|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
 | ||||
 | ||||
| Review of the "Liberty" chapter of the book "Love's Body" (written by the communist, Norman O. Brown; 1966, Random House, New York) ==================== p 3 Brown's supposed "eternally recurrent" archetype: The sons form a conspiracy to overthrow the despot, and in the end substitute a social contract with equal rights for all. ==================== Evaluation: The archetypes have actually been Attila and the Witchdoctor -- and their victims. Attila rules men by brute force; the Witchdoctor rules men (and Attila) by pernicious fraud. While the idea of "equal rights for all equals" was present in Babylon circa 1800 BC with the Code of King Hammurabi, the idea of "equal rights for all" wasn't present until the onset of the 3rd and final archetype: the Producer. The Producer produces wealth by mixing intelligent labor with material, and accrues property via trading his stored production (e.g., goods or money) with other Producers. This idea that the property of individuals is sacred and not to be touched by the government was most popularly conceived by John Locke, was first born in America with the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and matured into fruition with the Bill of Rights -- specifically the 9th Amendment to the US constitution (i.e., the demand for the government's respect of ALL of its citizens' Natural Rights -- including property rights). There was no material instantiation of "equal rights for all" on Earth, before 1776. Bottom line: Brown is illegitimately applying a concept born in 1776 and misapplying it to earlier times -- when only Attila and the Witchdocter -- not the Producer -- ruled the lands. This misapplication will be used to bolster his case later -- but not legitimately. =================== p 4 Liberty means equality among the brothers (sons). ... Locke has father Adam's property divided equally among all his sons. Liberty, equality: it is all a dispute over the inheritence of the paternal estate. =================== Evaluation: Brown is ignoring Locke's demand that you have got to mix your human (read: intelligent) labor with matter -- in order to own it. Some of us will do more "mixing" than others and will, therefore, have more property than others. Liberty is anything BUT "egalitarian" equality. They are almost opposites! Liberty is the liberty to unequally agree and disagree with things, the liberty to produce more wealth than others, or less wealth than others (the liberty to be more leisurely than others). Liberty is a range of choice open to man solely with other mens' equal range of choice as it's only delimitation. No one is "free" to enslave another or to expropriate another's property or life (for some base and sinisterly selfish cause; or even for some altruistic or supposedly "greater" cause or "greater" good). Bottom Line: Brown is sneaking egalitarian equality -- which involves sacrificing some of the hopes and dreams of a few or even of a "misguided" many -- in with the very concept of liberty, in order to make it seem like we're only truly free when some of us are forced to have our property redistributed to others. "A poor man is not 'free' to dine at the Ritz!", they say; muddling liberty with the base and sinisterly selfish and alogether contradictory "license" to do as we please -- even if it infringes on the rights (read: liberty!) of others. ================== p 27-8 The fratricide which killed the Roman Republic was only the final fulfillment of the symbolic and attenuated fratricide which had been its life. Roman liberty--the fraternity carved out of the endeavor of royal despotism--is despotism divided and set forever at war with itself. The imperium of the republican magistracy is the same royal imperium, now subdivided in time (made annual) and divided between colleagues. "The collegiate principle," says Mommsen, "assumed [in the case of the consuls] an altogether peculiar form. The supreme power was not entrusted to the two magistrates conjointly, but each consul possessed it and exercised it for himself as fully and wholly as it had been possessed and exercised by the king. Each of the colleagues was legally at liberty to interfere at any time in the province of the other. When therefore supreme power confronted supreme power and the one colleague forbade what the other enjoined, the consular commands neutralized each other." Mommsen thought that the legend of Remus was an etiological reflection of the institution of the double consulate. There is reflection, or rather recurrence, of the archetype in the institution. Remus jumped over his brother's wall, and his brother killed him, saying, "So perish whoever else shall leap over my battlements." As we can see in any playground, or in Berlin. ================== Evaluation: This view contrasts with the idea that the Roman Empire sunk of its own bloated weight -- having become a Utopian Idealist type of welfare-warfare state. Becoming so weak from within, the Barbarians came by and overran the Empire. The "collegiate principle" mentioned would eventually lead to the destruction of the Roman Empire -- because of the contradiction involved with being "legally at liberty to interfere at any time in the province of the other." By not respecting property rights with a transparent and objective rule of law, Rome would've been doomed (for the same reason that the USA would've had to have become a superpower -- by respecting what Rome did not). Bringing up playgrounds and Berlin -- instances where humans have interacted without the proper respect for Natural Rights -- is not supportive of the idea that humans should be egalitarian; though Brown illegitimately thinks so. Bottom line: Just because there are folks who have acted with disrespect toward the natural rights of others, does not mean that we should adopt a body politic that subjugates us all to the level of a sacrificial animal. In fact, it is precisely BECAUSE not everyone respects individual rights that there should be an objective and transparent rule of law which does (not a mass crippling in order to eradicate even our very power to violate rights -- or a throwing away of the concept of rights, altogether). =================== p 29 "Political parties are primitive secret societies: Tammany's Wigwam; caucus; mafia; cabal. The deals are still always secret, in a smoke-filled room. Political parties are conspiracies to usurp the power of the father, "a taking of the sword out of the hand of the Sovereign." ... organized not by agreement on principle, but by confusing the issues to win; in a primitive ordeal or lottery in which the strife is justice, might makes right, and the major is the sanior pars. =================== Evaluation: This goes back to the pre-Producer archetypes. It's even relevant today in contemporary, partisan politic competitions. But that does not mean that it is essential to all partisan politics -- that does not mean that it is inherent to the idea of political plurality. The entry of the Producer changes the playing field, so that now there is a right way to do politics which transcends these old ways. This does not mean that we should have one-party rule (with this right party "ruling"). Consent of the governed, and of the people, by the people, for the people are not nice-sounding trivialities -- they outline the right way for humans to adopt better politics. Bottom Line: Historically there's been unjust political strife on planet Earth. This does not detract from us having the right political answers, now -- with the recognition that producing is man's proper means of survival. We can get there with political plurality and education. Mill said that due to our differences, we should allow for wide experiment to inform us. The way to do that is by testing and retesting ideas via political plurality -- not by adopting a one-party, communist system and claiming to not only know what's best for each of us, but how to implement it, too! Those kinds of matters have got be left to the individual -- the "learning" unit. ====================== p 31 This could go on forever; there is eternal recurrence. Even on the other side of the Wall, in a one-party system. From the statement of the Chinese Communists on the Sino-Soviet dispute: "It is a very very bad habit of yours thus to put on the airs of a patriarchal party. It is entirely illegitimate. The 1957 declaration and the 1960 statement clearly state that all Communist parties are independent and equal. According to the principle, the relations among fraternal parties should under no circumstances be like the relations between a leading party and the led, and much less like the relations between a patriarchal father and his son ... the attitude that Comrade Krushchev has adopted is patriarchal, arbitrary, and tyrannical. He has in fact treated the relationship between the great Communist party of the Soviet Union and our party not as one between brothers but as one between patriarchal father and son." ======================== Evaluation: Is it China's "brotherhood" and "non-patriarchalism" that is employed every time they throw someone in jail for merely having unpopular political opinions? Bottom Line: China is on no moral ground to claim any kind of a sovereignty here (against Soviets or anyone else). China is a country which, itself, disrespects the natural rights of its own people. There can be no right to enslave, and there can be no right AGAINST freedom of speech, like there is in China. Focusing on the grave errors of the Soviets in their particular implementation of communism doesn't give China a pass on the grave errors of their own implementation of the same wrong thing. It doesn't "save" the notion of communism as good when you find error in another's implementation of it in the world. Imagine a criminal saying he's innocent because someone somewhere exists who has violated more rights than they did -- or even "different" rights than they did! Calling the kettle black doesn't make the pot any whiter. Just like there isn't such a thing as crime done well (crime performed with human virtue) -- so there is no such thing as communism done well. Instead, it is fundamentally wrong for humans. The more perfect someone performs communistic action -- the more wrong they are (because of the kind of creatures that humans are). | ||||
| ||||
 |
 |
|
 |
|
