The idea that America should somehow be a shining light, --a beacon of freedom-- is a difficult concept to understand. When personal liberty to choose --or not to choose-- what one does with one's own life is sacrosanct, then the obvious differences between rich and poor, between hard-worker and entitlement recipient, between leftist and rightist becomes radically apparent.
The obvious failures of leftist regimes to pull people out of common misery is rarely examined in light of failure, but only in "what can we try different next time?" Interestingly, the United Order, or the concept of Christ's "all things in common" is untenable and difficult for Socialists and Communists --perhaps even Capitalists-- to comprehend since it is based upon voluntary cooperation.
Liberty of choice and opportunity to choose are indeed God-given and not state-derived rights.
JoshuaMay 11, 2016
Prager is wrong. America was NOT founded on an ideal. The "ideal" of America is little different than the Rights of Englishment codified in the Magna Carta and Judge Blackstones Commentaries on English Law. The reason that they exist in America is because America is a nation of English settlers, not an ideal, not a proposition. Furthermore, it's a nation of self-selected English settlers who had a much stronger "Don't tell me what to do" vibe than the English who stayed in England.
Not only is Prager and the rest of the National Review type pundits wrong about what America is, but rather pathetically, even if he were right, he'd have gotten what the ideal is completely wrong. He belongs to the upper crust caste America that sees absolutely nothing wrong with telling everybody what to do, and thinks that that's what America means.
If Prager were to somehow ever meet one of the Founding Fathers, he'd probably have gotten punched in the face for flouting such a ridiculous notion of what America is.
Comments | Return to Story
TimothyMay 15, 2016
The idea that America should somehow be a shining light, --a beacon of freedom-- is a difficult concept to understand. When personal liberty to choose --or not to choose-- what one does with one's own life is sacrosanct, then the obvious differences between rich and poor, between hard-worker and entitlement recipient, between leftist and rightist becomes radically apparent. The obvious failures of leftist regimes to pull people out of common misery is rarely examined in light of failure, but only in "what can we try different next time?" Interestingly, the United Order, or the concept of Christ's "all things in common" is untenable and difficult for Socialists and Communists --perhaps even Capitalists-- to comprehend since it is based upon voluntary cooperation. Liberty of choice and opportunity to choose are indeed God-given and not state-derived rights.
JoshuaMay 11, 2016
Prager is wrong. America was NOT founded on an ideal. The "ideal" of America is little different than the Rights of Englishment codified in the Magna Carta and Judge Blackstones Commentaries on English Law. The reason that they exist in America is because America is a nation of English settlers, not an ideal, not a proposition. Furthermore, it's a nation of self-selected English settlers who had a much stronger "Don't tell me what to do" vibe than the English who stayed in England. Not only is Prager and the rest of the National Review type pundits wrong about what America is, but rather pathetically, even if he were right, he'd have gotten what the ideal is completely wrong. He belongs to the upper crust caste America that sees absolutely nothing wrong with telling everybody what to do, and thinks that that's what America means. If Prager were to somehow ever meet one of the Founding Fathers, he'd probably have gotten punched in the face for flouting such a ridiculous notion of what America is.
ADD A COMMENT