FB thread post:
one Chris responded:
Chomsky critical of bank bailouts: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/20467-noam-chomsky-interview
Chomsky critical of NDAA: https://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/noam-chomsky-on-the-ndaa-the-u-s-constitution-is-being-scrapped/
Chomsky on medical marijuana: https://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com/2011/10/25/noam-chomsky-talks-the-truth-on-marijuana/
Chomsky critical, in general of Obama and Clinton: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/244731-noam-chomsky-obama-is-an-opportunist
one Nancy responded:
Democracy Now has hosted plenty of guests who criticized Obama for the bank bail-outs, for increased prosecutions for cannabis, for deportations, wiretapping, and rendition – among many other perceived violations of civil liberties. It’s fair to say that it has been the crux of its reporting throughout the last eight years.
The collectivist vs. natural rights debate is constructed on straw men. Any civilization, but especially one with a population in excess of 324 million people (in the US), requires organization – which entails planning, management and arbitration for collective interests. Even in a micro unit as small as a family, individual rights and interests are compromised for the shared welfare.
Especially after reading “Dark Money,” I’m pretty much convinced that the ‘freedom movement’ – at least as it relates to libertarian ideals – is a cover for greed. It’s no ideology; it’s authoritarian pathology.
my lengthy reply:
thank you again Chris for sharing those links where Chomsky rightly criticized a few Democrats, proving that he doesn’t just criticize Republicans. i admit that i need to do better in the area of giving credit where credit is due. perhaps DN does strive to hold both so called “sides” accountable, at least on occasion.
i have definitely signed more than one petition that Democracy Now has distributed in the past. however, i have also seen DN solicit petitions that ran entirely contrary to Natural Rights principles, and i therefore eventually unsubscribed from their newsletters. and while i didn’t take time to watch the video of Chomsky, i didn’t notice in the article where he criticizes Obama and Clinton any specific mention of Natural Rights violations.
from my perspective, it seems that both DN and Chomsky — and really the general masses — do not seem to have an objective set of principles upon which their perceived ideology stands firm upon and in truth. this is why i elected to respond to the initial post of this thread by Davyne, although i admit i was perhaps slightly abrasive in my initial post. it has not been easy for me to overcome my personal anger issues regarding losing my entire livelihood and life long nest egg resultant from local Collectivism and hypocrisy, but i’m working on it.
consider that no one can justly make up laws according to their own personal whims and desires, or selectively pass into “law” that which will benefit their own cronies rather than everyone. we libertarians have the same kind of disdain over the practice of “crony capitalism” (which is certainly NOT free market capitalism), as we do for any form of collectivist ideologies (Socialism, Communism, Fascism, etc.). “crony capitalism” is yet one more form of Collectivism because it inherently violates the Natural Right to be treated as equals under Civil Law.
through the gradual adoption of various elements from these collectivist ideologies in our American Civil Law, the masses have been hoodwinked into believing that we can only choose from two so called “sides” of the false “left/liberal - right/conservative” political landscape dominated by a partisan duopoly for far too long. We the People have the means to put an end to this partisan domination, but we cannot do so without first breaking free from this collectivist deception while considering the re-implementation into our Civil Law, Natural Rights principles rooted in Individualism.
Nancy, you make assertions such as "collectivist vs. [individualism, and/or] natural rights debate is constructed on straw men". i’m curious as to what particular examples i have already shared above that you find to be constructed on a false argument. do you believe that individuals have free will and self-ownership, or that they don’t?
you use the phrase "perceived violations of civil liberties”. for many years i have found it interesting that when we hear the media speak of “rights” it most often uses the phrase “civil rights”.
there is a major difference between Natural Rights and Civil Rights, as well as Natural Law VS Civil Law — Natural Rights are an extension of Natural Law which pre-exists civil government, while Civil Rights are an extension of Civil Law which is created by civil government.
i submit that the reason we don’t hear the media reference Natural Law or Natural Rights is because there has been an agenda for a very long time to advance Collectivist indoctrination, which has been occurring from *both* the so called political “left” and “right”. this indoctrination process begins at a very young age through the government school system, and continues through adulthood through mass media.
anyone who doesn’t believe this can simply focus on one media talking point issue at a time, compare and contrast the views of the opposing sides being presented, and then ask oneself if there are any other potential solutions to the issue.
for example, same sex marriage debates by the partisan duopoly rarely include any other option other than STATE interference and infringement upon the Natural Right to Private Contract. massive collectivist indoctrination of the public has caused the masses to forget that the STATE has no authority interfering in private contracts, and likewise that the institution of marriage is not only a private matter but also one of CHURCH rather than STATE.
the answer to this controversial issue is simple — get the STATE out of the equation entirely as it should be. not every issue is as simple, but in general the STATE should never violate ANY Natural Right of the individual. if we could just accomplish this, ALL Americans would enjoy a massive increase in peace, prosperity, and liberty… and thus, we would all be able to more easily and happily live and let live.
but let us not be so gullible to think this false partisan dichotomy we have been taught to believe is not by design in order to continue the ever growing great divide between Americans. United We Stand, Divided We Fall is a true ancient adage; its very concept is fundamental to Sun Tzu’s “Art of War”. we would be wise to heed such wisdom, especially in light of the present state in which we find ourselves as a society.
for the Philosophy of Collectivism to be adopted, the principles upon which Natural Rights are built must be obfuscated. followers of the collectivist philosophy must be willing to abandon their individual free will and self-ownership, for servitude to the STATE. the most popular argument has been that doing so is for the so called “greater good”.
however, once freed from the indoctrination of Collectivism we have been under for most of our lives, we who cherish our individual sovereignty now understand that we have not willingly given it up to the STATE — it has been usurped through the use of force by the very same STATE that by law is supposed to be protecting our individual sovereignty.
Civil Law implementation of Individualism and Natural Law through the protection of unalienable individual Natural Rights does not prohibit organization. in fact, the organization into Civil Law of such principles is paramount to the maximizing of peace, prosperity, and liberty. the majority of the problems we face as a society are resultant from the STATE violating Natural Rights of the individual resultant from pandering to collective (or *special*) interests.
regardless what personal whims of collectivist partisans who disregard individual sovereignty and free will have managed to get passed into “law” though bribery, favor, or some other form of corruption in the Legislature, it’s not within the authority of the STATE to infringe upon the private lives of individuals — ANY and ALL such Civil Law which violates Natural Law, and individual Natural Rights by extension, is illegal.
if Democracy Now is actually being critical of the various issues cited in this thread, then it should be explaining the real reason *why*. it should know that these matters are in direct violation of our Natural Rights which do not originate from any STATE. We the People should all know and understand this fundamental truth. however, and again, we have been deceived by collectivist indoctrination to forget such true principles.
further, Natural Law and Individualism does not prohibit welfare. however, welfare should never be used as an excuse to violate the Natural Rights of anyone. welfare itself should always be a function of charity, which can really only be voluntary. although, while some may erroneously believe the use of force equates to charity, this concept obviously adopts a perverse form of reasoning.
therefore, whatever tax/welfare system we construct in our Civil Law should never engage in theft. rather, we should implement a tax/welfare system that is voluntary, not forced. while such a task seems daunting, based upon at least one tax structure concept i’ve been reading about, i’m convinced it is possible.
i find it interesting that you have concluded the so called “freedom movement” relating to your present understanding of “libertarian ideals” to be a cover for greed.
i am quick to admit that the so called “freedom movement” and even “Libertarianism” by various so called self-prescribed “authorities” has been corrupted in like manner as other political movements. segments of these freedom or liberty movements have been for quite sometime hijacked by anarchists, while others by so called “progressives” and “neo-cons”. such is why i have been working on establishing an accurate standard of principles for what libertarianism truly is, and what it is not, through NaturalRightsCoalition.com.
so in focusing more specifically upon specific principles, please help me understand how any of the points i included in my short bulleted list of Individualism examples in early America have anything whatsoever to do with any concept of greed. further, which principles on the NRC website do you feel are rooted in greed, and why?
please also consider that greed is largely subjective, for everyone has varying views as to what being greedy really is. it is impossible to construct a just and sustainable legal system of Civil Law in a society upon subjective ideas like greed, for example. we must always seek objective standards rather than subjective ones when dealing in law.
regardless, if you're going to criticize those motivated by greed, then you must certainly criticize those who engage in and protect the political establishment’s banking scheme which has been in place since 1913. consider that almost no US administration since has sought to audit or expose the Federal Reserve banking system... except JFK and we know where that tragically got him.
also regarding greed, consider that greed and theft are associatively relative to one another. the ideology of libertarianism rooted in the Philosophy of Individualism that i am advancing through the honoring and protection of Natural Rights by society’s Civl Law, specifically does not allow for theft because individuals have the Natural Right to property. conversely, the adoption of Collectivist ideologies in our Civil Law does allow and even attempts to justify theft… and again, for the so called “greater good”.
for those who seem to entirely disagree with the concept that Natural Rights principles must be implemented in Civil Law for peace, prosperity, and liberty to be maximized in a society, i must question such a rationale and solicit an alternative concept that could do likewise which is not rooted in the Philosophy of Collectivism.