| | Great article, something that needs to be published in all atheist, freethought, and humanist publications. After all, (paraphrasing Jesus Christ) "What profitith a man who giveth up the superstitions of religion but adopteth the superstitions of statism". In a previous issue of "Free Inquiry", a secular humanist publication, Glade Ross wrote an excellent op-ed entitled "Humanism and Compulsion" in which he argues against socialism and the compulsion against people which is used to enforce it. Quite pertinently, Ross states, "The religious politicos believe in the moral probity of initiating government violence(or threat thereof) to achieve their own vision of a better world. So does (atheist, humanist) Dunphy. The only difference is in the particular end each camp believes compulsion should be directed toward." Further, Ross says, "In specific regards to Dunphy's topic, both camps believe in having the government forcibly extract the ruits of my labor from me-at the point of a gun if need be-for use in funding a system of public education...". Then, in the following issue of "Free Inquiry", Marvin Edwards denounces Ross's opinions as "an extreme right-wing myth". I must admit, that for the most part, I am a secular humanist, but some of the points of the Humanist Manifestos literally could make me vomit. Specifically, for example, point 5 under section IX of the Humanist Manifesto 2000 says, "We recommend an international system of taxation in order to assist the underdeveloped sectors of the human family...This would not be a voluntary contribution, but an actual tax". This is gross hypocricy, because earlier, that same Manifesto states, "...the dignity and autonomy of the individual is the central value. Humanist ethics is committed to maximizing freedom of choice; liberty of thought and conscience, the free mind and free inquiry, and the right of individuals to pursue their own lifestyles as they see fit so long as they do not harm others". Fortunately, a good number of humanists are Objectivists and libertarians rather than socialists. Back in the Fall, 1989 issue of "Free Inquiry" the magazine featured debates between socialist and libertarian humanists. One of the debaters on the libertarian side was none other than Edward Hudgins, one of the big guns at TOC. Fellow libertarian humanist Robert Scheafer fires out, "...we cannot escape the conclusion that humanistic values are best realized in societies that allow individuals to buy and sell goods freely, and that they fare worst under socialism. Indeed, the realities of socialism, with or without a "human face" are utterly incompatible with the professed goals of humanism". R.W. Bradford, publisher of "Liberty" claimed that the God of traditional religion was loosing popularity, but was rapidly being replaced by another Deity, namely, "The State" Bradford then argues that just as atheism and secular humanism argued against the gods of traditional religions, there must be a new atheism/secular humanism to oppose this new God and his worshippers. "The Libertarian ideal", says Bradford, "is profoundly secular and profoundly humanistic: secular in its insistence on the rational and scientific; humanist in the value it places on human life. Liberty is valued because it is a system under which individual humn beings can optimize their potential, maximizing their happiness and prosperity according to their own values. The power of the state is opposed because it leads to human misery and poverty".
|
|
