...and you'll find a Fascist." Since I am a Libertarian, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that not every Liberal is a closet Fascist. Having written that disclaimer, read on:
Libertarian author Bretigne Shaffer posted this Huffington Post article to her Facebook page. The Liberal author of the article, Mark Olmsted, is condemning Rand Paul's views about the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and about the "evils" of Conservative/Libertarian views on property rights in general. I had to share some gems from his article:
I at least appreciate Dr. Paul's willingness to come out of the closet on this kind of conservative thinking, which is basically a fundamental belief in the primacy of the individual over the group.
Here's the comment that I posted on Bretigne's Facebook page:
"Adolph Hitler couldn't have said it better. Oops, I'm sorry. How ignorant of me. The writer is a leftist. Joseph Stalin couldn't have said it better. Oops, there I go again. I forgot: Stalin's mass murders of individuals—unlike Hitler's—were carried out for a "noble," "progressive" group cause."
I understand Ayn Rand. She arrived at her philosophy as a reaction to the nightmare of Stalinist Russia in which she believed the will of the individual was always subverted to the will of the state. Fair objection, but it had nothing to do with the Soviet Union, in which the will of all individuals was completely subverted to will of one individual -- Josef Stalin. In a democracy such as we have, the power is diffused among millions of people. You may call that collectivist, but it's hardly monolithic or dictatorial (unlike, for example,a corporation in which all power flows downward from a politburo-like regime made up of the CEO, CFO and Board of Directors.)
Yes, folks, in the mind of an economically-ignorant Liberal (but I repeat myself), the owner of a company who holds no gun to any employee's head—and such employee can quit at anytime—is the equivalent of mass murderer Joseph Stalin!!! Also: "In a democracy [sic] such as we have, the power is diffused among millions of people." I guess President Obama hasn't heard about this yet.
The Rand (Paul or Ayn) philosophy, by putting private property rights at the same level of human rights, equates the status of things with the status of human beings. If property is considered equal to human beings, then it's not a very big leap to considering human beings as property. I believe this country is already familiar with this philosophy, manifested 150 years ago as slavery.
The Liberal, who I'm sure believes that women own their own bodies (i.e., property) to get an abortion, obviously doesn't think that anything else women own is really "their" property; he doesn't understand that real "human" rights are actually "property" rights: the right to own the property of your own body and anything that you have voluntarily acquired with it, e.g., clothes, food, shelter, a business, etc. Included in this right of private, individual property ownership is the right to trade or dispose of your property as you see fit—so long as you're not encroaching on another individual's property (human) rights.
His closing paragraph is the Fourth, and final, Gem of my post:
People who put property rights on the level of human rights need to spend some time picking cotton or weaving carpets 12 hours a day, in a dark-skinned body, being paid subsistence wages [like I wrote—an economically-ignorant Liberal] by a warlord or factory owner who screams that he has a right to run his business as he sees fit. A few years should do it.
He compares a factory owner to a warlord!!!! The author is the sort of economically-ignorant Liberal who probably believes that the only reason why the Soviet Union's "progressive" economic system didn't work out was because it was run by a dictator—not realizing, of course, that since any "selfish" Russian individual was forcibly forbidden to freely compete with Uncle Joe with his or her own "evil," "greedy" business (i.e., property), then the Soviet Union had to evolve into—or even start out as, as it actually did—a dictatorship. And as Mises pointed out, there are fundamental economic reasons why such a "progressive" economic system is always doomed to collapse in the long run.
You can read the entire article for yourself and have fun—or aggravation—coming up with your own basic, logical responses to all of the Fascist/Socialist nonsense that the author espouses.