Lindsay Perigo
The Politically Incorrect Show - 18/02/2000
[Music - Die Fledermaus]
Good afternoon, Kaya Oraaa & welcome to the Politically Incorrect Show on the free speech network, Radio Pacific, for Friday February 18, proudly sponsored by Neanderton Nicotine Ltd, the show that says bugger the politicians & bureaucrats & all the other bossyboot busybodies who try to run our lives with our money; that stands tall for free enterprise, achievement, profit, & excellence, against the state-worshippers in our midst; that stands above all for the most sacred thing in the universe, the liberty of the human individual.
[Music up, music down!]
I've had a lot to say this week about the blight of socialism. Right-wing socialism, left-wing socialism, I despise it all. It's left-wing socialism that's poisoning us in New Zealand right now, but fertilising this blight world-wide is the overwhelming subjectivism/relativism/nihilism of our time, which claims that everything is a matter of opinion (except the opinion that everything is a matter of opinion!) & so you may as well just take a vote on everything. This doctrine gives looters a right to prevail by sheer weight of numbers, & morally disarms its victims if they don't know any better. It was expressed to me very eloquently in a hideous e-mail I recently received from England:
"Your beliefs in certain selected human rights are unfounded principles. There is no absolute truth to say that you are right and everyone else is wrong. There is no empirical science to base your basic human rights upon! Who gave you these rights? God (Ayn Rand) perhaps, in a divine vision? I personally believe that some of your points about freedom or lack of it are valid. But that is only a belief, neither better nor worse than yours or anyone else's. The only way we can make a society is through a shared consensus belief that what we are doing is right. This is what a majority in democracy is about. It may not always be right according to my or your beliefs. Things that have had majority support in the past are not right according the beliefs of the majority today. But there is no absolute right or wrong in the real world, only in the world of beliefs. That's why I believe that if a democratic society functions normally, the majority of beliefs will be represented, which is fair to the largest number of voting people possible in that society. That's why it's the best system, even if it's not right."
Best? By what standard, if there's no right or wrong involved here? If Adolf Hitler's belief is neither better nor worse than mine or anyone else's, by what standard could we condemn him? By what standard can this writer say that some of my points about freedom or lack of it are "valid" if there is no criterion of validity? No absolute truth? Then how can he state that as an absolute truth?
The absolute truth that is relevant here is that human beings are, individually, creatures of thought & choice. Our societal arrangements, to be appropriate for us as human beings, must take their cue from this, leaving each of us free to think our thoughts & make our choices - but not to impose them on each other, even if we are in a majority. That would enable my critic from England to believe in the universal, absolute efficacy of head-counting but not to impose its results on me. He & the lousy rabble on whose behalf he claims the right to steal - and this is the true agenda of his relativism - would have to make their own arrangements voluntarily among themselves (who knows, they might even learn to enjoy it?). This would be society as if freedom mattered. Because it does matter.
And that's a fact. Absolutely.
Politically Incorrect Show, beating the nihilists back - 309 3099.
If you enjoyed this, why not subscribe?