The New Atheists have just changed God’s name

Tim Sandefur over at his blog has posted a total demolition of a Sam Harris blog post entitled “How rich is too rich?” It’s called “Sam Harris, anti-reason“, and here’s the link.

Sandefur brilliantly illustrates how Harris, like Hitchens, Dawkins, and other Neo-Atheists, who are nearly always Left-wing Liberals, have simply taken all the unspoken and mystical assumptions of religion, but replaced service to “God” with service to “others”; the “others” being, well, anyone but ourselves. Service to society, the public good, those “in need”, those without what we have. They have taken the self-sacrificial preachings of Christ and simply blotted out the nasty “god” parts. They have regurgitated the mysticism and ephemeral bilge of religion, all in the name of rationality, atheism, science, and all that good “free-thinking” stuff.

Even more worrying is the total economic ignorance Harris shows, so we shouldn’t wonder that his followers across the blogosphere, all the internet atheists, demonstrate this level of ineptitude and misunderstanding of economics. And not just economics, politics. And not just politics, but ethics.

As Sandefur himself points out, Harris and the Neo Atheists are superbly adept at pointing out all the logical fallacies and loopholes in the arguments of the religious, yet Harris can’t even define his own simple terms. He contradicts himself. His premises are unspoken, unjustified, or simply wrong.

It’s very rarely I criticise religion on my blog anymore. In fact, I haven’t written anything anti-religious in years. Why? Because I really don’t see the religious (with the exception of Islam and the fundamentalist Right-Wing American Christians) as the primary threat to my well-being. It’s the socialists, the collectivists, the Left, which the Neo-Atheist “rational” crowd flock to, which is a far greater problem. In fact, it’s probably more accurate to say I don’t see the religious as more or less of a threat than the New Age Atheists, it’s that I lump them all together; I see them as just different types of the same problem.

Whatever your political persuasion, you should really read the article.

Advertisements

17 Responses to “The New Atheists have just changed God’s name”

  1. M.Stern Says:

    It’s very rarely I criticise religion on my blog anymore. In fact, I haven’t written anything anti-religious in years. Why? Because I really don’t see the religious (with the exception of Islam and the fundamentalist Right-Wing American Christians) as the primary threat to my well-being. It’s the socialists, the collectivists, the Left, which the Neo-Atheist “rational” crowd flock to, which is a far greater problem. In fact, it’s probably more accurate to say I don’t see the religious as more or less of a threat than the New Age Atheists, it’s that I lump them all together; I see them as just different types of the same problem.

    Excellent!!

    I have been making this point for years. But so many Objectivists can’t seem to get over their “Christian bogeyman”. Yes, Christianity and religion are irrational and dangerous. But the threat from today’s secular Leftists, like Harris and Dennet and Dawkins all of whom are extreme Leftists, is far more significant than the threat from Christian Conservatives (and you overstate the danger from America’s Christian evangelicals many of whom are very Leftist in their economics).

    IMO, Christian Conservatives tend to be good and decent people. But almost without exception, the new-atheist Leftists that I have met had terrible personalities. They were usually rotten human beings. This I suspect is because they rejected the possibility of moral absolutes along with the god concept.

    Objectivists need to realize that their greatest immediate danger is the secular Left. That is an EVIL movement if ever there was one. Harris is a real venomous bastard. I could care less if he is an atheist. He is an enemy of liberty.

  2. nemaga Says:

    Right-Wing capitalist much? Chill out…

  3. nemaga Says:

    Oh and: http://www.newsinenglish.no/2010/11/08/norway-still-the-best-place-to-live/

    Damn those socialists, they are so evuuuullllll….

  4. Ron Brown Says:

    M. Stern: Wow…. Just..Wow….It’s ironic that you use the word “extreme” to refer to certain liberals when your post was full of extremity and hyperbole.

  5. evanescent Says:

    Well, I don’t see that “extreme” in itself is an insult, it depends what one is extreme about. I’m an extremist when it comes to individual rights. M. Stern points out that far from being left-centre or centre-right, as if those terms really hold much meaning anymore, the New Atheists are extreme Leftists. Sounds like a fair and important description to me.

    I also don’t think the Leftist threat can be overstated: socialism in all its forms has a 100% track record of curtailing civil liberties, ruining economies, increasing state power, and sacrificing the individuals who are the most productive. And that’s just a soft general summary. The fact that *some* semi-socialist countries haven’t collapsed (yet) but still have an exhorbitant and ever increasing cost of living (the UK and Norway for example) is hardly a resounding success for the Left.

  6. nemaga Says:

    You really like to look with 1 eye closed right? Which economies were hit the least by the latest economic crisis and which suffered the most? I see China growing, Norway and Sweden weren’t hit that hard at all compared to the US.

    “socialism in all its forms has a 100% track record of curtailing civil liberties”, check Norway and Sweden, and there are plenty more (Greece, France etc.).

    I don’t see 17% of the population (or more?) with no health insurance in most European countries, unlike the US, I guess you don’t count that towards your “cost of living” calculations.

    The problem you’re having is equating socialism to dictatorship, which for zillion obvious reasons, have nothing in common.

  7. Ron Brown Says:

    Nemaga: Thank you for saving me some time with your response.

    As for “the Atheists are extreme Leftists”, that is an exageration. This is a big problem, in my opinion, with some people on the Right – and many of the more vocal, visible people on the Right. They seem to think that even moderate leftism
    is EXTREME! If a person who strongly advocates for universal healthcare, accessible education, gay rights, abortion rights,
    separation of church and state, legalizing marijuana, reigning in many aspects of the Patriot Act, and a modest social
    assistance program is an extreme lefting, oversight and regulation over industries that produce potentially dangerous externalities
    (e.g., polution in the case of energy industries; financial and market destabilization in the case of major banks),
    what do we call a full-blown communist? What, for example, would you call Sunsara Taylor, a proud communist atheist? Going further, what would you call a leftist atheist dictator? This is similar to the over-use of the word “Nazi”. It has dilluted its meaning, almost beyond recognition. When people call others, for example, “grammar nazis”, they are white-washing the important fact that nazis didn’t just nit-pick over the habits
    of Jews – THEY KILLED THEM!

    I agree that the atheist/secularist movement does appear to have more left-leaning people than right, probably substantially more. However, I think it’s an exageration to say that it is a movement of EXTREME leftists. I’m all for calling things as they are, but lets at least try to use our lange conscientiously.

    (Apologies for any strange word spacing that may appear in this post – I’m on a computer with an old browser program)

  8. Ron Brown Says:

    * Above, I meant to say “a communist atheist dictator”.
    ** Also, where I listed all the common positions of leftists today, I meant to say “if we call leftists with these views “extreme”, what do we call full-blown communists, etc.?”

  9. Sergio Says:

    Ron,

    I believe what matters are the principles they advocate – not the degree to which they advocate them.

    How does it matter if a “weak-leftist” wants to violate our rights “a little bit” (say, universal healthcare) and a “strong-leftist” attempting to force massive wealth redistribution and make everyone “equal”?

    If you concede that individual rights are violable, even “just a little bit”, the precedent is there for future and more egregious violations. Rights are rights because they are inviolable, inalienable. Government is instituted to protect them – not to grant or restrict them.

  10. Sergio Says:

    Meant to conclude the above thought with:

    Therefore, any individual, regardless of the degree to which they support rights violation – are tossed in the same bucket and labelled “extremely dangerous” – because the *principles* they advocate in general are antithetical to human life and a free society.

  11. Ron Brown Says:

    Sergio: Fair point. That said, I still think it would be better that we be more careful with our language.
    Not only does it confuse things, but it makes it harder for people of differing opinions to have conversations without
    offending each other and making each other think that they other person is being unreasonable, hyperbolic, etc.

    However, after posting my above comment I began to wonder, hmmm, could a conservative say the same thing about a liberal? That is,
    are there positions that many conservatives hold that many liberals may view as “extreme right wing positions” that many conservatives
    would think are moderate right wing views, and could cite people far to the right of them – much as I cited real communists. Now, at this point I’m incilned to think that liberals probably have firmer ground to stand on in terms claiming that they are being called “extreme” when they are not
    than conservatives can say the same. Evidence of this is that many of the positions that liberals hold are no longer “left wing” positions in a demographic sense. For example, majorities of Americans favour(ed) the public option, SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, legalizing pot, abortion rights, most if not all gay rights issues, etc.

    However, this brings up the issue of distinguishing between philosophical left-ism/right-ism and current day policy popularity.

    I’m motiviated to do a blog post on just this issue in the next few days. I’ll post a link when I do and will invite the views of people here.

    One of the main goals of my blog is to compare and show the sensibilities of progressivism and libertarianism. I myself am progressive in some ways and libertarian in some ways; overall, I consider myself to be a progressive with respect and sympathy for libertarianism, but ultimately a progressive. I think it’s really important for people on both sides of the political fense to better understand peopel on the other side and the specifics of their worldviews. Otherwise, itss super easy for people on each side to view the others only in terms of their own worldview, which can lead to thinking that people on the other side are evil or stupid, which is usually untrue.

  12. Sergio Says:

    I admire your ambition and your goal of promoting open minded discussion. Though, I feel compelled to point out that both the mainstream “conservatives” and the “liberals” (box standard left & right) deserve to be categorized as “extremely dangerous” – per my earlier comment.

    They represent different sides of the same coin. Both assert that individual rights can be violated. They only differ in “how” those rights are to be violated – or the degree to which they ought to be violated. Neither support a principled position that is consistent with individual rights and liberty.

    I personally find the term “progressivism” to be a gross misnomer meant to disarm its opponents through an implicit appeal to emotion. Progressivism – as I understand it – seeks to promote contemporary liberal ideals, centralized around egalitarianism; emphasizing wealth distribution to achieve its noble goals. Intentions are irrelevant if the means by which such intentions are to be implemented violate an individual’s right to their life, by violating their right to their property.

    Further, “conservativism” is a particularly vague and therefore meaningless term that could refer to whatever its advocates want it to mean. Conservative demagogues appeal to quaint – though misinformed – ideas of what “used to be” – with no consideration for whether or not those feelings are rooted in sound principles or not.

    If I may make a suggestion: instead of encouraging discourse through changing the language we use, so as not to “offend” anyone’s closely held beliefs, I would encourage people to shrug off “package ideals” and shirk the notion that you’re either “all in, or all out” in terms of what it means to hold a particular principle. Moreover, foster individuals to think critically, with a principle in mind, about every facet that comprises their ideals so as to identify bad ideas no matter which side of the anti-life, left/right false dichotomy proposes them.

  13. Mikee Says:

    [quote]The problem you’re having is equating socialism to dictatorship, which for zillion obvious reasons, have nothing in common.[/quote]

    It doesn’t have to be a dictatorship to be wrong

  14. Atheists are Untraditionally Religious – and No, Atheism is not the/a Religion « Death By Trolley Says:

    […] The New Atheists have just changed God’s name, libertarian atheist Evanescent criticizes left-leaning atheists like Sam Harris for treating […]

  15. evanescent Says:

    A commenter over at One for One’s latest blog made a remark relating to me and the above article. Amongst other things he said:

    “His writings reminded me a the Moon Landing conspiracy advocate – blinded by his complete and utter certainty that he found a truth that other people (lesser people) refuse to see. Don’t you feel that way too? Shouldn’t it give you pause to think?

    I felt it would be beyond pointless to try to argue with someone in that state of mind.”

    Here is my reply to him, which I wanted to repost here as what I said to him could apply to others:

    Hi there Fabio

    for a start, it’s disappointing that I should have this effect on someone interested in honest debate. That wasn’t my intention. I admit I am rather controversial and confrontational with the New Atheists precisely because one of my aims is to provoke them into re-examining their dangerous ethics and political ideals. Make no mistake: I see many of them as *just as dangerous* as religious fundamentalists. I think I’ve explained my reasons for this position that, perhaps on the surface, sounds conspiratorial and radical; outrageous even. In fact, I give the Neo Atheists such a “hard time” because, unlike the deeply religious, I think there *is* a point in arguing with them; with the religious I seldom bother.

    The reason I am so vehement with these people is because they will be the bringers of their own downfall; by conceding the same moral principles as religion, and with their tendency to invoke Left-wing politics, they don’t do what they purportedly want to do: shut the political door on the Religious “Right”; instead, they have already laid the groundwork for a totalitarian regime; in God’s name this scares the hell out of them; the thought of all their freedoms coming under the watchful eye of a theocracy; yet under the guise of a secular “humanist” socialist government, it’s all ok. Well it’s not. And I am very passionate about it, unapologetically. What perhaps I could apologise for is my manner, which could alienate well-intentioned people (like yourself??) instead of encouraging debate.

    (If it helps, I’m the last thing from a conspiracy theorist you could hope to meet. I believe in moon-landings, and I don’t believe that 9/11 or even JFK was a conspiracy (perhaps not a US inside job, anyway).)

  16. Ron Brown Says:

    Programs that are in whole or in significant part socialist that most people (and most conservatives) would not want to lose:
    * public education
    * social security
    * the fire department
    * the police department (yes, this is a socialist program; if it were free market, people would have the ability to opt-in or out of it, not be forced to pay into it and, in so doing, subsidize the safety of others)
    * federal mail services
    * universal healthcare (or, in America, universal healthcare for seniors; most americans actually do want a more universalized healthcare system – the media and politicians just divert attention from this)
    * garbage collection and waste management
    * roads and bridges construction and maintenance
    * telecommunications infrastructure

  17. evanescent Says:

    Ron, I hope you read my reply (I’ve been away for a while), because you make the mistake of many people when it comes to matters of government. I intend to republish this as a separate post.

    In most cases I will not elaborate too much on the philosophical ideas behind my answers because you can find them elsewhere in my blog, if you wish. What I’ll do is respond with why you are wrong with regard to a free society and if you want we can discuss further.

    1. Public education:
    Yes, in a free society this would be a private endeavour. It is not the role of government to provide education. I can’t speak for all countries, but the education system of Britain is a mess. Standards are terrible, and should the curriculum for educating children really be in the hands of politicians?? As one example from the State of Alabama in the US, here’s what the government can dictate by force: http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/16-40A-2.htm “An emphasis, in a factual manner and from a public health perspective, that homosexuality is not a lifestyle acceptable to the general public and that homosexual conduct is a criminal offense under the laws of the state.”
    In America, public education forces children to attend schools in strictly-defined geographical areas, thereby perpetuating the status quo of wealth and education, if any.

    It’s beyond the scope of my reply to list all the ways in which State-run education fails. In a free society, schools would be private and parents would choose whatever school they wanted for their children, and schools would compete to have the best teachers in the best conditions to attracts paying customers, and such competition would force costs down. Additionally, education would become a matter of individual choice – in that parents could choose which schools could train their children in particular fields for particular results, and would be outside the control or sway of politicians. Also, since many skills are objectively and undeniably necessary to survive in the world, all schools would of course voluntarily choose a basic curriculum of the essentials (to pre-empt any ridiculous comments like “what if schools didn’t bother to teach Maths or English?” – yeah, and what parents would send their children to those schools?)

    2. Social security
    It’s not the proper role of government to provide “security” in the form of unearned welfare at the expense of others. You can use this euphemism to justify any State intervention to benefit some class of people (and win votes) at the expense of others.

    3. Fire department
    There is absolutely no reason to think that fire departments wouldn’t exist in a free society. There would absolutely be a need for them, and where there is a need the market responds. They could be sustained by fees, subscriptions, or even voluntary contributions. And before some cynic of the Left suggests that this is unfeasible, please observe that there are hundreds of such rescue operators around the world who function entirely on donations (like helicopter search and rescue teams in many parts of Britain).
    Also, it would be great to take the costs of such heroic personnel out of the hands of the State who dictate wages on their tight tax budget, encouraging strikes etc.

    4. Police.
    The police, like the army and the law courts, are legitimate roles of government because they exist to protect individual rights within a country’s geographical boundaries. They absolutely must exist, but because in a free society the use of force and self-defence is invested in the government, ONLY the government may use these powers (and then only against those who *initiate* force). Therefore, you cannot “opt in” or out of these institutions; no one has the right to violate the Rights of others (including and especially the government itself, by the way). If you choose to live in a free society you must not violate the Rights of another.

    As to how the police, army and law are financed in a free society – many Objectivists have proposed solutions to this. Some of them might not work, some of them could. I personally like Ayn Rand’s suggestion that all business transactions require a (voluntary) percentage of the value paid to the government to be covered by law (as insurance). The percentage could be tiny, but would more than be enough to cover the costs of government when reduced to its proper and necessary roles. These protective duties necessarily require that people be defended from internal violations, legal violations and external violations from other countries.

    In any event, a free society wouldn’t happen over night, and to discuss how a zero-tax society might work today is impractical, for now. It is not a major sticking point with most Objectivists or libertarians, in my opinion, because there are far more important issues to address first. It is enough to know that the principles behind it are true and should be applied consistently, and that it could work in practice one day. The common objection: “you can’t tell me how a tax-free society would work TOMORROW will definitely work in practice, therefore your entire system is wrong and should not even be considered” is rather silly.

    5. Mail service.
    The job of the government is to protect the Rights of its citizens, not deliver their mail.
    What sad universe must one envisage where, if the government cannot forcibly sustain its own delivery system, the entire country would collapse because no one will transport mail and goods??
    There are already thousands of distribution companies throughout the world, most of them more efficient and responsible than the State in my opinion, especially since you have the option of choice, and therefore become a PAYING customer to a company that wants and needs your service, and has every inclination to keep you happy and maintain a good reputation. The harsh reality is, what does the State care if it loses your letter? Can you opt out or choose someone else?

    This is another example of failure to imagine how else life could possibly be, simply because of how it is or has always been. Similar to healthcare, when the State has a forcible monopoly on a certain activity, private companies are discouraged from entering the market because there is no profit in it. The State, after all, can function on a loss, because its source of revenue is tax-payers to whom it’s largely unanswerable (in practical terms for specific functions). A private company can never function on a loss, which is why they are generally more efficient than a government can ever be.

    Let private companies compete for your service, to distribute your mail in the best most secure way for the best prices. And even if you don’t like it – tough. It’s not my job or anyone else’s to pay for YOUR letters to get sent, and I don’t ask you to pay for MINE. The power of government is the power of the gun. Is your mail really as important as my Rights?

    6. Universal healthcare.
    Ah, the greatest myth of all. For a start, healthcare is not universal, because no socialist healthcare scheme has ever succeeded in going universal. There are always many, many people left behind – and, surprisingly, yes – the poor are worst hit! Waiting times go up, service goes down, costs rise, inefficiency increases. These are basic problems with socialised healthcare that are there for anyone to research – history has shown it time and ago. Just look at the Federal budget for healthcare now compared to 50 years ago. In the UK the NHS is bankrupt and the government has had to turn to the private sector.

    I’m sure most people like the IDEA of universal healthcare because it SOUNDS nice: free healthcare for anyone, anywhere. But the reality is quite different. Doctors and nurses are disenfranchised and working conditions are poor. Waiting times are ridiculous, and as a result the amount of time available to be spent with patients is reduced; a fixed number of minutes per patient and then, NEXT please. The cost of medicine is separated from the profit of medicine, which raises prices. Who is hurt the most? The lower working class, the ones who actually do work, but must also subsidise the ever-increasing populace who can’t work or don’t want to. Taxes go up to cover the demand, and the wealth of working citizens is constantly drained away. The private sector is hurt the most, investment capital is eroded – businesses go under, unemployment rises, but the myth of “free” “universal” healthcare goes on.

    In absolutely no other market would people even imagine this operation to be sustainable. Imagine if supermarkets were socialised… But when it comes to healthcare, because of the myth that medicine is a “Right” (to be provided for by others), many believe that healthcare MUST work this way. Why? Because it should! But it doesn’t work. See my A-Z useful links page under healthcare for examples.

    Again, the role of government is to protect the Rights of its citizens. It cannot legitimately use force against some to pay for the lives of others. This is not ethical! But, most importantly – the reason I don’t want socialised healthcare is because it does not work! Pensioners still die of easily preventable diseases. Waiting lists are still going up. Service is still going down. Hospitals and public health centres are still messy and unclean. Doctors are still overworked and underpaid. People who really need attention don’t always get it. You are deluded if you really think that healthcare is anything resembling “universal” now. And what do the socialists want? Oh, only even more money to make it work. Look at the national expenditure on healthcare over the last few decades. The arrow is only going in one direction and still the “problem” hasn’t been solved. Universal healthcare is a white elephant. It is the political carrot for the masses who believe in it, and the ethical justification for the Left-wing which needs such power to operate.

    In a free society, healthcare would be run as a should be: a business. A service paid for by private insurance on an individual basis, open to charity and volunteers of course. And it would be run infinitely more efficiently, attract the best minds and doctors, and its ubiquity would be reflect in appropriate costs to consumers.

    And who would help those in a free society who couldn’t afford healthcare? Whoever wants to. Charity in the Western world is very rarely lacking. There are charities for just about everything and they manage to work quite nicely. If the world was really a place where free people would not help others in this manner (incidentally, the world is NOT like that), then it’s not a world worth saving anyway, surely? In any event, charity itself is not a defining virtue nor the standard by which political systems should be established. And charity by force is not charity at all.

    7. Garbage collection and waste management.
    Government has a very sacred responsibility: it holds the power of physical force to protects its citizens. The use of force should only be used against criminals; those who *initiate* force against others. As it happens, picking up your junk using forcibly expropriated funds doesn’t actually fall under such a mandate.

    This function should and would be provided by the free market. I am not even going to explain this one. Government is not some superman or oracle that magically perform some tasks with more wisdom and proficiency than the rest of us. Actually, compared to private enterprise, government is embarrassing inept. You want your waste picking up and disposed of? Pay a private company for the job. Don’t like them? Choose another one. Choose one that suits you best and charges the best prices. I will accept that the disposal of waste itself requires some legal monitoring because it can impact on the lives of others – and it would be reasonable to expect some license or regulation in this regard (this would be a legitimate use of government regulation), but hardly a stumbling block to the principle involved.

    8. Roads and bridges construction and maintenance
    The use of physical force doesn’t extend to building and maintenance. Now, because such parts of our society have historically been inextricably linked with the government, it is admittedly not obvious how they would function in a free society. It could be worrying, especially when one considers how vital they are to the operation of any society, including our freedom and recreation.

    In a free society, public property is a contradiction in terms. That is not to say that ALL land must belong to someone, but only that land which DOES belong to someone, belongs to an individual or limited number of individuals. Lands which belongs to everyone makes no sense, it is fact land that belongs to no one.

    A cynic, or just everyday observer, could point out that the transport system and everything associated with it, like cars and fuel, is one of the biggest cashcows for government. In Britain, the plethora of taxes associated with transport is extremely burdensome for the average person. Wouldn’t it be nice to pay for what you actually used, when you used it? As just one example, just for owning a car, you must pay tax on it (a separate tax to “road tax” which supposedly goes toward the building and maintenance of roads – so what then is our “car tax” for?), whether you drive 100 miles a year or 100,000, whether you use motorways or not. The idea of, as just one example, paying for the use of roads makes many recoil, until you consider: imagine not paying car or road tax, but simply paying on a “pay as you go” basis, if and when you do. Imagine road-owners scheduling their maintenance work in a manner that suits road users, and not themselves?

    There are literally countless ways to imagine how the road system could work in a free society. The only excuse for not doing so is a bad imagination or dishonest motives. Here are two good articles about why State-governed roads are inefficient and harmful to business, and how (and why) they would work in a free society:
    http://www.wopsr.net/archives/19
    http://ergosum.wordpress.com/2008/02/11/private-ownership-of-roads/

    My usual response to the objection of transport in a free society is: look at the internet.

    9. Telecommunications infrastructure
    This is another poor example. Again, look at the internet. Without government regulations and stifling, companies are free (if they can) to build whatever they want wherever they want to communicate with whomever the want. The greatest censor of human communication and the greatest obstacle to human interaction in human history has been the governments of man, with their political agendas and propaganda. Left alone, with the threat of force banned, humanity has every incentive and need to communicate with each other. Not for the least reason, because that is how business flourishes. Trade is not a political matter, but a private value-based one.

    Saying that government is required for telecommunications infrastructure is like saying we need government for supermarkets, retail parks, sports stadia, etc.

    There is one aspect of infrastructure that is unusual though: the satellite network. If I’m not mistaken, satellites are government property, and because the resources to launch and maintain satellites doesn’t exist practically on a business-level (yet) – it is hard to imagine this area of infrastructure not coming within government control for the foreseeable future. I don’t have a comment or answer on this – it is just the way it is in the world. In the future when the technology to put satellites in orbit becomes a more practical matter, this will probably change. Having said that, satellites are not essential simply for the job of worldwide communication, in theory. Again, the internet proves this.

    Conclusion:

    There are countless functions in society that could be provided by the government. Many have always been, many aren’t – and the only difference it seems with some is that they are and that’s how it is and how could things be any different? Waste disposal, fire department, roads, telecommunications etc, are examples of these. There’s no good reason they have to be State-managed anymore than anything else which isn’t, but we take for granted they are because they always have been. It is the trend of the Left to put more and more under the command of the State, and leave less and less open to personal individual free choice. There is a word for this: fascism. There is no getting away from it. Proponents of such a system really need to ask themselves what the legitimate role of government is, and then ask what would be required to achieve these ends. If, at some point along the line, it is necessary to initiate force against innocent citizens to achieve that end, please be honest and clear enough with yourself to say so. Be clear that you support fascism, if “the ends justify the means”.

    For me, human rights are inviolable – and they don’t cease to be so when enough people elect a political party to say otherwise. This is merely replacing the dictatorship of one with a dictatorship of many.

    I am passionately opposed to socialism and socialist schemes because I care about myself, and ones I love, and the human race on principle. I care about human freedom and I genuinely believe the socialism is harmful ethically and practically to humanity. I genuinely believe that the most pro-human advanced benevolent society is one where liberty is sacrosanct. And I totally reject the myths and propaganda of the Left which try to take credit for the accomplishments of free humans, put them under State control, then declare that they couldn’t work otherwise and the world would be a lot better if everything else was regulated too.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: