Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts

09 September 2008

Has freedom become a political orphan?

Steve Chapman has written a superb editorial at chicagotribune.com about the lack of individuality and freedom and the rise of collectivism in America. He specifically sites the lack of any mention of the idea of freedom in the recent republican and democratic conventions.

The article is so good that I have reposted the article in its entirety.

"'We must, and we shall, set the tide running again in the cause of freedom. And this party, with its every action, every word, every breath, and every heartbeat, has but a single resolve, and that is freedom. —Barry Goldwater, accepting the 1964 Republican presidential nomination'

This year's Republican National Convention had a different theme for each day. Monday was 'Serving a Cause Greater than Self.' Tuesday was 'Service,' Wednesday was 'Reform' and Thursday was 'Peace.'

So what was missing? Only what used to be held up as the central ideal of the party. The heirs of Goldwater couldn't spare a day for freedom.

Neither could the Democrats. Their daily topics this year were 'One Nation,' 'Renewing America's Promise' and 'Securing America's Future.' The party proclaimed 'an agenda that emphasizes the security of our nation, strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, honest government, and civil rights.' Expanding and upholding individual liberty? Not so much.

Forty-four years after Goldwater's declaration, it's clear that collectivism, not individualism, is the reigning creed of Republicans as well as Democrats. Individuals are not valuable and precious in their own right but as a means for those in power to achieve their grand ambitions.

You will scour the presidential nominees' acceptance speeches in vain for any hint that your life is rightfully your own, to be lived in accordance with your beliefs and desires and no one else's. The Founding Fathers set out to protect 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' but Barack Obama has a different idea.

The 'essence of America's promise,' he declared in Denver, is 'individual responsibility and mutual responsibility'—rather than, say, individual freedom and mutual respect for rights. The 'promise of America,' he said, is 'the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.'

In reality, that fundamental belief is what you might call the promise of socialism. What has set this country apart since its inception is not the notion of obligations but the notion of rights.

'All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself,' wrote the novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand. 'The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary co-existence of individuals.'

That idea got lost somewhere between Thomas Jefferson and John McCain. What do Republicans believe in? McCain told us Thursday: 'We believe in a strong defense, work, faith, service, a culture of life, personal responsibility, the rule of law . . . We believe in the values of families, neighborhoods and communities.'

Would it be too much to mention that what sustains the American vision of those things is freedom? That without it, personal responsibility becomes hollow and service is servitude?

Apparently it would. Republicans are big on promoting freedom abroad, but in this country, the term encompasses a lot of things they don't like—the right to a 'homosexual lifestyle,' the right to protest the Iraq war, the right to privacy, the right not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and more. Conservatives who once thought Americans had too little freedom now sometimes think they have too much.

Liberals, on the other hand, are wary of embracing freedom precisely because of its historic importance to the right. They fear it means curbing the power of a government whose reach they want to expand.

While they value many personal liberties, they have no great attachment to forms of freedom that involve buying, selling, trading and accumulating. Those, after all, can involve selfishness, and Democrats, like Republicans, don't want to protect selfishness.

But freedom isn't freedom without the right to pursue what you value—money or knowledge, pleasure or sacrifice, God or atheism, community or misanthropic solitude—rather than what others think you should value. It includes the right to go to hell, and the right to tell others to do the same.

The latter is a valuable prerogative that we have not yet lost. After watching the conventions, if you have the urge to use it on either of the two major parties, feel free. If he were alive, Barry Goldwater might join you."

Steve Chapman is a member of the Tribune's editorial board. He blogs at chicagotribune.com/chapman and his e-mail address is schapman@tribune.com

Stumble Upon Toolbar

11 June 2008

Great News For Criminals

An excellent article by one of my favorite political commentators and radio hosts, Tammy Bruce: Great News For Mass Murderers.

"Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels has signed an executive order to ban guns on all property owned by the city.

After the roar of approval from psychotic murderers died down, Nickels explained the new ban was necessary after a shooting at the Folklife Festival wounded two people at the Seattle Center.

You know how that works–make it illegal for law-abiding citizens to carry guns making them even more vulnerable to the beasts who don’t care about laws, also known as “criminals.” I do hate to break it to the mayor, but shooting people is also banned, but criminals do it anyway.

After years of certain cities finding their violent crime rates on the increase after banning firearms, we now have proof that gun bans actually create more violence and subject law-abiding citizen to more risk. — Just ask the people of Washington, D.C., who know all too well how banning guns simply broadcasts a message to violent criminals where the most vulnerable population lives. Just this week, the “gun-free zone” of D.C. (on whose handgun ban we still await the Supreme Court’s decision) has been reduced to implementing road blocks into certain neighborhoods in an attempt to stop, er, gun violence.

After all, it’s just so much easier to invade a home, jack a car, or murder someone when you know your victim won’t be able to protect herself. Despite the history of gun bans putting more people in danger, and to say nothing of the unconstitutionality of that act, politicians still have the gall to exploit instances of bad guys ignoring existing laws (like those against shooting people) to pass laws banning the best self-protection method we have.

Make no mistake–just as climate alarmism has nothing to do with fear over a 2-3 degree increase in temperatures and is simply a manufactured excuse for government to tax and fee us to death–the acts of criminals continue to be used as a manipulative excuse to disarm the law-abiding public while keeping government officials immune from the law, and well protected."

Stumble Upon Toolbar
 

Free Blog Counter