Saturday, July 07, 2012

Remember the Meme - The Real American Revolution - Redux

Pauline Arrillaga, a national AP writer, has penned an article with the hopeful title of With ‘freedom’ in fashion, is libertarianism back?, which posits that a “rebirth” of freedom is fashionably at hand.

I do not consider freedom simply a fashion to be mothballed and dragged out from time to time as individuals’ moods change in response to government propaganda.  Freedom should be a permanent standard of all individuals, a mantle of enduring beauty never out of fashion.

Arrillaga ends her article with these words, spoke by one Carl Bunce.

“Everything we’ve done up to this point is based on ideas…“our ideas of liberty and freedom will persist.”

The real American revolution is, without a doubt, an idea, and should not be susceptible to the whims of fashion, but rather a permanent standard.

UPDATE (07.08.2012):  In juxtaposition to Arrillaga’s musing on the “fashionable” rise of freedom, Stuart Jeffries, writing in The Guardian, posits that marxism is the rising “fashion,” in a piece titled Why Marxism is on the rise again.  I’ll just point out that the tenets of marxism have been slowly rising for a good number of decades, just look around you.

Posted by John Venlet on 07/07 at 10:44 AM
(1) CommentsPermalink

The Constitution: Enthralled By A Myth

While a large percentage of the American people believe that The Constitution was crafted to protect Americans’ individual freedom, two hundred plus years of objective empirical American history proves that such belief in The Constitution as a means to protect Americans’ individual freedom is, at best, a romantic myth with a kernel of truth.

James Tuttle examines the myth of The Constitution in a post titled Anarchism and the Constitution, from which the following excerpt was obtained.

However, the statists who claim to rule us are in thrall to the myth of the constitution’s legitimating power. Of course they get away with a lot that any plain reading of that document prohibits. This is the origin of “loose construction” in the first place: if they could just ignore the constitution to get what they want, they wouldn’t bother framing their acts in any construction of the constitution at all. Clearly, the constitution doesn’t matter to them in the way it’s supposed to, but it does play some sort of role in the state’s performative exercise of authority and power.

Via The Home Page of J. Orlin Grabbe.

UPDATE (07.11.2012):  James Tuttle points out to me, in comments, that I incorrectly attributed the linked essay Anarchism and the Constitution, and I apologize for this.  The essay was written by Jeremy Weiland, and was originally posted at the blog Social Memory Complex.  The essay, as originally posted, Anarchism and the Constitution.

Posted by John Venlet on 07/07 at 09:57 AM
(2) CommentsPermalink