Thanks for the interesting post Matt. Your critique of the ethos of
"individuality" (or at least this is what I perceived your letter to be
about, is very appropos. I truly feel that our country's emphasis of the
"rights of the individual" is a historical anomaly which is causing us some
problems in this interconnected world of ours. The "right to bear arms" may
have been useful 200 years ago when there was essentially no standing army,
and the threat of redcoats busting down your front door was very real.
However, today, with one of the biggest "police states" (in terms of GNP
allotted to "defense" and to domestic policing) in the world (I ain't
exaggerating folks), the idea that we need a well armed populace is
ridiculous (in less you're actively trying to revolt against the government.
I actually respect some "militia" groups. Even Thomas Jefferson said that in
order for a democratic government to be responsive over time, there must be
a major "revolution" every two hundred years or so (It appears we're
overdue...). Most people I know in the NRA, etc., don't fit into this
category, though, so they don't have this "noble" excuse.
You know guys, if we wanted to carry this "individual rights" thing
further, you could argue that "arms" includes cannons (which I've been told
are illegal to own for other than entertainment/historical demonstration
purposes) or even a tactical nuke. After all, it's my "right" as an American
to defend myself, right?
On to the topic of existentialism, even though this is a seemingly
"cool" philosophical movement it is very problematic. It's overdependence on
personal responsibility and initiative overlooks the fact that there are
just too many external variables which predicate our lot in life. Even Jean
Paul Sartre critiqued this, after the atrocities of WW II. After all, it's
not like the Jews in camps could just say, well I'll "make my own destiny"
and "pull myself up by my bootstraps. They didn't have that option. And, did
you know that Sartre was actually a socialist (interesting, huh?). So was
George Orwell for that matter, the same man who criticized the "oppressive
state" reflected in 1984 and the person who is usually assummed to be some
libertarian/conservative type. Many people see this as a contradiction. I
think it makes his work more telling (since the best place to critique
something is when you are already "inside" it ideologically)
On to Ayn Rand. There's nothing inherently bad about her writing, but
it's the message that's fucked up. When you have people like Rush Limbaugh
saying that it's a great book, you KNOW something ain't right.
