterance
"Objectivists"? Or could one call himself an "Objectivist" if he agreed
with most of her philosophical essentials, but disagreed with her on
this or that specific application or inference? And if the latter, where, exactly,
did one draw the lines?<br /><br />Years (and may I say, lives)
have been wasted in an absurd tug-of-war among individuals and organizations over the "moral right" to use Rand's invented <i>label </i>in self-description. People have built their entire self-esteem (and careers)
upon that "Objectivist" title; upon their "loyalty" to specific utterances and positions
of Rand's (and those of her self-appointed, posthumous interpreters); and
upon whether or not particular notions are "essential" to Objectivism.
The determination of what is and isn't "essential" is completely
arbitrary and subjective, ranging from the utterly dogmatic
("Objectivism is everything and only what Rand wrote and said of a
philosophical nature") to the utterly relativistic (e.g., notions by
various self-proclaimed "Objectivists" who equate that term with moral and political views
Rand herself loathed and denounced).<br /><br />I saw that the basic error of Rand -- as
an advocate of independent judgment and individualism -- had been to
ascribe a label to her <i>personal</i> philosophy (with all its countless
implications), but then try to <i>limit and restrict</i> its "authorized" use by others...unless they
conformed completely to every dotted "i" and crossed "t" of her own
interpretation. Understandably, she imposed these restrictions about use of the label lest others publicly "misrepresent" her and damage her reputation. Yet this put sincere admirers
in an impossible position: either slavishly nod and parrot Rand's every
utterance, or abandon the label "Objectivist." If the former, then being
an "Objectivist" means being a dogmatist -- which contradicts the
individualist epistemological and moral basis of the philosophy. If the latter, though, then
the only <i>real</i> "Objectivists" are those who abandon the label, in order
to preserve their own intellectual independence and moral integrity. <br /><br />Absurdly, five decades after they first arose, these debates continue to rage throughout the small and insular Objectivist subculture. Nearly a decade ago, I happily abandoned that subculture and its baggage. At
my age, life had become far too short to remain mired in such
pointless and preposterous preoccupations. To what end? Will the "winners" of the rhetorical battles swell their chests with pride that they -- and only they -- are the
"true Objectivists"? Will that have the slightest substantive impact upon
the course of their lives, let alone upon the course of the world outside their skulls? <br /><br />Finally, from a personal, practical, and professional standpoint, using the shared label also meant having to constantly, publicly disavow a multitude of idiots and
scoundrels masquerading as "Objectivists," and bizarre notions
advanced as "Objectivism." Sadly, that included some of Rand's own private foibles and erroneous ideas. Like the "Scarlet Letter," the label has become a way for
ideological enemies to employ "guilt by association" smears, linking the decent people using it to odious others, and to their dubious views. I have no
time or interest in answering for the private quirks and weird ideas of total
strangers, with whom I would be lumped by a shared, artificial label, but very
little else.<br /><br />As a principled individualist, I answer only for myself. (And I use the term "principled individualist" purely descriptively, and not capitalized.)<br /><br />I
cannot tell you how relieved and liberated I have felt for the past decade to be light years
removed from "the Objectivist movement," and from its unproductive distractions. I remain proud of many things I accomplished during my years of involvement in that movement. But I wasted
way, way too much time myopically mired in a silly, rhetorical tug-of-war
over an unimportant label. <br /><br />So, I no longer use the label "Objectivist." I neither have nor seek any affiliations or involvement with organs of "the Objectivist movement" -- </span></span><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody"><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody">which is "moving"
nowhere</span></span>, and which is an oxymoron, if you take seriously the point of <i>The Fountainhead</i>. I leave such petty preoccupations to those with far more years left
to fritter away.<br /><br />If you wish to label me anything, try my name. <br /><br />Likewise, if you want to argue with my ideas, try arguing with <i>mine</i> -- not Ayn Rand's, or
Leonard Peikoff's, or David Kelley's, or anyone else you care to name.</span></span>Robert Bidinottohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11777797272563802442noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-58282340424260830882016-07-22T21:56:00.000-04:002016-07-22T21:56:02.109-04:00Independence Day 2016<i>Note: I posted this on my Facebook page on July 4, 2016. I neglected to post it here, but I would like to give this message a greater permanence than a passing comment on social media. Here was my message:<br /><br /></i>I AM TAKING THIS MOMENT to remember and honor what too many have
forgotten: the idea that makes America unique in the history of the
world. That idea -- embedded in our founding documents and defended with
the blood of countless patriots -- is <i>individualism</i>. It is the moral
principle that the individual is an end in himself, and not a
sacrificial pawn of kings, dictators, legislative bodies, "majorities,"
or collective Society itself. And as a moral end -- not a mere means to
the ends of others -- the individual has inviolate rights to his own
life, and to the liberty to peacefully pursue his own happiness. Our
Declaration of Independence celebrated not just an independence of
colonies from another faraway country, but something far more profound:
the independence of the individual from the forcible interference of
others, no matter how great their number or "need."<br /><br />
<i>That </i>was the
revolutionary idea underlying the American Revolution. Never before in
the history of the world had that principle been recognized by any other
nation or group -- which is why the history of the world is one of
chronic, blood-soaked barbarism of man against man. The American
conception of individual rights created the original "safe space": a
moral barrier around each individual, a barrier against the force,
fraud, and coercion of his fellow man. It declared him to be sovereign
within that safe space, as long as he, in turn, did not use force,
fraud, or coercion against others.<br />
<br />
This idea -- even grasped and
implemented imperfectly -- led to the creation of the greatest, most
prosperous, most progressive (and I mean that word in its literal sense)
society and economy in the history of the world. It created more
opportunities for more people, higher living standards, and -- yes --
greater <i>happiness </i>than any society anywhere, at any time. America became
a beacon of freedom and hope that beckoned to millions around the
world, millions who uprooted themselves, crossed vast oceans, and came
here with nothing in their pockets -- just for the chance to "make
something of themselves."<br />
<br />
America was the home of the self-made
individual. It was a place where anyone could literally make and remake
himself, becoming whatever he wished, without interference. All because
of the principle upon which the nation was established: that the
individual was a moral end in himself.<br />
<br />
Barbaric tribalism is the
default position of humanity. It is what happens quite automatically
when the sovereignty of individuals is not respected and enshrined into
law. Gang warfare is what happens when the social barrier to mutual
exploitation -- the principle of individual rights -- is obliterated.<br />
<br />
If we are now seeing a horrific, headlong reversion to barbarism --
abroad and here -- it's because generations of "intellectuals," chafing
against legal limitations on their power over unruly individuals, have
declared all-out war on the philosophy of individualism at the heart of
the American project. They have looked at the achievements of
individuals and proclaimed "You didn't build that!" and that "It takes a
village," instead. They have glorified dictatorial philosophies and
praised the thugs that imposed them on their societies. They have
enabled, ignored, and rationalized inhuman savagery against millions of
individuals. They have obliterated the idea that the individual is a
moral end, in order to reduce him to a helpless means to their ends.<br />
<br />
On this Independence Day, as we have fun with our friends, eat our hot
dogs, and enjoy our fireworks, can we please pause to remember (if we
were ever taught it) the true nature of the "independence" bequeathed to
us by our ancestors? Can we grasp, if only for a single fleeting, quiet
moment, the moral principle that made America distinctive, and then
great? Can we soberly re-dedicate ourselves to that principle, and --
following the example of those who spilt blood for it -- vow to weave it
anew into the fabric of our society and laws?<br />
<br />
If you lack the
self-esteem to do that for yourself, then do it for your spouse, or your
kids. Or in memory of those heroes before us, who gave their lives,
their fortunes, and their sacred honor so that their ungrateful children
could enjoy lives better than their own.Robert Bidinottohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11777797272563802442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-9858230796441593142016-07-21T22:51:00.000-04:002016-07-21T22:52:05.007-04:00In the Wake of the 2016 GOP Convention<br />
The Republican Convention is over and, as a force representing a viable philosophic alternative to the Democrats, so is the Republican Party. Hence the double-entendre meaning of "wake" in the title. Let me add this post-mortem to my previous posted commentary about the 2016 election.<br />
<br />
What has evolved most for me during this
past year is my understanding of supposed allies on the political right:
which of them are truly individualists who grasp and are committed to
the basic principles undergirding America, and which are simply cultural
tribalists waging war against their perceived cultural enemies.<br />
<br />
The common core I see in those social conservatives who don't just
reluctantly tolerate Donald Trump, but wildly enthuse about him, is their
undisguised, gleeful tribalism. For them, the values of individualism,
and their expression in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are, at best,
the empty fluff of Fourth of July speechifying and talk-show blather. Such principles are not their basic value-priority or core
commitment. <br />
<br />
The real question dividing the right today -- and
all along, actually -- has been: <i>Which is absolutely foundational for
you: your commitment to your tribal-cultural affiliations, or your
commitment to the basic principles of America as outlined in those founding
documents? </i><br />
<br />
For a long time, I had been snookered by many who
masqueraded as the latter kind of "constitutional conservatives." Right-wing radio talkers
(with Mark Levin and a precious few others being admirable exceptions), the Fox News
evening lineup, the Drudge and Breitbart websites, <i>et al.</i>, have postured for
years, even decades, as principled defenders of the Constitution and
free markets. But the emergence of Donald Trump has exposed these
long-closeted tribalists for what they really are. <br />
<br />
They have
thrown every one of their alleged principles overboard in order to support this
crude national statist, among them: their sanctimonious claims to
champion Christian virtues in one's personal life, to stand for property
rights against eminent domain overreach, to support free trade and free
markets, to oppose crony corporatism, to uphold constitutional limits
on government power, to back without reservations the Second Amendment, to
repeal (not "renegotiate") ObamaCare, to repeal (not "renegotiate") the
Iran nuke giveaway, to stand up against Vladimir Putin in Eastern
Europe, and on and on.<br />
<br />
Only one election cycle ago, these same "conservatives" were railing mercilessly against those Republican
candidates, including Mitt Romney, who failed to pass muster on even a
handful of these "litmus test" issues. Such candidates were the hated
RINOs, the spineless compromisers, the "sell-outs of our constitutional
principles" who "negotiate" and "cut deals" with the liberal Democrats,
for their own aggrandizement.<br />
<br />
But that was four whole
years ago. Things change, right? Now Trump comes along, and what
is his, and their, defining issue?<br />
<br />
<i>Tribalism</i> -- specifically, all
those horrible foreigners coming here to infect our Traditional
American Culture and "take away American jobs."<br />
<br />
Overnight,
"American Greatness" became equated not with the individualist
ideals of our nation's founding, but with preserving the demographic composition
of the American national tribe. It is now Us against Them -- and all
principles be damned. After all, they argue, who can afford the "luxury"
of fuzzy abstractions when American Culture is under assault?<br />
<br />
Thus the stampede of the tribal right into the open arms of Trump -- and
the shocking revelations of the big-name conservatives who are members of
that tribalist gang. We watched them, dumbfounded, as they did an
about-face on issue after issue, on principle after principle -- and then turned against a host of Trump's GOP
rivals who, just four years before, they had extolled as conservative
heroes. But not anymore. Instead, they undercut and bad-mouthed these
candidates at every turn, handing the keys to their media platforms,
24/7, to a sordid creature much farther to the left than Dole, McCain,
Romney, McConnell, and Boehner ever were at their worst. <br />
<br />
And in the convention's aftermath, they
are unleashing their greatest wrath upon Ted Cruz -- <i>the</i> solitary
political figure who dared to take on, from the inside and without
hesitation, the very Establishment that these "movement conservatives"
so long pretended to oppose. His mortal sin? His refusal, on principle, to join the rest of the tribe, bow, and then kiss the corrupt billionaire's gaudy ring.<br />
<br />
Donald Trump's candidacy has at last
enticed these fakes to venture forth from their closets, cast off their
<i>faux</i>-individualist garb, and stand nakedly exposed as the cultural
collectivists they've been all along. <br />
<br />
It has been a sobering
revelation to me just how many of these fair-weather "constitutional
conservatives" and "free enterprisers" are out there -- just how
far our nation has degenerated -- and just how great a distance we must
travel to win it back. <br />
<br />
Any political revolution, however, must be preceded by a cultural revolution. And so I now return to doing the what I can on that front: crafting fictional narratives that offer my own vision of the kind of values and virtues a new culture will require.<br />
<br />Robert Bidinottohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11777797272563802442noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-41218724255576800972016-04-28T17:32:00.000-04:002016-04-28T17:32:22.486-04:00A Vote for #Neither<br />Though the 2016 GOP presidential nomination has not yet been settled as of this date, it is looking more and more likely that Donald Trump will become the nominee. This prospect has demoralized many, compelling us to confront difficult decisions about what to do on Election Day. <br /><br />As I witness the slow, gradual, resigned acceptance within the
Republican Party of Donald Trump (and within the Democrat Party of
criminal Hillary Clinton and socialist Bernie Sanders), by more and more
people -- people who, during a more civilized moment just months ago,
would <i>never </i>have tolerated the likes of such creatures -- I am reminded
how a culture becomes corrupted, then lost.<br /><br />
The late Senator Daniel
Patrick Moynihan -- a thoughtful, pre-Clintonian Democrat and champion
of Western civilization -- memorably described the process he called
"defining deviancy down." It amounted to slowly lowering the bar of
moral and intellectual standards, of social and cultural expectations,
inch by inch. Pretty soon, what was unthinkable in January and
intolerable in March becomes tolerated in June, then accepted in August
-- and finally celebrated by November. <br />
<br />
Why celebrated?<br />
<br />
Because in order to accommodate and accept the once-intolerable, a
person must surrender his standards, piecemeal . . . but then rationalize
his self-corruption in his own mind. How better to rationalize the
despicable -- and one's own acceptance of it -- than to turn it into
virtue, and the despicable person into a non-conforming hero?<br />
<br />
I want my friends, some of whom are Trump or Hillary supporters, to understand how seriously I take this corruption. <br />
<br />I am not a bandwagon-joiner. I am not one to stick <a class="_58cn" data-ft="{"tn":"*N","type":104}" href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/nevertrump?source=feed_text&story_id=10206624717001236"><span class="_58cl">#</span><span class="_58cm">NeverTrump</span></a>
hashtags everywhere. But neither can I tolerate this crude, ignorant,
unprincipled narcissist simply because the alternative would be to vote
for a criminal like Clinton. Trump represents the culmination of a
process of corruption within the Republican Party, just as Hillary
Clinton represents the same within the Democrat Party. To my great
sadness, they have come to symbolize and accurately reflect the
character of an American people who have, for decades, been defining
deviancy down in their own lives and institutions.<br />
<br />
I realize that
an election is merely a tactical decision, almost always between
less-than-ideal options. Oftentimes it is a choice for the lesser harm.
But -- and I'm being stone-cold serious -- in a choice between Trump and
Clinton, I have no clue who would cause the greater long-term harm to
America or to my own values and interests. An unprincipled populist
demagogue, whose answer to all problems, foreign and domestic, is an
international trade war -- or a pathological criminal
with a progressive agenda? We're not talking about two characters who
would continue the status quo of steady American decline. We're talking
about two human wrecking balls. Each, in his or her own way, would
accelerate American decline in a host of political, economic, <i>and cultural </i>ways.<br />
<br />
The latter is what concerns me most, because it
affects the character of America. As they say, "character is destiny."
While these two bottom-feeders sadly reflect the country's slide into
decadence, a national leader of character might decelerate that decline.
Trump and Clinton would both hasten it.<br />
<br />
It might be argued that Trump at
least represents what Ayn Rand would have called "the American sense of
life," which Hillary Clinton and the left despise and hate. But it would be more accurate to say that Trump has <i>hijacked </i>the American sense of life. He has hitched that pro-American spirit to an <i>anti-</i>American policy
agenda, foreign and domestic. He does not stand for constitutionally
limited government, free markets, private property, or individual
rights. He is trying to wed "Americanism" to populist statism, and call
it "conservatism."<br />
<br />
That's bad enough on the level of political
philosophy, and it would be disastrous on the policy level. But on the
more-important level of personal character, Trump would bring into the
Oval Office a gutter mentality and behavior, power-hungry narcissism,
crude anti-intellectualism, and a mindless personality cult. Yes,
America has elected and endured presidents who exhibited one or more of
these various ugly traits; however, I cannot recall any single president
who embodied them all.<br />
<br />
<span><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g"><span><span>For
decades, every time the GOP put forth some lousy liberal loser, we individualists and constitutionalists were told to put aside our reservations and support him at the polls. It was just a short-term compromise, they told us, because
we had to beat the Democrat <i>du jou</i></span></span><span><span><span><i>r</i> if we hoped for America to survive until the long term, when we might get better candidates. Well, Donald Trump
<i>is </i>the long term that all those short-term, expedient compromises have
brought us to. If he were to be elected, there would be <i>no </i>long-term future for principled individualists to hope for. </span></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
On the other hand, a vote for Hillary Clinton
would be a vote for a pathological liar and crook, for an explicit proponent of statism and unlimited government power. And it would be a moral
ratification of her unspeakable betrayal of four brave dead American
patriots in Benghazi. <i>That</i> is intolerable.<br />
<br />
Because of these
considerations (and barring last-minute, unexpected, radical
changes of circumstances in an insane year filled with surprises), I've come reluctantly to a decision:<br /><br />Should the
electoral alternatives sink to a choice between Trump or Clinton, <i>I
shall vote for neither</i>.<br />
<br />
I care too much for America's
founders, for those who fought and bled and died for this special
nation, to dishonor their memory and legacy with such a vote. <br /><br />If our
nation truly has come to this, then I believe the November 2016 election will be
remembered as America's Jonestown -- and I, for one, shall refuse to
participate in moral self-poisoning and political mass suicide.<br />Robert Bidinottohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11777797272563802442noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-2687059918781168782016-03-24T15:29:00.000-04:002016-03-24T16:12:33.714-04:00The Republican Crack-Up, RevisitedPerhaps the smartest political observation I've read in a long time
comes from Joel Kotkin, a conservative Democrat and a noted demographer.
In the March 20, 2016 issue of the <i>Orange County Register</i>, he wrote <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/articles/party-708782-trump-voters.html" target="_blank"><b>a fertile column</b></a> about the rise of Donald Trump in the Republican Party. Kotkin's piece was laden with excellent observations, but none so important as this:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Successful political parties unite interests under a broadly shared
policy agenda. The Clinton Democrats may seem ethically challenged,
condescending and bordering on dictatorial, but they share basic
positions on many core issues and a unifying belief in federal power as
the favored instrument for change.<br />
<br />
In contrast, the Republican
Party consists of interest groups that so broadly dislike each other
that they share little common ground.</blockquote>
<br />
This is a great insight, and it explains pretty much everything that has gone wrong with
our nation politically for the past century.<br />
<br />
The Democrats are a
coalition of interest groups held together with a general unifying
ideology: big-government progressivism. The Republicans, by contrast, are a coalition of interest
groups <i>without </i>any single unifying ideology. Historically, their only
basis for unity has been their shared enemies: the Democrats (and
various points in the Democrat agenda). Members of the GOP have little
in common ideologically -- only occasionally overlapping interests (often for diverse reasons), but mostly opposition to specific
Democrats or specific Democrat initiatives and policies (again, for
diverse reasons).<br />
<br />
Put another way, there has been no basis for
Republican unity <i>in principle</i>,<i> </i>except perhaps for a strong national defense.
However, on matters of domestic policy, constitutional limitations on government
power, economics, immigration, trade, civil liberties, individual
rights...on just about everything you can name, Republicans are all over the map.
There's no single <i>principle</i>, let alone broader political philosophy,
that holds the party factions together.<br />
<br />
Which explains why America has
moved inexorably to the left over the past century, since the first
Progressive Era. You have leftists, represented by the Democratic Party,
who know exactly what kind of a society they want, and why. They have
an underlying worldview, a Narrative, buttressed by academic theories
and rationalizations, and translated into long-term policy goals. By contrast, the
Republicans have none of this, and (perhaps except for Goldwater and
Reagan) they have not had a leader who imposed upon the party, from the top, a
unifying worldview, Narrative, theoretical rationale, or policy goals.<br />
<br />
And it has finally led to what <a href="http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0322-goldberg-gop-end-20160322-column.html" target="_blank"><b>many</b></a> are now <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/articles/party-708782-trump-voters.html" target="_blank"><b>acknowledging</b></a> to be an <a href="http://www.peggynoonan.com/the-republican-party-is-shattering/" target="_blank"><b>impending crack-up</b></a> of the Republican Party. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>A Warning from 1996</b> <br />
<br />
Not that any of this should be a surprise. In fact, I anticipated the party's disintegration in a long 1996 monograph titled <i>The GOP's Foreign
Imports</i>, published by the Institute for Objectivist Studies. In that essay, I observed that "Within the GOP, a philosophical
meltdown is occurring." In words that could have been written today, I described how "the Republican majority in
Congress is paralyzed and adrift, its energy gone, its direction
uncertain." And, foreshadowing the emergence of Trumpism today, I noted: "Meanwhile, the populist/nationalist insurgency of
commentator Pat Buchanan in the GOP presidential primaries impelled his
nervous rivals to compete with him in bashing big business, immigrants,
and imports."<br />
<br />
Sound familiar? <br />
<br />
I cited an earlier column I'd written, in the January
1995 <i>Freeman</i>, in which I had said: "The GOP stands precariously on deep
philosophical fault lines, and already we're hearing rumblings of coming
tremors that could shatter the...coalition.... Torn by
ideological contradictions, the GOP is coming apart at the seams."<br />
<br />
In the monograph, I elaborated:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The party has long maintained a "big tent," sheltering many
opposing ideological factions. Cementing this uneasy alliance weren't
shared premises, but <i>shared enemies.... </i>The primary contest [of 1996],
noted <i>U.S. News & World Report</i>, quickly became "a slugfest over the
ideas and identity of the Republican Party," a battle that "exposed a
network of fissures and fault lines that is dividing the party and
encouraging Democratic hopes of retaining the White House in November."</blockquote>
<br />
<i>Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.</i><br />
<br />
I went on in the monograph to identify a number of warring ideological factions within the GOP.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Warring Philosophical Factions</b> <br />
<br />
First were the "<i>pragmatists</i>" -- "the ballast of the Republican Party,"
made up of "unprincipled champions of consensus, convention, and
compromise. Philosophically vacuous but personally ambitious,
pragmatists stand for everything...and nothing." These are most
prominently represented by the members of the party Establishment.<br />
<br />
Then were what I described as "<i>anti-individualists</i>." These come in
several varieties. First are the "<i>conservative welfare
statists</i>," who believe in
big, activist, "compassionate" government social programs -- but who (in
contrast to the Dems) promise to distribute and redistribute government goodies on
the cheap. So they don't talk about repealing ObamaCare, for example, but
instead "taking the best parts of it and making them work better." Unlike the unprincipled pragmatists, these Republicans
(the George W. Bush/John Kasich types) are sincere...but they are liberals at heart. Which is why they have been described as "Democrat Lite."<br />
<br />
Another variety of
anti-individualists are the "<i>tribalists</i>." I described them as
those who "draw their personal identities from collective affiliations.
They believe there are inherent conflicts of interests among men that
pit their group against all others in a battle for status. This prompts
them to see themselves as victims of powerful elites, group favoritism,
and dark conspiracies.... These 'angry voters' are drawn to divisive
demagogues, from Huey Long to George Wallace to Ross Perot to Pat
Buchanan." (And today, of course, to Donald Trump.) <br />
<br />
I further subdivided the
tribalists into two factions. First, "<i>nationalists</i>, [who] believe there
are inherent national, racial, and/or cultural conflicts of interest,"
and who can be found "shouting 'America First!'" because "they see
themselves in a 'cultural war' to preserve our 'national identity' from
foreign and minority influences. They thus reject foreign trade,
treaties, immigration, and racial/ethnic integration." The second
faction are "<i>populists</i>, [who] define themselves not by nation or race,
but by economic class. They believe there's a fixed national economic
pie to be divided, so any gains by others must be at their expense. They
thus see themselves as 'little guys,' exploited by a privileged elite
of bureaucrats, businessmen, and bankers." (Trump deliberately appeals to both factions.)<br />
<br />
In addition to the
various sorts of pragmatists and anti-individualists (e.g., conservative welfare statists and tribalists), there is an <i>anti-Enlightenment </i>faction within the GOP: those who reject
the Enlightenment values of reason, individualism, the pursuit of personal
happiness and fulfillment, self-realization, and personal choice --
usually on religious and/or cultural grounds. They (wrongly) identify such
premises with personal subjectivism and moral relativism, and as an antidote, they advocate the subordination and sacrifice of the individual to the
broader society and religious dogma. In short, they promote <i>conservative cultural collectivism</i>. These are
the "social conservatives" who believe that government <i>should </i>impose
Judeo-Christian values on society, by law if necessary, in order to advance social cohesion and keep unruly, self-indulgent individuals in line.<br />
<br />
Finally,
the GOP harbors a minority of "<i>individualists</i>...the most intellectual
and principled elements on the Right," consisting of "economic
conservatives and political libertarians, as well as Objectivists."
These are the champions, respectively, of free markets and free trade;
of "constitutional conservatism" and limited government; and of the
Enlightenment worldview of reason and individualism. But today, this principled minority finds itself increasingly marginalized and outnumbered within the GOP. The hostility of the pragmatic Establishment toward "constitutional conservative" Senator Ted Cruz provides one example; the primary results provide another.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>A Coalition Shattered</b><br />
<br />
I wrote all
of this in 1996. Twenty years later, nothing has changed -- except that
the 2016 GOP primaries have revealed, with painful finality, that these logically
irreconcilable factions have no rational basis for continued cohesion. At the outset of the primary season, a host of candidates vied for the Republican presidential nomination, representing every shade of pragmatist (Christie, Gilmore, Pataki, Graham, Trump), conservative welfare statist (Kasich), tribalist (the populist/nationalist Trump), religious social conservative (Carson), cultural collectivist (Huckabee, Santorum), constitutional conservative (Cruz, Fiorina, Jindal), libertarian (Paul), and economic conservative (Rubio, Bush, Walker, Perry). <br />
<br />
Now, ask yourself what any of these factions have in common. Can
individualists (constitutional conservatives, libertarians, and
Objectivists) make common cause with nationalist or populist tribalists?
Can advocates of reason and individual liberty make common cause with
conservative collectivists? Can anyone from <i>any</i> faction who is serious about his principles make common cause with -- or trust -- the unprincipled pragmatists?<br />
<br />
Moreover, with the presidential
nomination of Trump the Tribalist (and unprincipled pragmatist) looming ever more likely, the last pretenses of any principled distinctions between the Republican Party and the Democratic
Party have been obliterated. We are likely to face two competing forms of statism, and two
equally authoritarian and thuggish candidates for our nation's highest office.<br />
<br />
Abraham Lincoln
famously said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." During the 2016 election cycle I have
been raising the alarm about the rise of Trumpism in the GOP precisely
because it deprives individualists of any hospitable home in a
viable major party. And also because whether Trump wins or loses, we have
finally, sadly reached my long-predicted crackup of the Republican Party.<br />
<br />
So...where do we go from here?<br />
<br />
<b><br />The Path Forward</b><br />
<br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g">Our first task is to face and grasp the cause of the problem. The problem is intellectual chaos. In
terms of vision, philosophy, goals, policies -- of <i>Narrative</i> -- the GOP is
everything, and nothing. That's why even with an electoral majority in Congress today (as in the early 1990s), the Republicans cannot
rally around a single alternative to (say) ObamaCare, or a proposed
budget, or a policy to deal with the looming disaster of runaway
entitlement spending, or even a coherent strategy to deal with ISIS. Philosophically divided, the party is paralyzed by
indecision; too many logically incompatible values, principles, and agendas
are clamoring for collective agreement, with each splinter faction trying to <i>impose </i>its own on the others.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g">That can't happen. Collectivist
decision-making may work for those who embrace collectivism; they are used
to sacrificing individual interests for the sake of the group. But it
emphatically does <i>not </i>work for those who champion individualism, by which the
ultimate evil is sacrificing one's values for the sake of group "harmony." Those who embrace constitutional conservatism, free markets, and individual rights <i>on principle </i>cannot sacrifice their principles and go along with the statist agendas of pragmatists, tribalists, and social conservatives, in the name of "party unity." (The same can be said of sincere, principled social conservatives.)</span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g"> No, individualist <i>ends</i> can only be advanced by individualist <i>means</i>. <br /><br />In
my opinion, bright, articulate advocates of principled individualism
who aspire to public office should stop trying to "convert" or "take
over" the Republican Party. That's a fool's errand, a futile waste of
time, and a contradiction: You can't <i>impose</i> individualism on others.</span></span><br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g"><br />Instead, I think they should aim to establish themselves first as champions of individualist principles and values on platforms <i>outside</i>
the party apparatus, before entering politics. Perhaps through the media -- columns, talk shows,
entertainment, public speaking platforms, etc. They should acquire a reputation and public following that way -- independently -- and <i>then </i>enter politics. <br /><br />Ronald
Reagan achieved public fame first as an actor, then as a public speaker
touring the country. His famous speech for Barry Goldwater in 1964, "A Time for Choosing," established his "brand" as a principled, articulate conservative. So, when he launched his political career, he already
was well-known and well-liked. Because his
brand had been so firmly established, </span></span><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g"><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g">he didn't even bother to go
up through the party ranks. H</span></span>is first run for political office was to
be governor of California -- not for some smaller office. Similar examples of this "independent outsider" strategy could be cited, including
Arnold Schwarzenegger and, yes, Donald Trump. They established attractive brands as <i>individuals </i>first. Then they just marched in and entrenched beachheads within the GOP, pushing aside hostile Establishment
rivals by the sheer numbers and force of their followers.<br /><br />Those
of us who do not aspire to public office should look to support
qualified, articulate, attractive, principled <i>outsiders </i>who do. (It's
one reason I supported Carly Fiorina early this primary season. I wish that Trump's distracting celebrity presence hadn't obscured her many merits.) A second choice would be political <i>insiders </i>who have demonstrated a long track record of standing firmly on principle against the corrupt Establishment within the system. (It's the reason I currently support Senator Ted Cruz against the tribalist Donald Trump and the conservative welfare statist Governor John Kasich.) <br /><br />As
for those of us who don't want <i>any</i> direct involvement in politics, but
who still wish to promote the kind of changes that affect politics, I have said
for years that the place to focus is not politics, but culture. Ayn Rand
and Andrew Breitbart were both courageous visionaries, and they both
agreed -- in Breitbart's memorable words -- that "politics is downstream
from culture." What affects culture more directly are <i>stories</i>. Not
think tanks, not college professors, and not the abstract ideas and theories
that flow from either -- but ideas as they are dramatized and romanticized in the
form of <i>narratives</i>.<br /><br />We urgently need to reclaim
and romanticize the Western Enlightenment/individualist worldview in
popular entertainment. We need the constant celebration of individualist
virtues and values in art. We need to patronize and encourage the good
stuff, not merely fight the bad stuff. </span></span><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g"><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g">Negating negatives is not the same thing as producing positives.</span></span><br /><br />Similarly, we need
to honor, and to defend from attack, those who champion and protect our
basic American institutions. This includes our police and military, our
entrepreneurs and self-made individuals, our great historical leaders
and cultural icons (including America's Founders). We need to extol their virtues <i>as </i>virtues. We need to celebrate their lives, giving them awards and
recognition. Today's kids are tomorrow's leaders, and they need not only fictional models, but real-life <i>exemplars </i>of individualist virtues.</span></span><br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g"><br /></span></span><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g"><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g">But yes, as a corollary to our positive efforts, we <i>do </i>need
to
declare war on today's artistic nihilism, whose toxic influence creates
the sort of morally vacuous, shapeless entities who are fit for nothing
but a
welfare state or a collectivist colony. </span></span>And yes, as a corollary to creating and defending values, we <i>do </i>need to confront evil's
enablers -- especially its academic, political, and media enablers. We can't remain mute as our culture's values and institutions are under assault.<br /> </span></span><br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g">However, we must always remember that fighting evil is a secondary task. Our
civilization is perishing due to over a century of nihilistic assaults
on its basic philosophical values. That nihilism has created a void, a cultural vacuum. You
don't <i>fight </i>a void; you <i>fill </i>it.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g"><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g">Our primary focus -- as George Washington put it -- must be to "raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair." </span></span><br /><br /><b><br />Advancing a New Narrative</b><br /> </span></span><br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g">Note that all of
this has very little to do, at least directly, with the Republican Party: taking it over, deposing its corrupt Establishment, fighting over its
platform provisions at conventions. It has very little to do with politics,
period -- at least not directly. It dwells instead on the task of affecting the culture
that lies upstream from politics. <br /><br />The left has long understood the importance of "narrative control," which is why they have colonized Hollywood and the arts. As a result of their efforts, we can now throw facts
and logic at people till the cows come home; but because our enemies have shaped
the <i>narratives </i>by which people assimilate and interpret facts, we always lose the arguments. They process everything we say to fit a Core Narrative embedded in their brains, the dominant storyline that guides their lives and
integrates their thoughts.<br /><br />We need
to take charge of that storyline. We need to advance a new Core
Narrative for our American culture, but one rooted in individualist premises. <br /><br />We
need to hammer that Narrative home in every venue, using every media, cultural, and
political platform. The Core Narrative of American Individualism needs
to be translated into thousands of specific stories and examples, into
countless variations on its basic themes, and then applied to new contexts in
fresh ways. We need to see it manifested in novels, plays, and movies. We need it in TV shows and historic documentaries and biographies. We need it in video games, and children's picture books, and songs, and poetry. <br /><br />The Individualist Narrative needs to be romanticized, honored,
championed, and defended. And its enemies need to be challenged,
opposed, mocked, and fought -- just as they have done for over a century
against <i>ours. </i></span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g">This is not primarily a political battle. It is a battle for hearts and minds, over what it means to be human. It is a battle over the nature of our fundamental ideals, values, motives, and purposes. <br /><br />It is a
cultural war. <br /><br />But it's not a cultural war whose goals are to be defined and represented solely by
social conservatives versus cultural leftists. It's time that those of us who are
principled individualists march onto the cultural and political battlefields as a third force,
armed with our own Narrative.</span></span>Robert Bidinottohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11777797272563802442noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-33997002121766384462015-06-26T15:52:00.004-04:002015-06-26T15:57:33.459-04:00How Government Created the Gay Marriage Controversy <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:DoNotShowRevisions/>
<w:DoNotPrintRevisions/>
<w:DoNotShowMarkup/>
<w:DoNotShowComments/>
<w:DoNotShowInsertionsAndDeletions/>
<w:DoNotShowPropertyChanges/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
There are many unrecognized implications of the June 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing
marriages between (among?) gay and lesbian (couples? groups?). I frame the
ruling in those terms not to disparage loving relationships of any kind, but to
raise a point lost in this ruling: essentially, the unintentional obliteration
of "marriage" as a legal concept. Which is to me a <i>good thing.</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Like so many issues in which government (i.e., politics) is
improperly involved -- education, agriculture, energy, housing, charity, etc.,
etc. -- the bitter, divisive social conflicts over "gay marriage"
arise precisely from the very fact of government involvement in defining
"marriage" in the first place. Why? </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Because government -- that is, law -- is force and coercion.
Government "solutions" to problems are inherently coercive
impositions by some people (the politically dominant) on others (the politically
subordinate). Such solutions <i>never </i>result in social harmony, peace, love, etc.;
they only exacerbate social hostility, conflict, and division. They allow some
people to "win," but only because they force others to
"lose."</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Force children to go to "public" (i.e.,
politically run) schools, and force taxpayers to pay for it? You will then pit
taxpayers against each other over the <i>content </i>of that "education"
(indoctrination), over schedules and hours, over homework, over grading
systems, over teacher qualifications, over social engineering schemes (busing
students all over the place to achieve racially integrated schools, etc.). over
options for dissenters (home schooling, tax credits, vouchers,
"magnet" schools, "charter" schools), over
"reforms" (Common Core), over testing, etc. <i>Everything </i>concerning
education becomes a political battleground...because of the conscription of
children into politicized education, and the conscription of taxpayers to pick up the tab.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Put government into the agriculture business, or energy
business, or auto business, or banking business, or ANY business, and what
happens? You use force (the IRS extracting money from all
taxpayers) to support crony businesses (e.g., politically connected ethanol
agribusinesses, "green" windmill and solar panel manufacturers, GM and
Chrysler, the big New York-based banks) over all their politiically unfavored competitors,
who must fund, through taxes, their politically favored rivals.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Put government into the charity business -- all the
programs of the welfare state -- and you undercut voluntary, private charity
alternatives by sapping them of trillions of dollars of potential funds, which are taxed away from potential contributors. Simultaneously, you create what are called "moral hazards" by
providing incentives for millions of people <i>not </i>to work or to solve their own
problems, but instead to dump their endless claims of ailments, needs, wants, desires,
whims ("Obamaphones"? <i>Really?</i>)<i> </i>onto their hard-working, taxpaying
neighbors. <i>Everyone </i>resents this "spread the wealth around" process: those forced to foot the boundless bills, and
those issuing endless demands of their "rights" -- i.e., their phony
claims of "entitlements" against "society" (which means: their neighbors). In the
redistributionist era -- as 19th century economist Frederic Bastiat famously put it --
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the
expense of everyone else."</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
All of this stems from trying to use government -- law, politics, <i>force</i> -- to solve essentially personal or social problems. Politics
invariably creates "win-lose" relationships, in which some people benefit <i>but only at the expense of others</i>. For every political beneficiary, there are victims. For every
political winner, there are losers.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now, let's contrast this world of politics and the
"public sector" with the world of economics and the "private
sector."</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Imagine a world in which education were entirely privatized
-- in which schools were like grocery stores, auto dealerships, bookstores, or
any other private companies. No parents would be <i>forced </i>to put their kids into
a school system they didn't like, with teachers they didn't trust, with
curricula they loathed -- or to pay taxes to support such private companies.
Just as you don't have to subsidize your local bookstore, grocery, or Ford
dealer, you wouldn't have to pay for somebody else's school. With all the money you
saved in school taxes, you could afford to send your kids instead to one of many
competing private schools, with teachers you preferred, teaching courses you
decided were most beneficial to your kids' futures. Or, you could homeschool them,
utilizing course material from a host of competing sources, including online
offerings. You would have no reason or motive to fight with politicized school boards and
teachers unions over content, schedules, social-engineering fads, or anything
else -- because you wouldn't be forced to be involved with any educational
company except the one you freely chose. Imagine: No more wars with your
neighbors and fellow taxpayers over textbooks, the teaching of Common Core or
evolution or liberal propaganda or conservative propaganda, over teacher
salaries and hours, over school taxes, over whether the building ought to have
a new gym. <i>You </i>get to pick an educational company for your kids from a host of
competitors, just as you pick your own car, your own grocery store, or your own TV
provider. Ultimately, just as with those other companies, marketplace
competition would determine which educational companies and options succeed. And unlike today's subsidized, bloated public-school monstrosities, those that succeeded would be those that offered <i>the best educational value.</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Imagine a world in which government were banned from any involvement
with business -- a separation of Economics and State, for the same reasons that
we have a separation of Church and State. Imagine businesses having to survive
on their own, demonstrating their value to willing, paying customers in a competitive marketplace -- and not
by forcibly extracting subsidies from taxpayers, via their crony relationships
with politicians and bureaucrats. Imagine how much money would remain in your
pocket if we shut down the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, and Housing &
Urban Development (just for starters), gave pink slips to their thousands of
meddling bureaucrats, and sent them off to seek productive jobs in the
private sector. Would you care if somebody started a windmill firm or a bank
or an auto company...if <i>you </i>weren't forced to subsidize or patronize it? Would you feel hostility and hatred and anger if your associations with them were not <i>compulsory?</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Imagine a world in which <i>you </i>got to keep vastly more of your
own money -- and thus have the means and choice to fund your <i>own </i>preferred charities and
social causes -- rather than being <i>forced</i>, by law, to subsidize (say) Planned
Parenthood abortions, AIDS research rather than (say) cancer or Alzheimer's
research, political agitation by ACORN, the politicking of environmental
activist groups, the healthcare of illegal aliens streaming across unguarded
borders, "voter enrollment" of those same illegals, mosquito
control in Africa, typhoon relief in Bangladesh, "public
broadcasting" and opera houses for upper-middle-class patrons who could easily afford to pay for their own entertainment, and on and on and on,
endlessly. Americans are the most generous people in the world. But they are
tired of being played for suckers, forced to fund the politically connected
champions of "good causes" who get favored treatment by their friends
in court. Does <i>that </i>mutual fleecing further social harmony, peace, love, and
mutual respect?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The governmental (political) realm, run by force and
coercion and taking, <i>necessarily </i>creates "win-lose" relationships. The economic
(private) realm, run by free choice and voluntary association and trade,
<i>necessarily </i>creates "win-win" relationships. Yet for many generations, people have been
conditioned to seek coercive, political "solutions" to every
social problem or personal need -- coercive, political "solutions" that only breed
mutual hostility, disharmony, and hatred.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The "gay marriage" controversy is but the latest example of how social disruption has been manufactured -- not solved -- by
governmental (political) involvement. The entire controversy stems from the fact
that <i>government has been involved in defining what a "marriage" is. </i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But why? Why is that necessary? And what have been the consequences?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Government, as our Founders proclaimed in the Declaration of
Independence, exists to "secure these rights" to life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness. <i>Period. </i>Not to solve personal problems or social ills, but to protect individual rights. Not to take sides in disputes, but to be an impartial umpire.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Thus, there is a proper role for government
(law) in recognizing and enforcing private contracts, and also in protecting
individuals in relationships (spouses, children) from violations of their
rights by other parties. But recognition and enforcement of private contracts,
property arrangements, and the rights of spouses and children, do <i>not </i>require
government (i.e., politicians and the force of law) to confer some kind of
"legitimacy" on the ceremonial and symbolic aspects of a
"marriage."</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For all the reasons stated above, <i>marriage should be privatized. </i>A "marriage" should be defined and celebrated
by the participants, according to whatever religious or philosophical values
they ascribe to that state of long-term commitment. Politics should play no
role in that determination whatsoever. <br />
<br />
But ironically, the Supreme Court's
ruling has -- unintentionally -- pointed us in that direction. Why?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Because (to paraphrase the classic line from the film "The Incredibles") if
<i>everything </i>is a "marriage" under the law, then <i>nothing </i>is. The Court
ruling and reasoning today opens the door not just to same-sex
"marriages," but to polygamy, group marriages, and pretty much
anything else. Who can now say that such arrangements are <i>not </i>"marriages," and on what grounds?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Liberals, wedded to governmental (read: coercive)
"solutions" to all social problems, won't grasp any of this, sadly.
They refuse to realize that their "solutions," rooted in seizing and
wielding political power by themselves over others, <i>cannot </i>ever result in that
woozy, utopian, John Lennon "Imagine" world of peace-and-love.
<br />
<br />
Liberals, above all, are complete captives to the zero-sum, class-and-racial
warfare, tribal worldview: a social worldview of winners vs. losers, of powerful vs. powerless,
of perpetual gang warfare in which each gang seeks power and advantage over its rivals. Economic ignoramuses -- who
think every economic relationship is about some people <i>taking </i>from others -- liberals
can't even conceive of peaceful, voluntary, <i>trading </i>relationships. They thus
can only interpret free market capitalism through the distorting lens of
"taking," of "exploitation."</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now, with this new Court decision, they will predictably try
to use their new "marital rights" as a bludgeon against private
individuals, businesses, and religious organizations that do not share their own elastic definition of
"marriage." Rather than take this as an opportunity to celebrate live-and-let-live social arrangements, in which everyone can associate voluntarily as they choose, they will instead eagerly try to
use the power of law to force and coerce any private, peaceful individuals who disagree with them to <i>associate and deal </i>with them -- to
bake their wedding cakes, cater their weddings, provide venues for their
ceremonies, even perform their ceremonies. Why? </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Because the main thing that "liberals" are
"wedded" to is not some definition of marriage, but to their
zero-sum, tribalist, coercive, us-vs.-them worldview. No, they don't really want peace
and love and harmony: That's just their cover story.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
They want power and control over others.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In short: Liberalism is sociopathy, masquerading as a political
doctrine.</div>
Robert Bidinottohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11777797272563802442noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-88612978825201723172015-03-31T16:27:00.000-04:002015-03-31T16:46:21.728-04:00Yes, You Have a Right to Be a Bigot<div class="_5pbx userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}">
In March 2015, a controversy roiled in Indiana over passage of the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That divisive controversy is
the latest fruit of a terrible legal precedent established during the Civil
Rights era -- which was in turn based on terrible confusion and
misunderstanding of the nature of "rights."<br />
<br />
Protestors of the
Indiana law (which in fact mirrors the federal RFRA law and similar laws in 30 states) claim that, by protecting the rights of (say) Christian business owners
<i>not </i>to serve or deal with (say) gays, the RFRA violates the "right" of
the latter to be served by these private businesses, without
discrimination.<br />
<br />
But does any such "right" exist? Let me attempt to untangle this mess.<br />
<br />
Our individual rights have a moral basis: They are based on the moral
premise that every individual is an end in himself -- not a means to the
ends of others. Rights are moral principles established to
institutionalize that premise as the basis for peaceful social
relationships. Individual rights prohibit one person from living at the
expense of someone else by means of force, fraud, or coercion.<br />
<br />
Which brings us to the role of government. The Declaration of
Independence states that the purpose of government is "to secure these
rights" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Government is
established to protect these rights of individuals from acts
of force, fraud, and coercion by others. And to enforce those protections of
rights, government may use force and coercion <i>only </i>in retaliation
against those who violate the rights of others.<br />
<br />
In other words:
Since government is an agency meant to protect the rights of all, and
because it is funded by all, it therefore must afford equal legal
protection to all. As an impartial umpire and protector, it cannot "play
favorites" in its actions without operating unjustly.<br />
<br />
To this
end, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964" target="_blank">the Civil Rights Act of 1964</a> did some very good things. In the Act,
the Titles (or sections) numbered I, III-VI, VIII, and IX were aimed at ending discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and similar traits <i>by </i>government bodies, officials, and laws. For many decades before passage of the Act, various government bodies <i>did </i>operate unfairly and prejudicially, especially
against blacks. Such officially sanctioned bigotry and bias was a moral
and legal outrage, and it needed to be put to an end. So, these
particular sections of the Civil Rights Act are rightly celebrated as a boon for the cause of
individual rights.<br />
<br />
However, Titles II and VII of the Civil
Rights Act took matters a step too far. They banned owners of <i>private </i>property from exercising their <i>own </i>individual rights of freedom of
association on and with that property. In other words, those sections
violated an individual's <i>right </i>to choose his own associations, and on
his own property, for whatever reasons (rational or irrational). <br />
<br />
To repeat: The basic premise underlying and justifying government and
law is that each individual is an end in himself, not a means to the
ends of others. But that very premise -- which demands that government
act neutrally and impartially toward all -- also protects the right of
individuals <i>in the private sector</i> to associate freely with whomever they
wish, for whatever reason they wish. Those reasons don't have to be
admirable. Let me be clear: I think that discrimination based solely on race or sexual
orientation is disgraceful and stupid. However, it <i>is </i>an individual<i> right </i>to be a fool and a bigot.<br />
<br />
To compel, by law, some legally specified people to associate with
other legally specified people means that... <br />
<br />
(1) the first group are not being
treated as ends in themselves, but are being forced into the role of
being the servants of others; <br />
<br />
(2) the government -- which is
supposed to be impartial -- is favoring the second designated group at
the expense of the first; and <br />
<br />
(3) the rights of individuals to
peacefully use their private property as they see fit are to be
subordinated to collective social purposes.<br />
<br />
Ironically, (1)
imposes "involuntary servitude" -- exactly what the 13h Amendment made <i>illegal.</i> From Wikipedia: "<b>Involuntary servitude</b> is a United States legal
and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's
will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the
worker's financial needs." To compel a business owner to serve someone
not of his free choosing meets the very definition of "involuntary
servitude." That may include compelling (say) a Christian baker, who
does not believe in "gay marriage," to provide pastries at a gay wedding
reception. If you think that is okay, then what would you say if a white
racist or -- even worse!!! -- a RICH CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN REPUBLICAN
(say, Rick Santorum or Sarah Palin) demanded, under the same "non-discrimination" laws, that a liberal,
Democratic, gay, female, African-American baker provide pastries for his or her daughter's
wedding?<br />
<br />
<br />
Ironically too, in the name of "non-discrimination,"
(2) lets the government coercively discriminate on behalf of some people
over others in what otherwise would be private, voluntary relationships.<br />
<br />
And (3) represents a
<i>de facto</i> nationalization of private businesses. Ownership, by
definition, means the right to freely and peacefully use and dispose of
property as the property holder sees fit. But under those two titles of
the Civil Rights Act, property is no longer to serve the individual ends
determined by its owner; instead, it is now to serve the
collective ends of his <i>customers, </i>by governmental decree. The
businessperson's private property rights are thus subordinated to collective ends, just
as the businessperson himself or herself is subjected to involuntary
servitude on behalf of customers.<br />
<br />
I said above that "individual rights
prohibit one person from living at the expense of someone else by means
of force, fraud, or coercion." To use force and coercion in order to compel the
owners of private property to deal with or serve you, is a direct
violation of the owner's individual rights.<br />
<br />
The fact that these violations of rights are rationalized because they are "for a good cause" is irrelevant. Just as the First Amendment protects
the free speech of individuals, even if we despise what they say, so
too does the rest of the Bill of Rights protect the freedom of business
owners to hire or serve whomever they wish, even if we despise their
specific hiring choices or service policies. The way to deal with bigots, in
either case, is through boycott and ridicule -- which is perfectly
within the rights of any protester.<br />
<br />
But now, the law has been
stood on its head: It has become a tool to discriminate against and violate the individual
rights of people whom we don't like . . . perversely, in the <i>name </i>of "protecting rights" and
"non-discrimination."<br />
<br />
As I write, Republicans such Governor Mike Pence of Indiana
are back-pedaling frantically, trying to rewrite Religious Freedom
Restoration Acts so as to prohibit private acts of "discrimination." But in doing so, they are caving in to those who are using such demands to destroy
what little is left of individual and property rights. And they are thus joining the mobs that treat
individuals as nationalized means to social ends, and no longer as moral
ends in themselves.</div>
Robert Bidinottohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11777797272563802442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-50170792940022963762015-03-15T02:47:00.000-04:002015-03-15T02:54:06.596-04:00BAD DEEDS Wins CLFA Book of the Year 2014<br />
I am delighted to announce that my second Dylan Hunter thriller, <i>BAD DEEDS</i>, just won the Conservative-Libertarian Fiction Alliance “Book of the Year 2014 Award.”<br />
<br />
Given the quality of the finalists — books by prominent, bestselling
authors Larry Correia, Sarah A. Hoyt, and Mackey Chandler — I <i>sincerely </i>didn’t think my thriller stood a chance of winning. But thanks to Dylan’s devoted fans, the book won the final vote.<br />
<br />
I want to express my deepest appreciation and thanks to all of you
who have made my stories and characters a part of your lives. I am
touched and grateful to you for your loyal support, and my special
appreciation goes to those of you who voted for <i>BAD DEEDS. </i>Thanks
to you, this award will bring the book and its unique vigilante hero a
lot more attention — and that is why I entered it in the competition in
the first place.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DC9qCvZJgds/VQUqLkd5y_I/AAAAAAAAAUw/1_6gPReTD3Q/s1600/CLFA_BOTY_2014_WINNER%2Bver%2B1.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DC9qCvZJgds/VQUqLkd5y_I/AAAAAAAAAUw/1_6gPReTD3Q/s1600/CLFA_BOTY_2014_WINNER%2Bver%2B1.JPG" height="242" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-igmNpSF7_Tk/VQUqYZafhZI/AAAAAAAAAU4/7CzR9NjyW5s/s1600/BAD-DEEDS-COVER-EBOOK-FINAL-REDUCED%2B4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-igmNpSF7_Tk/VQUqYZafhZI/AAAAAAAAAU4/7CzR9NjyW5s/s1600/BAD-DEEDS-COVER-EBOOK-FINAL-REDUCED%2B4.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />Robert Bidinottohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11777797272563802442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-30167563064258572812014-08-21T15:49:00.000-04:002014-08-21T15:51:26.841-04:00The Narcissist and The Narrative<span class="userContent"> <br /> He is, above all, the
consummate narcissist. </span><br />
<br />
<span class="userContent">Consider: By his own admission, he spent most of
his youth chasing girls, in a self-indulgent marijuana haze. In school,
he used his long-honed tactics of glib, manipulative, arro<span class="text_exposed_show">gant
"charm" to coast through, getting grades that, to this day, he has
refused to release to the public. He learned to sweet-talk his way
through life, also learning early on that white liberals were only too
eager to serve as slavish Enablers for a bright, handsome black kid who
made them feel noble about themselves.</span></span><br />
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show"> <br /> </span></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/08/21/article-2730503-20AC475200000578-730_634x941.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/08/21/article-2730503-20AC475200000578-730_634x941.jpg" height="320" width="215" /></a></div>
<br />
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show">Along the way, he
learned how to con people with narratives, with stories that embodied
the liberals' own fantasies and self-flattering aspirations. His biggest
narrative con was about himself: He concocted a black kid's Cinderella
story. Liberals just ate that up. With precious little effort on his own
part, they lined up to elevate him up each political rung of his career
ladder, pushing him toward the Narcissist's ultimate objective. He
helped mainly by seeking out positions that kept him in the public eye,
in front of cheering crowds. He became very, very adept in front of
crowds, practicing and refining his narratives till they were polished.
Though he could be a slick orator, he added a bit of informal, boyish,
countrified charm, strategically dropping "g's" at the ends of words -- you know, so
that he'd be "talkin' about changin' the country." He did that only
occasionally: Like most of his studied tactics, he could turn these on
and off like a faucet, as needed.<br /> <br /> In each political position he
held along the way, he never actually bothered to <i>do the job</i>. He never
left behind any legislative footprints, any actual accomplishment. To
him, winning the political position <i>was</i> the accomplishment: It was an
end in itself -- an affirmation in his mind that he was loved, noticed,
and approved of by thousands. But it was never enough: He wanted that
universal affirmation from <i>millions. </i>So, he never stayed more than a few
years in any political job. They were only stepping stones to his
ultimate objective.</span></span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/08/21/article-2730503-20AC4F9E00000578-941_634x465.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/08/21/article-2730503-20AC4F9E00000578-941_634x465.jpg" height="234" width="320" /></a></div>
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show"> </span></span><span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show"></span></span><span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show"> </span></span><br />
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show">His big break was when throngs of white
liberals put the skinny kid from Chicago on stage at the Democratic
convention in 2004. He had just won his Senate race, and was now the new
black poster boy for white liberals. I saw that speech on TV. I saw how
the white liberal crowd responded and ate it up. Do you know something?
At that instant, I <i>knew. </i>And I began to work a Barack Obama character
into the storyline of the original Dylan Hunter novel that I was then
planning, as the first black man to run for the White House. Yes, I
knew even then that <i>that </i>was exactly what he was after, and where this
adoring crowd of liberals was propelling him.<br /> <br /> At that time, his
only qualifications for the White House were a couple of faux
"memoirs" that advanced his phony, self-inflated biographical Narrative.
That. Was. IT. The rest of his resume? A Harvard law student whose
grades nobody ever talked about. A figurehead occupant of the position
of "Editor" of the "Harvard Law Review," where he never wrote and
contributed a single article himself. A Chicago community agitator. A
part-time, <i>adjunct </i>college instructor. An ambitious schmoozer and schemer who
ingratiated himself into the Chicago political machine. A state
representative who, backed by the Machine, used hardball tactics to get
elected -- then never did a damned thing in office except run for his
next position. Ditto as a one-term occupant of the U.S. Senate while he
immediately began running for the White House.</span></span><br />
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show"> <br /> Then, as a
candidate whose vacuous political speeches matched his resume: empty
odes to "hope" and "change," whatever those things were supposed to be.
Barack had learned that all you needed were <i>moral-political </i>narratives, built on vague
generalizations, and a <i>personal biographical </i>Narrative, built on the
univerally appealing Cinderella story. People would <i>want </i>to believe in
those stories; so they would grant any candidate embodying their mythology
a free pass from close, critical scrutiny. Nobody would bother to
notice that he was just an empty suit: They would fill that empty suit
themselves, with a Somebody of their own imagination and aspirations -- all to make them
feel good about themselves.<br /> <br /> And so The Narcissist was elevated
to become President -- any narcissist's ultimate symbol of
self-congratulation and universal adulation. <i>That </i>was the goal. <i>That </i>was
the objective. He had reached it. Not for any specific things he could
actually accomplish; oh, sure, he had a leftist wish list of goals, and
he surrounded himself with other hard leftists. But the <i>real </i>pleasure
was the ability to wander the grand rooms of the White House; to be
saluted getting on and off Marine One and Air Force One; to be able to
jet anywhere on the taxpayers' tab; to ride around Washington in The
Beast, surrounded by a motorcade of Secret Service agents; to put his
feet up on the historic desk in the Oval Office (there are photos of him
doing this); but mostly to preen in public before nests of cameras and
thickets of microphones, soaking in the attention.<br /> </span></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/08/21/article-2730503-20B1839000000578-808_634x460.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/08/21/article-2730503-20B1839000000578-808_634x460.jpg" height="232" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show">The actual
<i>work</i> of the job bores him. Actual work <i>always</i> bored him. He chafes at
hanging around in the White House. Sure, it's fun to wander into the
Situation Room and be surrounded by nervous generals and fawning
lackeys, and to be visited by anxious corporate cronies looking to kiss
his ring and get favors, and to chum around with all the Hollywood and
sports celebs lining up to entertain him in the evening. But the work is
BORING. He just can't wait to get out of the place and away from that
damned desk. So, at every occasion, he orders his staff to rev up The
Beast, Marine One, and then Air Force One, and get him off to some
exotic vacation spot, where he can hang out with his buds on some lush
green golf course.<br /> <br /> The Consummate Narcissist. That's who
America elected -- twice. They still don't understand how they could
have been fooled so badly. But Barack understands. He's like another
handsome black celebrity narcissist of an earlier generation: O.J.
Simpson. Everyone loved The Juice, too, for exactly the same reasons.
Why, the two narcissists are virtually interchangeable.<br /> <br /> In the end, Barack Obama is merely O.J. Simpson, with intellectual pretentions...and without the knife.</span></span>Robert Bidinottohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11777797272563802442noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-78000150514447071782013-11-16T16:13:00.002-05:002013-11-16T16:15:59.621-05:00How "The Wizard of Oz" Refutes the Liberal Narrative<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-29enKz_ttG4/UoffnRdz3WI/AAAAAAAAASc/02jaZqYGvmc/s1600/Wizard+of+Oz.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="230" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-29enKz_ttG4/UoffnRdz3WI/AAAAAAAAASc/02jaZqYGvmc/s320/Wizard+of+Oz.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<span class="userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}">I have been pondering
for several months how this classic childhood film presents a remarkable
metaphor for the failure of the liberal/progressive/statist view of
government. Consider the plot:<br /> <br /> A group of humble individuals finds their lives
disrupted by frightening events beyond their control. Their entire world
is literally turned upside-down, and they find themselves in s<span class="text_exposed_show">trange,
scary new circumstances. Now, they fear they are out of control of
their lives, and they are terribly anxious about their future.<br /> <br />
One victim of the disaster seeks a return to her normal world. Another
believes he hasn't the courage to meet the fearful challenges ahead. A
third fears he lacks compassion and dedication. Yet another wonders
whether he has the brains to survive on his own.<br /> <br /> From a bunch
of "little people," they are told about a wondrous far-off city, where a
great and powerful wizard will provide them everything they seek and
need -- merely by magical decree. Desperate, they embark upon a difficult
pilgrimage to that city of power and favors, which is topped by a
towering monument. There, acting like craven beggars, they visit and
supplicate themselves before the all-powerful wizard, pleading for his
aid. And he promises to fulfill their heart's desires. <br /> <br /> But
there is a catch. The supplicants are told that first they must pay a
price for his help: They must agree to go out and do the wizard's
bidding, undergoing a host of ordeals on his behalf. The price of his help is servility. Intimidated, they
agree to do so. They perform the tasks he has ordered, suffering terribly, but mastering every challenge along the way. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="text_exposed_show">At last, they return in triumph and insist that the wizard keep <i>his</i> end of
the bargain. But he balks and refuses, accusing them of insolence and improper
deference to one of his exalted station.<br /> <br /> Suddenly, an innocent young
pup pulls back the curtain. The Great and Powerful Wizard is revealed to
be nothing more than a pathetic old con man: an incompetent fake, who
had achieved his power and status over the little people only through his
ability to spin glowing Narratives that promised them whatever they
wanted . . . and told them whatever they wanted to hear.<br /> <br /> In the end, the adventurers come
to a shocking realization. Each discovers that, all along, he or she
already possessed all the brains, heart, and courage to live happy
lives, to produce whatever they needed, and to accomplish great things.
They learn that, all along, they could have stood self-reliantly on their own, solving their individual problems creatively and
productively, without paying endless tribute to, or accepting endless
abuse from, any fraudulent, conniving, self-appointed "wizards" living
parasitical lives of luxury in some distant center of power . . . .<br /> <br /> </span></span><br />
<span class="userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="text_exposed_show"><i>All right, folks: </i>Having now revealed "The Wizard of Oz" as a highly subversive Narrative
of individualism, one that brilliantly mocks and fatally skewers the "progressive" Narrative, I
wonder how long it will be before the Regime tries to ban it?</span></span>Robert Bidinottohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11777797272563802442noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-85036781613661584382013-10-16T15:40:00.001-04:002014-12-15T14:00:30.265-05:00The Republican Crack-Up -- and the Path Forward<span class="userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><i>It is all transpiring as I have foreseen.</i></span><br />
<br />
<span class="userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}">Not only has the Republican
leadership in both houses of Congress completely capitulated to the
Democrats, on every point, in crafting the October 2013 "budget agreement" (i.e., signing
terms of unilateral Republican surrender); in doing so, the GOP also has signaled
that it will not even try to exercise any of its lawful leverage to
oppose <i>any </i>Democratic initiative in the future. On any<span class="text_exposed_show">
such occasion, both sides now know that the Democrats inevitably will
engineer some new "crisis"; that they and their media lapdogs will blame
it on the Republicans; and that the Republicans -- terrified about
being unpopular -- will cave.<br /> <br /> Thus, what I years ago labeled the
policy of "anticipatory capitulation" is now rooted in the Republican
DNA. Looking down the road, they will notice and anticipate any
potential confrontation in which they will be subjected to
criticism . . . and terrified over that prospect, they will surrender
preemptively. They already are doing this on the immigration issue, for example:
working feverishly behind the scenes to engineer legislation that
essentially anticipates and preemptively ratifies everything that the
Democrats have ever dreamed of enacting (in other words, a new "Dream
Act").<br /> <br />Conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh say they are "mystified" (his word) by how and why the GOP could so completely
implode as any kind of alternative (let alone "opposition party") to the
Democrats. Readers here know my answer: <br /> <br /> <i>He who shapes the Narrative, wins. </i><br /> <br />
The Democrats have a Narrative. It is built on a primitive
philosophical view of social relationships: a world of zero-sum
tribalism, where all wealth is "social" and fixed in quantity; where it
is not the product of individuals (<i>"You didn't build that!"</i>), but of the tribe, and thus tribally
owned; where anyone's gain therefore comes only at the expense of
someone else's loss; and thus where a benevolent Ruling Class elite must
decide "fair" distributions of tribal wealth among all the tribal
members. This atavistic worldview goes back to the dark days when people
lived in caves; ironically, today it is labeled "progressive."<br /> <br />
<a href="http://bidinotto.blogspot.com/2012/10/election-2012-and-clash-of-narratives.html" target="_blank">The Republicans, by contrast, have no Narrative</a>. That's because they
long ago abandoned the only plausible philosophical basis for a
<i>counter</i>-Narrative to that of the Democrats: a worldview of creative,
self-responsible individualism. In that worldview, human productivity
means that wealth is not limited or fixed in quantity; it is produced by
and therefore the property of individuals, not the tribe; social
relationships therefore are not a zero-sum proposition, where some
people gain at the expense of others: instead, they are "win-win,"
because productive people <i>trade </i>rather than <i>take; </i>and finally, no Ruling
Class elite is wanted or needed, because it is both parasitical and
dictatorial. <br /> <br /> This modern, individualist worldview arose from
the Enlightenment Era, and it represented a revolutionary advance over
primitive tribalism. It is the worldview upon which Republicans <i>could </i>have fashioned a host of coherent, compelling, inspiring narratives. But
it is a worldview that the party's liberal RINOs reject on principle, and that
its Establishment pragmatists never understood.<br /> <br /> The <i>only </i>serious
repository for this individualist worldview in contemporary politics
lies in one wing of the Republican Party: a loose, informal coalition of
those labeled "constitutional conservatives," "libertarian populists,"
and "Tea Partiers." In the Senate, this wing comprises only a minority
of the Republican caucus, which is still dominated by liberal RINOs
(think John McCain) and pragmatic Establishment careerists (think Mitch
McConnell). In the House, the conservative/libertarian/Tea Party wing
actually constitutes a majority of the Republican caucus. However, among
<i>all </i>House members, they constitute a numerical minority. That's because
there are just enough turncoat RINOs and Establishment types (including
Boehner and the leadership) to give Nancy Pelosi and the House
Democrats a <i>de facto</i> voting majority on serious issues. <br /> <br /> <i>That </i>explains what is happening today (October 16, 2013) in the pivotal congressional budget
vote, which ratifies not just everything that the Democrats wanted, but
even ObamaCare funding. <br /> <br /> First, in the Senate, Mitch McConnell
and the Republican leadership "negotiated" terms of total and
unconditional surrender to Harry Reid and the Democrats, rolling over
the GOP "Tea Party" minority led by Ted Cruz and Mike Lee. Then, in the
House, the Republican Establishment leader, John Boehner, agreed to let
the Senate bill come to the floor for a straight vote (one he could have
blocked procedurally). Even though the majority of House Republicans, who are
principled Tea Partiers and constitutional conservatives, remain utterly
opposed to this bill and will vote a resounding <i>no, </i>there are just enough RINOs and
Establishment "moderates" who will join Pelosi and the Dems to pass the
bill there, too.<br /> <br /> And so, the Republican leadership in both
houses has set in cement the existing membership roles within the
Bipartisan Ruling Class: The collectivist Democrats will remain in
charge, setting the progressive agenda as the Evil Party, while the careerist
Republicans will act reliably as their passive rubber stamp, ratifying the progressive agenda as the Enabler Party.<br /> <br /> Where does this leave things?
<br /><br /> Right now, there is a concerted <i>bipartisan</i> effort to use Saul Alinsky tactics to
destroy what I'll call the "Principled Individualist Wing" of the
Republican Party: the constitutional conservatives, libertarian
populists, and Tea Partiers. The Democratic left <i>and </i>the GOP's
RINO/Establishment types will try to isolate, freeze, personalize, and
demonize this Principled Individualist Wing -- starting, of course, with
Ted Cruz, the individual they most fear, and therefore <i>must </i>destroy.
It's already begun, but watch this effort ramp up in coming months.<br /> <br /> My recommendations now? <br /> <br />
<i>First, all-out war within the GOP against the RINOs and the Establishment</i>.
After all, that war has already been declared <i>against </i>Principled
Individualists by the RINOs; so there is no point in pretending that the
two factions can ever peacefully co-exist within the same party. They
disagree in principle; no compromise of principles is logically
possible. One or the other faction must go.<br /> <br /> In the House, the
Principled Individualist Wing has already achieved a numerical advantage
within the GOP caucus. But they have not yet moved to seize the reins
of party leadership there. Until they do, they should realize that when
push comes to shove, Boehner/Cantor/McCarthy will <i>always </i>cave and sell
them out at the last minute, as they did today, by letting the Senate
budget bill come to the floor. That was a key decision; Boehner had the power to reject it; but the leadership team caved. In doing so, they
proved, once and for all, that they ultimately are craven careerists,
not principled leaders; that they are resigned to being <i>de facto</i>
enablers of the Democrats; and that they are laughable as articulate
advocates of any alternative Narrative.<br /> <br /> In the Senate, the
Principled Individualist Wing is a smaller but growing minority. Within
the past two years they have established a strong beachhead within that
body. Their members, though few, are young, superlatively articulate,
and utterly intransigent -- in contrast to the old, mealy-mouthed,
weak-kneed Establishment dinosaurs, who won't be around much longer. The
goal here must be to hasten their departure, to knock off the worst of
the Establishment and RINO population and replace them during upcoming
primaries so as to achieve Individualist dominance within the Senate GOP
caucus.<br /> <br /> <i>As that happens, the most important thing that must
occur within the Republican Party is that its Principled Individualists
learn how to craft NARRATIVES</i>. First, <a href="http://bidinotto.blogspot.com/2012/10/election-2012-and-clash-of-narratives.html" target="_blank">an overarching individualist "meta-Narrative,</a>" telling the compelling, inspiring, positive vision of
individual productive achievement and personal fulfillment under
liberty. Second, drawing upon that meta-Narrative, specific "narratives"
for specific issues and circumstances. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="text_exposed_show">Principled Individualists must
stop communicating to the public at large in terms of wonkish
abstractions and eye-glazing political-economic jargon. Instead, they
must <i>personalize and dramatize the issues, </i>using the stories of real
people who are either examples of heroic individualism, or victims of
progressive oppression.<br /> <br /> At a time when millions and millions of
Americans are being individually victimized by leftist policies, who is
telling their stories? Where are their champions? Why aren't they
brought to appear, one after the other, before the cameras at
congressional hearings? Why don't Principled Individualist politicians
stand beside them at rallies, create photo-ops with them before local
media, tell their stories again and again in their speeches? Where are
the victims of ObamaCare, for example? Why do GOP congressmen ever
bother to show up at a news conference without a host of them serving as
their backdrop -- without telling their stories, or, better yet,
letting them tell their own?<br /> <br /> For many decades, the Democrats
have become masters of the technique of turning victimization into
political theater, in order to win public emotional sympathy. They have
exploited such emotional sympathy to steamroller over every logical,
theoretical, and empirical argument . . . they have <i>none </i>of the
latter on their side. By contrast, while having all of those latter
things on their side, why don't Principled Individualists use them as
the basis for <i>compelling, dramatic, sympathetic narratives? </i>If they did
that, then their arguments -- both logical <i>and </i>emotional --
would gain the force of a tidal wave . . . as Ronald Reagan knew and
demonstrated.<br /> <br /> This, I believe, is the path forward for
Principled Individualists, whether within the Republican Party or out
here in Flyover Country. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="text_exposed_show">Regarding the latter: I counsel you not to wait
for some Man on a White Horse to ride into Washington as your champion.
<i>You </i>have the power and intelligence to tell persuasive personal
stories, drawing upon and applying to your own lives, families, friends,
and circumstances. <i>You</i> can tell personal stories that embody and
romanticize the aspirational elements of the American dream -- and that
also dramatize and demonstrate the personal costs, tragedies, and
victimizations generated by progressive statism.<br /> <br /> If each of us
does that, in his or her own life, then sad days like today in
Washington will soon become fewer and less dispiriting. And eventually,
we will be able to wake up each morning actually looking forward to
watching a TV news program.<br /> <br /> Take heart. We're only just beginning.</span></span>Robert Bidinottohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11777797272563802442noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-6056753482656707162013-07-17T00:32:00.000-04:002013-07-17T02:27:24.647-04:00Obama, Holder, and the New McCarthyism<br />
<br />
In the wake of George Zimmerman's acquittal of the murder of Trayvon Martin, the Attorney General of the United States, through his underlings at the Department of "Justice," is <a href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/os-george-zimmerman-doj-investigation,0,4338518.story" target="_blank"><b>appealing to the general public to supply the federal government with "tips," i.e., <i>dirt</i>,<i> </i>on a private citizen</b></a>--and is now enlisting private political gangs to help them in this witch hunt:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Barbara Arnwine, president and executive director the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law – who earlier in the day joined calls for federal civil rights charges against Zimmerman, said that later in the afternoon, she joined a U.S. Department of Justice conference call to discuss the prospects.<br />
<br />
“They were calling on us to actively refer anyone who had any information," that might build a case against Zimmerman for either a civil rights violation or a hate crime, Arnwine said. "They said they would very aggressively investigate this case."<br />
<br />
Arnwine said the call was convened at about 3:30 p.m. by Tom Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice, and included representatives from the FBI, and several federal prosecutors, she said. DOJ officials also said they would open a public email address so people could send in tips on the case....[<i>I refuse to publish that email address here</i>.]<br />
<br />
In addition to Arnwine’s group, Sherrilyn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund; Laura Murphy, Washington Chapter head of the ACLU; and several national, Florida and Sanford-based 'human relations' groups participated, Arnwine said.</blockquote>
<br />
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the last straw.<br />
<br />
America is a nation where every individual is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, under the rule of law. For purely political reasons, George Zimmerman was dragged into court on flimsy evidence, but then <i>acquitted</i> by a jury <i>of any crime.</i><br />
<br />
But that is not enough for the gangsters of this regime. They won't let a little thing like the verdict of a jury be the last word.<br />
<br />
So the highest law enforcement official of the United States, acting at the behest of his boss in the Oval Office, is now leading a full-blown witch hunt about the private life and views of an individual citizen--and enlisting a gang of private political cronies and allies to assist them, in order to railroad that same individual behind bars for the "crime" of--are you ready?--"<i>hate.</i>"<br />
<br />
Let's get this straight. Hatred is an attitude...a frame of mind...an emotion based on certain <i>ideas</i>. Hate may or may not be justified, depending on the circumstances. A victim of a heinous crime or a despotic regime, for example, may be fully justified for feeling hatred. It would be a just, though certainly not pleasant, emotional response to mistreatment.<br />
<br />
But to convict a person of "hate crimes" is a variation of George Orwell's totalitarian concept in <i>1984</i> of <i>thought crimes: </i>of punishing an individual, not for criminal <i>actions</i>, but for merely holding <i>ideas and emotions </i>that are offensive to the political regime in power. <br />
<br />
In short, the Attorney General and his boss have just declared open war on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as well as on the privacy protections afforded by the Fifth Amendment. Moreover, they are encouraging a <i>witch hunt </i>by private citizens against a fellow private citizen: encouraging people to go spying and reporting to the government about a political target.<br />
<br />
Before anyone replies that a "hate crime" must also be an actual <i>crime</i>, and that the "hate" is only its motive, let me point out that in Zimmerman's case, he was <i>exonerated </i>of any underlying crime which could be motivated by "hate," or by anything else. Thus, persecuting Zimmerman for an alleged "hate crime," when no crime exists, can only mean that he is being targeted for his presumed <i>motive alone. </i>In other words, for a "Thought Crime," <i>a la </i>Orwell's <i>1984.</i> <br />
<br />
Please forget the name George Zimmerman for a moment, and whatever your opinion of the man may be. Consider only the principles at stake. To do that, put <i>yourself </i>in the shoes of such a targeted individual.<br />
<br />
How would <i>you </i>feel if you became the target of the enormously powerful federal government, which insisted on continuing to persecute you for something, <i>anything</i>, such as your <i>thoughts and emotions, </i>even after you were <i>exonerated in a court of law </i>of the alleged crimes?<br />
<br />
How would <i>you </i>feel if hundreds of armed apparatchiks from the FBI and other police agencies were dispatched <i>after </i>the trial to continue to hound you, under orders of the chief law officer of the land? <br />
<br />
How would <i>you </i>feel if he, acting under orders of his boss in the White House, dispatched investigators around your neighborhood, digging into your past, perhaps looking into your emails and social media (there <i>are </i>precedents), soliciting any idle rumors and unprovable claims about <i>your attitudes, ideas, and temperament </i>from everyone you know now or had ever known; from old lovers or spouses who might bear some grudge against you; from any past employer you ever argued with or who may have fired you; from any casual acquaintance who might want his 15 minutes of celebrity fame on an MSNBC show hosted by the likes of Al Sharpton, or perhaps in exchange for the promise of some government reward...at your expense?<br />
<br />
My friends, this is goon squad stuff, right out of the playbooks of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, and North Korea. In a nation supposed to be distinguished from such dictatorships by our Bill of Rights, the contemptible Obama Regime is establishing the horrifying precedent of targeting enemies, then soliciting neighbors to <i>spy </i>and <i>report </i>on them.<br />
<br />
And this sickening witch hunt is being led by the same "liberals" who endlessly, self-righteously preach against the dangers of "McCarthyism." Perhaps the most grotesque symbol of hypocrisy is the fact that one of the groups participating in this witch hunt is the Washington chapter of the ACLU--the self-proclaimed "liberal" champion of the Bill of Rights.<br />
<br />
I have said that there is no bottom to the depths to which this power-lusting group of sanctimonious gangsters won't sink. Every day they prove me right by descending to yet a lower rung. But <i>this </i>is the lowest yet...and the most dangerous. <br />
<br />
The Obama Regime is loaded with nothing but wannabe despots, starting right at the top. We have already seen how far these people are willing to go, with the scandals of the IRS, EPA, SEC, NSA, and many other agencies. They have zero respect for the rule of law and contempt for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which they regard rightly as impediments to their quest for boundless, unending power over the rest of us.<br />
<br />
If we continue to perpetuate them in office after the next election, we as a nation deserve the complete destruction and chaos toward which we are rapidly sinking.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, though, we need to SPEAK UP against this outrageous new step toward totalitarianism. Please link to this message on your social media, and to the <a href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/os-george-zimmerman-doj-investigation,0,4338518.story" target="_blank"><b><i>Orlando Sentinel</i> report</b></a><b>.</b> This ugly precedent <i>must </i>be stopped dead in its tracks, now...or you and I will not recognize this nation in another year.Robert Bidinottohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11777797272563802442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-56798151692547619082013-06-08T11:35:00.001-04:002013-06-08T11:35:32.239-04:00So, You Wanted Your Government to Become Santa Claus?<span class="userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}">In view of the shocking, scary revelations about invasions of privacy and abuses of power by the IRS, NSA, FBI, EPA, Department of Justice, and other government agencies: It occurs to me that this is exactly what people get when they want
government to become Santa Claus: <br /><br />"He sees you when you're
sleeping. </span><br />
<span class="userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}">"He knows when you're awake. </span><br />
<span class="userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}">"He knows if you've been bad or
good, </span><br />
<span class="userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}">"So be good for goodness sake. </span><br />
<span class="userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}">"You better watch out..." <br /> <br />Moral:</span><br />
<br />
<span class="userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}">Be careful what you wish for, people.</span>Robert Bidinottohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11777797272563802442noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-27809496279106462502013-05-09T13:07:00.000-04:002013-05-09T13:20:37.102-04:00Federal Snoopervisers on My Doorstep<br />
<span class="userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The U.S. Census Bureau -- in the person
of Virginia, a mild-mannered lady with an official government I.D.
hanging around her neck -- showed up on my doorstep yesterday. Lucky me:
I have been statistically selected to "participate" in an "interview"
known as the American Community Survey.<br /> <br /> "There is a great need for information about the types of homes in whic</span></span><span class="text_exposed_show"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">h
people live and the characteristics of these homes," says the postcard
that Virginia left with me. The interrogation...oops, "survey"...will eat
up about 45 minutes of my ever-diminishing time on this planet, and I
will be "asked" all sorts of questions about my house, my sources of
income, where I shop, what I buy...you know, all the sorts of intrusive details
that the Founding Fathers surely intended when, in the Constitution,
they provided merely for "an enumeration" of the population every ten years.<br /> <br />
"Your community is counting on you!" the postcard blares on its front,
stamped in big black letters over a photo of the kind of house that
Beaver Cleaver lived in during the 1950s. And just in case I disappoint
the expectations of My Community, there's a little detail that the
postcard doesn't state: I can be fined $5,000 for refusing to spill my
guts to Virginia about all the personal aspects of my life and finances.<br /> <br /> So, who wants all this info, and for what?<br /> <br />
Well, the federales surely do: It provides statistical ammo for those
"progressives" always looking for rationalizations to expand
governmental programs and spending that are already wildly out of
control. "The government makes investments and allocates tax dollars
with guidance from a survey that costs $225 million this year, with the
resulting shaping choices and projections made by the Energy Department,
the Environmental Protection Agency, and Transportation Department
among others," reports <i><a href="http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/05/08/Why-the-Census-Bureau-Wants-to-Invade-Your-Privacy.aspx#page1" target="_blank">The Fiscal Times</a></i>. That's why (according to a
publication called <i><a href="http://www.govexec.com/oversight/2013/05/lawmaker-renews-gop-bid-defund-key-census-survey/63053/?oref=river" target="_blank">Government Executive</a></i>) "the liberal-leaning Center
for American Progress" and "the Census Project, a coalition of 600
associations, think tanks, academics, local officials and civil rights
groups" is fighting congressional efforts to restrict the Census to the
"enumeration" intended by the Framers.<br /> <br /> Also, private businesses
mine the Census for free economic and demographic data that they
otherwise might have to pay for by conducting surveys of <i>voluntary </i>
participants. That's why such crony-corporatist outfits as "The U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, the National Retail Federation, and the Mortgage
Bankers Association have previously lobbied to protect the ACS,"
according to <i>The Fiscal Times,</i> "saying it’s vital for shaping business
investment. As an example, the ACS contains 24 questions about housing.
This includes the age of your home, its plumbing, its insurance costs,
and the type of heating fuel used. For bankers and economists trying to
evaluate the state of the real estate sector after the 2008 bust, it’s
essential information."<br /> <br /> How nice for them to get all that, by
ordering me by law to be interrogated for 45 minutes under the threat of
a $5,000 fine -- and, I assume, incarceration should I refuse to pay
the fine.<br /> <br /> Virginia is supposed to call me at 5:30 pm today. I
will tell her, politely, to tell her bosses that Mr. Bidinotto refuses
to participate other than affirming the number and identity of the
people in his home; and that he looks forward to the opportunity to
write high-profile articles about all of this, naming names, should the
Census Bureau decide to prosecute him for non-compliance.<br /> <br /> Oh, and have a nice day.<br /> </span></span><br /> <a href="http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/05/08/Why-the-Census-Bureau-Wants-to-Invade-Your-Privacy.aspx#page1" rel="nofollow nofollow" target="_blank"></a></span></span>Robert Bidinottohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11777797272563802442noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-90188989008037284922013-04-08T19:47:00.002-04:002013-05-09T13:21:34.162-04:00Margaret Thatcher, R.I.P.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LOYByIf3tgU/UWNWxXVG3lI/AAAAAAAAAQM/yqgxX9lj27c/s1600/Margaret+Thatcher.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LOYByIf3tgU/UWNWxXVG3lI/AAAAAAAAAQM/yqgxX9lj27c/s320/Margaret+Thatcher.jpg" width="240" /> </a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
I've been watching the news coverage about the life and legacy of the late Baroness Margaret Thatcher. And I am struck by how applicable her example is to our own situation here in the United States.<br />
<br />
When she launched her political crusade, entrenched all-out socialism permeated and gripped every part of Great Britain's economy and political life. Unapologetic communists ran the trade unions, which held a stranglehold on many industries. The economy languished in deep recession. The public was demoralized, adjusted to the "new normal" of British decline. When she spoke, her message was reviled and ridiculed by <i>all </i>of her nation's "intellectuals," culturati, and media -- a hatred that was echoed here, across the Pond. And her own party was run by people who would make John McCain sound like Ludwig von Mises (look him up). She had no firm allies, no base of support.<br />
<br />
But this one woman, the daughter of a grocer, armed with nothing but superb intelligence, a thorough grasp of free-market economics, and an unyielding commitment to moral principle, stood up courageously against them all...and she won. Not only did she eventually beat all of her opponents, including treacherous "allies" in her own party, but she turned around the entire British economy, government, and -- most importantly -- its Narrative about itself and its place in the world.<br />
<br />
One woman. The Iron Lady. An instructive example of the power of a principled individual against the mindless mob.<br />
<br />
If a single Republican politician grasped the message of her life, I have no doubt that he or she could turn our own nation's wretched course 180 degrees. For here, we have a legacy of individualism unknown to Europe.<br />
<br />
Our "progressive" left, of course, <i>wants</i> to convince us that its ascendancy is inevitable. They want to paralyze all opposition, leaving us in despair and defeatism, to pave the way for their complete takeover of our lives. In fact, they believe this fantasy. Committed determinists, Marxists smugly declared that communism was "the wave of the future"...<br />
<br />
...until the wave turned, and swept them away. The left would not grasp, still refuse to grasp, that "waves" of history are set in motion by the undeniable force of pivotal individuals unwilling to bend to the tides of stupidity.<br />
<br />
Will we find our own Thatcher in coming years? Will a Marco Rubio, or Rand Paul, or some figure yet unknown step up to fill the moral vacuum of our age, and lead a rebirth of liberty?<br />
<br />
I do not know. All I do know is that Margaret Thatcher showed how much is possible. <br />
<br />
Now, we shall discover whether America still has men who can match this brave, towering woman in intelligence and unbending conviction.Robert Bidinottohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11777797272563802442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-43366547832075432402013-03-09T12:52:00.000-05:002013-03-09T12:52:29.362-05:00An "Endangered Species Act" for Ex-Cons?<span class="userContent">The
federal Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EOEC) has made it a
federal crime for an employer to "discriminate" against hiring certain "protected" classes of convicted ex-felons, unless the employer jumps through all sorts <span class="text_exposed_show">of
hoops of justification.<br /><br />In fact, it is
<i>easier</i> for the employer to refuse to hire an ex-con who happens to be <i>white</i>; however, he has to leap ever-higher legal hurdles of
justification if the convicted former felon happens to be a member of a "protected" minority.<br /> <br /> Folks, I am not making this up. Eminent legal scholar Richard Epstein offers <b><a href="http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/141706" target="_blank">this long article</a></b> about this particular symptom of "progressive" insanity.
Writes Epstein: </span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show">With the [EOEC's] Enforcement Guidance [document], all
private employers and all state employers must use detailed and
particularized inquiries before turning down a minority applicant who
has a criminal arrest or conviction on his record, even though employers
can turn down a white applicant with the same past record without going
through such hoops.</span></span><br />
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show"></span></span></blockquote>
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show">You can read that EOEC <b><a href="http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/arrest_conviction.cfm#IIIB" target="_blank">"Enforcement Guidance" document</a></b> for yourself. Here is an excerpt from Section V (my translation of bureaucratese is in brackets): </span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show">
A covered employer is liable for violating Title VII [of the 1964
Civil Rights Act] when the plaintiff [i.e., the ex-con seeking a job]
demonstrates that the employer’s neutral [that means NON-discriminatory]
policy or practice [of hiring] has the effect of disproportionately
screening out a Title VII-protected group [i.e, someone regarded as
"protected" due to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin] and
the employer fails to demonstrate that the policy or practice is job
related for the position in question and consistent with business
necessity.</span></span></blockquote>
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show"> Translation: Even an employer who has a perfectly <i>non-discriminatory</i> policy and record regarding hiring minorities, but
who refuses to hire some convicted ex-felon who just happens to be a member
of one of the "protected minorities," may still be <i>breaking the law</i>...unless
he first somehow manages to prove that even his <i>neutral policy</i> of refusing to hire
ex-cons is <i>required </i>"for the position in question and consistent with
business necessity."<br /> <br /> Got that? The businessman is "guilty until
proven innocent" for refusing to hire some guy who may have been
convicted for robbery or violence...simply because the businessman
hasn't <i>proved </i>that his policy against hiring thugs is "job-related."<br /> <br /> But wait...it gets even worse.
Section V continues: </span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show">With respect to criminal records, there is Title
VII disparate impact liability where the evidence shows that a covered
employer’s criminal record screening policy or practice <i>disproportionately </i> screens out a Title VII-protected group and the
employer does not demonstrate that the policy or practice is job related
for the positions in question and consistent with business necessity.
[my emphasis]</span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show"> </span></span></blockquote>
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show"> What does the EOEC mean by
"disproportionately screens out a Title VII-protected group"? The
document goes on, in Section V. A. 2, to grouse that "Nationally,
African Americans and Hispanics are arrested in numbers disproportionate
to their representation in the general population." That, you see, is
<i>prima facie</i> evidence of how "unfair" things are in Racist America, folks. Never mind that members of these
minority groups also are "disproportionately" responsible for <i>committing far more crimes per capita </i>than Caucasians do...which of course happens to explain their higher
arrest and incarceration rates.<br /> <br /> No, the "disproportionate"
number of minorities behind bars is simply assumed to be unfair, per se.
From the mere fact of these incarceration statistics, the EOEC's conclusion must be read slowly, to be understood and believed: </span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show">National data, such as that cited above, supports <i>a finding that
criminal record exclusions [from hiring] have a disparate impact based
on race and national origin</i>. The national data provides a basis for the
Commission to further investigate such Title VII disparate impact
charges. During an EEOC investigation, the employer also has an
opportunity to show, with relevant evidence, that its employment policy
or practice does not cause a disparate impact on the protected group(s).
For example, an employer may present regional or local data showing
that African American and/or Hispanic men are not arrested or convicted
at disproportionately higher rates in the employer’s particular
geographic area. An employer also may use its own applicant data to
demonstrate that its policy or practice did not cause a disparate
impact.</span></span> [emphasis added]</blockquote>
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show"> What does this mean in practice? Take this example: <br /><br />A local restaurant owner refuses to
hire some Mexican gang member who's just been released from the slammer.
The ex-con, because he is Hispanic, and thus a member of a "protected
minority," files a complaint with the federal EOEC. The EOEC then
investigates, looking for a "disparate impact" against minorities. The
hapless small businessman may already have a number of other minority employees --
obvious evidence that he doesn't discriminate based on race or ethnicity. But that is not
enough. Now he is <i>also </i>supposed to prove that his "practice does not
cause a disparate impact on the protected group" -- Hispanics -- by
somehow digging up "regional or local data showing that...Hispanic men are
not arrested or convicted at disproportionately higher rates in the
employer's particiular geographic area."<br /> <br />Leaving aside the outrageous reversal of the legal burden of proof -- leaving aside, too, the enormous cost to this small businessmen of hiring attorneys and jumping through all these egregious legal hoops -- who will subsequently bear liability for a massive lawsuit if he hires this former felon, and the thug then goes on to rape a fellow employee or swindle his
clients?<br /> <br /> Richard Epstein's excellent piece offers a detailed
legal analysis of this ideologically driven absurdity, which can allow
thugs to be hired as security guards and thieves as bank tellers...if
they're demographically lucky enough to fall under the protections
of this twisted, "progressive," racial/ethnic variation of the Endangered Species Act.</span></span>Robert Bidinottohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11777797272563802442noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-48875127767954241032013-02-19T21:04:00.001-05:002013-02-19T22:30:50.913-05:00A Manifesto for "Coercive Paternalism"<span class="userContent">"You're too stupid to know what's best for you. I'm from the government; I know better; and I'm here to straighten
you out...for your own good."<br /> <br /> Insulting, eh? The essence of everything we, as Americans hate, right?<br /> <br /> Well, comes no<span class="text_exposed_show">w a $95 tome titled--are you ready?--<i><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Against-Autonomy-Justifying-Coercive-Paternalism/dp/1107024846" target="_blank">Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism</a></b>. </i> </span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show">No, I am not making this up. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Against-Autonomy-Justifying-Coercive-Paternalism/dp/1107024846" rel="nofollow nofollow" target="_blank"></a> <br /> <br />The book's product description on Amazon notes that, in America,</span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show">to respect
autonomy is often understood to be the chief way to bear witness to the
intrinsic value of persons. In this book, Sarah Conly rejects the idea
of autonomy as inviolable.... Thus in many cases it would advance our
[<i>"our"?</i>] goals more effectively if government were to prevent us [<i>"us"?</i>]
from acting in accordance with our [<i>"our"?</i>] decisions. Her argument
challenges widely held views of moral agency, democratic values and the
public/private distinction.</span></span></blockquote>
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show">Quoth the author from her own <a href="http://www.bowdoin.edu/faculty/s/sconly/" target="_blank">faculty page listing</a>: </span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show">I argue that
autonomy, or the freedom to act in accordance with your [<i>"your"?</i>] own
decisions, is overrated—that the common high evaluation of the
importance of autonomy is based on a belief that we [<i>including her?</i>] are
much more rational than we actually are. We now have lots of evidence
from psychology and behavioral economics that we [<i>her too?</i>] are often
very bad at choosing effective means to our ends. In such cases, we
[<i>her too?</i>] need the help of others—and in particular, of government
regulation—to keep us [<i>ditto</i>] from going wrong.</span></span><br />
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show"></span></span></blockquote>
<br />
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show">This apology
for naked totalitarianism was written by one Sarah Conly, an
assistant professor of (what else?) philosophy at Bowdoin College--at least nominally an American institution of Higher Learning. A wet
dream for dictatorially minded "progressives," her book naturally earned the
honor of publication by the Cambridge University Press, and spotlight
review treatment in the <a href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/mar/07/its-your-own-good/?pagination=false" target="_blank"><i>New York Review of Books</i></a>--the reviewer being
none other than Cass Sunstein, Barack Obama's very own former
Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs.<br /> <br /> Prof. Sunstein, it should be noted, is author of his
own nanny-state tribute to technocratic governmental manipulation of the citizenry: <i>NUDGE: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness</i>. Sayeth
Sunstein, on his own book's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/014311526X?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=014311526X&linkCode=xm2&tag=althouse-20" target="_blank">Amazon product page</a>: "We think
that it's time for institutions, including government, to become much
more user-friendly by enlisting the science of choice to make life
easier for people and by gentling nudging them in directions that will
make their lives better." </span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show">Why, how kind and thoughtful of him! <br /> <br />
Of course, those writing and enforcing government regulations (and
books like these) are NEVER part of the "we" who are irrational, the
"we" who are making so many "wrong" choices. Oh no: The progressive
nanny statists are always the epitome of uber-rationality, higher
education, dazzling expertise, superior taste, and sound judgment in all
things. Yes, what a wonderful utopia we would inhabit...if only us
rubes would surrender to them our damned <i>autonomy</i>. Who needs that Bill
of Rights with such technocrats to (their words) "coerce" and "nudge"
us?<br /> <br /> <a href="http://bidinotto.blogspot.com/2012/03/meditation-on-progressive-narrative.html" target="_blank">When I say</a> that the ultimate objective of
"progressives" is to impose totalitarian control over every aspect of
our lives--that they are motivated by an unquenchable lust for
unlimited power--some of you undoubtedly think I'm wildly exaggerating. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show">But
how, then, to deny their own words, as they spell it out so clearly and
ominously?<br /> <br />
(A hat tip to my friend Bob Hessen for calling my attention to this, and
you also might give Ann Althouse's <a href="http://althouse.blogspot.com/2013/02/cass-sunstein-reviews-against-autonomy.html" target="_blank">brief blog about it</a> a look.)</span></span>Robert Bidinottohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11777797272563802442noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-64367571440015282252013-01-26T21:15:00.000-05:002013-01-26T23:05:43.096-05:00Book Review: THE STORYTELLING ANIMAL<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">As both a nonfiction author and a bestselling novelist, I've pondered certain puzzles for decades.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Why
do people find certain ideologies and philosophies appealing, but not
others? Why do we so often hold to our points of view dogmatically,
intractable to all facts, reason, and logic? What is the source of
dreams? Why do certain common myths seem to be indelible and universal,
across cultures and throughout history? Why does music conjure in us
mental imagery? What is the key to the kind of motivational commitment
that impels some people to face and triumph over incredible odds and
obstacles? Why do we find certain people, at first glance,
overpoweringly attractive, and others repulsive? Why do we love some
books and movies, and hate others?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">These and many other mysteries
of the human mind and personality are central to the concerns of the
artist, psychologist, historian, or person plying any field of
communication or persuasion. But is there anything that links together
all of these apparently disparate things?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">In his brilliant and engrossing <i><a data-mce-href="http://amzn.to/10LpUVU" href="http://amzn.to/10LpUVU" target="_blank" title="The Storytelling Animal"><b>The Storytelling Animal</b></a>, </i>Jonathan Gottschall reveals the central, essential, and seminal role played by <i>story </i>-- <b><a data-mce-href="http://bidinotto.blogspot.com/2011/04/narratives-that-guide-our-lives.html" href="http://bidinotto.blogspot.com/2011/04/narratives-that-guide-our-lives.html" target="_blank">or "Narrative," as I've called it</a></b>
-- in human thought, action, and culture. Moving with seemingly
effortless creative ease from riveting personal anecdotes to abstract
sociological theories, from baffling historical phenomena to intriguing
psychological experiments, Gottschall offers a key to understanding much
that has baffled man throughout the ages.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">For decades, I had
believed that philosophical ideas and ideologies reigned paramount in
the culture. But over time, events and experience began to collide with
that assumption. I began to wonder, for example, why people holding the
same ideas, nominally, could <i>live </i>so differently -- and why
some philosophies seemed to have more cultural traction and durability
than others. I was introduced to the extraordinary power of stories when
reading the works of mythologist Joseph Campbell. Aspiring to write
fiction, I also became fascinated by how timeless, transcultural myths
found their way into fiction and film. Building upon Campbell, "script
doctor" Christopher Vogler even uses mythological archetypes to help
craft hugely popular movies, and -- in his book <i><b><a data-mce-href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/193290736X/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk" href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/193290736X/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk">The Writers Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers</a></b></i> -- to school authors in the craft of fiction-writing. (Let me add that I employed some of these concepts in writing <i>HUNTER</i>;
the novel's success is at least in part a testament to their validity
and usefulness.) While conducting research on a nonfiction book project
about the roots of the contemporary environmentalist movement, I also
came to realize how certain ancient, mythic storylines served as the
basis for modern ideologies and major religions. (Gottschall himself
demonstrates this latter truth with his sobering account of the career
of Adolph Hitler, who was inspired and guided decisively by the heroic
operatic dramas of composer Richard Wagner.)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><i>The Storytelling Animal</i>
touches upon all of this, and much, much more, drawing the kinds of
interdisciplinary and personal connections that most of us would never
make in a hundred years. Yet even so, I think Gottschall has barely
scratched the surface of the far-flung implications of narratives and
stories in our lives. To take just one example, I believe our current
president has understood intuitively, and for years, the power of
crafting a compelling "personal narrative" in order to launch and propel
his political career to wildly improbable success -- and how he relied
on crafting <a href="http://bidinotto.blogspot.com/2012/10/election-2012-and-clash-of-narratives.html" target="_blank"><b>a similar "morality play" about himself and his opponents in order to win re-election in 2012</b></a>. But that is just one of the important implications to be drawn from this extraordinary work.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Let
me add that Gottschall himself is a wonderful writer and storyteller. A
book that could have been an imposing intellectual chore and bore never
flags for a moment in holding the reader and keeping him turning pages.
So as not to distract or interrupt his own narrative, he sequesters a
formidable array of endnotes and a vast, impressive bibliography
unobtrusively, after the text.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I love books like this -- books
that upend my previous understanding, books that augment my grasp of the
world, books that draw breathtakingly unexpected links among apparently
unrelated things. For all these reasons, I can't recommend <i>The Storytelling Animal </i>strongly enough. A joy to read and ponder, it's the most intellectually fertile nonfiction work I've read in years.</span>Robert Bidinottohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11777797272563802442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-2184027150148642792012-12-15T12:00:00.000-05:002012-12-15T20:20:58.900-05:00Understanding Mass MurderGiven my history of researching and writing about criminals, a friend has asked me to comment about the horrifying mass murder of school children and teachers in Newtown, Connecticut. <br />
<br />
First, it should go without saying that our chief focus and concern here should be for the innocent victims -- the little kids, the adults on the school staff, and their many grieving families. When somebody commits an atrocity like this, it's too easy for him (and it is almost always a "him") to get the lion's share of the attention -- which is one main reason why these creeps do such things. The media always comply with their desire for instant attention-by-atrocity by spending inordinate time on <i>them</i> rather than the many victims, whose names vanish quickly into obscurity. I won't give the dead killer that posthumous satisfaction here. I'm instead filled with sorrow for the families and friends who lost so much yesterday, including the irreplaceable, budding lives that now will never be. And many more than two dozen lives were extinguished yesterday: The lives of many survivors and loved ones will never be the same, and we also can count them as having suffered fatal wounds. I grieve for them all.<br />
<br />
Second, regarding the killer's motive, which my friend asked me to discuss: It's hard to know what the story is here without knowing more about him -- whether he was psychotic (the sort that hears voices in his head), or a psychopath (just a nihilist). Pure psychotics are largely dysfunctional in the world, and incapable of the kind of long-term fantasizing, planning, and secrecy that such a crime usually requires. Whenever we find that a true psychotic is involved in mass killings, he seems to be a paranoid schizophrenic acting more on impulse, using whatever weapons are available and not having thought out things very clearly. But most of the time, these crimes are pre-planned and carefully prepared for -- which indicates the functioning, criminal calculation of a psychopath (aka "sociopath"). Occasionally -- as in the "Dark Knight" killing spree in the Colorado movie theater -- it appears that there's a mixture of mental illness and conscious, nihilistic cunning and calculation involved. I don't know enough in this case to hazard a guess as to what "type" the killer may be.<br />
<br />
Once that can be determined, however, then the next question is what lame "provocation" set off this specific killing spree. There's usually a triggering event: some slight or disappointment or personal disaster that the perp regards as symbolic of his wasted life -- as a symbolic end of the road. If the person is otherwise sane, but nihilistic/psychopathic, he almost <i>always </i>has been nurturing such real or imagined "grievances" for a long time, building them to a slow boil. Sociopaths/psychopaths (and criminals generally) <i>always </i>have some rationalization for what they do. (In the age of terrorism, those rationalizations are often ideological.) They <i>always </i>have shaky self-esteem, coupled with the belief that their lives have been somehow "spoiled," or denied some justice or "entitlement" to the happiness that others enjoy. They <i>always </i>feel envy toward those hated "others" and fantasize about getting revenge, about "getting back" at those responsible for (or who remind them of) their blighted lives. And so in these crimes there is <i>always </i>a scapegoat class of people, who symbolize for the killer why <i>his </i>life has been spoiled, why some grave injustice has been committed against <i>him</i>, and why those "others" deserve "payback."<br />
<br />
You have to understand this to grasp that, for the mass killer, murder is an <i>empowering event</i>. He is playing God with other human lives, and gets a tremendous "rush" of power and control by treating other humans like playthings. A perfect example was the case of Ted Bundy, who was kidnapping, torturing, sexually assaulting, and murdering dozens of young women...while simultaneously working at a suicide-prevention hotline! Nothing for me better symbolized the mass killer's addiction to the feeling of power he gets by controlling the fate of other human lives.<br />
<br />
While both serial killers and mass murderers are motivated by the desire to experience power and control over others, "mass murders" (where a lot of people are killed in one event, or in a "killing spree" over a few days) are somewhat distinct, motivationally, from serial killings (where three or more people are murdered in sequence over a considerably longer period). <br />
<br />
Sociopathic serial killings are usually sexualized crimes of power, control, and sometimes anger and revenge. Their nihilistic perpetrator seeks power and control, or to express anger and the desire for revenge, against a certain "type" of victim, through sexual domination, pain, and humiliation. The victim "type" symbolizes for him something deeply personal, tied emotionally to his own anxieties. The perpetrator, usually feeling that he has a blighted, empty, or inadequate life, feels the thrill of empowerment by these crimes, in which his victims are reduced to the status of toys. The serial killer is not "attention-seeking" in the sense of wanting everyone to know his name, because he doesn't want to get caught, and he takes great pains to avoid apprehension. But he usually <i>loves</i> hearing about his crimes in the media, getting an additional cocky "rush" by putting something over on the police, and perhaps on those around him, who don't know about his grisly secret life. Sometimes serial killings aren't overtly sexualized -- e.g., the "Unibomber," the "DC snipers," hospital nurses who poison patients, etc. But the thrill of "playing God," of exerting ultimate power and control over lives, is a constant motivational theme. And so is their wellspring and source: feelings of living inadequate, flawed lives, alienated from a society where "everybody else" seems happy, wealthy, and content. <br />
<br />
In contrast to serial killings, sociopathic mass-murders are almost always attention-seeking devices -- nihilistic crimes intended "to show THEM" (the scapegoat class, or society at large), to "get back" at the symbolic tormentors. The killer usually <i>wants </i>his name to be broadcast far and wide; he seeks infamy, because he's "making a statement" against the society that (in his fantasy) has irreparably ruined his life. The key word here is "irreparably." Because he thinks he can never find solace and happiness, his killings are usually "suicide missions" planned with military precision; he often dresses up in quasi-military garb for the "mission" and fantasizes himself as being a "soldier" conducting an "operation"; and he usually expects or intends to "go out in a blaze of glory" -- to die during the killing spree, either in a hail of bullets from the cops, or by his own hand.<br />
<br />
Obsessive fantasizing and mental "rehearsal" are two other necessary ingredients to mass murders and serial killings. These types of people live, day and night, in a world of nonstop fantasy: revenge fantasies, sadistic sexual fantasies, fantasies of nihilistic destruction. They "rehearse" their crimes constantly in their heads, long before they actually commit them. They also frequently "rehearse" their crimes in slowly escalating forms. Serial killers often begin with sadistic porn, graduate to being "peeping Toms" and stalkers, then perhaps burglars -- invading private homes where their targets live, and stealing and collecting intimately personal "trophies," such as underwear. As they start to act out their fantasies, they carefully prepare "kits" with abduction items and various sadistic tools or sexual toys. Similarly, mass murderers often stockpile weapons and military "camo" garb, conduct "advance recon" on target sites, carefully plan their "missions," and practice shooting at firing ranges or on video games while imagining that the targets are their intended victims. <br />
<br />
This explains <i>how </i>killers can commit horrific crimes. Just as surgeons have been given a rationale for cutting into the human body, and are then trained through endless rehearsals to "get used to it" -- just as soldiers have been given a patriotic rationale for committing mayhem on "the enemy," and are then trained through endless rehearsals to "get used to it" -- so too do mass murderers and serial killers prepare themselves with rationalizations and excuses, and then engage in obsessive fantasy and rehearsals, to "get used to" committing monstrous acts against innocent others. In <i>their </i>minds, their "targets" are anything but "innocent," you see.<br />
<br />
In this particular case, you might wonder, "How could classrooms of little kids be regarded by the killer as his tormentors or as perpetrators of injustice against him?" In fact, of course, they can't be. But again, these crimes are <i>symbolic</i>.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4699332/newtown-school-gunman-adam-lanza-a-loner.html#ixzz2F8k7CBOt" target="_blank"><b>One media report</b></a>
suggest that the perp was a "loner" who played lots of video games and lived
with his mother; a friend described him as "very thin, very remote and [he]
was one of the goths.” Reports are that the killer first murdered his mother, who was a teacher or teacher's aide at that particular school. That seems to be a significant "triggering event," and a likely link to a possible motive. If I had to guess at this point, based only on paltry evidence, I'd suspect that this killing spree was probably about hatred of his mother and/or "getting back" at her -- about a nihilistic desire to "show HER" by destroying the kids to whom she was paying a lot of attention, "rather than ME." Or perhaps he had been a student at that (or a similar) school, and was either tormented by other children or felt miserably alienated from them; and now, at age 20 and with an empty life, blamed the school for his misery. [UPDATE: It's now uncertain that his mother had any direct connection to the elementary school. I have read that she removed the perp from high school and home-schooled him. In some fashion, school seemed symbolic to him, but we'll have to await more information.]<br />
<div style="background-color: white; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
<br /></div>
Again, these are <i>only wild guesses, </i>based on paltry preliminary information. But it wouldn't surprise me if something like that was going on in this guy's head. It would fit the pattern of so many similar crimes.<br />
<br />
One thing I do know: <i>Gun control won't stop crimes like this</i>. Mass killers would only use other means -- and they do. The same day that this blood bath was occurring in Connecticut, we read of some similar monster in China stabbing dozens of kids in a school. It is also noteworthy that the worst such mass-killing in an American school <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster" target="_blank"><b>occurred in 1927, when somebody used three bombs to blow up a school</b></a>. <br />
<br />
So, what do we do -- outlaw knives, or the many simple household chemicals that people can use to make bombs? Then they'd turn to poisoning food in the school cafeterias -- or dumping toxins into public water supplies -- or chaining building doors shut and burning them down, with their occupants. Or driving cars along sidewalks, mowing down pedestrians. Or hijacking airliners and slamming them into buildings. Or dumping acid over the balconies at sporting events onto spectators below. Whatever. The destructive possibilities for nihilists who fantasize obsessively about such things, 24/7, are boundless.<br />
<br />
The fact is that <i>objects</i> don't murder. Murderers do. Given the ingredients of blighted lives, social alienation, revenge fantasies -- and these days, an "entertainment" culture that glorifies sadistic brutality, plus "empowerment" ideologies that give <i>millions </i>of followers moral rationalizations to commit violent mayhem in response to various alleged "injustices" -- we will <i>always </i>have mass nihilistic crimes. <br />
<br />
Depriving ordinary people of the means of defending themselves won't do anything...except to increase the number of vulnerable sheep for society's roaming wolves to prey upon. Those predators will always find the tools and means to kill. But the one constant in all of their unspeakable crimes is that their victims were not allowed to possess and carry the means to fight back against their victimizers.<br />
<br />
Who knows what the outcome might have been if the school principal or a teacher in Newtown, Connecticut, had been allowed to carry a handgun?Robert Bidinottohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11777797272563802442noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-36502015456851412772012-11-16T21:34:00.001-05:002012-11-16T21:36:32.835-05:00Kevin Koloff, Esq., Representing “Hunter” to the Film Trade<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: large;">I am pleased to announce that the TV and film rights for <i>HUNTER</i>
are now represented by highly respected, veteran Hollywood
entertainment attorney Kevin Koloff, Esq. With 30 years as an
entertainment attorney, Mr. Koloff spent 12 years as a senior
vice-president at Paramount, and his clients include Paramount,
Lucasfilms, Lions Gate, numerous independent studios, and a host of
well-known talents.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: large;">I’m thrilled to have Mr. Koloff’s first-rate legal representation,
and I’m also happy to report that he has been aggressively promoting <i>HUNTER </i>to
the trade in Hollywood. Anyone interested in learning more about Mr.
Koloff, or in contacting him concerning the TV/film rights to my
thriller, can reach his law office <a href="http://www.kevinkoloff.com/Home_Page.html"><b>through his website</b></a>.</span>Robert Bidinottohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11777797272563802442noreply@blogger.com0