Category Archives: General / Other

Left vs. Right: The History of a Paradigm

By | | , , , ,
Leave a comment

Among the political terms loaded with assumption, often little understanding and certainly far less historical context are the terms that follow:

Left Wing and Right Wing.

And yet, our talking heads in the media and the elites in our government offices throw the terms around with impunity. And the assumptions that accompany these sweeping labels can often create all sorts of false presumptions—and sometimes accusations—deliberately earmarked along with the accurate ones. So it seems to me that a bit of historical clarification—as is often the case—can offer a bit more insight into the meaning of the terms today.

The terms “left” and “right” as political designations originated during one of the most violent preludes to modern revolution: the French Revolution. After the Third Estate—representing the majority of the French population—broke away from the representatives of the nobility and the clergy and named themselves the National Assembly of France, they quickly began to divide on how far to take their new revolution. Having passed a French Constitution severely limiting the king’s power and establishing state control over the Church in France, those who were generally content with the extent of their significant changes began to sit on the right side of the legislative chamber. But even so, a more radical group emerged. These were the Jacobins and their allies, and these tended to sit together on the left side of the chamber. These Jacobins would soon dominate the Revolution, leading it to the execution of the king, an attempt to obliterate Christianity in France, and a complete mass-murder of political prisoners at the hands of the guillotine in the infamous Reign of Terror.[1]

And thus emerged the “Left” and the “Right.” It is interesting that even in the infancy of these pervasive terms, both the Left and Right were radical. Though less radical than their Jacobin colleagues across the chamber, even the Right Wing of the National Assembly could hardly be considered conservative, as they, too, had been responsible for tearing down the old institutional framework of aristocratic France. State control of the Church, accomplished with the Civil Constitution of the Clergy in 1791? An official ban on all aristocratic titles, and a limitation of the power of monarch to nothing more than a rubber-stamp on legislation (without even full veto power)? Hardly much conserving the old order there, and all supported by the so-called Right Wing.[2]

Soon enough, the terms Left and Right were adopted across the Western world, and of course, today are used to describe governments and officials around the world.  

Our modern understanding of the terms was heavily influenced by Karl Marx, as many who use the designation “Left-Wing” today refer to those who support some form of socialism, whether in a classical (government ownership of factories, national resources) or a modern welfare state sense. The underlying assumption, of course, is that Left-Wingers favor egalitarianism and equality, whether socially, economically, politically, et cetera. In contrast, then, sometimes merited and sometimes not, Right-Wingers are perceived as favoring an understanding of society that at least accepts, and at most advocates for, some inequality. As an editorial aside, I must note that most self-proclaimed Right-Wingers will adamantly argue for equality of opportunity, regardless of the outcomes. But the contrast with the Left-Wingers is their belief that different outcomes will likely result, and this nearly always the result of unequal personalities, levels of intelligence, physical abilities, motivation and so forth. Very few (but not all) modern Right-Wingers will deny any basic human equality in rights or opportunities.

But back to history.

It is quite clear that the terms “Left” and “Right” wing are affected—whether accurately or not—by some significant historical episodes. Far more well-known than the French Revolution roots of the terms are the influence of the major powers of the 1920s and 1930s. Thus it is that the Nazis are considered Right-Wing and the communists under Lenin to be Left-Wing. But the difference here is more hyperbolic and more centered around “teams” than it is around substantive policy differences (both favored various extents of socialism and state control over property and the economy). Let’s explore this further.

For his part, Karl Marx believed that history is determined—driven—by the conflict of two major classes of people: the owners and non-owners (bourgeoisie and proletariats). His ultimate belief was that as a result of Capitalism, the proletariats (primarily, the factory workers) would arise, dismantle the entire capitalist structure through the creation of a “Dictatorship of the Proletariat,” and then dissolve all private ownership of the means of production (everything that goes into making things). All such resources would be shared in common: communism.[3] Vladimir Lenin thought human actors (the Bolsheviks, in his case) could speed this process along. The ultimate goal: absolute egalitarianism and no property ownership (except for personal items). If this forms the extreme left end of the “Left-Right-Wing” continuum, then anyone who leans toward egalitarianism, especially as enforced by state mechanisms, is considered “Left-Wing.”

With the rise of the Bolsheviks in Russia and the pursuit of this private-property free world, political and intellectual figures throughout Europe grew increasingly worried. Those who did so were increasingly considered Right-Wing. That such a small group of socialists (registered Bolsheviks were about 0.01% of the Russian population in 1917) could take over one of the largest economies in the world was understandably alarming.

One important note about the Left-Wing ideology emerging with the Bolsheviks in Russia was its emphasis on internationalism. By this, we mean that they were not nationalist, but rather saw communism as the ultimate and universal goal of all proletariat workers. They believed in the ultimate dissolution of political borders. For this reason, the nationalist leaders of the 1920s—Benito Mussolini, Adolph Hitler, Francisco Franco, and many others—were first and foremost opposed to Bolshevism.

And with this, their affiliation with the Right-Wing began. It was already the case that some measure of “conservatism” was being affiliated with the term “Right-Wing” in western countries, and when Mussolini and Hitler arrived on the scenes in the 1920s, some conservatives in England and France were sympathetic with their desire for a strong national unity and their fear of the totalitarian Bolsheviks. So in turn, they developed their own totalitarian regimes with a special and deliberate emphasis on culture and race as a means of creating powerful nationalistic movements. The race and cultural distinctions replaced the class distinctions of the Bolsheviks. (True conservatives in Germany during Hitler’s rise to power, naturally, were aghast at his radical re-envisioning of society. While Hitler and other fascists appealed to culture and history, they were by no means conservative.)

This is a key reason why, even today, nationalism is considered to be Right-Wing, and to many, is the defining feature of the Right (though not all agree on this point). (Ironically, the Jacobins, the original “leftists,” were some of the first most radical nationalists in history. Learn more here.) Certainly, with this designation, the umbrella of Right Wing is broad enough to encompass everyone from general conservatives who believe in the small-government liberalism (libertarianism) of the American Founders, to Americans who fit into various stereotypes of patriots, to advocates of a powerful government to enforce “conservative values,” to the radical White Supremacists, such as the KKK and other emergent groups. And in contrast, the Left Wing can embody anyone from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to college students who want to protest speakers like Jordan Peterson, to Antifa, the violent self-proclaimed anti-fascist organization. (If you find yourself arguing with me that many patriots are also Left-Wing, you are starting to get the point of this article.)

The point here is that although there are some very rough contours of definition lending themselves to the two sides (without any real uniformity), they are often more defined by their opposition to the other side.

But with such broad, vague and historically ambiguous designations, these terms can begin to mean a lot of different things to those who use them, and often affiliate people with very different worldviews and political positions—for better or for worse.

Often times, however, there are a surprising number of similarities by extreme groups on either “side.”

Let’s look at the case of the fascist Nazis and the communist Bolsheviks as a case in point. Both were radical progressives with a propensity to use violence and force for the actualization of their visions. Progressivism is a worldview that primarily believes that the coercive power of the state and social forces can improve human nature itself. In this sense, the French Revolution was a progressive revolution, as much as the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the Nazi rise to power in Germany.

Although both groups anchored their progressive visions on different ultimate goals, both were highly collectivist in the sense that there was an obvious “good” side and an obvious “bad” side. The good had to be advanced and the bad eradicated, whether through true conversion, fear or extermination. Lenin wrote that people have to smash the resistance of the bourgeoisie class; they must “sweep away the old” and create “the new.” Even more clearly, a high-ranking officer in Lenin’s secret police explained it this way:

We are not carrying out a war against individuals. We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class. We are not looking for evidence or witnesses to reveal deeds or words against the Soviet power. The first question we ask is—to what class does he belong, what are his origins, upbringing, education or profession? These questions define the fate of the accused. This is the essence of the Red Terror.

For Hitler and the Nazis, the enemy was not a class, but anyone less than the most advanced biological types of peoples and races. They sought to help a Darwinist view of biology along by advancing the German race. As the Marxist German theorizer Ludwig Woltmann wrote, “The German race has been selected to dominate the earth.” The Nazis fully believed that they were meant to fulfill the Darwinist arguments of Frederick Nietzsche, who wrote that “The extinction of many types of peoples is just as desirable as any form of reproduction” and that “the tendency must be towards the rendering extinct of the wretched, the deformed, the degenerate.”

Both Hitler and Lenin, and those who shared their visions, both believed in the progressive idea that human nature could be changed. Lenin’s colleague Leon Trotsky wrote:

Man will make it his purpose to master his own feelings, to raise his instincts to the heights of consciousness, to make them transparent, to extend the wire of his will into hidden recesses, and thereby to raise himself to a new plane, to create a higher social biological type, or, if you please, a superhuman.

Hitler, also, expressed a similar vision, though with different means, calling his “National Socialism … more even than a religion: it is the will to create mankind anew.”

Both the “Right-Wing” Nazis and the “Left-Wing” Bolsheviks were totalitarian visionaries. Both favored powerful states (governments) with extensive power for social engineering. And both would be responsible for millions upon millions of deaths.

In modern context, obviously the terms are seldom used in the extreme cases as this. But these historical episodes clearly influence the way that we think about these terms. Opponents of the Left Wing will often use the term among their peers as a way to invoke fear of the extremes of Leftism. Conversely, opponents of the Right Wing will often use the term among their peers as a way to invoke fear of Right-Wing Extremism.

Does this mean there is no merit in these terms? I suppose, in a strict scholarly sense, there can be some very helpful discussion formed around them, and depending on how narrowly they are defined, they can be used semi-accurately. But I am hard pressed to find much helpful about them as they are used hyperbolically without contextual discussion, both by supporters and opponents of each side. To call another person Leftist can mean a whole host of things, and so it is for those who call others Right-Wing. Just as the history of these designations hardly presented two consistently pure ideological sides, so it is the same today.

[1] I have written a more extensive history of the French Revolution as a part of my book project, The Tale of Two Gospels. Click here to access the entire chapter on the French Revolution for free.

[2] It is not my goal to comment on the desirability of these measures, but simply to explain the history.

[3] To note, Marx used the words “communism” and “socialism” interchangeably.

Democracy: A Meaningless, Dangerous Word

By | | , , ,
Leave a comment

“Democracy.”

The word that has come to mean anything those who use it want it to mean.

“We must spread democracy to the world.”

“How can we still accept [pick your issue] in a democratic society?”

“That’s [pick your political or social vice] a violation of our democratic principles!”

And thus democracy becomes the epitomizing word describing any given desirable social or political outcome. Don’t like a Supreme Court decision? Democracy is at stake. Love a Supreme Court decision? They’re upholding democratic principles!

In reality, the word democracy has become meaningless in its overbroad application.

Its meaninglessness is a symptom—and thus a helpful teaching tool—of a far more important reality: that the pursuit of “democracy” is not what many people who use it really want.

Let me explain.

First, let’s actually visit the definition of democracy. From the Greek, we all recall from grade school, it means “rule of the many.” In its purest form, it is majority rule, more accurately defined as majority dictatorship. In theory, then, if 51% of voters decide to enslave the other 49%, then it is their prerogative. After all, it was a majority decision. Such extreme implications aside or even mitigated for, majority rule still implies some measure of coercion by the majority of those who favor a particular law, program, et cetera.

Many people—particularly progressives— favor that definition of the word when it suits their desired outcomes, though often it does not. So if that definition will not do, they would use the word “democracy” in a way that supports a particular social agenda. If evidence or even a strict vote demonstrates that the majority does not favor a particular vision or social outcome, then the word democracy must abandon its own definition and adopt something much different. Democracy, then, becomes a term used to defend a goal, whether that goal favors a majority or a minority.

It is used to defend either dictatorship of the majority or dictatorship of the minority.

To a classical liberal or a libertarian who favors the protection of individual liberty, pure democracy has historically proven to be a threat. For example, the classical liberal movement of the early 1800s in the German Confederation, eager to see the expansion of suffrage undo the autocratic power of the government, soon found that it spurred on the first major welfare state and the accompanying taxation as people began to vote for themselves privileges at the expense of others.

To the progressive who favors some particular social goal or outcome, and coercion must guide society to that goal or outcome, democracy is simply the word used to justify the means. So long as “the majority” favors their vision (even if this could be always accurately assessed) they have no problem with the use of force to coerce the “minority” to act in accordance with that vision.

This is the dictatorship of the majority.

But almost never is the true democratic principle of majority rule what matters to them.  The progressives, masters at the manipulation of language (think of political correctness), use the word democracy to mean “equality”—usually forced, under threat of law or lawsuit. Make sure that the cake-baker suffers for the injustice of his discrimination to bake the cake for the gay wedding, they cry, lest he threaten “democracy.” For the progressive, their vision is the one that must be forced onto society because it is whatever society really needs, they claim, and in that, is “democratic.”

This is dictatorship of the progressive vision—dictatorship of the minority.

And both applications–dictatorship of the majority and dictatorship of the minority–are equally dangerous to individual liberty and to those whose views are not in line with whoever holds the banner of the state’s authority.

Just War Theory

By | | , , ,
Leave a comment

Among conservatives and liberals alike, we love war. Well, actually, we love winning war. War heroes are praised with celebrity. Great victories are glorified in textbooks. Sweeping successes in combat are taught as inspirational life lessons. The great Roman victories over Hannibal delight our imagination. The surprising and total British triumph over Napoleon at Waterloo is studied with captivating inspiration. And many of us still enjoy re-watching the victory of D-Day in films like Saving Private Ryan as we cheer on our team.

In many ways, the love of military victory is comparable to our love of the sports team dominating the field. It is a powerful element of human psyche to cheer for our team, whether it’s the soccer team our boys are on, our high school basketball team, our college football team, or the United States military (I suggest some of the potential dangers of such modes of thinking in this post). We love the crushing defeat of our enemies.

And that is not to say that all these battles do not merit our study or inspiration. I am simply demonstrating the powerful effect that military prowess and victory has on our psyche.

Sometimes (and often), this effect results in cheers for acts that are less than virtuous, to speak in understatement, or downright deplorable. Or in the least, we make excuses when our side does it. For example, there is no shortage of moral indignation against the German blitz of London, which, over fifty-seven days, left 30,000 dead. But we shrug a bit at the American fire-bombing of the German city of Dresden, an entirely non-military city, which killed 25,000 in a single night, or the American bombing of Tokyo on March 9, 1945, which killed 80-100,000 civilians. “Well, those were necessary,” comes the ready excuse.

Of course, anything is excused by those who take part in war. It has always been so. The British hunger blockade of Germany in World War I led to the starvation of anywhere from 250,000 to 600,000 German civilians. And yet, Woodrow Wilson refused the German plea to pressure the British to end the blockade, which was a violation of international rules of war and had prompted the merciless German u-boat attacks on enemy and neutral vessels.

Okay, enough of all this introductory rambling, lest I go on forever. Now, to the point: Just War Theory.

Many will simply dismiss Just War Theory as impractical or illogical. But why? If rejected, what are the implications? I raise these questions first so that as you read through the tenets of Just War Theory, you might consider the moral or ethical implications of deciding on a less “rigid” justification for war or action in war.

First, a very brief history of Just War Theory. Originally developed under Saint Augustine, the formalization of the theory was completed officially in Saint Thomas Aquinas’ comprehensive volume, Summa Theologica (1485). Drawing on various elements of Augustine’s theological interpretations, bits and pieces of Roman Law (ironically), and his own study of Scripture and reason, Aquinas lays out a list of conditions for both jus ad bellum – what constitutes a just war – and jus in bello – what constitutes just action in the act of war. (Note that different sources will offer slightly different criteria, but they are all holistically similar.)

Jus ad bellum … What constitutes a just cause for war?

  1. Last Resort: A war may only be waged after all peaceful options have been considered, tried and exhausted.
  2. Legitimate Authority: War may only be waged by a legitimate authority or government.
  3. Just Cause: War must be waged for a just cause, which according to Just War Theory, is a response to wrongs suffered. In other words, war must be waged in self-defense, not offense. This, of course, rules out preemptive war.
  4. Probability of Success: War must be waged only if, upon reasonable observation, there is a strong likelihood of success.

Jus in bello … What constitutes just action in war?

  1. Right Intention: Related very much to #3: War must be fought with the primary objective of reestablishing peace with the least amount of force necessary. Once peace is re-established, further aggressive action against the initial aggressor is not allowed.
  2. Proportionality: The violence used in war must be directly proportional to casualties suffered. For example, if one nation is attached, retaliation must not exceed the extent of the original aggression. Only the amount of force absolutely necessary may be used.
  3. Civilian Casualties: All efforts must be taken to avoid civilian deaths, and these deaths must be absolutely unavoidable and accidental when pursuing all other criteria of Just War Theory. Certainly, no direct targeting of civilians is justified.

Of course, many of you reading this will think this a delightful fantasy of some other world. After all, following such criteria would rule out nearly every war engaged in by the United States for the violation of one item or another. Some of them are still rather subjective. Was there a strong likelihood of success when the 13 American colonies rebelled in 1776? Probably not. What constitutes a legitimate authority? This, of course, is extremely open to debate.

Nevertheless, the criteria for Just War ought to be considered and pondered. If you decide that any of these criteria ought to be relaxed or removed from the list, then why? As I ask my students, if this list does not satisfy, then what list would propose and how would you justify it? And I urge caution with this. For example, was the fire-bombing of Dresden, a deliberate targeting of civilians (not to mention Tokyo, Hiroshima or Nagasaki), justified because our team did it? If not, and if excuses are made for our military, then what justifies different standards for us versus them? Are there limits in warfare? Do the ends justify the means?

In a culture that tends to delight in crushing military victories (after all, what cultures don’t?) and a nation engaged in nearly continuous warfare of one sort or another for decades, should we not at least consider the Just War Theory and what the implications of not following such a theory might be? Sadly, we often just take the word of those who go to war (and, I might add, profit from it) that war is necessary. Is it so unreasonable to suggest that we might give such decisions a great deal of scrutiny before accepting them all as justified?

Thumbnail image credit goes to thoughtco.com.

The Tale of the Slave

By | | ,
2 Comments

At what point are you no longer a slave?

Admittedly, I have not read Robert Nozick. But the following is an adaptation of a portion of his 1974 book titled, Anarchy, State and Utopia. I have here no further commentary to offer, but simply wish to relay a series of scenarios which, if nothing else, are a teacher’s delightful avenue to thoughtful provocation for those who overcome any aversion to the thistle-strewn road of challenging questions.

Nozick begins with, “Consider the following sequence of cases, which we shall call the tale of the slave, and imagine that it is about you.” He proceeds, and I summarize:

  1. There is a slave completely at the mercy of his brutal master’s whims. He often is cruelly beaten, called out in the middle of the night, and so on.
  2. The master is kindlier and beats the slave only for stated infractions of his rules. He gives the slave some free time.
  3. The master has a group of slaves, and he decides how things are to be allocated among them on cordial grounds, taking into account their needs, merit and so on.
  4. The master allows his slaves four days on their own and requires them to work only three days a week on his land. The rest of the time is their own.
  5. The master allows his slave to go work in the city or wherever they want for wages. He only requires them to send back 3/7ths of their wages. He also retains the power to recall them to the plantation if there is some emergency on his land, or he can raise the amount required of them. He also retains the right to restrict the slaves from participating in certain dangerous activities that threaten his financial return (ie, mountain climbing, smoking, et cetera).
  6. The master allows all of his 10,000 slaves to vote, except you, and the joint decision is made by all of them. There is open discussion, and so forth, among them, and they have the power to determine to what uses to put whatever percentage of your (and their) earnings they decide to take; what activities legitimately may be forbidden to you, and so on.
  7. Though still not having the vote, you are at liberty (and are given the right) to enter into the discussion of the 10,000 to try and persuade them to adopt various policies and to treat you and themselves in a certain way. They then go off to vote to decide upon policies covering the vast range of their powers.
  8. In appreciation of your useful contributions to discussion, the 10,000 allow you to vote if they are deadlocked (5,000 for and 5,000 against). This is has never happened, yet.
  9. They throw your vote in with theirs. If they are exactly tied, your vote carries the issue. Otherwise, it makes no difference to the electoral outcome.

Nozick concludes with the deeply provocative question:

“Which transition from case one to case nine made it no longer the tale of a slave?”

What are your thoughts? Comment below, or head over to the LCKeagy Facebook page.

Added comment 12/13/17: See Andrew Brewer’s comment below for the important spiritual application of the question. 

Don’t Trust Me; Study What I Say

By | | ,
Leave a comment

This post is going to be a bit different than many of my posts, but something that I very much want to emphasize:

Don’t trust me.

That seems like an odd thing to say, especially given my vocation and passion as a teacher. But it just because of that vocation and passion that I say it.

I’m not implying that I’m untrustworthy, obviously! So let me explain completely what I mean.

If you haven’t read it, yet, I began this project with a post (“Why On Earth Do We Need Another Blog?”) that reveals my reasoning and intent on a broad, and yet very personal level. There is an abundance of information out there; the Information Age is aptly named, or so it seems. Likewise, the more abundant a product, the more abundant is its counterfeit, in this case: disinformation. Or skewed information.

To have one more source of information and thought-provoking content in the current environment is almost like a drop in the lake saying, “hey, drink me, not that other drop over there!”

And that’s why I say don’t trust me. The reality is, I really do want you to trust me, but I understand something crucial: my credibility to the reader is only as good as their verification of what I say. So that’s ultimately what I want you do to: study what I say. Do your own research. See if I’m truly telling the truth, or if I am sound in my arguments.

For those who have studied the art of argumentation, you know that there are three major ways to argue, approaching the debate on logos, ethos or pathos.¹ Logos is the idea that an argument is logically and factually sound. Ethos refers to the credibility of the debater; do we trust them? As a constant student and teacher of the material I write about, I hope that I have some “ethos” in my articles. Pathos is an appeal to emotion. The most effective arguments have all three.

My goal with this project truly comes from a desire to dispense truth and genuine understanding. I want a strong logos and ethos to bolster what I say, but I am not a soap-box blogger (most of the time). Frankly, that might make me less popular than the Tomi Lahren’s of the information world, as human nature is generally more drawn to the pathos approach. (And that is not to say I ignore pathos, but that will come third of the three appeals.)

So study what I say. See if I am right. Do your own research. I want you to trust me, of course, but I want mostly to be a conduit for your own investigation. As a teacher, I know that my students will only really learn when they care about the learning and study it for themselves. That’s true for anyone (how many of us would have enjoyed the books we were assigned to read in school if they had not been an assignment?). What I care about is truth and learning, not about building my “brand” or making a name for myself. (Incidentally, the main reason this project took my name is because I struggled to find an effective alternative.)

If you find something to be awry or not correct, I want to correct it or re-think what I say, or engage you in courteous discussion about the disagreement. You can contact me at the “Contact Me” tab or, even better, private message me at the LCKeagy Facebook page.

Want to engage in discussion on matters related to these or similar topics? Join the LCKeagy Forum, a discussion group meant for just such courteous and productive debate.

Want to followup with your own study and research? Check out my Recommended Books and/or check out Liberty Classroom.com (subscribe for special discounts), and go to sources I don’t have listed and let me know if you find what I say to be off or untrue.

In the end, I hope this project is a helpful conduit of learning that both challenges you to think about things in perhaps a way you have not, or learn about things that are not otherwise the common repetition of the nightly news or the items crossing your Facebook news or Twitter feed. Learning and understanding what is true in a world of information, disinformation and confused information is the ultimate goal.

¹There is an abundance of material on these argumentative appeals; here is just one such source.

Race vs. Culture

By | | , , ,
Leave a comment

Culture is different than race, and yet, the two are often confused.

Warning. I am about to enter politically incorrect territory. Ironically, it may even earn me the accusation, “racist” (which I’m not). But I have a very simple point to make, albeit it one that won’t win me any brownie points in today’s PC society, and one that I have not observed made virtually anywhere, let alone among the regular information sources or media.

Allow me to begin with a practical and personal qualifier.

First, let’s define racism and clarify what we mean by race. A google search turns up this definition of racism: “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.” Race is often (although not always), especially in the United States, considered correlative to a person’s skin color, but the basics of race don’t preclude various differences among peoples of similar pigmentation, such as the historical Franks, Germans or Slavs of Europe, among whom differences in physical appearance were minimal.

At best, the idea of “race” is a loose description of a person’s biological heritage . At worst, race is a pathetically invented and gross distortion of biological heritage, whereby people with various amounts of pigment in their skin are “grouped” in a category of “race.” (I have written on the dangers of collectivism here.)

Race is a meaningless concept to me insofar as it has no impact on any conceptions I have about people. To have pre- or post-conceived ideas about someone, let alone condemn them as inferior, because of their skin color or their biological heritage is—forgive the unprofessional language here—stupid. Period. Still, that genuine racism seems entirely irrational and illogical (not to mention immoral) does not make it any less real, and I don’t intend to pretend otherwise. To do so would require ignoring historical and present (if overstated) realities. Many Nazis truly believed in the superiority of the “Aryan race.” Many Americans in U.S. history really did believe in the inferiority of the “African race.”

But I didn’t come to write a sermon on the topic. And while that is a rather long qualifier that some readers will think I simply put in there for the purpose of remaining politically correct (despite my initial warning), I really don’t mind ensuring that I am not misunderstood. My main point is not compromised.

And we’ll get to that now.

Culture is different than race. Culture is the vast array of traditions, norms and features of a society. And while cultures are vastly nuanced and complex, there are distinct differences between them. Given my own aversions about collectivist thinking, I do not believe that any individual should be viewed first and foremost for any cultural tendencies; this is as irrational and wrong as racism. They are an individual first and foremost.

And so long as we understand that norms and tendencies are laden with exceptions and must be held very loosely, we can still evaluate the aggregate. Cultures differ. It is common in “U.S. culture” (good luck trying to tie that down!) for people to ensure that aging parents are entrusted to an elderly care facility, whereas in “Central and South American cultures”, you will often find extended family, parents and grandparents all living under one roof. Whether this is the product of wealth disparity or other factors are entirely beside the point. I’m not playing anthropologist here, simply making an external observation that helps demonstrate cultural differences.

This is my key point: The problem is that many people confuse culture and race. Many people fail to recognize that a cultural critique is not racist simply because there is a correlation between people of that “race” and people who share that culture. The only way you make that connection is on the assumption that a person’s cultural norms are the result of their biological heritage or race. This has no scientific or logical defense.

How do you jump to the conclusion that a person is racist simply because they take issue with an aspect of a culture different from theirs?

Here’s an example that will get me slandered in politically correct groups. It is a cultural norm in Islam that men have complete political and personal authority. Women are not given legal representation, and in moral matters pertaining to Islam, many men are given the responsibility to stone their wives if there has been any real or alleged infidelity. Many men in Islamic culture are prone to this position of dominance over women (and this is not unique to this culture), a cultural difference that is currently causing cultural clashes in Europe. None of this has anything to do with race. And yet somebody out there is ready with the label “racist”.

But some will recognize my logic and go for “ready-to-use” insult #2: bigot. A bigot is defined as someone who “is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices” (Merriam-Webster). Still, how did you reach that conclusion? I made an observation regarding cultural tendencies in one specific area.

So, if cultural observations are often confused as racist remarks (a logical fallacy), and those who make such observations are often considered racists and/or bigots, then what can we draw from this?

First, prejudice, regardless of the reason, is a tragic and natural tendency of human nature. I’m not digging into the reasons for this here. Nevertheless, I believe adamantly that it is wrong for me (or anyone) to hold prejudice of any kind, whether I exalt myself and degrade others for my gender, my “race”, my intellect, my level of education, my culture, my skin color (or lack of it), et cetera. If I think less of Muslim men generally because of the cultural tendencies from which they come, that is the real issue, not the observation made. I believe equally adamantly that charity and compassion should always describe our view and action toward any individual.

Second, and as I have said before, recognize the individual first. Collectivist thinking is a logical fallacy, and the individual should be recognized for who he or she is, not for his or her biological heritage or their cultural tendencies.

Third, don’t get confused by the tendency to confuse cultural observations as racist remarks. Recognize the skewed reality that is perpetuated around us, sometimes by habit and sometimes deliberately. To call someone racist for a particular commentary on something that is cultural is, in and of itself, an empty argument that merely perpetuates the collectivist thinking that is so problematic in the first place.  It’s a non-argument.

Sadly, there is truth in the words of economist Thomas Sowell: “Some things are believed because they are demonstrably true, but other things are believed simply because they have been asserted repeatedly.”*

*Video link here.

 

 

 

 

I Am Not Partisan

By | | , , ,
Leave a comment

I am not partisan. I am not a team player in politics.

To be partisan is to be loyal to a political team—usually a political party—regardless of whatever policies that team pursues or puts forth. Sure, most people who are very passionate followers of their party have their limits and will abandon their party in time if it strays too far. This is why you saw massive numbers of Democrats switching to the Republican Party in the late 1960s and early 1970s, preferring Richard Nixon to an heir of Lyndon Johnson. (Yes, this touches on where we’re going in my recently started series, “The History of Conservatism, Liberalism and Libertarianism.” Sign up for email notifications to find out when the next one in that series is published.)

Still, there are many people who clearly side with their party through much that might be otherwise considered contradictory positions. A clear sign of partisanship is when a person accuses the opposing party of doing something and then later praises or supports, or as is more often the case, makes excuses for their own party when it does the same.

We all see it. Especially in our political opponents and in the media. It’s something that is so blatantly obvious, yet so common. The message sent is, “Don’t accuse that guy of wrong; you’re on the same team!” Where we don’t see it so much is in ourselves.

After his notorious Stanford Prison Experiment in 1971, Psychology Professor Phillip Zimbardo said, “Most of the evil in the world comes about, not out of evil motives, but someone saying, ‘get with the program; be a team player.’” (More on that experiment here. Some caution advised for younger viewers due to the nature and results of the experiment.)

Human nature is prone to just such a mode of categorization. That is why it is so easy to assume a collectivist view of the world, a topic I addressed a couple posts ago (“The Reality of Collectivism”). That is why so many young Germans in Nazi Germany could end up committing the atrocities of the racial and biological hygiene programs and the full horror of the holocaust. Most of them, as young men, if given a chance to choose those actions from the comfort of their childhood homes, would be appalled at it.

And of course, that level of brutality, the psychology of which was specifically being studied in the Stanford Prison Experiment, is beyond the more “mild” accusations I am making. Still, it serves a good and sobering tool to demonstrate the dangers of this sort of thinking.

Fundamentally, there is no principle behind a partisanship that stays true to team rather than a constant standard. For those who say that there is, we often call that situational ethics, which, by definition, hardly fits any definition of principle. It is either okay to steal, or it is not. I cannot say the other team is wrong to steal, but there must be some good reason for it if mine does it.

I am not partisan. I do not adhere to a political team. My standards and beliefs are far and above any situational ethics, a concept I personally find repulsive, if I can be about as blunt as I have on this site. To the extend a political party aligns with my principles, those areas have my support. To the extent they violate my principles, those areas do not.

Many Democrats scoffed at George W. Bush when his military authorizations caused greater unrest in the Middle East, but were silent when the Obama administration pursued similar policies. Many Obama opponents among Republicans readily screamed about and scolded his healthcare legislation, but now support measures that keep most of it intact.

I would go so far as to call this cognitive, if not moral, dissonance. A harsher, yet fully applicable term: hypocrisy.

But there is nothing that can tie me to a team. I belief first and foremost in a Truth built upon the Word of God and His revelation. All else flows from there. I also support, as should be most obvious to my readers, liberty. (I lay out my case here: “On What Basis Liberty? Part 1“.) Not because I support all the activities protected by liberty, but because I believe that the power of the state is too great a danger to equip with the power to punish on its own ebbing and flowing standards of morality. (More on that in my post, “Church & State”.) Christians, of all people, should see the clear tide of acceptable opinion marginalizing and looking to correct or punish our “narrow-minded” views, and yet in many cases we are often as guilty of being team players as the next guy—just as ready with the excuses. (Want to know my recent thoughts on the Libertarian Party? Sign up for my email.)

To what extent will you violate principle and truth to stay true to your team—to your political party? To what extent will you make excuses for your favored candidate when he or she acts in opposition to what you know is true and right?

 

The Reality of Collectivism

By | | , ,
Leave a comment

In his recent book, The Problem With Socialism, author and professor Thomas DiLorenzo directs the reader’s attention to “Rabbi Daniel Lapin, a clergyman who is also an economic writer and speaker,” who “points out that anything made by God, whether it be humans or stones (which can range from small pebbles to glittering diamonds of infinite variety) is unique; while things made by man, like bricks, can be made uniform” (page 32).

I’ll address that quote again at the end.

A few posts ago, I discussed the issue of individualism (“Individualism: Good or Bad?”). In that post, I defined individualism as the idea that each person is responsible for their own actions and the consequences of those actions.

That reality is premised on the truth that only individuals can act. Only individuals can think. Only individuals can make decisions.

Groups—or collectives— cannot act, think or make decisions. Basic logic lends itself to this understanding. (“But Lukas, what about group-think, or mob-mentality?” I’ll address that at the end of this post.)

Sometimes for convenience, sometimes with political or social agenda, we are prone to use broad sweeping terms that suggest that a collective acts. As a social studies teacher, it’s much easier to say, “the United States went to war with Japan.” Clearly, this is a misnomer. The United States is not an entity that can act. What we really mean by saying something like that is that individuals in the United States made certain decisions that resulted in the American soldiers going to war with Japanese soldiers.

Merriam-Webster offers this definition of collectivism: “emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity.”

By no means a recent phenomenon, there are powerful societal and political movements that seek to act on behalf of some group or some collective, whether it is women, the poor, blacks, immigrants, et cetera. We call this identity politics, and it is predicated on the idea of collectivism.

Collectivism, by suggesting that groups can think, act and make decisions, readily places the group above the individual. In social terms, this means that we are happy pursuing a “collectivist” agenda at the expense of any particular individual. In economic terms, this premises the pursuit of egalitarianism, the pursuit of material equality in a society. Ayn Rand put it this way: “Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group–whether to a race, class or state does not matter.”

Let me leave you with a few key points:

First, collectivism, insofar as it suggests that groups can act, think and make decisions, is a self-inherent falsehood. This is a logical fallacy. Only individuals act, think and make decisions.

And this is not to entirely abandon the idea that a sort of “mob-mentality” can have a powerful effect on members within a group. History provides an abundance of examples. Take Nazi Germany. Or the Rwandan genocide. Place large groups of individuals with lots of anger and/or passion, and those individuals in that group can begin to behave in ways that they might not otherwise have if left alone. But still, the principle of individualism is not lost because of the powerful influence of what individuals in a large group can have on each other. Human nature is quite prone to atrocities committed as groups. Still, the individual cannot submit as his scapegoat, “I am not responsible for the murder I committed because we were all caught up in the passion to kill.” A court of true justice will never let this person off the hook.

On that same note, the fallacy of collectivism means that groups are not victims of other groups. This one will not particularly sit well with some readers, but it is the logical extension of the principle of individualism and that only individuals act. I am not, by collectivist default, any more guilty of racism because I am white than my wife is the victim of sexism because she’s a woman. Likewise, it is not incumbent upon some “groups” to repay some wrong to some other “group” committed by people of their same “group” in the past. Individuals can be victims of other individuals, because only individuals act, but groups cannot be victims of groups. (And when this is the case, the guilty individuals should, obviously, be held accountable.)

Second, collectivist thinking lends itself, logically and bolstered by historic reality, to great danger. The rhetoric was common in Stalin’s Soviet Union: a few eggs are always broken in the process of making an omelet. The pursuit of some “group-agenda,” such as the biological purification pursued by the Nazis, has had incredible consequences on hundreds of thousands of individuals. Indeed, socialism itself is predicated on some form of collectivist ideology (we must violate individual rights of some for the betterment of all society), and socialist regimes killed more than 100 million people in the 20th Century*. We can track this back even further, to such turbulent and violent events as the French Revolution.

On a more benign level, even collectivist political, social and domestic agendas can end up hurting those they intend to benefit because the individual is forgotten for the group. As I will lay out in blogs to come, many policies meant to help some “group,” such as women or minorities, have negative consequences on individuals in those and other groups.

Additionally, collectivist victim hood can (and often does) lead to the violation of individuals’ rights as one “group” seeks out revenge or compensation from some other “group,” regardless of whether or not individuals being held to blame had any part in real or alleged abuses. An example of this is the demand that the wealthy (the collective), because they must inherently be greedy, therefore are required to account for their alleged “greed” through higher taxes, et cetera. Another purely hypothetical example would be if modern-day Irish-Americans demanded that white Americans pay recompense for the ill-treatment of the 19th Century Irish immigrants. (And please keep in mind that my principles hold in reverse: collectivist thinking was just as damaging to the Irish immigrants of the early 1800s, or to the Africans of the early American slave trade. These examples only bolster my point.)

Third and finally, I will refer back to the quote at the beginning. All that which is made by God is unique. Individuals are unique. Individuals have varying backgrounds, personalities, talents, abilities, et cetera. The collectivist, to some extent or another, abandons this truth in their thinking and either treats all in a group as identified first by their group identity, or pursues some egalitarian end in an attempt to make all the individuals in a group as “bricks.”

Rather, this blog’s author would passionately advocate that we recognize that only the individual acts, thinks and makes decisions. And we ought to couple this with the understanding that each individual is unique. I do not care to distinguish a person based on some collectivist identity first and foremost, but rather much prefer to see each individual as an individual, unique to every other. To treat the individual as primarily “one in a more important collective” is a gross dishonor. All men and women should be treated as unique individuals with dignity, respect and honor.

*DiLorenzo, Thomas. The Problem With Socialism. Copyright 2016. 

Individualism: Good or Bad?

By | | , ,
Leave a comment

If you subscribe to my email (which you should!), back in a November email, I narrated the attack of a Facebook troll who trotted down an ad hominem line of attack aligned against many the supporters of a free society. In essence, it is this: “You are all just rugged individualists with greedy appetites to take from others, void of compassion or care.”

My readers already know that is false for this blog’s author, but it’s not just false for me. Many people who call themselves libertarians are regularly attacked by the same argument. So I wanted to just bring a few points of clarity to the issue of individualism.

First of all, let’s just review the basic definition of libertarianism. Libertarianism is a political philosophy (and nothing more) that advocates for as minimal a government as possible, based on (or resulting from) the ideas of property rights and the non-aggression principle (I wrote on both these at the posts each are linked to). It doesn’t, in and of itself, subscribe to any religious position (it’s not a religious principle) or moral positions related to what is good or bad to do beyond those two basic foundations. Despite what the activists may communicate, libertarianism is simply a political philosophy. (Previous blog dealing with this: “Libertarianism v. Authoritarianism”)

Back to the idea of individualism. This idea is also foundational in the libertarian political philosophy, but not in the way that it is often used in attack. Individualism merely means that each person is responsible for their own actions, and the consequences of those actions.

Most people’s reaction: “well, duh.” But then look around you at the world we live in. Look at the students who are coming out of college straddled by tens of thousands of dollars of debt. The movement for government cleansing of all student debt is growing. “I shouldn’t have to pay all this off,” they say.

In this example, there is the counter-argument to be made that government has made the credit for college cheap and consequently, through the logical incentive processes, flooded the market with more and more people with college degrees, thereby diminishing the value of those degrees and driving up the price of college. (This is entirely true.) Doesn’t the government hold some responsibility, as well? Oh, most certainly, and part of the purpose of this blog is to clarify the nature of just this sort of thing.

But that does not eliminate the responsibility of the individual who took out the loans. There was not a gun placed at his or her head.

This is but one example. Without exhausting your attention, I’ll leave your imagination (or, more likely, your observational experience) to more. Individuals are responsible for their own choices and the consequences of those choices. Individualism is, then, put another way, personal responsibility.

An elementary concept that seems to be rapidly vanishing amidst my own generation.

What does individualism, in this sense, encourage? It encourages thrift. It encourages work ethic. It encourages forethought, planning, and seeking good and varied council, and follow through. It encourages taking responsibility for your own choices and actions.

So, what is usually meant by individualism when used in attack? Just the way it was used against me. Selfish. Self-centered. Greedy. Uncaring. Lack of compassion.

But that’s not what individualism is for the advocates of liberty. That is an entirely different sort of ideology than personal responsibility. Individual does not preclude working together, collaboration, mutual support, community, relationship, generosity, or any other similar ideas! In fact, I would argue emphatically, it encourages them.

(In a very real spiritual sense, I believe that Christians have a spiritual obligation to volunteer their resources, time, talents and influence in ways to help others. That is not a libertarian or non-libertarian position. Libertarianism, again, is a political philosophy that does not deal with that, at all, except to say that the government cannot use threat of force to take from some against their will and give it to others.)

Individualism (personal responsibility) and compassion (voluntary generosity) are the best and most powerful of companions. The strongest of societies are built on both.

On a somewhat related note, many people are very much unaware of what it means to be conservative, liberal or libertarian. I have been taking a class on this over at Liberty Classroom, and will be relaying the history of these ideologies and what they mean over the coming months. I hope you’ll be watching for them! And again, please subscribe to my email. I don’t send out many, but when I do, you’ll enjoy them!

Negative v. Positive Rights

By | | ,
2 Comments

Right off the bat, understand that negative does not mean bad, and positive does not mean good. Like getting back the results of a cancer screening.

We’re going a little philosophical this time, very much in the thread of posts related to rights, which I originally write about here (it will be helpful to read these, if you have not done so):

In this particular post, I need to explain the problem with people’s conception of the word “rights.”

“I have a right to healthcare.”

“They have a right to free college education.”

“They have a right to clean water.”

“I have a right to a living wage.”

And you can keep the list running…

If you go back and read my posts listed above, notably the three in the “On What Basis Liberty?” series, you understand that rights are not derived as an obligation of one party to someone else, but rather they are derived primarily from one party’s protection from someone else.

Let’s break that down in re-visiting it. I have a right to my own life because nobody else has a right to take my life. I have a right from a violation of my life. Likewise, I don’t have a right to steal my neighbor’s truck. He, accordingly, has a right from theft.

And that’s essentially what a negative right is. A negative right is a right from something. A right from someone killing you, harming you or taking your stuff. Negative rights follow from the logical conclusions drawn in the three posts mentioned above. (This also applies to things like speech or religion. I have a right to worship how I want, as long as I am not violating anyone else’s property, because nobody has a right to violate my life or liberty.)

Now to positive rights. Those phrases I placed above in quotes (ie, “I have a right to healthcare”) is an example of a positive right. The question is: are positive rights even rights at all?

Well, now, how can I even ask that!? Surely, it is the worst of humanity that would entertain such vile notions.

Well, maybe not. Here’s the problem. Every single positive “right” violates somebody else’s negative right: it puts a legal obligation on another person. For example, if somebody has a “right” to education, then, taken as the dominant “right,” it falls to someone else to provide that “right”. Now, let’s assume that nobody is there to offer their time as an educator. Well, if that is the case, and education is, in fact, a “right,” then somebody is going to need to be forced to teach via force or threat of force. And that, as you’ve already likely drawn the conclusion, is a violation of somebody’s right to life—their right to not be forced into any sort of servitude.

We could continue to look at other examples. Do you have a right to clean water? Then somebody must, as the logical conclusion, offer that clean water. Do you have a right to healthcare? Then someone is going to be paying for it. All of these negative rights are violated by a so-called positive right.

“But, but, Lukas, it’s not like people are actually forcing people to be teachers. People don’t have to be teachers if they don’t want to.”

Yes, I am aware. Nobody forced me to be a teacher. It is my passion.

To that counter-argument, though, I have two responses.

First, this is largely an academic argument showing that there is an inherent contradiction between negative and positive rights. You cannot have both. A positive right is an oxy-moron.

Second, there is, nevertheless, a very strong pragmatic side of this issue. It is correct that, at least in the United States, nobody is being forced to be a teacher. But taxpayers are forced to give money over for public education. Remember, aggression includes the threat of force. No, men with guns probably won’t show up at your house to collect your taxes, but they will if you don’t volunteer those taxes (after the auditors, of course).

Think about the extensions of this inherent contradiction with regard to healthcare. Do I have a right to good medical access? Then somebody is going to have to pay for that, violating their negative right to their property and the produce of their own labor. A positive right means that someone else has an obligation to surrender some aspect of their life, liberty or property.

And you can continue down the list to positive “right” after “right.”

Besides, what makes a positive “right” is terribly subjective. One person may say they believe everyone has a right to clean water, but I may say I have a right to a $100,000 per year salary (which really means that any employer I have has an obligation to pay me $100,000, regardless of the value I am offering his company). Who’s to say that the first person is right and I am wrong? There is no standard by which to judge what a positive “right” actually is.

And now the more antagonistic readers out there who don’t know me personally think I am of the more despicable of the earth. Based on the very fact that I support the non-aggression principle, I have already been marked by one internet troll as worthy of a lifetime prison sentence. So I get it. Ad hominem is an internet favorite.

But to believe that negative rights should be honored, and not violated in favor of positive “rights” does not make anyone heartless. I believe—and advocate for—abundant generosity. I believe it is far more loving and compassionate to volunteer your time to build wells in Africa, then to vote in politicians who will tax your neighbor to then provide those wells, instead. (And I haven’t even brought up a study that shows government charity programs have a less than 20% efficiency rating: meaning that less than one out of every five dollars reaches the person that money was intended for. Source link here.)

Do you believe firmly in positive rights because you truly desire to help people, as many who make the above claims do? Then donate. Offer your time and resources. Become a teacher in the inner-city. Begin a charity organization and ask for donors. Offer to pay for someone’s medical care. Volunteer at a soup kitchen. Don’t use the threat of force to demand people donate to what you consider to be a positive “right.”

(Which reminds me, there is an excellent way to give to projects all over the world at DonorSee.com. Check them out!)

Understand, that every time you say someone has a right to something, you are advocating for the violation of someone else’s right from a violation of their person or property.

And in that understanding, might I encourage you to give generously and abundantly of your own person and property. But I’ll just try to influence; I won’t use a gun (or the threat of one).