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.
"The tyranny of liberalism” seems a paradox. Liberals say that they favor freedom, reason, and the well-being of ordinary people. Many people consider them high-minded and fair to a fault, “too broadminded to take their own side in a quarrel,” too soft to govern effectively. Even the word “liberal” suggests “liberty.” How can such an outlook and the social order it promotes be tyrannical?
The answer is that wanting freedom is not the same as having it. Political single-mindedness leads to oppression, and a tyranny of freedom and equality is no less possible than one of virtue or religion. We cannot be forced to be free or made equal by command, but since the French Revolution the attempt has become all too common and the results have often been tyrannical.
Tyranny is not, of course, what liberals have intended. They want government to be based on equal freedom, which they see as the only possible goal of a just and rational public order. But the functioning of any form of political society is determined more by the logic of its principles than the intentions of its supporters. Liberals view themselves as idealistic and progressive, but such a self-image conceals dangers even if it is not wholly illusory. It leads liberals to ignore considerations, like human nature and fundamental social and religious traditions, that have normally been treated as limits on reform. Freedom and equality are abstract, open-ended, and ever-ramifying goals that can be taken to extremes. Liberals tend to view these goals as a simple matter of justice and rationality that prudential considerations may sometimes delay but no principle can legitimately override. In the absence of definite limiting principles, liberal demands become more and more far-reaching and the means used to advance them ever more comprehensive, detailed, and intrusive.
The incremental style of liberalism obscures the radicalism of what it eventually demands and enables it always to present itself as moderate. What is called progress—in effect, movement to the left—is thought normal in present-day society, so to stand in its way, let alone to try to reverse accepted changes, is thought radical and divisive. We have come to accept that what was inconceivable last week is mainstream today and altogether basic tomorrow. The result is that the past is increasingly discredited, deviancy is defined up or down, and it becomes incredible that, for instance, until 1969 high school gun-club members took their guns to school on New York City subways, and that in 1944 there were only forty-four homicides by gunshot in the entire city.
Read the whole essay, which very much reflects the Maggie's Farm view of things.
Oh goodie. Another troll strolls in to visit Maggies --
one of those who feels that if you argue with him, and don't share his strange viewpoint, you're "demonizing" him. and have a "lunatic ideology." That's a poor, tired argument for someone who seems to hate honest debate, and probably can't debate in the first place. Schoolyard insults, young man. Ad hominem insults are the refuge of the insecure and ignorant. What substantive point are you trying to make? That you don't like Maggies? Then go away.
Forgive me if I'm over stepping my bounds a little here, but isn't it a little ironic using a word like recherche in an attack when one definition is: [bold]b:[/bold] expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature [bold][/bold]. More so since this comment is linked to a site called "His Vorpal". I'd just like to underscore the "unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth" part of that definition.
Regarding "His Vorpal": I assume you believe in your dragon slayer status, but you must acknowledge, Jabberwocky is nonsense, not a foundation for a worldview. Oh, and dragons are mythical.
Hey, while I'm writing this, I have to ask: What's up with the "raisinettes" link on your site? It just goes to a bad Photoshop job. (I will give you extra credit to the use of the word "comestibles" on that page, which is evidence of a pattern of pretentiousness--although I have heard that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines").