Warped View

Idealism is the behavior or thought based on a conception of things as one thinks they should be. In other words, idealism is one’s personal construct of the way things ought to be. In theory idealism is laudable because individuals should strive to improve the human condition…you know, that rising tide, all boats thingy. In practice, however, idealism is often autocratic and tyrannical. The idealist abandons reality in order to force her/his personal picture of perfection on the rest of us. Despite our individual concepts of an ideal society, if the autocratic idealist holds the reins of power, we are compelled to follow his vision or version.

On the face of it idealism is a positive force for an aspiring group, but at its worst it becomes a rigid cage that allows for limited variety or personal preference. Many idealists appear to have their heads so high in the clouds that they cannot see the earth, or their craniums are so firmly implanted in their anal passages that they are unaware of the reality around them. In many ways Nietzsche was an idealist, and Hitler was a pragmatist who relied on many of Nietzsche’s visions for a society. The ideal was seriously flawed, and the implementation was horrific. They bring to mind the old bromide: be careful what you wish for.

The primary motivation for my position as an individualist is that I do not trust idealists.  Their reliance on human ideals often leads to inhumane actions. Their concepts of the perfect eventually morph into coercion of the people. The individualist lives life according to his own ideals without infringing on the lives, safety and property of others. The individualist may follow a vision that we embrace, or an ideal that we find repulsive. The end result is that we are not compelled to share or follow the lonely drummer. His choice is not constrained by our preferences, and our path is not dictated by the individualist’s vision.

Human nature seems to reveal that despite our similarities, each of us possesses a nugget of uniqueness. To expect all people all the time to conform to an ideal that has been germinated by one person or group is folly. We are not automatons even if some special interest groups behave as if they were. When individuals choose to exercise their minds, they often find that their preferences differ from those of others around them. Individuals are the generators of innovation. Individuals nourish the creative impulse that is available to each of us. Idealistic communities, on the other hand, discourage individual experimentation because it disrupts conformity.

When politicians, academics or others from the self-appointed elite disparage individual freedom and expression, it is usually because the individual’s ideal differs from theirs. Despite their high-minded protestations, collective idealists resent alternative visions. Their rock-solid belief in the superiority of their own positions will not allow them to tolerate any point of view that differs from theirs. Their arrogance and sense of self-importance drive them to dismiss other ideals as unworthy, and hence, other idealists whose dreams are not compatible with theirs as contemptible. The elite idealists are convinced that their structure for humanity is far superior to any conceivable option. Their passion for their vision is cult-like and unmovable. Individualism is not encouraged, nor is it tolerated. Individuals must be marginalized in the collective ideal.

Comment: earl4sos@gmail.com     or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

  

"The"

It’s easy for me to assume that many of you are somewhat uncomfortable when in the presence of a narcissist or an egomaniac. The other person’s overwhelming sense of self importance makes you fight the urge to slap some humility into him or her. Although my negative opinion of him has softened over the years, I still become a little bit uneasy when I hear “The Donald.” Perhaps it’s because I view “the” as an indicator of individuality rather than supremacy. While I do understand that “the” can be used to isolate groups such as “the group,” the family,” or “the Americans,” “the” continues to provide an individualistic function by segregating the group from other clusters. “The” is a marker that informs the reader or the listener that the noun that follows has some unique property…some distinctive difference.


Generally “the” is used before nouns with a specifying or limiting effect. In other words “the” suggests that referred object is special. The identified item stands out from all the others. My favorite example is “THE Ohio State University.” Not only does the emphatic use of “the” single out OSU as unique, it also drives Michigan fans crazy. Who knew that such an innocuous little word could have such an impact? Think of “The Word,” “The Bible,” “The Constitution,” and “the people.” Each time that we read “the,” our focus becomes narrowed to a specific image. Contrast that with word or people. Without the definitive “the,” they describe the common, the broader application.

It seems clear, therefore, if we wish to avoid becoming lost in the wasteland of ambiguity and generality, we must have “the” to define the object of our consideration. Marriage counselors often state that the little things make a difference in a relationship. “The” is proof that the little things do matter. The end.

Comments: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Saving Liberty

So, our first two entries in this three-part series on Liberty addressed how to define “liberty,” and in a primitive way, how to share what is “true liberty.” Now we’ll attempt to resolve how to “save liberty.” We already know that many people are dependent on government goodies, and may not view their dependence as part of the problem. Others may be aware that their involvement in the government scam programs undermines their and our liberty, but have calculated that their own short-term interests outweigh the good of the nation and the freedom for future generations. A third group is the radically clueless. They have no historical perspective and no civic knowledge. They simply float along immersed in their own ignorance. So, how do we penetrate the barriers of self-interest and know-nothingness in order to generate a movement for liberty? Do we don the William Wallace costume worn by Mel Gibson in “Braveheart,” paint our faces blue, and scream “Freedom.?” It could be a beginning, but I suspect that it may attract the guys with white coats and butterfly nets before it lures a sufficiently large number of citizens to our cause.


It would be better if we could illustrate for our fellow citizens that government goodies represent the ties that tightly bind us and restrict our freedoms. Why is it that we cannot sue the government for misfeasance or malfeasance without the government’s permission? Why is it that the pernicious RICO laws cannot be used to break the government monopolies or disassemble government collusion? Why are overreaching government promises not subject to contract law? When the ObamaCare monstrosity was passed, I heard several people complain about the exemption for government functionaries. But that’s the point, isn’t it? If government grants you some unconstitutional goodies, shouldn’t they have the right to exempt themselves? When you slavishly trade your liberty for some semblance of government security, you will lose.

Your liberty, our liberty is not a segmented right. Just like one cannot be a little bit pregnant, one cannot be partially free. What does a little bit of liberty represent—a longer chain, a larger cage? Dancing with the government is not the “hokey-pokey.” You can’t put one foot in and take it out again. You’re either all in…and selling out your God-given freedom, or you’re out…fighting each and every encroachment on your ability to live in unencumbered liberty. None of us is clever enough, tough enough or strong enough to compromise a “little” liberty for a “little” security. Once the tentacles of Nanny get their grips on you, they will not willingly set you free. “It’s for the greater good.” Submit your will to the state for the betterment of all is the siren song that we hear so often to legitimize the government’s insatiable desire to control every little detail of our lives. I’ve often noted that government has no heart, no mind and no soul, but allow me to add that government has no conscience or remorse. If government messes up your life or destroys the well-being of the country, it merely consumes a greater share of our labor, our property and our liberty and moves on.

To save our liberty, we must stop the inexorable expansion of government, then begin to unravel its multiple threads, and reduce it to its skeletal foundation. Can we save our liberty? Perhaps, but only if a significant number of us denounce and deny the “welcome wagon” basket of goodies that our government and the career politicians offer us and promise us. Despite their protestations and tender words of compassion, they will not love us in the morning when they are done with us. Bottom line: Liberty is an individual right. One can do whatever one wishes as long as he/she does no harm to others or their property. For liberty to exist, therefore, requires that individuals gnaw through the shackles of dependency and deny the “Trojan-horse gifts” from government. Continuing to be a ward of the state at any degree undermines the refreshing prospect of liberty for all. Give it up and enjoy the blessings of liberty.

Please comment: earl4sos@gmail.com cnpearl@woh.rr.com

Longtime Loving

One of my all-time favorite songs is George Jones’ “He Stopped Loving Her Today.” It’s a poignant lament about a lifetime committed to unrequited devotion. Only through the finality of death did the old gent stop his longing for his lost love. Country music is often heralded as the genre’ that most reflects the real-life experience of the average low-brow American. Trains, trucks, guns, booze and heartbreak seem to be the dominant themes on my XM Country stations. While my musical talents are limited, my tastes are eclectic, and I find myself becoming more attracted to Country as the years go by. It represents, in my view, a metaphor for the state of the nation and our state of mind.


Like many citizens of the United States, I spent my early years taking Liberty, Freedom and Opportunity for granted. I accepted the premise that my goals and dreams were limited only by my vision, my energy and my determination. Sometime during the past fifty years, that formula for self-fulfillment was seriously altered, and I failed to note the change. The rules were changed, and without a clue, I was clinging to the old ways. Liberty was no longer considered a God-given natural right, but was a precious commodity to be parceled out in tiny increments by a kind and generous government.

Many jurists, legislators, administrators and citizens had twisted the “pursuit of happiness” into a justification for government oversight and intervention into nearly every aspect of our daily lives. In addition, the “general welfare” clause was expanded to the point of becoming an all-inclusive justification for governmental intrusion and involvement. So, how can a mindless, heartless, soulless entity like our leviathan government insure the general welfare and promote the pursuit of happiness for 312million people? Do we share the same dreams? Do we have similar talents and abilities? Are our ambitions and desires equally distributed? To me, the answers to these questions are self-revealing, and demonstrate clearly the impotence and unresponsiveness of too-big government.

Admittedly, my view springs from the individualist perspective. Big government advocates accept the collectivist point-of-view. These world views are incompatible, and no meaningful compromise is acceptable for either group of advocates. These two mindsets are diametrically opposed to one another and cannot co-exist in any meaningful way. For several decades the collectivist mentality has controlled the agenda while individualists meekly succumbed to the usurpation of natural Law. As one individual who believes that God granted me the spark of life and the free will to make my own decisions, I apologize for my silence in years gone by. Just as God has granted me the power to choose Him…or reject Him (and face the consequences), I also have the individual power to yield or to reject the smothering oppressive big government intervention into every aspect of my life.

Henceforth, I will battle, confound, resist and undermine the mindless, heartless and soulless state. Liberty is a gift from God, and I shall not squander it willingly.

Comments are welcome: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
                                     earl4sos@gmail.com

All for One

According to those eminent philosophers, Three Dog Night, “One is the loneliest number.” Though lonely, it is the most basic number, and thus, the individual is the basic component of a group, a community, a state or a planet. There may be other people who resemble us physically, culturally and intellectually, but because each of us is unique, they do not match us exactly. There is evidence, in fact, that cloned creatures exhibit some behavioral differences from their sources. Each of us possesses a composite of attitudes, physical attributes, preferences, dreams and goals that segregate us from others who may be similar. While there may be compelling biological explanations for the variations among us, those unique elements are the underlying justification for engaged monotheism. Each individual has a personal relationship with the Creator who, in turn, acknowledges the individual as unique.


One does not need a theological justification for recognizing true individuality. Rational observation illuminates that people differ in many ways. Simple deductive reasoning illustrates that no two people are exactly alike. Some can protest that it is impossible to know everyone on the planet, ergo there may be a series of exact duplicates scattered around the planet. O.K., so my Somali twin and I share which attributes? Biological science reinforces uniqueness. Each of us has our own retinal scans, fingerprints and DNA (Tiger Woods is aware of this). Despite superficial similarities, each of us is a unique individual. So, we can conclude that individuals are unique through theological, biological and observational methods of inquiry.

In spite of our individuality, there times we choose to “run with the pack.” Although there may be some inherent biological impulse to associate with others, it still remains a choice. From an historical perspective, early settlers in the United States (or the colonies) joined together to “raise” barns and for defensive purposes. They formed churches and social groups to enhance their relationships with one another and to broaden the pool for potential mates. In every case the associations were voluntary although there was some ostracism when it was deemed that an individual was not contributing to the community good. The individual, however, remained as the primary component of the community, and many people on the frontier periodically pulled up roots and relocated further to the west to escape too much “crowding.”

If the individual is the basic unit from a theological, biological and observational perspective, why is it that current society appears to want to suppress individuality—at least in a political milieu? Aberrant and audacious behavior are tolerated or encouraged in social intercourse, dress and entertainment, but forceful individualism is often marginalized in the political realm. “Wacko’s, weirdo’s, loons” are just a few of the pejoratives that are used to characterize those who resent being forced to become one of “sheeple.” Although some elements of voluntary association still remain, an ever-growing government has preempted many aspects of everyday life there were once the province of individuals.

The state, if it has not been formed by conquest, is a voluntary organization. The United States of America was formed by the voluntary association of the thirteen original colonies. The Constitution is the fundamental document of that voluntary banding that defines and limits the power of the federal government relative to the individual states and their citizens. Today we discover a massive federal structure that overrides the separate states and ignores the individual. The ability to act individually is unfettered freedom. Any voluntary association will necessitate that an individual relinquish some element of freedom in order to become a member. In the simplest form, a member will sacrifice Tuesday evenings to attend a Lion’s Club meeting. Consistent failure to attend could result in the member’s name being removed from the roll. The government’s relationship with the individual is much more coercive that the Lion’s Club. Failure to comply with government’s myriad rules and regulations leads to sanctions and penalties. Individual freedom is relegated to those minor areas of life where the government has not yet expressed its will.

One of the great tragic consequences of the growth of the federal government is that the states and local entities have grown at nearly the same rate. Some of the growth is a result of federal mandates and revenue sharing schemes, and other areas of proliferation come about because of the misplaced sense of mandate that local politicians assume. Each new rule, law or regulation erodes the liberty of someone(s). Given the nature of government evolution in recent decades, it seems that many rugged individualists are forced to join together to stop the “Blob” from consuming them.

The next entry in this series will explore how and why individuals should band together to salvage their freedom.

Please comment to: cnpearl@woh.rr.com


Part I: Alone in the Crowd

Part II: All for One

Alone in the crowd.

The current debates surrounding various issues at all levels of government expose a fundamental tension inherent in self government. Who should reign supreme, the state (the collective) or the individual? The friction can be characterized in a number of ways, but one of the more common ones is “security versus freedom.” This is a false dichotomy because when one looses freedom, then security is at risk. In other words, when others make your choices for you, who will guarantee that those choices will be the optimal ones for you? As Ben Franklin stated,”Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.”


In a political sense, the tug-of-war between the individual and society is fundamentally confined to democracies or republics, that is political systems that have a broad franchise with clear choices for voters. One-party states and tyrannies limit the individual and forces him or her into a collective mode. In an individually based structure, the citizen can choose to vote, act or think with or for the group. The collective or statist organization discourages or prohibits individual behavior. Thus, individually-centered communities can choose to become more collective or statist, but members of a tyrannical society cannot promote or encourage individualism without facing ostracism or bodily peril. To reiterate an old cliché: you can’t put the toothpaste back into the tube.

For a free people to ask the government to do more for them leads to an inevitable slide into tyranny. Each new role assumed by the state chips away at the bedrock of individual freedom. Again, an old cliché: the Golden Rule of business and government, he who has the gold…rules. They who have been ceded the power will wield it. After some time the state will not wait for the power to be given to it, it will assert its authority and assume the power. The nanny-state exercises power to protect the people from themselves, but as government continues to unabatedly become larger, the state begins to use power to protect itself from the people.

People who live in democratic societies may choose to become more collectivist for several reasons. A misplaced sense of compassion may lead them to conclude that “society” has an obligation to care for those in “need.” Human nature and our unique differences assure that the compassionate nirvana is never achieved. There are and always will be individuals whose circumstances place them out of the mainstream. The call for government remedies for an increasing number of perceived shortcomings leads to enhanced government power. Massive bureaucracies are developed to address the needs of the individuals, and after a time, it is discovered that some are “falling through the cracks.” New programs with greater government power are created to assure that all are treated fairly.

Political considerations are another motivation for increasing state influence. Often driven by ideology, statists believe that their way, their belief system, their method of governing is far superior to any alternative. Once they have their hands on the reins of power, they do not release them. They nurture the government leviathan so that they may exercise power and control. Dissent is either ridiculed or crushed.

Indifference is a major contributor to the loss of freedom and the growth of the state. Softball games, television shows, dining out, family vacations and a myriad other activities compete for thoughtful consideration. Fighting for individualism requires energy, passion and knowledge. It’s easier for people to leave the battle to others and kinda’ hope for a good outcome. Once individual rights have eroded to the tipping point, then the indifferent ones wring their hands and mutely cheer for the warriors who charge the barricades

Insolence is a big contributor to growth of government. Certain elites, either via education or wealth, determine that they alone are worthy for charting the course of the nation. The other citizens, they believe, lack the sophistication and knowledge to steer the state through perilous times. They implement programs that patronize the recipients, but none-the-less cause the government to grow as they make more people dependent on their largesse.

A final attribute that I will identify as a freedom-eroding, government bloating enabler is ignorance. Citizens don’t care, or they want more from government so they don’t have to do it themselves. They ignorantly sell themselves into serfdom because they believe they’re getting something for nothing from the government…or “I’ve paid taxes all my life, and they owe me this.” Some of them drool and grovel for government jobs because of minimal layoffs and rather slack work requirements.

Clearly, the descriptions that I have laid out above are not exclusive. Some big-state enhancers combine several of the categories. In my view, all are dangerous and toxic. In a future blog I will examine individualism and its motivations. Then, in a later one I will examine ways for freedom loving people to challenge the collective impulse.

Please feel free to comment. I cherish your feedback-positive or negative. If you prefer, you can email me at cnpearl@woh.rr.com

The broad and narrow

We've been conditioned to believe that stereotypes are bad. That is not necessarily true. Some stereotypes are useful because they can help us to negotiate through unfamiliar situations. If we believe, stereotypically, that all Steelers fans are crazy, then we are more apt to approach them cautiously lest we inadvertently incite an incident. Stereotypes are generalities by their nature. They describe large groups...general identifiable populations.

Stereotyping loses some of its value as it is transferred from the general to the particular. You may know a Steeler fan (only one) who is not crazy. Dedicated, loyal and enthusiastic, but is someone who can be civil and polite. Perhaps, over time, you may meet other Steeler fans who exhibit positive attributes of social discourse, and your earlier stereotype of the Steeler fans may begin to fade.

Conservatives, Libertarians and Objectivists tend to appreciate the individual. They generally recognize that while we all may have something in common with various "groups," each of us is unique...possessing varying talents, skills, likes and dislikes. Each individual has been created to achieve and enjoy as much as her or his personal toolbox will allow. For individuals to be constantly forced to succumb to the standards of the group results in a high level of personal frustration and discouragement.

Liberals, progressives and marxists glorify the group while diminishing or isolating the individual. It's a rather Darwinian view that assumes that all members of a species, who share similar environmental characteristics, are alike. Thus, in the political realm leftists often strive to legislate broadly to marginalize individuals. This great levelling of society undermines initiative and self determinism. "Hate speech and hate crimes" are leftist methods for minimizing individualism and maximizing sameness. Diversity, multiculturalism and minority affairs are mechanisms for raising up the group at the expense of the individual.

With individualism comes freedom. If one can act in her/his best interests by following her own preferences and desires, then the group mentality becomes a barrier. If the group mentality prevails, however, the individual's initiative and creativity is smothered by a cloud of conformity. Big government, global corporations and any other mega-entity are incapable of dealing with and encouraging the individual. They mistrust free-thinkers and seek to render them impotent. The challenge for lovers of liberty and freedom is to consistently and effectively resist the efforts of those who would wedge them into stereotypical pigeonholes.