|
=============================================
Liberty Impact News - 7th Edition
Your link to privacy, prosperity & liberty
http://www.libertyimpact.com
=============================================
CONTENTS
[1] The Individualist Sentiment
[2] Our Buzzards
[3] Reader Feedback
[4] Quote of the Week
=============================================
[1] The Individualist Sentiment
=============================================
by Pierre Lemieux
Why would an individual accept to know -- let alone to produce on demand
-- a number with which the State chooses to identify him? This would seem
to fly in the face of the individual's conscience of his own dignity which
is not reducible to a numbered component in a social machine. Most people,
however, apparently think there is nothing to raise a fuss about, either
because they have no keen conscience of their own dignity or because they
actually believe that it is enhanced by a State-assigned identity. I will
argue that such a reaction is inconsistent with the individualist
sentiment on which the survival of individual liberty depends.
At the lowest level, one may take the individualist sentiment to mean
simply the conscience by an individual of his separate existence and the
necessity to maintain it. Although this conscience certainly provides a
basis for the individualist sentiment, I take it to mean more than this,
i.e., to include a deeply felt attachment for one's personal dignity,
independence and responsibility.
I am focusing here on individualism as a sentiment, not on individualism
as a social theory or a social system, although the these different
categories may be reinforcing. I will by and large skirt psychological and
philosophical questions on the relations between perceptions, sentiments
and ideas, which ones cause the others, etc. I will be content with the
assumption that there are some relations between them, and between them
and social results, and concentrate on the following questions: Is such an
individualist sentiment necessary for the existence of a social system
based on individual liberty? Is it compatible with society and the State?
And why has it apparently declined over the last decades?
1. The individualist sentiment and individualism
Individualism refers to things of different orders: "individualist" can
qualify a sentiment, a theory, or a social system. Although it seems safe
to assume that the individualist sentiment, the theory of individualism,
and the experience of living in a society based on such theory, are
mutually reinforcing, the relations between these kinds of individualism
are not always straightforward.
For instance, the individualist sentiment as I have defined it is not
coextensive with methodological individualism. Methodological
individualism is a heuristic approach according to which we can only
understand social phenomena by starting from individual perceptions and
actions. Although it is difficult to imagine a sentimental individualist
not adhering, from sheer experience, to methodological individualism, a
methodological individualist may be prepared, like Friedrich Hayek
recommends, to submit to social rules that he does not understand and
cannot rationally justify. Taken one step further, this stance becomes
inconsistent with the individualist sentiment. For suppose that the
Welfare State is subsumed under these social rules: our methodological
individualist may then have to admit that the individualist sentiment is
misguided and socially inefficient.
The individualist sentiment is more closely related to political
individualism. Political individualism is the theory claiming that, or a
social system in which, individual welfare is the end of society and of
the State (if the latter is necessary). In an individualist political
system, individuals are free to organize their lives according to
non-individualist values (this is much less true, mutatis mutandis, in a
socialist system); and, to make an understatement, some individualists are
not lucky enough to live in individualist societies. But it is more
difficult to imagine somebody believing in political individualism who
does not have a strong individualist sentiment, for this would mean that
he attaches more value to other people's individualities than to his own.
Similarly, a sentimental individualist will normally believe in political
individualism, except perhaps if he holds the "aristocratic-individualist"
view that only a chosen few are able to look after their own welfare; even
then, though, he may want to hedge his bets lest he would, under a
different system, be considered not part of them. In other words, even the
"aristocratic individualist" is incited to choose political individualism.
The question of who is to evaluate individual welfare is related to the
existence of two kinds of political individualism. It is mainly this
bifurcation in political individualism that breaks the natural relation
between individualist theory and the individualist sentiment. "Libertarian
individualism," as I will call it, would let each individual be the sole
judge of his own welfare, and is fully consistent with the individualist
sentiment. "Statist individualism," on the other hand, gives a role to the
state in this evaluation and will therefore frequently clash with the
individualist sentiment. The closeness of the relationship between
political individualism as a theory and the individualist sentiment then
depends on what kind of theory we are talking about. I am mainly
interested here in libertarian individualism which is closely related to
the modern conception of individual liberty.
If theories, experiences and sentiments are mutually reinforcing, the lack
of one dimension will ultimately threaten the others. Consider the
individualist sentiment vis-à-vis the social system. A libertarian
individualist society can probably not maintain itself without many
individuals holding the individualist sentiment. Conversely, it is less
likely that the individualist sentiment will strive in a collectivized
society. Or consider the relations between the individualist sentiment and
theories of political individualism. A believer in libertarian
individualist theory is more likely to develop the individualist
sentiment, and a sentimental individualist is more likely to be attracted
to libertarian individualist ideas.
The last point brings us back to the relation between sentiments and
ideas, between emotions and reason, which we planned to skirt. Yet, there
are some reasons to believe that they are not independent realms, if only
because people usually try to maintain some consistency between their
values and beliefs, their lives and ideas. Promoting the individualist
sentiment is as useful as, and perhaps more useful than, arguing for a
disembodied free market.
2. Individualist sentiment, society, and the State
Is the individualist sentiment opposed to society? Some authors have
thought so. Perhaps the most representative of them was French sociologist
Georges Palante (1862-1925). What Palante called "la sensibilité
individualiste" was a reaction against all social constraints, to which
strong individualities could not submit. Although he is himself often
close to libertarian individualism, he explicitly did not distinguish
between society and State: "Society," he wrote, "is as tyrannical as the
State, if not more. This is why between coercion by the State and by
society, there is only a difference of degree."
By defining the individualist sentiment in such a strong way that it
opposes society as much as the state, Palante would seem to deny that man
is a social animal. Or perhaps what he calls "superior individualities"
are not as much social animals as common people -- hence his defense of
"aristocratic individualism." In any event, such a characterization leaves
little room for the rules of conduct which individuals, and even
individualists, voluntarily adopt because they are perceived as furthering
their personal interests in a social setting. Palante's view is that the
individual is always oppressed by the group, as if the only alternative
was complete autarky on one hand, and group domination on the other. This
ignores the possibility of the individual participating in social
relations by following individualistic kinds of rules that do not require
him to be unconditionally at the mercy of the group. We know, if only from
economic theory, that such rules exist, develop spontaneously, and are not
inconsistent with individual development. In other words, if man is a
self-interested social animal, his individualist sentiment will not oppose
society as such, but only certain kinds of society.
By refusing to deal with it, an individual can leave a social group or a
society where he perceives the cost of conformity to be higher than the
benefit of cooperation. There are only two cases where this is not a
relevant option. The first one occurs in the context of a primitive,
isolated society where there is nowhere to leave, and ignoring the group
means dying of starvation: the exit option is available, but will not
normally be exercised because the cost of oppression is always (or nearly
always) lower than the benefits of cooperation.
The other case is the State. Even if you believe that the costs the State
imposes on you are higher than the benefits it provides you, and even if
you could establish social relations outside the State, it will not let
you do it: one cannot ignore the State more than one can leave a primitive
society. But the underlying constraints are different: the State forces
you to buy its package of costs and benefits, even if you think you could
fare better by yourself out of it. It may be that the cost-benefit ratio
of the minimal State is, for everybody, lower than one; let's anyway
assume that this kind of State can be justified in this manner. But as the
State grows, there will come a point where one, two, ten, a hundred
individuals will judge that the cost is not worth it. Since, in their own
evaluation, they could establish profitable social relations out of the
State (or form another State), these individuals are not oppressed by the
group or by society, they are tyrannized by the State.
Although one can imagine stateless societies where social norms would be
totalitarian, it is usually only the State that can impose inescapable
group power. At any rate, such is the case in a civilized and open
society. For example, political correctness, persecution of smokers, or
other forms of Puritanism could not ignite American society as they now do
without the support of State laws and power. In other words, the State is
a necessary condition for group power in any civilized society; it is more
difficult to ignore part of the State than to ignore part of society. The
State is society's more dangerous power, which is why the individualist
sentiment is properly anti-State.
In our countries, individuals may, of course, leave one State to go and
live under another. But their original State will often try to make this
difficult, for instance by forcing them to renounce their citizenship,
i.e., to make an irreversible decision. Moreover, as there is no place on
earth without a State, as the whole world is a State cartel, one also has
to find a State that will accept him. Each State claims a territorial
monopoly, and will not allow one to leave it while remaining in local
civil society. The State forbids one to stay where he is, on his own
property, yet refuse the costs and benefits of the State. (If he tries,
they will move him to another piece of property called "jail.") By
legislating that somebody out of the group is, at best, nothing more than
a tourist, the State literally defines the individual in terms of group
membership.
Even if the State institutionalizes and enhances in some way an
individual's identity, the individualist sentiment will clash with it as
soon as his individual dignity is defined in terms of political
arrangements.
Another way to reach the same conclusion on the anti-statism of the
individualist sentiment is through the concept of personal responsibility,
which can hardly be dissociated from individual dignity. Society as such
does not diminish individual responsibility; indeed, it gives it new
dimensions. The State, by its very nature, negates some individual
responsibility, if only the responsibility of assuring his own protection;
of course, the Welfare State goes much farther. Indeed the numbering of
individuals by the State and other forms of State-defined identity are a
consequence of denying individuals their own responsibility for taking
care of their retirement or spending their own money. Insofar as
individual dignity implies individual responsibility, negating the latter
also negates the former. Consequently, the individualist sentiment will
clash with the State, and the more powerful the State, the more violent
the clash will be.
3. The decline of the individualist sentiment
I have defined the individualist sentiment as a concern for one's own
personal dignity, individual independence and responsibility. One can
characterize the individualist sentiment differently, for example by
replacing individual independence and responsibility by an egoistic and
narcissist concern for one's material comfort and security (related to the
idea of "cocooning"). This sentiment, which we may call the "narcissist
sentiment" to distinguish it from the individualist sentiment, is
antisocial and not necessarily antistatist. It is closely related to the
kind of individualism that Tocqueville feared and which, indeed,
characterizes our epoch. The narcissist sentiment is to statist
individualism what the individualist sentiment is to libertarian
individualism.
Some authors have claimed that the narcissist sentiment, by elevating
individual achievements above collectivist ideals, actually works along
with the individualist sentiment towards libertarian individualism. This
is far from obvious. The individualist narcissist has no objection to rely
on, and be dependent upon, the State for his comfort and security. He will
think, for instance, that the social security number enhances his
narcissist identity. As a student of this phenomenon writes, "the police
state is not only generated by the autonomous dynamics of the 'cold
monster,' it is demanded by these now pacified and isolated individuals,"
and "the whole of society falls under state wardship."
Historically, the distinction between narcissist individualism and the
individualist sentiment parallels the one between American and European
individualist values, although this distinction would require some
qualifications. For the individualist sentiment accompanied the spread of
libertarian-individualist ideas all across the modern Western world, but
it certainly reached its highest summit in the American spirit and
traditions. Benjamin Franklin, whom we are celebrating by holding this
Junto meeting, can be quoted in this regard:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
The difference between the true individualist sentiment and its narcissist
version can also be illustrated with Henry David Thoreau's ideal to be a
good neighbor and a bad subject. The narcissist individualists reverse the
adjectives: they don't mind being bad neighbors and good subjects as long
as it suits their interests.
During the 20th century, the individualist sentiment has certainly been on
the wane, including in America of all places. Americans, who refused
national ID, have now welcomed it under the guise of social security
numbering. This decline has taken place at the same time as the narcissist
sentiment was reaching its dominant position -- which confirms the
latter's inconsistency with the individualist sentiment.
How then can we explain the decline of the individualist sentiment? One
explanation has to do with the decline of religion. The argument is not
only that the Judeo-Christian tradition provided a theoretical basis for
the claim of each person's own dignity, but also that the transcendental
morals carried by religion is necessary for the maintenance of liberty and
social order. There may be something true in this hypothesis, but I would
argue that it is at best a partial truth. Not all religions or religious
interpretations are individualistic. Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century
witch hunts were not exactly individualist undertakings. Moreover, many
contemporary churches have adopted much of the advancing
anti-individualist ethos. Furthermore, does the individualist sentiment
come from religion, or could it not be the other way around? (Do we
believe in eternal life because we believe in God, or is the converse?)
Perhaps rationalism is a dead-end, but there is also something
discomforting in the idea that blind faith is necessary for the
preservation of individual liberty.
Another explanation, implicit in much contemporary discourse, is that the
progress of civilization is naturally detrimental to the individualist
sentiment. Civilization, the argument goes, implies social
interdependence, peaceful relations, and increased state power, all of
which contradict the individualist sentiment. I have argued that the
individualist sentiment is not inconsistent with social interdependence.
We could also invoke here Hayek's argument that, contrary to what
Mussolini thought, individual liberty -- and hence the individualist
sentiment -- is a necessary condition for social complexity, while State
intervention undermines it. Similarly, the history of the 20th century
suggests that the State is much more dangerous to peace than the
individualist sentiment. The latter can hardly be opposed to civilization
as it was a founding block of Western civilization.
Now, if we view the decline of the individualist sentiment as a
consequence of the enlargement of the State, we would still have to
explain why the former was unable to counteract the latter. Here, we have
an interesting theory on how autonomous growth of the State automatically
undermines the individualist sentiment -- the theory of the State as an
addictive drug.
We must first admit that social conditions and norms have an influence on
individual preferences. This, of course, is not the same as saying that
society completely determines individual preferences. But it does negate
the neoclassical assumption that individual preferences are given and
immune to social phenomena (like persuasion or advertising). In other
words, between the Marxist view of complete social determination of
individual preferences and the neoclassical assumption that individual
preferences do not change, we adopt an Austrian middle position where
individual preferences are not given and may change in response to outside
influences.
Following Michael Taylor, Anthony de Jasay has developed the theory of the
addictive state in his seminal book, The State. The idea is that the more
the State intervenes to produce public goods or to provide assistance, the
more indispensable it will appear. There are many reasons for this. State
intervention will starve voluntary efforts -- for instance, private
charity becomes less urgent when the Welfare State takes over, and
entrepreneurship in insurance is thwarted by social security and social
programs. Individuals will become used to counting on State assistance and
will plan their affairs in view of expected help and entitlements. And
State interference in delicate and complex social mechanisms will
necessarily have unintended effects, which will call for further
interventions -- like when the State kindly helps people who are
unemployed because of labor laws.
Insofar as people's preferences change with experience and habits, State
intervention will affect the individualist sentiment: reliance on the
State will replace love of individual independence and responsibility, and
individual dignity will be viewed as a function of State guarantees. A
recursive phenomenon of State growth is generated: the more State you
have, the more you want. The State is addictive -- and, we may add, much
more dangerously than tobacco, alcohol or heroin.
As the individualist sentiment is, for a variety of reasons, stronger in
certain persons than in others, not all individuals will become equally
addicted to the State. As de Jasay notes, some will develop an allergic
reaction instead: they will come to hate the State more and more
violently. This would explain (although not necessarily justify) the
psychology of, say, Randy Weaver or events like Oklahoma City: people with
an individualist sentiment will end up fighting or blowing up things, even
if they blow up the wrong things or do it for the wrong reasons.
I have often wondered (especially when I was a member in good standing of
the establishment) why individualists so often appear to be odd, strange,
queer, eccentric people. Benjamin Constant lived an emotionally tortured
life. Albert Jay Nock's friends joked that he lived in Central Park.
Lysander Spooner was too poor to marry the only woman of his life. Georges
Palante marked his students' exams in the company of prostitutes, and he
committed suicide in 1925. And Ayn Rand was not exactly the girl next
door. All these individuals, except for Nock, died childless, a bad way to
transmit their individualist genes if such things exist. In a statist
society, an allergy to the State is a pretty crippling disease -- which
you would expect to be covered under the American with Disabilities Act,
if the source of the allergy were not also the cause of the law. So it is
not necessarily that one is an individualist because one is an eccentric,
causality may run the other way around.
Although, for somebody trained as a neoclassical economist, ideology is
even more difficult than sentiments to fit into social processes, I must
say a word about how the egalitarian ideology has contributed to the
demise of the individualist sentiment. Egalitarians want individuals to be
made equal in some respects other than formal rights. Anthony de Jasay
brilliantly demonstrated how equality in some respect (say, "equal pay for
equal work") implies increased inequality in other respects ("to each
according to his needs," for example). But State-imposed equality in any
respect does always increase equality along one dimension, i.e., equality
in submission to the State. This frontal attack on the individualist
sentiment has probably been the main consequence of the egalitarian
ideology. Furthermore, when there is no restriction on the content of law,
even equality under the law may lead to the same result. In a sense, the
egalitarian ideology has produced not the abolition of slavery, but its
extension to free men.
4. A little case study: the right to keep and bear arms
The demise of the right to keep and bear arms (albeit less pronounced in
the US) provides an interesting case study of the individualist sentiment
and its decline during our century. Contrary to what most people think,
this was a generally recognized right in 19th-century Europe and most
notably in England. Its two justifications, self-defense against common
criminals and resistance to tyranny, were theoretically unquestioned and
were natural implications of the individualist sentiment.
Indeed, individual dignity requires the recognition of the right to keep
and bear arms, as illustrated a contrario by US laws that negated it for
the slaves. There are circumstances when individual liberty is difficult
to enforce without it. "For my own part," wrote Henry David Thoreau, "I
should not like to think that I ever rely on the protection of the State."
Or, went the saying among the Russian Jews persecuted by the advancing
Nazis, "A gun is a passport for the forest!" As for individual
responsibility, there is an insuperable contradiction between the mystique
of the sovereign citizen on the one hand and, on the other hand, his real
master not trusting him with arms. Logical consistency in this framework
(although not libertarian principles) would, it seems to me, require that
any citizen arriving at the poll booth should be frisked for firearms, for
if he is not responsible enough to carry a revolver, he is certainly not
wise enough to vote.
Now, this so obvious right to keep and bear arms has been more or less
extinguished in most Western countries, and has been curtailed, sometimes
severely, in the US. One official reason of state is that guns cause a net
increase in crime since they are inefficient in self-defense. Such an
excuse flies so obviously in the face of facts that other motives must be
suspected. A second, implicit if not official, reason is that we don't
need to resist tyranny anymore. Although this is contradicted by
historical experience, we are probably getting closer to the true motives
of the abolitionists and their supporters. I submit that the basic motive
of State control of firearms is to give the shot of death to the
individualist sentiment; and that the State has succeeded controlling
firearms because the individualist sentiment was already dwarfed in the
minds of the majority.
We can also observe here how the formal rule of law has contributed to
undermining the individualist sentiment and helping the State grow. Once
any equal law is recognized as legitimate, prohibiting something to
individuals who are likely to use it unlawfully justifies regulating
everybody. There are only two ways out of this absurdity: either abandon
the idea of equality under the law, or accept that not all equal laws are
legitimate. Insofar as it is widespread in society, the individualist
sentiment would lead to the second alternative; otherwise, the minority of
individualists may prefer the first one to equal slavery.
Conclusion
I have argued that individual liberty cannot survive without the
individualist sentiment being shared by a large number of people. The
individualist sentiment is compatible with society -- at least with an
open society -- but in strong opposition to the State as we know it. And
this sentiment has been declining (at least partly) because individuals
have become addicted to the State.
If this is true, defending liberty requires rehabilitating the
individualist sentiment and breaking State addiction, a tall order indeed
-- like saying that a drug addict has to restore his confidence in himself
and break his addiction. Where is the chicken and where is the egg? It may
be that fulfilling the order will require (here or elsewhere) another
American revolution, but this is another topic.
Reproduced with authorization. Pierre Lemieux is an economist, author, and
professor. Web site: www.pierrelemieux.org.
Conference given at the Junto meeting at Niederhoffer and Niederhoffer,
New York City, February 1, 1996 [Also available in a Spanish version].
Reproduced in Arms, Law & Society , No. 5 (Spring 1996), p. 1-18.
==============================================
[2] Our Buzzards
==============================================
by James Nathan Post
Everybody admits Americans are propagandized, but we don't believe it. We
learn on TV what is real, and what is good, and why people we don't like
do things we don't like. We are taught to believe the parent, the
pedagogue, the preacher, the policeman, and the president. We're even
taught to believe the psychiatrist and the politician. Because our media
are declared free, we presume what we see on TV is the truth, all the
truth. We know better, but we continue to presume our Red, White, and Blue
righteousness justifies any less-than-true expedients to which we have
been forced by the evil nature of the world.
Here are some unfortunate truths about our present situation. The enemies
we face are all creatures of our own actions. Osama bin Laden is a former
ally and agent of US secret foreign policy. We built his Al Qaida network,
using his money and also weapons and money from proprietary assets of the
CIA and our other covert foreign policy agencies. Why? We were still
fighting the Cold War, using our nation's credit card to bankrupt Russia
with an arms race. The Soviets were trying to take Afghanistan. The word
Jihad' does not mean holy war for Islam' as we are encouraged to believe
in the media, but the struggle to be righteous in an evil world. When a
small group of Muslim extremists declared themselves mujahidin, taking the
last resort of violence against the Soviets in the name of Allah, our
Special Ops folks decided it would be a smart idea to start a Muslim
uprising against our Cold War enemy. So we set up a wealthy young Saudi
radical with the means to create an organization clearly a monster by the
standards of any religion. But as it was our monster, we thought it was
OK.
It was not our first monster in the region. In 1953, the leader of the
popularly elected representative democratic government in Iran decided to
nationalize the oil business. America's President Eisenhower, unwilling to
permit the oil-barons of the military-industrial complex who owned him to
lose their concessions, declared Iran's leader too far left for America's
brand of democracy, and our covert operations specialists disrupted the
government and backed the dictatorship of the monarch Shah. Installed to
protect the interests of the richest Americans, the Shah typically learned
to enjoy American indulgences, and to protect himself from the objections
of his less generously indulged citizens, using as police the "defensive"
military machine created by American foreign aid to protect "his" oil
fields. This led to the Islamic revolution in which members of the Muslim
clergy took over the country and threw out the puppet king of the America
they had learned to hate. Iran became our enemy, and we blamed it on
Islam.
We solved the problem the same way we got ourselves into it. We created
another monster. Again using assets of such covert channels as the CIA and
White House special project teams, we elevated to power an ambitious young
Iraqi army officer named Saddam Hussein, and we encouraged him to wage war
against our former ally and new enemy, Iran. Thinking himself blessed with
our backing in all his ventures, he moved against another of his
neighbors, Kuwait. Like Saudi Arabia and others in the region, Kuwait came
to be a country through the collaboration of a few influential local
families, the oil industry, and the United States government. Hussein's
bold grab of Kuwait reached into the pockets of some very powerful
Americans, who used their positions as the leaders of the American
government to launch yet another war against another former ally. So we
camped our army on holy ground in Arabia to defeat our new enemy, Iraq.
Because we have not left his holy land Arabia, we oppose the Taliban in
Afghanistan and Pakistan, and we support the Muslim-oppressing Israelis,
our former CIA asset Osama ben Laden has become our enemy too.
When the Islamic Party won a fair election in Algeria, we supported a
military crackdown to keep the party out of power, claiming Islamic
fundamentalists would put an end to democracy. In a situation now
developing in Macedonia, Orthodox Macedonians and Serbs stand ready to
launch an ethnic cleansing bloodbath against the Muslim Albanian minority.
Our unwillingness or inability to defend them will be seen as abandonment
by America of all Muslims, and confirmation that it is Christian America,
and not the Muslim Taliban, which seeks to promote a Holy War.
Like a cuckoo, our Eagle of Democracy laid the eggs of peaked-hat-pinhead
dictatorships in others' nests all over the world, and what hatched have
preyed upon their people and glutted themselves upon our leavings of their
countries' resources like predators and eaters of carrion. From
Afghanistan, the Shah's Iran, Saddam's Iraq, Batista's Cuba, Samoza's
Nicaragua, Pinochet's Chile, Thieu's Vietnam, Savang's Laos, Noriega's
Panama, and a dozen other places, our buzzards are coming home to roost.
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Nathan Post regularly writes for The Las Vegas Valley Explorer, Las
Vegas NV.
If you like this column, please forward it to others you think might like
it also. If you would like to read more, you might go to the bookstore at
iUniverse
www.iUniverse.com and ask for GOOD NAZIS IN OFFICE, GOOD NIGGERS IN JAIL,
a book of the first 40 column essays you can read and order online.
-----------------------------------------------------------
==============================================
[3] Reader Feedback
==============================================
Response to “Bush’s Orwellian Address” 3rd LI’s 3rd Edition.
Marv wrote:
“You can twist things around in many ways and come up with just about
anything you want. But this doesn’t change the fact that a serious tragedy
has occurred and many innocent people have died. The fact of the matter is
something has to be done about this and if it means being inconvienced
[sic] at times then so be it. law and order has to be maintained and as
long as there are evil idiots like what’s his face alive we aren’t safe.
And if you don’t have anything to hide you shouldn’t worry as much as you
do. If you have something to hide you should consider a lifestyle change
or perhaps moving to another country.”
[COMMENT: I thank whatever gods may be that the founding fathers of
America and the people who risked their lives during the American
revolution did not follow such a philosophy]
------------------------------
Steven wrote:
“After all your sermonizing and warnings--do you have any better way of
dealing with terrorists? Freedom is never absolute--it looks as though for
the foreseeable future our liberties are less than they were. Thank God
someone recognizes that this has to be done!”
[COMMENT: Would our governments be willing to return our liberties after
the immediate threat passes as quickly as they have taken them? We think
not, and that is the basis for our fears.]
------------------------------
Anonymous wrote:
The article printed on your site relating to an interview with a "Kutty"
about Pakistan, India and Afghanistan reflects the total bias this person
has against the U.S. He is a dangerous person because he has some truth
but places a lot of error and misguided judgments within the facts.
To blame the U.S. for the existence of terrorism and terrorists is simply
unacceptable and also not correct. Certainly our Governmental
administrations in the past have made errors. They have also used certain
people to help them concerning an immediate problem and later these same
people or organizations have turned against the U.S. Bin Laden is a good
example. No one knew he would turn out like he has turned out. The United
States would have never helped this man and any organization he is
involved with if they had known of his ultimate progression toward world
terrorism.
Also, the persons involved in the acts of terroristic war are responsible
for their own personal actions. There is never a justifiable reason for a
person or persons to go around the world killing people, much less
defenseless citizens of the world. These men are the scumbags of the
earth. There is no cause which would justify such actions - none period!
They must all be exterminated from the face of the earth. The free world
must start somewhere and al-quida and Bin Laden is the first place to
start. The rest will be hunted down also. I do not believe the premise
either that more will rise up - if you cut off their funds, if you hunt
them down continually, if the world is always on the alert - they will get
caught quickly and not much will take place. However, if the free world
allows them to continue to operate as you suggest and we just talk and get
into political rhetoric - they will be so dangerous and problematic the
free world would be jeopardized.
One great help in all of this would be if the Muslim/Islamic clerics would
quit teaching hatred, murder and evil teachings to the children. These
clerics worldwide in the Muslim religion are as much guilty of all of this
as the Bin Ladens. They have to be stopped. Religion is one thing but to
use religion as a tool of war, evil and murder is quite another. It is the
truth and that truth is out to the world today. You cannot deny these
clerics are doing all of this in the name of the Muslim religion. If there
are other Muslims who do not believe that the Koran teaches all of this
then it is up to them to seek for Reformation within that religion. The
Free World will not continue to tolerate a religion which fosters and
promotes terrorism. If it continues the world will destroy the Muslim
religion and that is also a fact. You say it can't - then you do not know
history. There have been entire populations and religions exterminated
from the face of the earth that have gone the route of war and evil in the
name of religion. So, the warning is out there and those who are wise will
seek to reform this religion and stop all of this nonsense.
Religion is to get people into a relationship with some God in terms of
the afterlife. It is not to make Nations and Politics. Muslims must
separate their politics from their religion if they want to see progress
and peace. Many of the other nations have seen that this merging of
religion and politics will not work and brings a great problem to the
peoples of the various lands. Places that have tried a mixture of religion
and politics in the past and found it did nothing but bring many problems
were the European Nations, even the U.S. in the earlier colonial days, and
yes, even Rome, Italy. The separation of Church and State is the only sane
reasonable way to go for religions of this world. Otherwise there will
always be wars and killings.
------------------------------
lex364 wrote re: 6th Edition:
“sorry to say i was disapointed by my first reading of your "newsletter"
have you ever stopped to think that if not for those countless military
operations, you would not have the freedom and liberty to spread your
pinko bullshit?
everyone in entitled to their own opinion and yours sucks”
[COMMENT: Liberty Impact does not endorse nor does it completely agree
with all the content in every article we choose to print. If we choose a
particular article to appear in Liberty Impact, it may be for various
reasons such as presenting news events from different perspectives and
opinions, educational purposes, etc. Liberty Impact will continue to bring
to its readers hard-hitting articles and opinion pieces to stimulate
thought, foster debate, and present our readers with advice and
recommendations for products and/or services that will help to maximize
individual privacy and liberty.]
------------------------------
Michael wrote:
“Dear Liberty persons:
Jacob Levich's article, "Happy New Year: It's 1984!" contains a classic
error which I have been trying to stamp out for some time now. The book
'1984', written in 1948 by Eric Blair and not published until 1949 under
the pen name of George Orwell, is not, was never, and never shall have
been intended to be prophetic. The book was a description of how Blair saw
things in 1948. That they may be more obvious now (or that the technology
may be catching up to match that which Blair used in the background for
his work) does not establish that 1984 was meant to predict the future. It
is a common use of the genre of science fiction to cloak social commentary
of the present day -- the most common and egregious example being Star
Trek, in which the phrase, "...it was an old 20th-century invention"
occurs in every episode. Star Trek is not meant to be written as a
predictor of what life will be like in the year 2500 AD; the futuristic
setting is the background for stories about the human condition, as it
exists today. Within 1984, the protagonist, Winston Smith, reads from a
book by Emmanuel Goldstein, a bogeyman of the Osama bin Laden class. This
book is called, "The theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism" (or
something like that). It contains a description of the key area for which
THE war, for there is only one, ongoing as it may be, sides splitting and
shifting and merging as they might, is being fought. I suggest that Cde.
Levich read that part of the book over again and then look where
Afghanistan and Iraq are. The war over Afghanistan started a long time ago
(see The Great Game, a series on conflicts between Russia and Britain,
'1984' by Eric Blair, and the history of the Taliban, et cetera). That
Bush's speech may sound ominous is really not so chilling until you look
at the historical context: the forever war began over 100 years ago, and
it will last, if imperialist powers are successful, until the end of
civilization. Also useful from 'The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical
Collectivism' is the GOAL of the area being fought for. Beyond the
short-term goal of liminating the Taliban (which, according to the FBI,
destroyed $93 BILLION in opium and hashish fields recently in an attempt
to rid the country of criminals and the drug trade), why does the United
States want Afghanistan? Same as Viet Nam. We lost the fighting there, but
we scored the long-term victory: we gained Viet Nam as a market.
Solidarity forever,
Michael C. Marino
Action Chair, Socialist Party of Oregon
http://www.thesocialistparty.org
[COMMENTS: Liberty Impact thanks Mr. Marino for his thoughtful and
well-researched response to Liberty Impact’s 3rd Edition newsletter. It is
very informative. And to those readers who are quick to jump to
conclusions (and one has even sent a virus after the publication of the
6th Edition) we would like to state that Liberty Impact does not endorse
government-imposed Socialism.]
------------------------------
[Although we could not print all the comments we received from our readers
due to limited space; we wish to thank everyone who sent us comments, good
or bad (except for the reader who sent the virus. He will not be receiving
any more issues).]
==============================================
[4] Quote of the Week
==============================================
"Nothing is easier than spending public money. It does not appear to
belong to anybody. The temptation is overwhelming to bestow it on
somebody."
-- Calvin Coolidge
“Give me Liberty Impact, or give me death!”
-- Ragnar Danneskjold, editor -- Liberty Impact :)
"THIS AD COULD BE YOURS!" Reach tens of thousands of offshore
and privacy enthusiasts, professionals, & entrepreneurs with
your advertising message. Past advertisers are delighted: "I
was very pleased with the results. It was our best week ever!"
and "The response was good. It sure beats print advertising."
Direct mailings cost 30 - 40 cents (postage & handling) per
household while newsletter ads are only one penny (or less)
per reader. E-mail – Lucrative_1@yahoo.com for details now!
=============================================
See you next week! Please help spread the message of liberty and forward
this newsletter to your friends and associates! If you have comments or
suggestions or would like to submit an article, essay, or comment (that
may appear in the reader feedback section) please send an email to
Lucrative_1@yahoo.com or simply reply to this email. Thank you for reading
Liberty Impact!
=============================================
|