"ALL CAPS IN DEFENSE OF LIBERTY IS NO VICE."

Wednesday, July 04, 2012

NYTIMES OP-ED CONFLATES INDIVIDUALISM WITH SELFISHNESS

ANDERSEN COMMITS A FALLACY HERE: "The Downside of Liberty"

HE WRITES: "... sometimes we have gone overboard indulging our propensities to self-gratification..." AS IF THERE CAN BE TOO MUCH LIBERTY.

HE IS WRONG.

THE PROBLEM IS NOT INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, BUT LIBERTY WITHOUT NATURAL LAW.

LIBERTY WITHOUT NATURAL LAW DEVOLVES INTO LIBERTINAGE.

WITHOUT NATURAL LAW, LIBERTY IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE THAT KNOWS NO END BUT THE ABYSS.

HE WRITES:

But then came the late 1960s, and over the next two decades American individualism was fully unleashed. A kind of tacit grand bargain was forged between the counterculture and the establishment, between the forever-young and the moneyed. 
Going forward, the youthful masses of every age would be permitted as never before to indulge their self-expressive and hedonistic impulses. But capitalists in return would be unshackled as well, free to indulge their own animal spirits with fewer and fewer fetters in the forms of regulation, taxes or social opprobrium.... “Do your own thing” is not so different than “every man for himself.” If it feels good, do it... Thanks to the ’60s, we are all shamelessly selfish.

BESIDES BEING WRONG, THIS GIVES RISE TO SEVERAL QUESTIONS:

  • WHAT DID THEY BECOME UNSHACKLED FROM? 
  • MERE "SELF-RESTRAINT"? 
  • WHERE DOES SELF-RESTRAINT COME FROM? 
  • WHAT MIGHT DEFINE ITS BOUNDS? 
  • ARE THE LIMITS TO LIBERTY PERSONAL AND SUBJECTIVE? 
  • IF SO, THEN IS THERE ANY BASIS FOR CRITIQUING THEM?
  • ARE THE BOUNDS MERELY MECHANICAL, AS IN THE OLD SAYING, "ONE MAN'S RIGHT TO SWING HIS ARM ENDS WHERE THE NET MAN'S NOSE BEGINS"?

20TH CENTURY LEFTISTS SEEKING TO DESTROY WESTERN CIVILIZATION AND TO REPLACE IT WITH A TOTALITARIAN SOCIALISTIC STATE USED MORAL RELATIVISM TO TRY TO STRIP NATURAL LAW - AND G-D - OUT OF OUR CIVILIZATION IN ORDER TO CREATE A VACUUM THEY MIGHT FILL WITH MARXISM - AND THEY'VE SUCCEEDED WITH A LARGE PART OF OUR POPULATION.

ANDERSEN'S ANALYSIS IS ESSENTIALLY RELATIVISTIC: HE EQUATES THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT AND CALLS BOTH EQUALLY SELFISH.

HE IS WRONG. LEFTISTS ARE LIBERTINES, AND RIGHT-WINGERS ARE NOT.

LEFTISTS WANTED TO DESTROY MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY (BASIC BUILDING BLOCKS OF CIVILIZATION) IN THE 1960'S AND REPLACE THEM WITH FREE LOVE AND COMMUNES.

HAVING FAILED, THEY HAVE RECENTLY TURNED TO GAY MARRIAGE AND NOW MULTIPLE PARENTING.

LEFTISTS ARE ESSENTIALLY MORALLY RELATIVIST PEOPLE WHO DO WHAT IS RIGHT IN THEIR OWN EYES AND HAVE TURNED AWAY FROM TRADITIONAL, 3000 YEAR OLD, RELIGIOUS VALUES THAT ARE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WEST.

THEY ARE EITHER ATHEISTS WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN AN ETERNAL TRANSCENDENT G-D, OR PSEUDO-RELIGIOUS FOLKS WHO THINK THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO FASHION A G-D AND A RELIGION OUT OF WHATEVER VALUES THEY HOLD AT THE MOMENT - OR WHICH APPEAR IN EDITORIALS AT THE NYTIMES.

NOT ONLY DOES THIS LEAD TO WANTONLY BAD BEHAVIOR, BUT TO INTERNATIONAL STALEMATE:

WITHOUT A TRANSCENDENTALLY BASED MORAL CODE, THE ONLY BASIS FOR INTERNATIONAL INTERVENTION IS CONSENSUS.

THIS IS WHY THEY OVERVALUE THE UN, AND WHY THE UN IS A USELESS ORGANIZATION THAT HAS PERMITTED SEVERAL GENOCIDAL WARS GO UN CONTESTED - IN RWANDA AND SYRIA FOR EXAMPLE - AND ALSO PERMITS HORRIBLE ISLAMO-MISOGYNY TO GO ON AND ON AND ON AND ON.

MORALLY RELATIVISTIC MORALITY IS NOT MORALITY AT ALL.

AND MORAL RELATIVISM IS WHY SOME PEOPLE TURN THEIR INNATE LIBERTY TO BAD ENDS.

THE PROBLEM ISN'T UNBRIDLED LIBERTY OR EVEN SELFISHNESS, BUT LIBERTY AND SELF-HOOD UN-TETHERED FROM G-D AND G-D'S LAW, NATURAL LAW.

WITHOUT THE GOD OF NATURE AND NATURAL LAW PEOPLE HAVE NO TRANSCENDENT AND ETERNAL COMPASS WITH WHICH TO HARNESS THEIR OWN DESIRES AND DREAMS AND INCLINATIONS.

AND PEOPLE DO WHAT IS RIGHT IN THEIR OWN EYES, AND THIS IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF EVIL.


ANOTHER TAKE ON MORAL RELATIVISM HERE.


2 comments:

Pastorius said...

Great post.

Reliapundit said...

THX