1. America is Good.
Sigh. Talk about your oversimplification. I agree that America is largely a force for good in the world, but come on...America Good...uh derrr...sounds like a damn caveman commercial. America is always completely good, there are no mistakes. It was Good! Period! No Questions! No complexity allowed!
| 2. | I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life. |
| “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.” from George Washington’s first Inaugural address. |
Even if you believe in God and he is the center of your life, Washington's quote or the text of the Constitution itself hardly supports the theory that our government was intended to serve only such people. If you believe that natural law is the basis for government and that God is the basis for natural law (a far more tenable argument), then you will be interested in a later posting in which I plan to debate such a person. Still, as a person who believes in limited government but not God, I am strongly disheartened by the exclusionary nature of this tenet.
| 5. | If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it. |
| “I deem one of the essential principles of our government… equal and exact justice to all men of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political.” Thomas Jefferson |
Clearly inserted as a not-so-subtle stab at illegal immigrants, this idiocy is totally absurd and in direct contradiction to the principles of natural law. True believers in natural law (such as myself and the horribly misused Jefferson above), know that if a government makes rules that contradict what is truly right, then it is not only acceptable, but proper to disobey those rules and actively seek their reversal. Should the founding fathers have accepted rule by a distant and unresponsive government?--That was the law! Should black people have simply followed the Jim Crow rules, or paid the price? Should women have simply accepted that only men were worthy of voting? Should rules in blatant violation of natural law be accepted, because they are the rules? NO!! This is a fundamental tenet of tyranny. It is abhorrent to true believers in freedom, and is clearly a desperate attempt to co-opt old white people who are suspicious of newcomer immigrants into an increasingly undesirable political movement.
For the record, the ongoing prohibition of marijuana and other drugs is in violation of the proper role of government, as are numerous other laws and regulations. This is a clear result of libertarian ideology, yet conveniently ignored by most mainstream libertarians because of the sensitivity of the issue.
Disclaimer: This post is not intended to disparage the good things about Glenn Beck, such as principle number 7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable. This sentiment is both valid and widely misunderstood. Those who earn money should have the exclusive right to determine who is a beneficiary of their hard work. Any strides Beck makes toward promoting this ideal are to be congratulated.
Unfortunately most of Beck's nonsense is more like Number 8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion. This contradicts the spirit of number 5 above, but don't look too closely-Beck certainly doesn't. This statement is rather bland and uncontroversial, adding nothing to the public discussion since it would be difficult to find someone who disagrees. Regrettably, Beck contributes little to the public debate except a foil for those who despise libertarians and need a self-contradictory strawman to soil our good name.
No comments:
Post a Comment