Each political “wing” (left and right) grants freedom with respect to things they do not value.
The left doesn’t value morality, it values material goods, so it claims to be a civil libertarian with respect to people who, for example, believe they are a fork trapped in a human body. The right doesn’t value material goods, it values morality, so it doesn’t care who is rich or poor, and it doesn’t particularly want anyone’s money.
The left wants to live well in this life. The right wants to live well in an after life. Thus, the left’s god is government, and the right’s god is God, or Allah, or what have you.
Each values, most of all, to get something for nothing. The left wants to live on the fruits of their neighbour’s labours. The right wants an eternity of effortless bliss.
Me: I want to live on this earth, pursuing the material and spiritual values that are here, in this life, on my own steam, and without any other man hitching his wagon to my horse. Neither the left nor the right will let me do it.
“The blog is dead”…for those with nothing much to say, and for those with no desire to know. Try changing the world 140 characters at a time and you’ll fail. Essays always will be essays. Speeches: speeches. Books: books. When folks started watching mass-market TV news instead of reading, that didn’t mean that books were dead. It meant that hope was dying. Still does. Saving the world remains a case of wheat and chaff. The chaff blows. Let it. Keep writing those essays – on blogs or otherwise. Keep doing those intellectual radio broadcasts. Not everyone will read or listen…just the survivors.
One of my “facebook friends” recently posted an article that a clinical psychologist wrote about Ayn Rand’s influence in the United States. Penned by someone named Bruce E. Levine, the article was titled: “Clinical Psychologist Explains how Ayn Rand helped turn the US into a selfish and greedy nation“. I quickly glanced over the article, which was full of the usual ill-informed ad hominems. On my facebook friend’s wall, comments to the article were numerous and sympathetic to the views of the article’s author:
“Horrible selfish woman. Her personal life bears it out.”
“One of the worst people to emulate.”
“I got that she thinks people who are good looking have the right to walk over everybody else.”
“Her Objectivism was simply adolescent fascism.”
I replied as follows: Read more
“Isn’t it something?” But of course.
What you won’t is what you will.
One man’s end is another’s means.
The less you see of a wife, the less there is to see of her husband.