Hasn't it always been, in one form or another? When you think about it, Ayn Rand's Original Sin, among her many from the perspective of all political sides, is her chief ideal characterization of man as the rational animal. That has implications. You see, if man has the capacity of rational action by nature, voluntarily, then his ability to mold material reality to serve his needs and desires is virtuous at his highest levels of production.
But doesn't that just throw a monkey wrench into every sort of power structure, from modern politics to the theocracies of old? There's nothing new about any of it. Fundamentally, it's always about painting man as a selfish beast who ought to feel guilty simply for the effrontery to exist, and the only virtue possible to any man is to spend his life in atonement for having been born.
Karen De Coster loads up the latest outrage; the latest in a long list of examples of man's devolution. Now, maybe the fact that drinking straws may no longer properly serve their intended purpose isn't that big of a deal to you, but what about containers that used to keep your burger hot for the trip home, but don't anymore? How abut cups that used to keep your hands insulated from the heat of a beverage your mouth could handle, but don't anymore? And how about the arrogant delusion that your petty "sacrifices for the planet" have a real impact -- beyond the analogous false piety of making sure everyone around you witnesses your practiced performance of dropping that envelope into the church collection plate?
The list of former petty outrages are easy to shrug off, I suppose, and isn't that the idea? Far more important to impress upon people their inherent guilt about anything they do, even so insignificant a thing as using a drinking straw. Man oh my; if we're implicated by a little plastic tube, just imagine the utter horror of something like a power plant, drilling platform, or oil refinery. Man: such a guilty beast. Here, allow me to mangle a metaphor and ask which "straw" will be your last.
I purchased the book form of Rothbard's The Betrayal of the American Right, because I just can't handle reading something of that length on a computer monitor. This bit by Mencken caught my eye last night, and Karen's entry reminded of it.
All government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man: its one permanent object is to oppress him and cripple him. If it be aristocratic in organization, then it seeks to protect the man who is superior only in law against the man who is superior in fact; if it be democratic, then it seeks to protect the man who is inferior in every way against both. One of its primary functions is to regiment men by force, to make them as much alike as possible . . . to search out and combat originality among them. All it can see in an original idea is potential change, and hence an invasion of its prerogatives. The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally [as Mencken clearly was not] he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are. . . .
The ideal government of all reflective men, from Aristotle onward, is one which lets the individual alone – one which barely escapes being no government at all. This ideal, I believe, will be realized in the world twenty or thirty centuries after I have . . . taken up my public duties in Hell.
Just like any religion; of the supposed divine, or of the state. The distinction is meaningless.
Juxtaposition: Modern Hunter-Gatherers vs. Modern Force-Backed Administrations
I see your point, but I'd suggest that there is no one size fits all solution for everyone. Some people want a social contract to protect them and some people feel that they have been coerced into a social contract marriage with a partner that does not love them nor respect them, and that they do not need to survive.
The superior man may not need or want a government. The insecure man may definitely need and want a government. That ends up pulling the superior man down to protect the insecure (note I'm using the word insecure as opposed to inferior as the insecure man could get over their insecurity and rise to the challenge and claim their equal superiority).
Some parts of the Right feel that the smaller the government the better, but intrinsic in that belief there still exists a government. So even in that belief the Right is in essence sabotaging its own belief. Don't even get me started about the Left feeling that the Superior man should take charge over the insecure man or even worse talk about situations where the Right gets confused and starts thinking that the Superior man should take charge over the insecure man to help the insecure man become either superior or safe or something. That type of belief system when executed by the right just goes to show ignorance and is a large part of the reason why George W Bush has set off a chain reaction in the Republican party.
It is also why some people label him a fascist.
In what sense is a man superior? This is a genuine question: the "superior" man can mean a lot of things. For instance, just because someone is clever, or charming, or strong, doesn't make them a morally superior man. For anyone with the slightest doubt of this, I point you to Bill Clinton. Some people are extraordinarily gifted, and put those gifts to crooked uses.
I couldn't possibly disagree with the first part of Mencken's assessment more. Government is often run by supposedly better-educated and worthy people: this is just a cover for their fantasies of dominating other people. It becomes much worse when they figure they are doing it for our own good.
As for the rest of the article: I'm kind of surprised that Karen, and you, thought it was that bad. Forgetting to test the straws for hot coffee's an oversight, but it's not like I've ever drank hot coffee through a straw in the first place. As for the rest of it, the people in the cafeteria apparently asked for healthier options and biodegradable packaging to be provided, and it was done. At a ludicrously expensive price, but every cafeteria I've been to since high school does that. I mean, are you REALLY surprised that Congress socialists might want something like this? If people want to resolve it, like I would in that situation, just stop going there and bring your own lunch, which would be a fraction of the cost.
There's worse issues to be pissed off about. If liberals choosing to eat healthy and buy containers made out of recycled paper was even close to being a pressing issue, I'd be ecstatic. What pisses me off is that their cafeteria has to be subsidized by the dollars of other people. Among other things.
I don't think man has to bow and scrape to government every time they want to establish their own property, and we could damn well use more energy, but don't I have an interest in making sure my water is drinkable, as long as I'm not forcing anyone to do as I want?
"I couldn't possibly disagree with the first part of Mencken's assessment more. Government is often run by supposedly better-educated and worthy people: this is just a cover for their fantasies of dominating other people. It becomes much worse when they figure they are doing it for our own good."
I'm not really following your line of disagreement. I can't speak for Mencken, but that's essentially what he means as far as I can tell.
As for the article, the straw and the rest of it is simply an "insignificant" additional little turn of the nob on the stove. The fact that there's even an article about it ought to be a signal of a much deeper "thought" process that's growing like a cancer.
Perhaps I wasn't clear in my earlier view. Let me clarify. I interpreted what he said to mean that government specifically limits the rights of a man who is "superior"- that is, who has special talents above the average man in some field. I reject that view because a man with talent and wealth may still hunger for control of other people. In the same vein, government limiting the rights of average, or even inferior, men is something to be equally mourned.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that government is made up of men who are superior in every aspect save their character, conspiring against everyone: superior men are not constrained specifically because of their virtues. It's one of my greatest problems with Mencken's writing, exacerbated by the fact that, as in this case, I agree with much of the rest.
"I interpreted what he said to mean that government specifically limits the rights of a man who is "superior"- that is, who has special talents above the average man in some field. I reject that view because a man with talent and wealth may still hunger for control of other people."
Ah, then you did interpret wrong. Go back and pay particular attention to the distinction between "superior only in law" (emphasis mine) and "superior in fact."
Perhaps you're not that familiar with Mencken, but he'd hardly count a man with "hunger for control of other people" as superior, if taken to mean force-backed control and not some contractual arrangement mutually agreed to.
"In fact, I'd go so far as to say that government is made up of men who are superior in every aspect save their character…"
That's the point. Character. You don't seem to be grasping Mencken anywhere close to the way I grasp him.