One reason dizzy liberals hate and try to suppress principled

freedom advocates so much is that we individualists often render value

judgements -- and when the Liberal Mentality hears someone render a

value judgment WITH WHICH HE DISAGREES, the liberal wants to try to

pretend that the value judgment is "invalid" because "there are never

any absolutes" (a statement which, if true, is self-contradictory and

therefore false).  So, when a rational individualist renders a value

judgement that a liberal doesn't like, the liberal often tries to attack ALL

value judgements as invalid rather than dealing with the specific issue

at hand -- and sometimes even accuses the principled individualist of

wanting to "legislate morality" .

         For example, if the rational individualist claims that using heroin and
cocaine can be addictive and is bad for ones health, the liberal relativist reacts very defensively and with barely suppressed guilt symptoms, stamping his foot in indignation and screeching something like "What right do you have to impose your moral judgements on me or other people! I have a right to do what I want!"

     Notice that the rational individualist has in no way used force, either personal or political, to impose his views on the "liberal" or anyone else -- nor has he advocated using the force of political legislation to impose his observations about private personal behavior on anyone. He has merely exercised his freedom of speech or press; but, the "liberal" -- almost always intelllectually dishonest to the core -- wants to try to get away in portraying those who express moral sentiments as somehow threatening to impose their morality on others.  What the "liberal" really feels threatened by is not legislation but the idea that the morality of human behavior might not be arbitrary and relative but is based on absolute standards and rational principles which if ignored could affect his life and happiness.   (Of course this same liberal sees nothing wrong or hypocritical with HIM using Big Government to impose HIS notions of morality on other people -- from compulsory school attendance laws, forced bussing of school children, anti-discrimination laws, Affirmative Action, compulsory seat belts, FDA restrictions on what vitamins you can take, laws against a woman's right to own and carry a gun to protect herself from attack, laws against "quack" cancer cures, laws imposing compulsory helmets for cyclists, compulsory Social Security taxes, restrictions on use of ones own land, antitrust laws, income taxes, price controls, and many other coercive interventions against peoples' freedom to engage in capitalist acts among consenting adults.)

     Of course, the irony is that ONLY under freedom -- a system in

 which government is restricted by a policy of Laissez Faire -- are

(adult) individuals recognized as responsible human beings who are

free (from coercive interference) to do with their own bodies (and

properties) whatever they want as long as they do not violate (through

coercive interference) the same right of other people to do what they

want with THEIR own bodies and properties. This INCLUDES the

freedom to do some things the rational individualist himself may

disapprove of -- such as self-mutilation, using LSD or heroin, putting

gerbels up ones rectum, eating banana peels, drilling holes in the top of

ones skull, sniffing glue, watching Jerry Springer or Geraldo Rivera,

or reading Newsweek magazine.  Immoral and foolish behaviors are no

less immoral or foolish when they are not prohibited by government.  It

is not the proper role of government to regulate peoples' personal,

private behavior or interfere with purely voluntary (market) relations.  Government should protect peaceful folk from violent crime instead.

      Under the Laissez-Faire Republic which we advocate, people would
be free to perform immoral follies on up to and including suicide -- as long as such actions do not involve the initiation of the use of coercive force in violation of the rights of others to their own persons and properties.Under freedom, ALL individuals' rights to person and property would be recognized, respected, and defended by law, including that of the "liberals"as well -- but not JUST the freedom of "liberals" to indulge in their ownwhims.  The law would also protect the freedom of other people to disagree with the "liberals" and even the freedom of speech and of press to express disapproval of  the immoral personal behaviors or foolish practices that are condoned and championed by the "liberals" and other moral relativists.  It is this freedom -- the freedom to disagree with and disapprove of their petvices and social programs -- that enrages "liberals" so much -- and why the "liberal"-left has sought to suppress any and all dissent and disagreements with its agenda by using its fascistic program of "political correctness" on college campuses and in the kept media.  Their goal is to stamp out allpublicly expressed views contrary to their own -- and especially those that reject epistemological and moral relativism in favor of rational standardsand absolute principles and values.

      The implicit reason liberal relativists want to try to pretend that

"there are no absolutes" or that morality is "relative" is that they

want to reject any and all PRINCIPLES as such -- not just political

legislation imposed by the power of the state, but also any NON-

IMPOSED rules dealing with good conduct and bad habits to avoid.

They  want to be able to flaunt their vices & follies publicly while

imposing a gag on anyone who would dare call their behavior "immoral"

or foolish or imply that there could be any rational, absolute standards

for behavior beyond their own personal whims or momentary feelings.

They want the "luxury" of pretending that any and all chosen behavior

has no consequences, no relevance one way or another to human life

and morality. They want to replace rational principle with their own

arbitrary whims. Of course, this is a recipe for disaster, both in the life

of an individual and in the course of a nation.

  
     The advance of human progress and civilization has been the result

of the discovery, recognition, and implementation of sound principles

and the abandonment of the arbitrariness of whim and the irrationality of superstition.   By their vehement rejection of rational principles and absolute standards, today's left-wingers and "liberals" have abandoned progress and civilization and true science in favor of their own mystic religious cult, no longer pretending (as did Marx) that their socialism is "scientific" or even rational.

          
  Beyond that, it must be kept in mind that relativism in the

areas of truth and morals necessarily leads to absolute tyranny in

politics.  If reality is seen as subjective and relative, that is, if

reason is abandoned, then reality can no longer serve as an

independent frame of reference on the basis of which disputes

may be resolved, so that the only other way disputes can be dealt

with is by brute force -- might makes right.  Thus, the relativist

premises of modern "liberalism" lead inevitably to more conflict

in society and eventually to some form of statist tyranny.

         
Force -- especially the legal force of political government --

must never be allowed to be wielded by subjective Whim. Our

Founding Fathers knew this. That's why they wanted to bind down

men in government by the chains of a written Constitution. The

idea was to have a government hemmed in by rules -- not government

by the arbitrary and capricious whims of any group or person. 

          
Government by whim is unlimited, and unlimited government is free

to control and enslave the people.  If peaceful people are going to be free,

they must enslave their government by imposing hard and fast rules on

what politicians and bureaucrats may do.  It is a mistake for people to have faith and trust in their elected officials.  Bind them down from mischief and tyranny.    In a repubhlic, government officials -- from lowly interns to the President of the United States -- are NOT above the law but are instead restricted by law; in their every official action, they may do ONLY what is legally PERMITTED under the Constitution and may not go beyond that scope of action.  This leaves the ordinary citizen, as long as he or she is peaceful, FREE to do anything he or she wants to try to do, as long as it is not specifically prohibited by law as being an act of coercive violence in violation of the rights of others.

        
The relativist premises of modern liberalism are contrary to the

vision, intent, and spirit of the American idea of using law to impose

limitations on political government.  It is high time Americans reimposed Constitutional limits on government by putting it under an iron-clad strait

jacket called the policy of Laissez Faire based on the rational principle of individual human rights. The threat to our personal freedoms is not coming from those who use moral suasion or social ostracism or who argue in defense of rational values and absolute standards; the real threat to our liberties comes mainly from those who call themselves "liberals' and who want to use the power of Big Government to ram their putrid values down everyones throats while absolutely clinging to their dogmum of moral relativism.

_____________________________________________________________

To return to where you left off on the Home Page, click here: