#1 FROM THE BOORTZ ARCHIVE

While wandering yesterday through WorldNetDaily's Neal Boortz archive, I unearthed a commentary dealing with a theme so pregnant with irony, that I felt compelled to pass it on. Mr. Boortz entitles this missive:

"The War on Individualism"

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29119

(Embedded links to this haven't worked out, sorry.)

Articles like the above really bring home for me a growing realization:

When someone like Mr. Boortz is accepted over time as an authority on libertarian thought, through a trust built by correctly outlining individualist positions on certain issues, it then becomes possible for him to lead his followers into accepting on another issue a collectivist viewpoint, that under less relaxed circumstances might elicit more critical thought.

Interested followers learn, little by little, to accept statist thought along with their libertarian truth.

Upon discovering the above-linked article on individualism, I realized that I had ended my first entry on Boortz and LP “Purity” with an inquiry into Mr. Boortz’ core philosophic principle relative to foreign policy; stating that it couldn’t be "individualist" in nature.

Hadn't intended to return to that theme, but.....

Perhaps heading the list of ironies suggested by Boortz’ article "The War on Individualism" are these:

1. Mr. Boortz’ most passionately defended Bush Administration policy, the "War on Terrorism," is also an example of the government act that most effectively, in a multitude of different ways, sacrifices individual rights to the notion of collective good.

As Randolph Bourne said: “War is the health of the State.”

2. Mr. Boortz beautifully expresses the fundamental importance of property rights, although apparently he believes -- when it comes to foreign policy -- that the principle should only apply between Americans and other Americans; excluding relationships between Americans and the rest of the world.

I’m sure that others could point out more, if they cared to.

Posted by Jeff Smith at December 12, 2003 06:20 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Worldnetdaily has a history of highly questionable editorial content.
They did a smear piece on Sheldon Richman, then handled the fallout with complete lack of integrity.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0309b.asp

It is not surprising to find Boortz hooked up with WND.

Posted by: David Harner at December 12, 2003 09:15 PM

David, I followed that situation as well, and feel the same way about it.

Some of the things I read on WorldNetDaily really make me ask myself: "Do these people really believe this stuff, or do they just churn it out for a certain audience?"

There's some good stuff thrown in, but for me it's mostly depressing to even go there, imagining the influence the bad stuff probably has.

"A free press for a free people," isn't that their motto? Well, as long as they can keep us thinking that way...

My intention is to do a little series here, highlighting some of Mr. Boortz's articles.

Posted by: Jeff Smith at December 12, 2003 10:08 PM

Jeff,

Boortz did another article at WND that takes Democrats to task for wanting to soak the rich, who profit from the War in Iraq.

First he will talk about how bad the federal government is, then quickly associate it to the Democrats as though they are single handed. To read the article, one might assume the terms "government" and "Democrat" are synonyms.
He is clearly attacking the Democrats and defending the War in Iraq. Bush gets through the article unharmed.
The phrase "Like it or not, it's the law" doesn't sound like anything a Libertarian would say.
One would more likely hear "Like it or not, it's the Bill of Rights" comming from a Libertarian.
All the Libertarians I ever met, make no distinction between the Democrats and the Republicans.
Libertarians I know consistantly use terms like Demopublican or Republocrat to describe our elected officials, and for good reason.
I don't think Boortz is anything but a savy opportunist who knows how to work a deal with an LNC a little more concerned with size than principles.

Boot Boortz, stick closer to our principles and be patient. Our time will come.

Democrats:"Soak The Rich!"
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34844

Posted by: David Harner at December 13, 2003 12:31 AM

Anti-Boortz Blog

http://boortz.blogspot.com/

Posted by: David Tomlin at December 13, 2003 05:21 AM

I'm not one to believe that every libertarian must agree on every issue, but I have to wonder if we are going to have a keynote speaker at our convention that won't endorse our presidential candidate. I feel certain our candidate will support bringing the troops home now. I know my candidate will. Has anybody questioned Mr. Boortz about this?

Posted by: Rex Bell at December 13, 2003 07:43 AM

Hi Rex,

Back in July, Mr. Boortz stated that he had voted for the Libertarian candidate in 4 out of the last 5 elections, including in 2000. See here:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33356

As far as his support of the continuing US occupation of Iraq, I think this makes it pretty clear that he does:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35182

In the last, Boortz students will recognize his familiar way of identifying anti-war, anti- occupation people exclusively as Democrats, and then mocking them.

This familiar habit of his does even more damage to the Libertarian Party's position than if he were to mention it in disagreement, since by painting us all as "liberals" and "idiots" it implies that the LP alternative DOESN'T EVEN EXIST.

Some promoter ofthe LP.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff Smith at December 14, 2003 07:14 PM
Powered by
Movable Type 2.64

design by blogstyles.