Our world is full of false dichotomies, or the failure to adequately frame a debate and misleadingly ask questions which require an answer from only two choices:
"Who will you vote for, Bush or Kerry?"
"Who created the universe?"
(Failure to take into account that no one necessarily had to create the universe)
"Is love in our heads or is it a trick that our hormones play?"
(Heard this one in Philosophy class...why does it have to be only those two exclusionary choices? Why not a mix, or neither?)
Essentially, the problem lies in a non-expansive and logical mind...a false "A or B" dichotmy is a sign that one has not explored every possible philosophical avenue.
We all know that values come in two kinds: Life-Affirming and Anti-Life.
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Friday, October 29, 2004
What Are Islamic Terrorists Mad About?
Although many of my conservative-bent and single issue friends will be upset, it's time to ask the critical question:
What the hell are the terrorists so angry about?
Are we to blame? The first, natural instinct is to say that one should never blame the victim, but, in my mind, there is such a thing called "asking for it", or failing to be careful in a dangerous situation. For example, it is never the rape victim's fault that they were raped, but perhaps there were things that they did, said or insinuated that precipitated the attack. Therefore, while the United States is not to blame per se, are we at fault for the anger of the terrorists?
The most crucial battle taking place in libertarianism is between those who say that our interventionist policies have triggered the cultural anger of Islamists, which, in turn, has caused them to teach their children to hold disdain for America. Now, we all know that children take things further than their parents, because while their parents once had neutrality or even love for America which they have now lost, the children never have, and their hate grows. This is the side of the paleo-conservatives/libertarians, and is emulated in today's American Conservative magazine and Libertarian Party, especially their Presidential candidate, who said that "People in the Middle East do not hate us for our freedom. They do not hate us for our lifestyle. They hate us because we have spent many years attempting to force them to emulate our lifestyle."
On the other side, there are Objectivists (such as myself, although I am undecided as to the current war on terror, hence the post), neoconservative libertarians and the like, that state the victimhood culture and repression the Islamic world by dictators has fostered hate for America, because of the despots' need for a scapegoat. For these people, Islamists hate everything about America, to include our sexually-liberated society, the freedom of women to be equal to men and that we whole-heartedly embrace markets and self-interest as our norms. In the Objectivist mind, it is necessary to reform the Middle East in the name of our own self-defense, because miserable nations export their misery and miserable terrorists, instead of being mad at their own governments and selves, project their hate onto the people who have everything they could ever want.
So, while some may be angry that I am asking the question at all, it is crucial to know, why do they hate us? Is it that we have soldiers in 135 nations, are constantly attempting to shape the governments of these people and prop up dictators who kill and terrorize? Or is it because America is the last bastion of true freedom, is still a shining city on the hill where topless women in DC cannot be arrested, let alone beaten and thrown to the tigers in a soccer stadium?
What the hell are the terrorists so angry about?
Are we to blame? The first, natural instinct is to say that one should never blame the victim, but, in my mind, there is such a thing called "asking for it", or failing to be careful in a dangerous situation. For example, it is never the rape victim's fault that they were raped, but perhaps there were things that they did, said or insinuated that precipitated the attack. Therefore, while the United States is not to blame per se, are we at fault for the anger of the terrorists?
The most crucial battle taking place in libertarianism is between those who say that our interventionist policies have triggered the cultural anger of Islamists, which, in turn, has caused them to teach their children to hold disdain for America. Now, we all know that children take things further than their parents, because while their parents once had neutrality or even love for America which they have now lost, the children never have, and their hate grows. This is the side of the paleo-conservatives/libertarians, and is emulated in today's American Conservative magazine and Libertarian Party, especially their Presidential candidate, who said that "People in the Middle East do not hate us for our freedom. They do not hate us for our lifestyle. They hate us because we have spent many years attempting to force them to emulate our lifestyle."
On the other side, there are Objectivists (such as myself, although I am undecided as to the current war on terror, hence the post), neoconservative libertarians and the like, that state the victimhood culture and repression the Islamic world by dictators has fostered hate for America, because of the despots' need for a scapegoat. For these people, Islamists hate everything about America, to include our sexually-liberated society, the freedom of women to be equal to men and that we whole-heartedly embrace markets and self-interest as our norms. In the Objectivist mind, it is necessary to reform the Middle East in the name of our own self-defense, because miserable nations export their misery and miserable terrorists, instead of being mad at their own governments and selves, project their hate onto the people who have everything they could ever want.
So, while some may be angry that I am asking the question at all, it is crucial to know, why do they hate us? Is it that we have soldiers in 135 nations, are constantly attempting to shape the governments of these people and prop up dictators who kill and terrorize? Or is it because America is the last bastion of true freedom, is still a shining city on the hill where topless women in DC cannot be arrested, let alone beaten and thrown to the tigers in a soccer stadium?
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Damn Red Sox
Just for Ann and David (because I saw that they were BoSox Fans)
I can't stand the Red Sox or Boston. Talk about what Larry Elder defined as "the victim mentality. I have never heard a team whine so much about their record in my life. Start with the fact that they play in the arguably easiest stadium for which one could ask and combined with their incessantly bad attitude and Northeastern disdain for all things common, and you can start to develop a picture as to why John Kerry's favorite team makes me sick to my stomach.
Oh, and did I mention that I am a Yankees fan?
I can't stand the Red Sox or Boston. Talk about what Larry Elder defined as "the victim mentality. I have never heard a team whine so much about their record in my life. Start with the fact that they play in the arguably easiest stadium for which one could ask and combined with their incessantly bad attitude and Northeastern disdain for all things common, and you can start to develop a picture as to why John Kerry's favorite team makes me sick to my stomach.
Oh, and did I mention that I am a Yankees fan?
Elitism and the Problem with Libertarians
Libertarians stand at a crossroads concerning "the common man" (whoever he may be). Sadly, many libertarians view themselves on a higher plane of thinking, which, whether this is true, alienates individuals who have not been properly introduced to the concept of true individual liberty. With all due deference to my fellow Capital bloggers, starting off your blog with "People are stupid" is a bad idea and an elitist (yet strangely common) attitude.
Why is this such a bad idea?
Let's face it: when we state that we love liberty, we cannot frame the debate solely within the contexts of ourselves. Inherent in the idea of evey statist program is that people cannot be trusted to govern their own lives, and inherent in that idea is the idea that "everyone is stupid, except for me". When we become victims of this attitude (and libertarians, including myself, are notorious offenders) we start to give our statist enemies ammunition. When we say "people are just stupid" this clearly translates to the "anointed" that if others are too stupid to govern their own lives, then someone must step in and do it for them.
Next time you get in a debate with a non-libertarian (this works especially well with family members) about a random issue, say, Social Security, pull the guilt card and ask 'Do you think that I am too stupid to handle my money?" In order to avoid an insult (and because family members do trust you, they will say no. Next ask about a friend of theirs, or the guy next door. They'll give the negative response again, and then ask why those people are so special but the average stranger is not. Works every time.
I implore libertarians, stop thinking of yourselves as politically and culturally superior and instead attempt to reveal the light of liberty in a more positive light, instead of making fun of "the flag-waving idiots" or "ignorant Joe-Six-Pack".
Why is this such a bad idea?
Let's face it: when we state that we love liberty, we cannot frame the debate solely within the contexts of ourselves. Inherent in the idea of evey statist program is that people cannot be trusted to govern their own lives, and inherent in that idea is the idea that "everyone is stupid, except for me". When we become victims of this attitude (and libertarians, including myself, are notorious offenders) we start to give our statist enemies ammunition. When we say "people are just stupid" this clearly translates to the "anointed" that if others are too stupid to govern their own lives, then someone must step in and do it for them.
Next time you get in a debate with a non-libertarian (this works especially well with family members) about a random issue, say, Social Security, pull the guilt card and ask 'Do you think that I am too stupid to handle my money?" In order to avoid an insult (and because family members do trust you, they will say no. Next ask about a friend of theirs, or the guy next door. They'll give the negative response again, and then ask why those people are so special but the average stranger is not. Works every time.
I implore libertarians, stop thinking of yourselves as politically and culturally superior and instead attempt to reveal the light of liberty in a more positive light, instead of making fun of "the flag-waving idiots" or "ignorant Joe-Six-Pack".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
