Facism and Fundamental Rights

Ayn Rand

It is true that the welfare-statists are not socialists, that they never advocated or intended the socialization of private property, that they want to “preserve” private property—with government control of its use and disposal. But that is the fundamental characteristic of fascism.
“The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 211




The "control and use" of anything, even one's personal talents is not to be the object of anyone else's designs, without consent!! As otherwise, though one might hold the property or talent, it is not one's own to hold responsibly.

As James Madison said, ""As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."




-- James Madison, National Gazette essay, March 27, 1792

Society, Change and the Political Climate

Maybe what we are experiencing in America, is indeed the change that was promised by present leadership. Bush might have offended the liberal, but now Obama offends the conservative.

Society in America is made for individual "hopes and dreams". We believe in the individual's right to choose. Choice is a value itself in America. And choice is about competition and the market. Just look at the number of cereals on the shelves of our local supermarkets. When government seeks to control these "competitive values", it also limits choices. People are not prone to choose to "invest" in markets that are not viable, or personally enriching.

Today, America is being re-defined by those that want globalized markets, and the ' political class", where the "underpriviledged" have "equal opportunity and science defines what values American must affirm". These are values of the "free market/enterprise", environmental concerns,  as well as, humanity's goal for universalization of political liberty. Free trade is the possible terrain for furthering liberal democratic governments.

 We will have to see if the political class, which chooses the scientific issues and political values will work, as governments that are established in the "here and now" must value the diversity and liberty that "free markets/enterprise/competition" provides. Men are not prone to distribute power equally, when it is to their disadvantage. And this is what makes it difficult to ensure "equal opportunity" to those that are under political domination. Power is usually understood in hierarchal structuring, but such sturcturing is damning to individual or personal liberties, if not limited by rights.

I have doubts about Utopian ideals about political realities, and scientific possibilities. But, who am I, anyway? I am an American, and I am free to choose, value and affirm the "ends" I desire. Is this what the "empowered class" really wants?

Unified Diversity

With all of the discussion over whether a text is "special revelation", or by what means is a particular denomination to understand faith and how that plays out in orthopraxy, it seems that there should be a loud and clear call for a "peace treaty" on absolute truth claims.

Battle scars are many where there is an absolute claim on truth. Humans suffer in many ways because we justify actions based on our own limited understanding of what constitutes right behavior.We all have personal values and convictions on what is right or wrong, but sometimes we hold these convictions with little or no reflection. When there is little of no reflection on things that matter or should matter most, which are the ideals we live by, there is limitation on life itself. Socrates said "An unexamined life, is not worth living".

What would it be like to live in a world that let everyone seek their own life, with no interference? If one could pursue interests that were the "ideals" one valued? And everyone left others alone that differed? The world, yes, would be compartmentalized by many "differences", but wouldn't that breed a culture of acceptance and value of difference? And wouldn't it reflect a larger view of "truth" and breed a culture of understanding? Living in unified diversity is what I would call "heaven", as each would "be" and "do" as he understood to be of importance and of value. Then, peace would abound and no one would have a privy or right to jusitfy "speical priviledge" or "special rights", as everyone would be equally respected under "law".

I think this is the "ideal" of our American government. While fundamentalists of all kinds feel it their duty, to warn, rebuke, correct, and convert, I think a more healthy attitude toward self and neighbor is seeking understanding dialogue. Most religions, though, are based on a limited understanding of life and the values of the "transcendent" over-ride one's duty toward others and real life in this world. Is religion dangerous? I am beginning to think so.