Maggie's Farm

It is the endless frustration of the liberty-minded that so many in the Western world seem willing, if not eager, to sell their birthright of individual freedom and autonomy for a bowl of lentils.

A short piece titled Freedom? No thanks by Dean at Samizdata quotes Steyn:

A year ago, I wrote that, "The story of the western world since 1945 is that, invited to choose between freedom and government ‘security,' large numbers of people vote to dump freedom — the freedom to make your own decisions about health care, education, property rights, seat belts and a ton of other stuff."

The great psychoanalyst and socio-political thinker Erich Fromm in his politically, psychologically and sociologically brilliant book Escape from Freedom (1941) pondered the human ambivalence towards freedom especially in the context of Fascism, but it applies to any powerful State. He notes that the concept of the "individual," and thus the notion of individual autonomy (ie individual freedom and its responsibilities and risks) arose at the end of Medieval society and was coupled with the Reformation. He asks:

In addition to the problem of the economic and social conditions which have given rise to Fascism, there is a human element which needs to be understood. It is the purpose of this book to analyse those dynamic factors in the character of modern man which made him want to give up freedom and which so widely prevail in millions of our own people.

These are the outstanding questions that arise when we look at the human aspect of freedom, the longing for submission, and the lust for power. What is freedom as a human experience? Is the desire for freedom inherent in human nature? Is it an identical experience regardless of what kind of culture a person lives in, or is it something different depending on the degree of individualism reached in a particular society? Is freedom only the absence of external pressure, or is it also the presence of something and, if so, what? What are the social and economic factors in society that make for the striving for freedom? Can freedom become a burden, too heavy for man to bear, something he tries to escape from? Why is it that freedom is for many a cherished goal and for others a threat?

It's a book that is worth reading, if you haven't. It contains a number of the themes our Dr. Bliss returns to often: the human desire to be taken care of, to regress, to submit to an authority - all in conflict with the desire to define one's own life, to construct one's life, to make one's own choices, to take one's own risks and pursue one's own rewards, whatever those might be.

Photo: Erich Fromm (1900-1980)

Texas set a limit to medical malpractice awards, and finally they are getting the doctors they need. Tiger Hawk.

It's simple economics. If doctors know they might get wiped out by a loony judgement of a jury, as Tiger Hawk points out, they will either tend not to practice - or to avoid all high-risk cases. Not to mention the cost of malpractice insurance - up to $200,000 per year for some specialties in some areas of the country. Not to mention all of the useless and expensive tests docs order, purely to cover their asses.

Mary Jackson at the New English Review. She links to Islamic Law and its Challenge to Western Civilization. A quote from the latter very comprehensive site:

Most people in the West believe that Islam is a religion in the traditional sense of the word. However, this is a fateful misconception. Islam is not just a religion. It is much more than a religion. Muslims themselves describe their faith by saying, Islam is a Complete Way of Life. This is certainly a more apt description, because Islam is a religious, social, economic, educational, health, political, and philosophic way of life. In fact, Islam is an all-embracing socio-politico-religious utopian ideology that encompasses every field of human endeavor.

The Western view of religion is that a religion is a narrow aspect of life. It does not encompass all human affairs. Religion stands beside culture, economic, politics, and other human institutions. Westerners may differ on matters of religious faith, but they can work together in social, state, and economic affairs. The reason for this is that their respective religions don't claim divine authority over the institutions of governance and economics. Their faiths may differ regarding the salvation of the soul, life after death, and religious rituals, but they don't claim to have divine insight into the institutions of human government and its particular laws. As good citizens, they strive to have a just and equitable society.

Islam is different from other religions in that it is not limited to the spiritual aspects of life. It engulfs all aspects of life from the cradle to the grave. Islam claims to have a divine mandate over everyone, and this includes non-Muslims too. While non-Muslims may not be required to observe the religious rituals of Islam, they must recognize the supremacy of Islamic rule over them. As an ideology, Islam promises an economic, political, social, and religious utopia when the world finally submits to Allah and the rule of Shari'a law. The Islamic objective is to have all aspects of a nation's culture and institutions undergo gradual Islamization to yield an Islamic state patterned after Shari'a Law.

From Evan Coyne Maloney, maker of the documentary "Indoctrinate U" (via Classical):

Speech codes. Censorship. Enforced political conformity. Hostility to diversity of opinion. Sensitivity training. We usually associate such things with the worst excesses of fascism and communism, not with the American universities that nurtured the free speech movement. But American higher education bears a disturbing resemblance to the totalitarian societies that are anathema to our nation's ideal of liberty. Evan Coyne Maloney's documentary film, Indoctrinate U, reveals the breathtaking institutional intolerance you won't read about in the glossy marketing brochures of Harvard, Berkeley, Michigan, Yale, and hundreds of other American colleges and universities.

"When we think of going to college, we think of intellectual freedom. We imagine four years of exploring ideas through energetic, ongoing, critical thinking and debate," Maloney said. "But the reality is very far from the ideal. What most of us don't know is that American college students check their First Amendment rights and individual freedom at the door."

We want to do our bit to get the word out. To get the film screened in your area or on your high school or college campus, go here. I believe this film is important to help open up the conversation, and to take back free speech and free and open thought. Plus Stanley Kurtz thought it was hilarious.

Not surprising, but... EU Referendum.

Who elected Soros to anything? He's just a megalomaniacal rich jerk with a lot of opinions - and a low-down schemer.

Furthermore, I do not really think of him as an American: I think of him as an "American of convenience" who keeps his money offshore and whose loyalties are international. And yes, them is fightin' words.

Cogent and stunningly right, from Jonah Goldberg via Driscoll:

In The L.A. Times, Jonah Goldberg writes, "I have no interest in 'questioning' Couric's patriotism. Rather, I'm interested in questioning her definition of it":

I've come around to the view that the culture war can best be understood as a conflict between two different kinds of patriotism. On the one hand, there are people who believe being an American is all about dissent and change, that the American idea is inseparable from "progress." America is certainly an idea, but it is not merely an idea. It is also a nation with a culture as real as France's or Mexico's. That's where the other patriots come in; they think patriotism is about preserving Americanness.

Yet the strangest and most ironic aspect of our national culture is that we have an aversion to talking about a national culture. Samuel Huntington, one of the country's premier social scientists, has become something of a pariah for constantly reminding people (in books such as "The Clash of Civilizations" and "Who Are We?") that the United States is a nation, not just a government and a bunch of interest groups.

Many liberals hear talk of national culture and shout, "Nativist!" first and ask questions later, if at all. They believe it is a sign of their patriotism that they hold fast to the idea that we are a "nation of immigrants" -- forgetting that we are also a nation of immigrants who became Americans.

Exactly right. Although we have numerous local subcultures, most of us also live within, and treasure, the larger national culture which it would take a better writer than I am to define succinctly and without corniness - but I can say that it's not about "progress" and it's not about immigrants.