A quarterly magazine of urban affairs, published by the Manhattan Institute, edited by Brian C. Anderson.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Undermining the Free Society « Back to Story
Comments are closed for this story.
Showing 9 Comment(s) Subscribe by RSS
hi, thanks for sharing this place.
Reminds of the Tocqueville quote:
"There is, in fact a manly and lawful passion for equality that incites men to wish all to be powerful and honored. This passion tends to elevate the humble to the rank of the great; but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom."
Alexis de Tocqueville
The underlying problem from a constitutional point of view is that the separation of church and state has been applied by the Supreme Court in a social democratic way to keep faith out of the schools, but not to keep political and moral instruction out of the schools.
We need an expanded concept of establishment of religion to drive out of the schools the leftist dogma that attends the teaching of most humanities subjects and sex education.
It is noteworthy that the only sort of challenge that you do not need standing (locus standi) for, is to drive school prayer out of a school. The favoring of one interest over another by the Supreme Court is a disgrace. It is not justice.
In reality we need vouchers. We need the federal government out of education and welfare. Obama has liberalized welfare in the last two years. We should never forget that he was himself a beneficiary of the food stamps program.
We have to close down Obama's health care plans, because if we do not, they will be used to promote and subsidize promiscuity, illegitimacy, homosexuality and drug abuse.
We have to remove the federal government from subsidization of what from a Judeo-Christian perspective is immoral behavior. We likely can do that by appealing to Islamic sensitivity, of all things.
But what about the influence of TV? As in Amusing Ourselves To Death by Neil Postman.
I would argue that TV is easily the dominant formative cultural influence now operative in the world altogether. Modern "culture", such as it is, is essentially created in the image of TV.
It is thus a combination of the dreadful scenarios described and prophesized by both Aldous Huxley in Brave New World, and George Orwell in 1984.
The dreadfully sane every-person made self-oblivious via junk "food" and a cornucopia of drugs, both legal and illegal. The obese, and essentially self-destructive every-person being the ultimate and inevitable product of the system.
Entertained until death while the never-ending open "war on terror" creates the necessary fear-saturated paradigm which energizes the entire fear-saturated system.
When human culture is based on the principal of competitive individualism then everyone is effectively working towards the destruction of both human culture, and of the natural world altogether.
Have you REALLY read the "news"?
I would imagine second hand smoke and shooting prairie dogs comes under the "pursuit of happiness" section.
It's possible that elections, a very awakened citizenry, the simple fact that the Huge Superstate cannot be sustained at this level, and perhaps even the Republican Party will reverse these trends. The people are awake, they see their would be masters attempting to steal their freedoms, Liberties, and all their money right out from under their noses. They may well reverse it. When was the last time the average person was discussing Federalism?
But the Progressive Superstate may fight to keep what it has stolen. If so...
There's another option.
And the Iraqi's have shown us the way.
I feel as though I could sum up the problem quite simply. People have lost the old notions of freedom, rights, and responsibilities. In America, the notion of rights came out of human capacities and an understanding of where they can contradict/conflict with each other. As the Founders said, the role of government was to ensure the free exercise of those rights, not to create new ones. What the progressives have done is change the definition of a right from "capacity" to "need". So therefor if I need healthcare (and presumably everyone does), I have a right to it.
The notion of freedom was basically the idea that as long as I'm not directly hurting somebody I can do what I want. I think we've learned some lessons since then, that we need to take into account environmental pollution, that if we're damaging a resource that other people depend on, then that needs to fall into the "responsibilities" category as well.
As for the ruling class and their imposition of moral standards, the only reason they can do it is we the citizenry let them do it. This will only change when we take back the mantle of moral responsibility.
some more food for thought. jack
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness....
I was looking for the part where they mentioned second hand smoke and prarie dog shooting. Still looking, can anyone help me?