Sunday, August 29, 2004
“Rebels” Who Hate America and (Other People’s) Freedom
It wouldn’t be right to lower one’s standards to those that have become so common in recent years when critics direct their scorn towards America. Suffice it to say that one could easily itemize and focus upon any country’s historical “crimes,” flaws, and shortcomings, with both accurate and disturbing examples. Of course “any country” is not the focus of today’s trendy resentments.
On the wide spectrum of freedom to tyranny, a certain political persuasion tends to reserve its greatest derision for the open society and the free market of products and ideals exemplified by America’s constitutional system.
In the now cliché stands pervasively taken against America, point by point critiques ultimately come down to a single political gripe, a stand against the county’s -- relatively -- free economic system. America is the symbol of everything hated by those who love the authority of the state over the free and diverse choices of individual citizens. It is often noted by American Socialists who don’t like the U.S., that European socialists don’t like us. Of course, they don’t say “European socialists” they say “the French,” or “the Germans,” or – even more inaccurately – “the World!” When noting that those who despise the free market system happen to rebel against its most noted figurehead (the US), it’s about as profound as saying that Democrats don’t like Republicans – hardly an insightful observation. A European, Middle-Eastern, or Asian socialist who hates America is ultimately indistinguishable from the socialists in America itself (who by default happen to hate their own country).
The contemporary psuedo-rebel that takes to the streets to protest against the United States and capitalism in general, offers nothing more than a perennial rant on why citizens should submit to burocratic state authority. In their eyes, Adam Smith’s invisible hand “does nothing to help the poor, offers no safety net,” and “nurtures inequalities.” In response to these perceived crimes, we are told to submit to the visible fist of centralized socialist government authority – and this they call “revolution?”
On all levels of government, America has expended trillions of dollars toward overbearing and ineffective social-welfare schemes, and yet the illusion portrayed by critics is that somehow, no such money is addressed to these issues. (Such expenditures don’t even include the vast amounts donated privately to a host of charitable causes both domestic and global). Ultimately, what government has spent to feed such “social” programs has produced nothing but an unproductive and dependant class of wards and a ruling class of bureaucrats. In this regard, the results of such expenditure are no different from those found in other countries where collectivist schemes are fully entrenched.
In parts of Europe and Asia, such schemes have been made possible – more affordable – since, for decades, it was American taxpayers who bore the burden of these countries’ costly defense (from socialism’s more totalitarian kindred spirits).
With the ever increasing size and excess of modern government, one would think that socialist “rebels” would feel a sense of satisfaction at having achieved many of their goals yet, even in the most socialist of countries, the Left continually cries out for more taxes, more controls, and more laws and regulations to stifle the human spirit – and, for what? To prove their “compassion?” To reach the “true Communism” (absolute dictatorship) that Marx promised? In their eyes, the ruthless tyranny of Marx’s many clones have not been some aberration from the original plan, but the desired result, which is why such recurring sympathy is shown by the Left to the police states of North Korea, Cuba, and Vietnam etc.
I have yet to meet anyone from the strident Left who would devote considerable sums of their own money, time, or energy to the causes they continually demand others (under the thumb of the State) address. The fact that they “care” so deeply for people they’ve never met is not a convincing argument to increase a cumbersome net of ineffective bureau-oppression.
The contrived façade of avant-garde rebel cultivated by pampered middle class intellectuals, just doesn’t seem to mesh with the fact that their true underlying love is for battalions of state ministry drones and for centralized State authority.
The real “rebels” among us are those who know the cup is more than half full, when fellow citizens can live, think, buy, sell, and trade freely without submission to the oppressive whims of “philosophers” and armchair tyrants. A true rebel loves freedom – for everyone.
On the wide spectrum of freedom to tyranny, a certain political persuasion tends to reserve its greatest derision for the open society and the free market of products and ideals exemplified by America’s constitutional system.
In the now cliché stands pervasively taken against America, point by point critiques ultimately come down to a single political gripe, a stand against the county’s -- relatively -- free economic system. America is the symbol of everything hated by those who love the authority of the state over the free and diverse choices of individual citizens. It is often noted by American Socialists who don’t like the U.S., that European socialists don’t like us. Of course, they don’t say “European socialists” they say “the French,” or “the Germans,” or – even more inaccurately – “the World!” When noting that those who despise the free market system happen to rebel against its most noted figurehead (the US), it’s about as profound as saying that Democrats don’t like Republicans – hardly an insightful observation. A European, Middle-Eastern, or Asian socialist who hates America is ultimately indistinguishable from the socialists in America itself (who by default happen to hate their own country).
The contemporary psuedo-rebel that takes to the streets to protest against the United States and capitalism in general, offers nothing more than a perennial rant on why citizens should submit to burocratic state authority. In their eyes, Adam Smith’s invisible hand “does nothing to help the poor, offers no safety net,” and “nurtures inequalities.” In response to these perceived crimes, we are told to submit to the visible fist of centralized socialist government authority – and this they call “revolution?”
On all levels of government, America has expended trillions of dollars toward overbearing and ineffective social-welfare schemes, and yet the illusion portrayed by critics is that somehow, no such money is addressed to these issues. (Such expenditures don’t even include the vast amounts donated privately to a host of charitable causes both domestic and global). Ultimately, what government has spent to feed such “social” programs has produced nothing but an unproductive and dependant class of wards and a ruling class of bureaucrats. In this regard, the results of such expenditure are no different from those found in other countries where collectivist schemes are fully entrenched.
In parts of Europe and Asia, such schemes have been made possible – more affordable – since, for decades, it was American taxpayers who bore the burden of these countries’ costly defense (from socialism’s more totalitarian kindred spirits).
With the ever increasing size and excess of modern government, one would think that socialist “rebels” would feel a sense of satisfaction at having achieved many of their goals yet, even in the most socialist of countries, the Left continually cries out for more taxes, more controls, and more laws and regulations to stifle the human spirit – and, for what? To prove their “compassion?” To reach the “true Communism” (absolute dictatorship) that Marx promised? In their eyes, the ruthless tyranny of Marx’s many clones have not been some aberration from the original plan, but the desired result, which is why such recurring sympathy is shown by the Left to the police states of North Korea, Cuba, and Vietnam etc.
I have yet to meet anyone from the strident Left who would devote considerable sums of their own money, time, or energy to the causes they continually demand others (under the thumb of the State) address. The fact that they “care” so deeply for people they’ve never met is not a convincing argument to increase a cumbersome net of ineffective bureau-oppression.
The contrived façade of avant-garde rebel cultivated by pampered middle class intellectuals, just doesn’t seem to mesh with the fact that their true underlying love is for battalions of state ministry drones and for centralized State authority.
The real “rebels” among us are those who know the cup is more than half full, when fellow citizens can live, think, buy, sell, and trade freely without submission to the oppressive whims of “philosophers” and armchair tyrants. A true rebel loves freedom – for everyone.
