10 October 2012
The progression from welfare state to totalitarian state is inevitable
Dr Robert Lefever
09 October 2012
Marxism is a shallow belief system but deep dangers go with it.
The basic tenet, 'from each according to his ability; to each according
to his need', is a blueprint for a totalitarian state, not a
compassionate society. It imprisons givers and sanctifies takers.
In this respect, David Cameron and Nick Clegg are closet Marxists. Ed Milliband is simply more
open about acknowledging the roots of his political philosophy. Nick Clegg has been pilloried by his own party for reneging on a promise that he made but couldn't keep.
Instead of heading a minority administration, David Cameron tries to detoxify the Conservative brand by making it progressively more socialist. He formed a coalition with people who make unnatural bedfellows.
The Communist Manifesto attracts those who want to take. Either they want something for
themselves, at someone else's expense, or they want the credit for giving it to other people.
They profess that they seek power not for themselves but for the benefit of others. But, in practice, they themselves revel in the exercise and trappings of state power.
Politicians are elected on their promises to confiscate and donate. 'Pre-distribution' is just yet another euphemism for legalised theft.
Votes are given on the estimate of whether an individual reckons that he or she is likely to gain or lose in a reapportioning process. Political tracts are fashioned in the guise of altruism but self-interest is the underlying principle.
'To each according to his need' is universal in its appeal. We can all point to our needs, relative to the privilege of some other people. Wants very quickly become needs and then entitlements.
'From each according to his ability' is equally popular when we are looking up the ladder to those whose talents we believe should be channelled towards our betterment.
However, we may fail to note those below us who want - and even demand - that we should give to them.
In this way, any achievement or possession becomes a liability.
This is where the politics of envy, spite and malice has its roots.
In a democracy, the politicians control the military and, to a large extent, the constitutional monarchy. The judiciary remain independent.
In a dictatorship, leadership is taken by force and imposed.
In a theocracy, religious leaders claim civic as well as spiritual power.
That all looks clear cut. But it isn't. The body politic is fluid, not static. Once in power, politicians develop a conceit that in time makes the progression from welfare state to totalitarian state inevitable.
The electorate colludes with this when it demands repeatedly that the government ought to do something over this or that or everything.
Ultimately we get the government and the political system that we deserve. If we want a government to do something, it will. Then, when we wonder where our freedom went, we should recognise that we have only ourselves to blame for throwing it away.
We should challenge the ideas and principles upon which politicians base their manifestos. If we unthinkingly surrender moral right to the likes of The Communist Manifesto, it is only a matter of time before the tanks roll into our streets or until we are expected to spy on each other.
The only protection against this fearful scenario is that we should demand less government locally, nationally and supra-nationally. We need the protection of a minimum state to guarantee the upholding of contract law, the provision of a police force so that we do not have to take the law into our own hands, and defence forces to protect us from foreign invasion. Beyond that, for our own safety, we should care for ourselves and each other without recourse to government. Otherwise the Marxists and Fascists, the two feet of totalitarianism, will walk through an open door.
In this respect, David Cameron and Nick Clegg are closet Marxists. Ed Milliband is simply more
open about acknowledging the roots of his political philosophy. Nick Clegg has been pilloried by his own party for reneging on a promise that he made but couldn't keep.
Instead of heading a minority administration, David Cameron tries to detoxify the Conservative brand by making it progressively more socialist. He formed a coalition with people who make unnatural bedfellows.
The Communist Manifesto attracts those who want to take. Either they want something for
themselves, at someone else's expense, or they want the credit for giving it to other people.
They profess that they seek power not for themselves but for the benefit of others. But, in practice, they themselves revel in the exercise and trappings of state power.
Politicians are elected on their promises to confiscate and donate. 'Pre-distribution' is just yet another euphemism for legalised theft.
Votes are given on the estimate of whether an individual reckons that he or she is likely to gain or lose in a reapportioning process. Political tracts are fashioned in the guise of altruism but self-interest is the underlying principle.
'To each according to his need' is universal in its appeal. We can all point to our needs, relative to the privilege of some other people. Wants very quickly become needs and then entitlements.
'From each according to his ability' is equally popular when we are looking up the ladder to those whose talents we believe should be channelled towards our betterment.
However, we may fail to note those below us who want - and even demand - that we should give to them.
In this way, any achievement or possession becomes a liability.
This is where the politics of envy, spite and malice has its roots.
In a democracy, the politicians control the military and, to a large extent, the constitutional monarchy. The judiciary remain independent.
In a dictatorship, leadership is taken by force and imposed.
In a theocracy, religious leaders claim civic as well as spiritual power.
That all looks clear cut. But it isn't. The body politic is fluid, not static. Once in power, politicians develop a conceit that in time makes the progression from welfare state to totalitarian state inevitable.
The electorate colludes with this when it demands repeatedly that the government ought to do something over this or that or everything.
Ultimately we get the government and the political system that we deserve. If we want a government to do something, it will. Then, when we wonder where our freedom went, we should recognise that we have only ourselves to blame for throwing it away.
We should challenge the ideas and principles upon which politicians base their manifestos. If we unthinkingly surrender moral right to the likes of The Communist Manifesto, it is only a matter of time before the tanks roll into our streets or until we are expected to spy on each other.
The only protection against this fearful scenario is that we should demand less government locally, nationally and supra-nationally. We need the protection of a minimum state to guarantee the upholding of contract law, the provision of a police force so that we do not have to take the law into our own hands, and defence forces to protect us from foreign invasion. Beyond that, for our own safety, we should care for ourselves and each other without recourse to government. Otherwise the Marxists and Fascists, the two feet of totalitarianism, will walk through an open door.
8 October 2012
Man, 20, charged after 'posting offensive comments on Facebook about April Jones and likening her to Madeleine McCann'
By Mark Duell
7
A man was yesterday charged with posting offensive comments on Facebook about April Jones.
Matthew Wood, 20, from Chorley, Lancashire, will appear at the town's magistrates' court today over comments posted about the missing five-year-old girl from Machynlleth, Wales.
He was arrested and charged under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 with sending a message or other matter that is grossly offensive on a public electronic communications network.
The charge comes after comments he allegedly made were posted online on his Facebook account.
The posting allegedly relates to Madeleine McCann - the British girl aged three who vanished in 2007 from the Algarve, Portugal - and was made last Thursday, reported the Lancashire Evening Post.
[ed. Noticeably, none of the news outlets are conveying what was actually said leaving out a potentially key piece of this puzzle. So far it looks like freedom of speech takes another baseball bat to the face from big brother over-policing...]
7 October 2012
Three months after circumcision ban, German government to legalize rite
October 4, 2012
The German government is set to pass legislation that would legalize ritual circumcisions if they are performed by a medical professional, allowing local Jews to breathe a sigh of relief three months after a local court criminalized the rite and criminal charges were filed against two rabbis.
German-Jewish leaders welcomed the bill, a
copy of which has been obtained by The Times of Israel. The cabinet in
Berlin will discuss the 26-page bill next Wednesday, after which it will
proceed to the floor of the Bundestag, where it it is expected to be
voted into law within the coming days.
“It is a clear political signal that Jews and
Muslims are still welcome in Germany,” said Dieter Graumann, the
president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany. “We are happy that
Jewish commandments and Jewish life are not being pushed into
illegality.”
‘Nowhere else in the world was this issue debated with such sharpness, coldness and sometimes brutal intolerance’
According to what is expected to become
paragraph 1631 of the German Civil Code, parents of newborn sons can
agree to have someone carry out ritual circumcisions “if they are
performed according to rules of medical art.”
Ritual circumcisions can be performed by “a
person chosen by a religious community who is especially trained” for
such procedures, the bill postulates. In practice, that means that
traditional Jewish circumcisers, or mohels, will continue to be able to
perform circumcisions if they possess the necessary medical know-how.
“We certainly have to make some compromises
about this. Yet the fact that professionally trained mohels can perform a
brit milah according to Jewish rite is a good and important decision,”
Graumann said.
In June, the Cologne district court ruled that parents having their sons circumcised are liable of causing bodily injury,
even if they did so for religious reasons. According to the judges, the
constitutional freedom of religion cannot justify interventions such as
circumcision.
The court ruling drew heavy criticism from
Jews in Germany, who, in a first reaction, called it “an outrageous and
insensitive act.”
Amid a heated public debate about the legality of ritual circumcisions, criminal charges were filed against
at least two rabbis who had pledged to continue performing
circumcisions. In the wake of such news and countless articles and
comments by opponents of ritual circumcisions, some prominent Jewish
leaders had suggested that Jews were no longer welcome in modern
Germany.
Several senior Israeli officials
— including President Shimon Peres, Interior Minister Eli Yishai and
Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger — got involved, asking German authorities to
create legal safety for Jews seeking to circumcise their newborn sons.
“The circumcision debate sometimes turned very
hostile, which was not rationally explicable. Nowhere else in the world
was this issue debated with such sharpness, coldness and sometimes
brutal intolerance,” Graumann said. “I hope that, after the legal
safety, we will now also receive emotional safety from the people in
this country.”
[ed. Circumcision is life altering child abuse hiding behind religion. If anyone started a religious group and insisted new borns had to have their little finger cut off at birth they'd be arrested before they could finish the incantation...]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
