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.
Consent. By its nature, it is the difference between giving and stealing, between murder and assisted suicide, and between sex and rape. By its nature, it is the difference between victim and non-victim. In law, it is also the difference between guilt and innocence. Therefore, its legal definition, and the way it is judged to be present or absent, has a dramatic impact upon whether justice prevails or fails. It should concern everyone, therefore, that a small but vocal number of activists are promoting a new approach to consent that is certain to facilitate injustice, to endanger young children, to make sex repulsive, and to replace love and respect between men and women with fear, distrust, disrespect, animosity, and hatred. Read more
The world’s journalists and talk-show hosts are making a mistake. It is an innocent one. The mistake is to report that Islamic terrorists in Paris committed murders and assaults in reaction to the publication of cartoons that mock Islamic prophet Mohammed, or that mock militant Islamic leaders. The only entities served by the mistake are the terrorists and other Islamic Theocrats. Read more
November 15th “Politics is Personal” Dinner
Lamplighter Hotel, 591 Wellington Road, London, Ontario
The theme of tonight’s dinner is “Politics is Personal”. Although the theme was one ultimately chosen by Bob Metz, the idea of the personal nature of politics has worked its way into a lot of my thinking in recent years.
There are several senses in which politics is personal. For my part, tonight, I will submit to you that the fact that politics is personal is the reason that we are all gathered in this room tonight.
What I find most striking is the extent to which many in society have tried to hide the fact that politics is personal. They hide its personal nature by the division of governmental powers. They hide it with elections. And they hide it with political parties. Read more
To produce the values upon which ones survival and happiness depend, one must engage in rational action. Those who are more consistently rational, and those who are physically more powerful, are the strong. The irrational, and the physically less powerful, are the weak. Read more
Over the last few years, a trilogy of movies has been released based upon Ayn Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged. I was asked by the movie company to review the first installment (you can read my review here), but I’ve not seen the 2nd and 3rd installments. Nor have I paid much attention to what was done in those two installments. Suffice it to say that many Objectivists (i.e., people who follow Ayn Rand’s philosophy, and love her novels) have condemned the trilogy (in some cases, because of some of the advisors and others associated with the production, including David Kelley and Nathaniel Branden). Not having seen parts 2 and 3, I’ll not comment upon them. However, I am interested in the question of whether it is even possible to convert Rand’s 1100+ page novel into a three-part movie that does the book any justice. Would it be necessary – as some hold – to convert the book into a mini-series?
Today, I performed a little analysis. The methodology would rightly be considered weak and incomplete, but it provides one with at least a sense of the nature of the task faced by a person trying to convert the book into a movie. Read more
In the context of the political philosophy of Man, the terms “free”, “freedom”, and “free society” are properly defined as follows: Read more