We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Wednesday, December 4. 2013
Candidate for best short essays of 2013: Why Liberalism Is On The Wrong Side Of History
Hawkins begins his short post with these quotes:
Leftists do dream of a utopia, a Garden of Eden where dreams come true and wants are met - according to their wants for us. They forget what messed up the Garden of Eden: humans. God felt lonely, but was disappointed by his creations. Real humans even rejected God's utopia because we have minds of our own.
Human nature continues to mess up utopian fantasies. Our Dr. Bliss has taught us countless times that utopian ideas are regressive, infantile fantasies, and that life is difficult and challenging. That's why we offer charity to the faint of heart and the terribly-damaged, so their families won't have to bear the burden alone and the government gets the credit (and the votes), thus taking over the role of America's magnificent and munificent tradition of private charity.
America is not designed for the faint-hearted, but the welfare state enables faint-heartedness and often, I see in my rambles in life, encourages it. Spends lots of taxpayer money, in fact, to encourage people to work the system. However, the vast majority of us are capable of, and desiring of, independence and accomplishment. We take pride in a "can do" attitude, and feel pity for those lacking in American vigor and uninterested in their opportunities which exceed those anywhere else on the planet except, maybe, Singapore.
Nobody can feel dignity without contributing to life, without being useful and productive. It's depressing and degrading not to contribute, even if you are getting free stuff. Why design an entire government-driven society around the few who cannot or will not negotiate life in an independent manner? Just give them money to survive, let them do what they will, and forget about them unless they break laws. It's not realistic to expect everybody to be a noble and honorable pillar of society.
Does "history" inevitably lead to serfdom to government? Are freebies and benevolent control and humble serfdom the future for America, under the dominion of our moral and intellectual superiors?
Here's the post by Hawkins, which mostly represents the Maggie's view of life: Why Liberalism Is On The Wrong Side Of History.
Why do they want this "for me"? Why do they want to control things? I hate it, and it was not what I was raised for. I was not raised to be a recipient of "services" or insane regulations designed by people who have never done my work. We the people are not stupid, and just want to be left alone. Trust me, Lefties: We can figure out what is best for ourselves, our families, and our communities. We're adults, proud citizens. We just ask for freedom from the heavy hand of intrusive government like the rebels in 1775.
Art: The Adam and Eve is by Cranach the Elder
Posted by The News Junkie in Our Essays, Politics at 11:57 | Comments (8) | Trackbacks (0)
Trackback specific URI for this entry
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
"Does "history" inevitably lead to serfdom to government?"
Show me one country that has not without outside interference turned away from ever increasing government control of the lives of its subjects.
One country where no revolution or foreign conquest was needed to accomplish freedom for its citizens.
One country that not, after accomplishing that, slid back down that path, and rather rapidly.
The USA is an exception to the rule.
Its one of the things that irked me about Star Trek - a totally magnanimous society, that 'gave up' a lot. I never understood Roddenberry's thoughts on this, because it was utopian, and, will never work in the real world. Great TV show - interesting premise, but it will never work in the real world.
I think about the only society that came close was the Spartans of Greece, and see how well that worked out. VDH had a talk on this subject a while back, and it was fascinating, and he also commented that the Utopians hold onto the image, but present logic knows it cannot be inacted.
And the dreamers will still dream, while the rest of the world toils onward...
The US constitution was designed betting on the inferior person's ambition in being involved in governing, and by observing those in government today, it was a good bet.
Liberals like the idea of great people ruling, that their ideas are so good, they cannot fail. By not planning for failure, they fail.
I think that if the pilgrims were able to somehow transport themselves to the year 2013, they look around and think, "Man, we should've stayed home. This is bogus."
Depends. The first few years they were socialist morons. After most of them died of starvation because no one would work, they came around to a better way.
Might be a bit too harsh. A lot of them would have simply lacked the skills to survive where they ended up, having gone over on a whim and an ideal without making sure they knew things like how to tend a farm, build a log cabin, or gut a rabbit.
A remote colony farming village only needs so many lawyers, priests, and disgraced courtiers after all.
Same would happen today if we shoved a few thousand random MF readers in a boat and stranded them on some uninhabited island with just a few primitive tools (say an axe, a shovel, and a saw).
Here in the UK, the BBC recently broadcast a thought provoking programme (sorry) about Machiavelli. It explained the context in which he wrote 'The Prince', and argued (convincingly) that its ideas are still 100% relevant in business as well as politics. Those who want you to believe that the State loves you and is a moral actor are following Machiavelli's advice to the letter. My own definition of a politician has long been, 'One who tells you what you want to hear until his/her preparations to screw you are complete'.
The U.S. twice elected to the presidency an a constitutionally-unqualified oddity who was immersed in Islam (America "a Muslim nation"), communism, collectivism, black liberation theology (TUCC as the flagship church for James "destruction of the white enemy" Cone), sick leftist political manipulation (Alinsky), and contempt for the Constitution and U.S. sovereignty.
This is on top of accepting a radical shift in power in favor of the central government fundamentally at odds with the Constitution once honored by the Supreme Court.
This is hardly a nation that exhibits a visceral understanding of liberty or a scintilla of determination to preserve it.
The U.S. has proved to be decidedly unexceptional.