Barack Obama not only shows his bias, but his ignorance regarding the constitution. He lives and thinks in a place that doesn't exist...yet. The question is, why vest economic changes through the courts? Because they are unelected and have terms that usually are in excess of what politicians serve. Obama show his Bethamite side with his comments. While he calls the constitution a negative rights document of law, in reality he is supporting a positivist view on what the law can or should do. Furthermore, it also shows he total lack of respect and acknowledgement for and of Natural Rights. To him, freedoms, liberties and rights come from a piece of paper and the government, not from god or nature. Thomas Jefferson would be appalled at his comments, as would most if not all of our founding fathers. If you think he is being consistent with the US Constitution, let me know, I'd like to hear from you.
Thank you for reading this blog.
9 comments:
I really liked this. Just found your blog.
Welcome Armed Citizen. Hopefully I'll have a lot more to say before they try to shut me up again, and after for that fact. Obama's views on civil rights, particularly in terms of their genesis, is quite socialist. If you follow Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Robert Owen and then to Marx, you can see the genesis of his thought processes. His praxis is through the lens of 1960's radical marxism/black liberation theology placed in modern corrupt Chicago machine politics. This is a person that if given the power of the government will make FDR look like a libertarian. If he is elected, we are in for a rough ride. The best you can hope for is one term.
How are Bentham and Mill socialists? I mean, they surely are not classic liberals, but I wouldn't consider them socialists. However, Mill might be willing to support socialism under some strange circumstances...
It's my opinion that utilitarianism, particularly through Bentham, led to socialist political thought. Bentham was against natural rights and believed in legal positivism. Socialism believes in the greater good, no? What benefits the most? In a sense, would the government providing everything provide the most happiness? Socialists tend to overlook the harm caused and the ends the means. You could say the same of other political thoughts, but where is the focus? On the greater good or the individual? To put it plainly and somewhat vulgarly, as you shift the focus away from the individual, someone in society is going to end up grabbing their ankles or as I am fond of saying eating the shit sandwich.
Or may be better put, going from utilitarianism to socialism is a logical progression or transition. It worked for the brits.
Well, I'd say that it's as easy to go from utilitarianism to socialism as it is from utilitarianism to libertarianism. It all depends on what is more "useful"... Remember Mill defending pluralism and liberal democracy for the sake of human progress in time.
You are probably right about that, but they didn't choose libertarianism. British and European philosophy took a left at that corner.
Yes, however, Mill did gave a very strong defense of (clasical) liberalism and individualism.
I think they took a left turn because they had a real credible threat of having a socialist revolution if they didn't "invite" moderate socialists to politics and government. Since the USA didn't have a strong socialist party/movement, it could remain somewhat more to the right (hoever, US still has a very keynesian economic policy)
Hi. I found this other libertarian sites. What's interesting about them is that they support Obama.
http://libertarianobama.blogspot.com/
http://www.republicansforobama.org/
Post a Comment