So I’m crusing Kosland for something stupid and, of course, didn’t have to travel far.
Kos Kiddie “da” goes back to 1957 to find Russel Kirk’s ’10 Conservative Principles’ and does the progressive version of a fisk on them. It is a rather long read, and not really very interesting. That is, until I get to Point #7 on “Freedoms”.
Kirk’s words:
Conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.
And Kirk is right. If you are going to let the government tell you what you can own, whether it be land, cars or firearms, you are giving up all of your essential freedoms by giving up that one.
“da” doesn’t see it that way. To him, the right to own property is just another in a long list of rights; what he likes to call “the progressive pillars of the infinite taxonomy of freedom”
Would you like to hear what else he considers a “Right”? I knew you would…..
Progressives appreciate the incredible breadth of freedom. It’s telling that it took Kirk six other topics (starting with moral order!) before finally getting around to any kind of meaningful discussion of freedom. For as much blathering as conservatives do about freedom, it isn’t really a top priority of theirs. Even when it is, they miss the point of it, as the freedom linked to the ownership of property is among the most vulgar and coarse of freedoms. The cognitive freedoms – freedom of speech, freedom to learn, freedom of and from religion, freedom of thought – as well as freedom from want and freedom from fear are the progressive pillars of the infinite taxonomy of freedom. Those are the substantial freedoms and form one of the two core philosophies of progressivism.
This isn’t at all to say that private property shouldn’t exist, of course! It just means that property rights have to be placed alongside other rights and freedoms. This gives rise to a certain critical but generally positive approach to capitalism: it needs to be housebroken, not smashed.
Freedom from WANT? Freedom from FEAR? WTF is this guy talking about? Just how far does he WANT to take these concepts?
If someone has a Chevy and WANTS a Cadillac, would he go that far, or is he only talking about food, water, shelter? And if so, why doesn’t he just say that? And exactly how would he propose keeping those who do WANT their free Cadillac from using his newly found rights to get themselves one?
If I were to win the lottery jackpot tomorrow, a big one, none of this two or three million dollars crap (though it would be nice), but a 300 million or more jackpot, you know what, it wouldn’t be enough.
It is not that I’m exceptionally greedy or the ultimate power shopper, it is just that I have a long list of WANTS. After buying a nice house and getting my investments set up so that I can live off the interest, the very first WANT I’d fulfill would be to go about suing every single anti-gun organization for attempting, sometimes successfully, to deny me my Second Amendment rights (which you may have noticed “da” doesn’t bother to mention).
Sure, I probably wouldn’t ever win a single case, but if those organization WANT to sue firearms manufacturers into backruptcy, I’d olbige them the same courtesy. When the Brady Bunch, VPC, etc, could no longer continue to assault my rights and my intelligence, I’d find something else to spend my money on, probably my own private island, which I would then use the lawyers from my previous venture to turn into my own country.
Freedom from FEAR? Fear of what, a giant space insect? Fear of the electricity being shut off because you can’t pay the bill because your welfare spigot was shut off? Hell, I’m somewhat afraid of my own government, I’d almost be willing to go along with this if he promised to get rid of that.
There are a couple other “Freedoms” that he has made up which I would like to get into, but frankly, they are just so bang-your-head-against-the-wall stupid that I’d rather not waste my time. Feel free to do so with them or with thses in the comments though.
I am glad that you are reading Russel Kirk; not an easy read to be sure but worth the effort. He and Milton Friedman are two of the most significant voices that shaped my philosphies and beliefs. BTW, I really enjoyed your posts of Rands works as well.
I’m glad you liked them, Y. I’m trying to get up the energy to jump back into them again for a return of the QotD posts.
There’s a trend here: The “Progressive” life philosophy is simple: you have it, I want it, so give it up or I’ll take it from you with help from my friend here, the State.
Remind you of your worst fears as a third-grade schoolkid?
With the antagonist the schoolyard bully?
I thought you’d see the parallel.
“Freedom from Fear” is leftard speak for victim-disarmament.
They all mentally live in a magical little land where waving a legislative wand will suddenly make bad guys forget all about a certain 15th century technology they dislike.
Sadly, “Freedom from Want” and “Freedom from Fear” were two of the “Four Freedoms” promulgated by FDR during WWII, and celebrated IIRC by Norman Rockwell in a mildly famous painting.
So probably this guy is just tossing those into his list because he heard them in junior high school history class.
FWIW, the other two of FDR’s “Freedoms” were speech and religion.
Here’s the first part of FDR’s address to the nation enumerating the four. Pay particular attention to what he says freedom from fear means: worldwide disarmament!
“…The first is freedom of speech and expression — everywhere in the world.
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way — everywhere in the world.
The third is freedom from want — which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants — everywhere in the world.
The fourth is freedom from fear — which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor– anywhere in the world….”