Sunday, February 05, 2006

Group Rights vs individual Rights A Farmer John Special

I seldom do this type of post as only my dedicated core readers will enjoy this post.
I try to stick with serialized books and current events and a rare comedy bit. However, I am sometimes wrong about the readers intrest. The post on Bad Eagle was a cutting room post but ran well there. The Straus and Rand posts also proved better then I guessed. Mr Beamish proved me 100% wrong and knows his stuff and then some.

While researching the Ward Churchill post a substory is the perversion of Civil Rights by the followers of Marcuse. Traditionalist like 90% ofthe readers here accept individual rights as the basis of Civil Rights. Our Constitutional Rights are individual rights . Liberty is the right of every citizen until it infringes on someone else. However one does not have the right to Sedition, Treason or to communicate with terrorists to facilitate criminal acts.

Marcuse or Folk Marxism replaced the worker with scores of disgruntled minorities. Thus we have the absurdities of entire world views focusing on opressed vs the opressors. The USA is the largest Capatalist country and the Jew is the symbol of Capitalism. Thus via the Marcuse based Marxist idiocy the USA and Israel are subjected to standards of behavior applied no where else. Jews are no longer victims so Marxists play word games and substitute Zionist and Neocon for Jooooo. How a religion whose people have opressed more people then anyother except Marxism itself got to the top of the victims list is astonishing.

The Marcusian Marxist insist upon anti American concept as group rights. Rights do not belong to groups and the litany of groups is endless. We should strive for equality of opportunity. This does not mean in any definition equality of outcomes.
We should not gerrymander results to fit a social engineers mathamatical formulas. New discrimination does not reward victims of previous wrongs.

Mr Beamish in 08, Ducky to the down factory and 167 Hasta La Vista and do not write.

26 comments:

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Well, the Strauss thread turned into Farmer John schooling me on a different point of view on Machiavelli. Not one I'm ready to adopt, but definitely a tenable view. So FJ gets props for giving me food for thought.

Anonymous said...

Wow, thanks beak, my own "special" on a topic near and dear to my heart. Yes the Western concept of rights were meant to apply to the individual, for "justice" was once defined (by Plato/Kant) as "every man doing his best WITHOUT interference from others. (Everyman an end unto himself, and NOT a means to an end)

Then the Marxists got into the moral grievance industry in a fight for "workers" rights (as a group) and as you stated, the Marcusians morphed that into generic "minority" rights in the mid-fifties/early sixties.

Then John Rawls went out and created his "Theory of Justice" turning all standards of "justice" on their head by redefining it to be "social justice" and basing its' measurement and results not by what the "every man" was empowered to accomplish with his life, but on the results experienced by the "lowest" man on the totem pole and what he might potentially achieve with the "help" of all others.

And so the "justness" of a society was to be measured from that time on by its success in making sure drug addicts and winos became self-actualized, evryone else be damned.

The hoi kokoi (dregs) were made into societies new "privledged class" and the hoi polloi (commons) were tossed to the wolves. The hoi agathoi (best) of course, became the red "meat" for the kokoi feast.

And so instead of everyman doing his best WITHOUT the interference of others, justice was now redefined as the lowest man doing his best through societies' interference with all others. All men became the "means" for societies newly favored "ends", to serve the incapable and/or unambitious.

...and mr. beamish, sorry I wasn't able to sway your opinion as to whether Machiavelli was "serious" or simply "satirizing" the agents of power in his own day. Perhaps we can agree that Petronius Arbiter WAS making fun of Roman society when he wrote his "Satyricon". Hmmm, I went to a Superbowl party the other day that contained modern elements reminiscent of that story... but we'll save that for some later post. ;-)

-FJ

beakerkin said...

I always wanted to do this topic in some format. Rights belong to individuals. Liberty is inalienable right. The Government should serve the people . Marxist spin all these axioms on their head.

Mr. Ducky said...

Yeah Farmer, I truly thank Rawls. I think Bono was thinking of Rawls at the Washington prayer breakfast the other day.

"It's annoying but justice and equality are mates. Aren't they? Justice always wants to hang out with equality. And equality is a real pain."

That's the thing about the "Great Books" thinkers. They lived in such primitive times that they couldn't think clearly about a concept like equaity. They never did much of the heavy lifting.

beakerkin said...

Case 69

The Communo Wahabi Waterfowl

69 fails to not that in Islam under Sharia rights are also held by the failthful. Thus Islam and Communism both focus on group rights.

Anonymous said...

Sorry mr. ducky,

But equality and justice are incompatible values. They aren't "mates", they're closer to an opposing dualism. There is nothing in this universe that has an exact equal in it. ALL material things are inherently "unequal" and in a state of "constant" flux.

You're truing to pound a round peg into a square hole. Actually, I'd probably be more accurate in stating that you're trying to pound both a circular (equality) AND an eliptical (justice) peg into a single square (reality) hole.

You'd have Einstein sweeping the streets and Forest Gump designing the a-bomb. If you really think you can make that society "viable", please either buy a one-way plane ticket to Hugo Chavez's Carribean paradise or check yourself into Bellvue for observation.

-FJ

Anonymous said...

The "Great Books" thinkers were all "geometrical" thinkers. And "circles" and "squares" were their "specialities".

I don't suppose you've ever tried to square the circle with compass and straight edge? I thought not.

-FJ

Anonymous said...

It's obvious you're from the school of "No Books" emoters.

And the reason why the "great books" crowd dosn't do much heavy lifting is that they use their brains and let brainless muscle bound emoters make them useful and do the heavy lifting for them. That keeps you emoters from starving to death every winter.

-FJ

Mr. Ducky said...

Well Farmer, if Einstein were sweeping the streets and Forrest Gump were designing a bomb they'd both be someone else entirely, wouldn't they?

Your notion of equality doesn't seem to include basics that allow self realization.

Of course the right would prefer to live like a Gumptian idiot rather than face the complexities of the world.

Mr. Ducky said...

A book review of "The Devil's Gane" to give folks some balance:



>>>>>>>About the book:
The first complete investigation of America's most dangerous foreign policy miscalculation: sixty years of support for Islamic fundamentalism

Devil's Game is the previously untold account of America's misguided efforts, stretching across six decades, to cultivate the Islamic right in an effort to dominate the economically and strategically vital Middle East. Drawing on archival research and interviews with policy makers and CIA, defense, and foreign-service officials, Robert Dreyfuss argues that America's historic alliance with the Islamic right is greatly to blame for the emergence of Islamist terrorism in the 1990s.

Among the hidden stories of U.S. collusion with radical Islam that Dreyfuss reveals here are President Eisenhower's 1953 Oval Office meeting with a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the United States' later secret alliance with that group and their Saudi patrons against Egypt's President Nasser. Dreyfuss meticulously documents the CIA's funding of the Iranian ayatollahs in the coup d-etat that restored Iran's shah to power, the United States' support for Saudi Arabia's efforts to create a worldwide Islamic bloc as an antidote to Arab nationalism, and the longstanding ties between Islamic fundamentalists and the leading banks of the West. With clarity and rigor, Dreyfuss also chronicles how the United States looked the other way when Israel's secret service supported the creation of the radical Palestinian group Hamas and how a secretive clique of American strategists in the 1970s exploited political Islam to conduct a proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan -- leading directly to the rise of the Taliban.

Wide-ranging and deeply informed, Devil's Game reveals a history of double-dealing and cynical exploitation that continues to this day -- as in Iraq, where the United States is backing radical Islamists, allied with Iran's clerics, who have surfaced as the dominant force in the post-Saddam Hussein Iraqi government. What emerges is a pattern that, far from furthering either democracy or security, ensures a future of blunders and blowbacks.


Robert Dreyfuss, who covers national security for Rolling Stone, has written extensively on Iraq and the war on terrorism for The Nation, The American Prospect, and Mother Jones. A frequent contributor to NPR, MSNBC, CNBC, and many other broadcast outlets, he lives in Alexandria, Virginia.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if the author of "Devil's Game" has never played any actual strategic games? I wonder if he's ever actually conducted any real foreign policy? I wonder if he ever heard of a "Balance of Power" strategy? A tit-for-tat strategy? Prisober's Dilemna?

I wonder if all he's ever played in his life is a sheepish moral "let the other guy go first and then do the same thing wrong over and over and lose strategy". I wonder if the author is related to Jimmy Carter... the dictator's of the world's best friend. "Yes Kim Il... I trust you... you AREN'T developing nuclear weapons...here are those dual use centrifuges you asked for". That and, "Yes Hugo, those WERE fair and honest elections". LOL!

-FJ

Anonymous said...

Just as I thought... Dreyfuss is a "journalist". I guess that makes him a real expert.

-FJ

Anonymous said...

I figure drunks and drug addicts are about as "self-realized" as they are capable of ever becoming already. I don't have to try and "others-realize" them in the name of social justice.

-FJ

beakerkin said...

Duncy

You seem to forget the Commie Role.
Kindly open the Black Book and see who trained the PLO and others. The Muslim Brotherhood was a Nazi group. It grew in Egypt as a reaction to Islamo Socialism. The role of the Afghan Arabs was due to the fact Commies tried to impose Marxism on indigenous people and commited mass genocide.

Thus there would be no Afghan Arabs if Commies did not invade countries and impose their warped vision and genocide on indigenous people.

Storm said...

Ducky

Your essential problem is you do not understand the term equality. There is no guarantee under any system of goverment that all will have equal wealth, intelligence, health, length of life and so on such a concept is ludricus. Therefore true equality can never be achieved. In communist dogma promises are given that many will share in the fruits but in the end you must be part of inner group of leaders so why would you follow that which guarantees equal sufferring for almost all citizens?

In America, the goal for over 200 years was not to gaurantee everyone had the same amount of everything (as you define equality) but rather to offer all the chance to achieve whatever their determination, intelligence and health could achieve. Was it perfect no because no human created government ever has been. But the result was the greatest creation of wealth, intelligence, and determination ever seen on this planet. Without these things, I am certain we would all be speaking German for a much smaller country defeated the foes of the World. A country without a long history and composed largely of the discarded from other countries.

elijah said...

Great, marcusian, back to the books...thanks beak.
Amazing how such a minority as the jew can be so vilified...
Mr Beamish in 08, Ducky to the down factory and 167 Hasta La Vista and do not write.
Recently bought a down filled arm chair for 2000+ canadian,what a freakin waste.

Warren said...

So, we bring out a serious discussion about group rights versa individual rights and Daffy drags out another stupid conspiracy theory.

And just guess who the bad guy is! (And from such a great font of intellectuality too).

What next, a quotation from Mad Magazine?

Group rights are special rights and grossly inequitable to any non-member of that group.

Social Justice is social bullshit for that very reason!

MissingLink said...

"The USA is the largest Capatalist country and the Jew is the symbol of Capitalism."

Talking about this U$rael image - can anybody tell me if this website is Neo-Nazi or Neo-Commie?
http://globalfire.tv/nj/04en/globalism/usbroke.htm

elijah said...

Shit i hope that didnt sound wrong, just didnt get the marcusian quote.
The jew quote goes without saying...

beakerkin said...

Elijah

All who know you know that your heart is in the right place.

Felis

I will look into that site tommorow. The quote was me paraphrasing Flynn and he is 100% correct.

Warren

69 seems to forget the role of Commies in anything. I am waiting for his explanation of how prisoners in Gulags do not constitute slavery.

Jason_Pappas said...

By the way, Beak, that was a excellent essay on Bad Eagle on Ward, etc. I didn't have time to post a comment there (nor read every one else's comments) but I hope to return and learn more. David has an interesting and thoughtful viewpoint. Academia (and the students) are the big losers. They could have had a great teacher and scholar.

Warren said...

Beak, said:
"I am waiting for his explanation of how prisoners in Gulags do not constitute slavery."

Why Beak, isn't it obvious???
They were resisting "Social Justice"!

LOL

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Ducky,

Your bloviated pontifications miss the mark because you still fail to take into account the documented fact that no leftist in the span of human history has ever demonstrated the capability of thinking rationally. Leftism is in fact anti-rational. Your slip-shod definition of "equality" is proof enough of this.

beakerkin said...

Jason

Dr Yeagley is looking for talented writers and I mentioned you to him.
You should seriously consider submitting some classic posts. AOW should also consider likewise. However, I joked that if I wanted a surge in ratings a guest post at AOW would produce better results.

Mr Beamish

Social Justice is a fantasy concocted by the left to excuse its failures and lapses of judgement.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Preach on Brother Beakerkin!

Anonymous said...

Can You Change Your Life...Use The Ancient secrets of what is feng shui. To Make Money and Increase Your Health. Visit Us at http://fengshui444.com..