Category Archives: Individualism Vs. Collectivism

UPDATE II: Beck Bucks The System (If “Incoherent & Meandering”)

Glenn Beck, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, libertarianism, Media, Uncategorized

Yes, I’ve been critical of the irrational, illogical twists and turns in the thinking of Glenn Beck in recent months. (Here). “Skeptic” (the magazine) could use Beck’s conspiracy building tactics to fill an issue on irrational thinking. However, besides exuding goodness, Beck also radiates rebellion. Whatever one thinks of Beck, he is a rebel. And like all real rebels, he too must secede from the system. Glenn’s departure from FoxNews is an act of secession. FoxNews is the system. Beck is no longer able to abide by the ideological and disciplinary constraints imposed by the Republican establishment’s megaphone.

Beck has promised his jubilant adversaries that they were “going to pray for the days of 5:00PM,” intimating that a force of nature has been unleashed on the world. Or as the Judge put it, “Bigger, better and more Beck.”

Go Glenn! Of course, as I had hoped (see “Beck has Left the Building”), The Judge may stand to inherit the slot.

UPDATE (April 7) I: I hear here, and on Facebook, lots of cheerleading for one program, The Judge’s. Or Stossell’s—who is marvelous, but still very much within the remits of conventional, by-the-book libertarianism. I love them both to bits. But none of you so-called “independent thinkers” has noticed that these shows tolerate, 1) the must-have, establishment Tea Partiers, and 2) the Reason and other narrow-faction libertarianism. The shows are still within the, admittedly, wonderful box. Those who say Beck is part of the system are as insane as Beck (who is a good type of insane; a lovable goof, as Huggs put it). Beck is a natural secessionist.

I’m surprised that you’ve all fallen to your knees before (our) ideological correctness, dismissing Beck’s brave act of secession, b/c of his errors of thought. I have news for you: In the liberty-oriented community, people tend to huddle in atrophying intellectual attics, and quibble about detecting and expelling contrarians. Dare to dissent on this or the other point of purity, and keepers of the flame will take it upon themselves to read you out of the movement. This, naturally, makes for tribalism, not individualism. The bad, moreover, have a nasty habit of crowding out the good. Or as one wag once said to me (was it Randy Barnett? I can’t recall), “Quality is never the result of intellectual purges: the most creative and independent thinkers are the first to go.” That makes perfect psychological sense: those who remain feel more secure, group cohesion having trounced intellectual vitality.

UPDATE II (April 9): Larry Auster:

Glenn Beck’s announcement that he is going to “transition off” his daily TV program later this year, whatever that means, is about as coherent as Sarah Palin’s July 2009 announcement of her reasons for resigning from the governorship. Has anyone noticed that Beck, like Palin, is inveterately incapable of forming a cogent sentence, and that one of the reasons for this, as with Palin, is that almost everything he says revolves around himself?

Indubitably true.

UPDATED: “Black Racism”: A Conversation With Erik Rush (Part 2)

Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Propaganda, Race, Racism

This week, on WND.COM (HERE), I talk “Black Racism” with Erik Rush. “Black Racism” is the title of a chapter in the book under discussion, and is the second of a two-part conversation with Erik, a WND columnist, and the author of “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession.” Read part 1 of this interview is HERE.

Rush claims that “… American blacks have become more racist since the late sixties. … In many ways, blacks are more distrustful of whites now than when they had a legitimate reason to be.” More with Erik in “Black Racism’: A Conversation With Erik Rush (Part 2),” now on WND.COM.

UPDATE (April 1): I posted the following on David Yeagley’s Facebook page, in response to a Bad Eagle post titled, “Ilana Mercer: Echoes of St. Paul”:

David, this is deep. You are deep. But I think my political position is that individuals ought to be free to self-identify or affiliate in any way they wish—without being libeled, labeled and banished from polite company. To be a KKK is worse than horrid. But why, when we have proud black racialism, must we banish from polite company and from the job market WASPs who, peacefully, say and do the same? Freedom means more than speech: it means leaving people be. In that sense, America is unfree. Btw, I consider you one of my pepes because of your valor and values, not your heritage (which accounts for your handsomeness ). So, I don’t quite fit your analysis. which is, nevertheless, deep.

‘Black Racism’: A Conversation With Erik Rush

Democrats, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Neoconservatism, Political Correctness, Race, Racism, Republicans

This week, on WND.COM (HERE), I talk “Black Racism” with Erik Rush. “Black Racism” is the title of a chapter in the book under discussion, and is the first of a two-part conversation with Erik, who is a WND columnist, and the author of “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession.”

Do you know what Erik told an African-American reader who accused him of not being sufficiently concerned about “his people” who were dying all over the world? Besides assuring her that he was not a member of a racial tribe, Erik also informed the woman that blacks were indeed dying … in Africa, mainly, because they were killing each other. And he recommended that she decamp to that continent where she would be appreciated as a sex slave or as lunch.

More with The Rush in “‘Black Racism’: A Conversation With Erik Rush (Part 1),” now on WND.COM.

UPDATED: Healthscare Halted?

Constitution, Democrats, Healthcare, Individual Rights, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Justice, Law, Natural Law

“I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate,” Judge Roger Vinson writes. “Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.” (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=40520) District Judge Roger Vinson hails form in Pensacola, Florida. He sided with 26 suing states.

Will those Senators who’re up for re-election in 2012 bring themselves to vote with their lower-chamber colleagues to repeal the thing? Will the same representatives admit that forcing an individual to purchase a product is wrong, and certainly beyond their mandate?

I doubt it. They’ll tell us that the (Rousseauist) common good, as defined by the state, takes precedent over the common man. We have not heard the last from Obama’s advancing Politburo Of Proctologists.

UPDATE: Vinson’s is really a beautifully written and reasoned Decision. It cleaves to the Constitution. Keith Olbermann’s proxies have begun to tarnish Judge Vinson as a judicial activist, whatever that means. Do these sound like unfair proceedings?

Both sides have filed strong and well researched memoranda in support of their motions for summary judgment (“Mem.”), responses in opposition (“Opp.”), and replies (“Reply”) in further support. I held a lengthy hearing and oral argument on the motions December 16, 2010 (“Tr.”). In addition to this extensive briefing by the parties, numerous organizations and individuals were granted leave to, and did, file amicus curiae briefs (sixteen total) in support of the arguments and claims at issue.

“… I conclude that the individual mandate seeks to regulate economic inactivity, which is the very opposite of economic activity. And because activity is required under the Commerce Clause, the individual mandate exceeds Congress’ commerce power, as it is understood, defined, and applied in the existing Supreme Court case law….”

AND:
The individual mandate is outside Congress’ Commerce Clause power, and it cannot be otherwise authorized by an assertion of power under the Necessary and Proper Clause. It is not Constitutional. Accordingly, summary judgment must be
granted in favor of the plaintiffs… ”

Also adjudicated was the state plaintiffs objection “to the fundamental and ‘massive’
changes in the nature and scope of the Medicaid program that the Act will bring about. They contend that the Act violates the Spending Clause [U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1] as it significantly expands and alters the Medicaid program to such an extent they cannot afford the newly-imposed costs and burdens. They insist that they have no choice but to remain in Medicaid as amended by the Act, which will eventually require them to ‘run their budgets off a cliff.’ This is alleged to violate the Constitutional spending principles set forth in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 107 S. Ct. 2793, 97 L. Ed. 2d 171 (1987), and in other cases.5 Under Dole, there are four restrictions on Congress’ Constitutional spending
power: (1) the spending must be for the general welfare; (2) the conditions must be stated clearly and unambiguously; (3) the conditions must bear a relationship to the purpose of the program; and 4) the conditions imposed may not require states ‘to engage in activities that would themselves be unconstitutional.’ Supra, 483 U.S. at 207-10. In addition, a spending condition cannot be ‘coercive.’ This conceptional requirement is also from Dole, where the Supreme Court speculated (in dicta at the end of that opinion) that ‘in some circumstances the financial inducement offered by Congress might be so coercive as to pass the point at which ‘pressure turns into compulsion.’ … If that line is crossed, the Spending Clause is violated.”

[SNIP]

Left-liberals believe a judicial activist is someone who reverses precedent. Republicans think a judicial activist is someone who disobeys the President. That’s the sum total of how the two parties relate to the law.