~jus' bein' a whiner~

i've been sick for a while. haven't ranted for a bit... the rhetoric's building, but the valve is plugged, so i'll explode with a diatribe sooner or later.

The MoxArgon Group: XRAN XPLAINS: The Maclean's/Mark Steyn Controversy

check this out. these guys kicked the crap out of my minutiae:

The MoxArgon Group: XRAN XPLAINS: The Maclean's/Mark Steyn Controversy

maybe i'll simplify... :)

~progressives~

is it me, or is the term "progressive" making the political philosophical rounds again? maybe i've been noticing it more in the blogzoo these days because it's been on my mind lately.

check out American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/free_speech_in_canada.html

the author's premise is about social liberal contradiction.

on one hand, HRC supporters have no ethical problem using "the power of the state to repress speech deemed to be racist or sexist. Patrolling speech is something a civilized, modern, multi-cultural and tolerant nation should do".

on the other hand, HRC supporters have a big problem "patrolling speech" when it comes to the Tories' new Bill c-10. apparently, if a filmmaker produces a work which has been deigned "acceptable" by the social liberal zeitgeist, promoting murderous, racist communism (never murderous, racist fascism), or sexist Islam (never sexist Christianity), and the State declines to favour it with tax credits, this has in it "a whiff of censorship", to quote Canadian subjectivist Sarah Polley.

the author writes:

• "Okay. So apparently we are right to use the power of the state to repress speech deemed to be racist or sexist. Patrolling speech is something a civilized, modern, multi-cultural and tolerant nation should do.
  Unless you happen to be a filmmaker facing the loss of federal tax credits which subsidize the film industry in Canada. The federal government is contemplating a new bill which will deny tax credits to a film "deemed offensive." The examples used are films that are pornographic or extremely violent. Please note: the government is not saying the film can't be made. They are saying the taxpayers won't have to subsidize it".

...which is my point. just because the State doesn't choose to subsidise art, this doesn't mean that the State is suppressing, by law, said art. this is not censorship.

...but as usual, most miss the point: the State shouldn't fund art of any kind, period! let's stop giving these flakes ammo with this stupid Bill c10. kill it, and kill all art welfare.

when our artists' firmly clenched teeth are pried off Mommystate's teat, and they, over time, think of themselves as less than precious and indispensable to the cultural integrity and intellectual stimulation of the nation, and lose their socialist sense of entitlement to money that doesn't belong to them, this ridiculous "censorship" issue will melt away, and artists will continue to create whatever the hell they want, on their own dime or sponsorship, without help nor hindrance from the State.

...as it should be.

~but, to get back to my thought, the "progressive" political philosophy is actually a self defeating one.

a Progressive needs two things. he needs an antagonist away from which to progress, and a system of support to implement his ideals.

at the heart of his problem are three liberties, which are the collective antagonist and the source of the Progressive's scorn.

1. Private Property Rights are the main target: if the Progressive can stifle property rights, the other two liberties are in the bag. a private property owner -private or business- must have freedom from intrusion and coercion by the State. a private residence, or a privately owned business or institution (restaurant, newspaper, lumber mill, church, school) must have the freedom to be as fair or unfair in it's hiring or public practices as it wishes. the markets may or may not economically punish it through ostracism or boycott if it decides to be a bad neighbor and ban a certain group or class. the markets can accommodate the group or class in question. money talks. no one need feel entitled to enter another's private home, business or institution...... the Progressive would control the owner's property, in the name of "human rights", eventually creating such a statist inertia (HRCs for example), that controlling escalating intrusion by the State would be nearly impossible.
2. Freedom of Speech is a target: the only speech which can fairly be punished, without corroding the ideal is slander/libel of an individual (not a group. we're all big kids. suck it up and use your freedom to rebuke) and fraud. speech deemed "offensive to", "hateful to" or "to create contempt for" a group (any group) is still free speech. these terms are subjective with varying degrees of meaning from one context to the next. don't believe me? why are inflammatory imams not sitting in the defendant's chairs at HRC interrogations?...... want to see fomented hate and violence? take away peoples' freedom of speech (or worse, some peoples' freedom of speech), watch the outrage build, look for the scapegoat, and wait for the explosion.
3. weapons ownership is a target (no pun): Progressives believe that if a nation can ban the guns, we will all be much safer. Progressives are naive and don't understand human nature. never mind an individual's natural right to procure food as part of his living or in an emergency (or even as a hobby), or his right to protect his person, property and family; if a gun ban was implemented, the only people with guns would be the State (police, bureaucrats and army) and the Criminal. the law abiding citizen would be left as an impotent sitting duck (so to speak), waiting to be harassed either by the Criminal, or by young cops and soldiers on a long leash. the evil side of human nature abhors a vacuum.

obviously, the well-meaning Progressive's system of support is the State. but, because of his agenda, the State grows and yearns to dominate, so is a naturally evil beast; necessary, but evil. the more thoughtful among us understand this. one way to ensure a small, efficient government is to protect the three liberties from it as much as possible.

...but why does the Progressive feel uncomfortable with these liberties? psychology aside (that's a another post), the Progressive looks to the State for security in jobs, housing, medical care and money if he finds himself short, and wants to control the State to further his security. the three liberties, by contrast and nature, demand to be left alone by government, and threaten his sense of security.

these liberties protect Individual Liberty. individual liberty is an ideal that wants to be protected from the State. this is the last bastion against totalitarianism. when it's crushed, the Progressive will wonder what went wrong when he finds himself pondering his poverty and oppression. he might then become objective, turn, and start to fight for property rights, free speech, and the right to bear arms.

i'll repeat my mantra~ every right given to someone by the State ensures a liberty is taken away from someone else.

...Progressives are subjective fools.