Such a plethora of nonsense exists in the world —
and is so easily found on the Internet — that the wiser course is
usually to shake one’s head when encountering such irrationality then
move along with life. Sometimes, however, the sheer audacity of the BS
one reads is enough to elicit a WTF...!!!
When the issue is freedom and its components (and especially when the
subject is Ayn Rand and/or Objectivism), I encounter degrees of tunnel
vision, distortions, blindness, bitterness, vitriol, illogic, and
stupidity that would have made the philosopher Abelard blink in
astonished disbelief. The focus of most such anti-freedom writers is on
superficial and irrelevant aspects of liberty. After all, anyone who
seriously tackled the core principles and beliefs of those who prize
and support freedom would rapidly find themselves inextricably tangled
in the knots of their own contradictions and fallacies.
But when such idiotic blather emerges from the figurative mouth of
someone who claims to uphold “individualism and freedom”...well, I join
Abelard in wondering WTF... (See
here.)
As is usually the case, to critique fully an “argument” such as this
would take far more time and space than the original screed itself
required. Initially, I was going to address the more blatant errors.
But I’ve changed my mind. From examining the author’s comments to those
who responded to her article, such corrections would likely accomplish
nothing. So, I will simply summarize the main points. Hopefully others
who might read these outrageous claims will benefit from a healthy dose
of reality and truth. See Ayn Rand or my own articles for arguments as
to why rights exist, why they matter, how they operate, and how they
are inextricably bound together with freedom and proper human existence.
Here goes:
This writer’s main complaint is that “rights” — however characterized —
do not exist. They are a “fiction,” a mere “belief,” even if pretending
they exist is sometimes “useful.” “Rights are illusions,” she states,
“real only to the degree that others” agree with one’s view on them and
only as long as “they play along.” After all, viruses and mountain
lions and murderers will not be stopped because we believe in the
reality of the “magical protective barrier” that are “rights.” There is
no “right to life,” she says. It’s a myth, a “magical bubble,” a
“hollow promise of security.” Freedom and the belief that initiating
force against others is wrong exist only in “an unattainable utopia.”
They do not exist because “nature” will “not (play) along.” Freedom and
its principles are merely a “conceptual game.” For this supposed
defender of individualism and freedom, freedom means “to do whatever we
want.” The only limits to this “total freedom” are physical laws. Only
our “social needs” keep this “total freedom” in check. People have
“instincts” — “baser impulses” — that must be “overridden or subverted
by conditioning.” This person “rejects” rights but does not “condone or
encourage” the murders committed by, say, serial killers. Rights do not
exist because “there are no guarantees” of security and harmlessness in
the world. The “Golden Rule” is her, well, golden rule. And — even
though no one has a “right to life” — it is good to be
“life-respecting.” Only by a “complete rejection of the concept of
rights” can people ultimately succeed in living “in a psychologically
healthy environment.”
Pardon me while I turn away and puke...
Bleaaa-hhhh-hhh--hhhh-aa-rr-ggg-hh....
Ahh... Much better n...
Nope. One more time....
Bleaaa-hhhh-hhh--hhhh-aa-rr-ggg-hh....
I need a drink.
(from
Don't Get Me Started!, 10-28-08)
