Fearless Philosophy Blogpost of the Month (March 2006)

As I put together my list for the Fearless Philosophy Blogpost of the Month for the month of March, I realized that it has been exactly one year since I selected the first three posts in March of 2005. The three individuals I selected at that time, Brad Warbiany, Eric Cowperthwaite, and Robert Bell, were truthfully my inspiration for putting such a list together each month. Every month since then I have found some exceptional posts by very talented bloggers who articulate their ideas with clarity and conviction; this is my way of sharing these inspiring posts with those who regularly read this blog. I see Fearless Philosophy for Free Minds as something larger than myself. I think of this blog as a way to communicate, debate, and consider both radical ideas and commonly accepted ideas which are rarely challenged.

Someone recently asked how he could submit his post to my ‘carnival.’ This monthly feature in fact is not a carnival but merely a collection of posts which I believe deserve some additional exposure. My selection process is in no way scientific, I simply select the top three posts I have read during the past month (which usually come from the Carnival of Liberty, Carnival of Vanities, or the Life, Liberty, Property blogroll) and highlight the main points which I think are the most important. For anyone who would like to be considered for the next month’s selection or future selections, go to this link for the criteria for what I consider a ‘fearless’ post.

On to the posts…

Third Place goes to Andy of The Charlotte Capitalist with his post: The Charlotte "Representatives Of The Men Who Contribute Nothing" . Have you ever found yourself low on cash flow only to be urged by others to donate money to a charity? Andy relays a tale of a struggling single mom of three young children making under $30k a year who was pressured from upper management to contribute to some charity. Andy explains why he believes that coerced charity should not be considered a virtue:

I would say that the actions of big bank management, King, and Keesler [the aforementioned woman’s bosses] line up with the actions of the men described by AR [Ayn Rand] -- "The representatives of the men who contribute nothing." I include all of them necessarily because they are a part of the culture which incorrectly makes charity a major virtue. And in order to get people to do things that they rationally don't want to do, one has to resort to "commands".If you can't afford charity, then don't give. Your life and your values (your spouse, kids, your goals and so on) come first. Don't be intimidated by "the representatives of the men who contribute nothing". It is your life.

Of course Andy is right, charity starts at home. You shouldn’t feel guilty about not helping others if you haven’t helped yourself and your family first. Besides, wouldn’t society be better off if companies invested more in their own businesses, which would in turn create more jobs, as opposed to donating so much to charity? Would it not be better to teach those in need how to fish rather than constantly providing fish for them? (Ironically, when I looked back at my first ever ‘Blogpost of the Month’ selections from a year ago, the Second Place selection written by Brad Warbiany was written on this very subject.)

Second Place goes to Minh-Duc of State of Flux with a very informative post that points out that Even Black Market Is Better Than Government. When we think of the black market, we usually think about illegal drugs, prostitution, gambling, and a host of other activities that ought not be illegal. What Minh-Duc is referring to here, however, is about the basic necessities of life (such as food, water, and shelter). Minh-Duc recalls his personal experiences living in Vietnam in the 1970’s and 1980’s following the war:

The Communist Forces took over the South in April 1975 and soon after completely nationalized the economy – even small and pop business was illegal. And within a year of it, consumer goods disappeared from the market. I remember standing in line with my mother for half a day to shop at Cooperative stores and by the time we get to the store, there was nothing worth buying. And in the rare occasions when there are something to buy, it is substandard and inferior products. And when I say substandard, I mean standard of a third world country – which is almost no standard…

[…]

As a natural reaction to the economic situation, the black market emerged. At first, it was simply people battering goods and services. A fisherman would give a fish to a barber in exchange for a haircut. Since farmers were not allowed to sell their agricultural goods. However they could exchange it for other things. Illiterate people would give my mother chicken in exchange for reading lesson. This form of battering would later evolved into the black market, as complex as any market…

[…]

One would assume that in a market that is not regulated (it is an illegal market), there would be much exploitation and cheating. But that was not the cases. There were cheatings, but far and few in between. A merchant’s business depends on his or her reputation. Those who cheat do not survive in the market very long...

[…]

It was the black market that ended the starvation – starvation caused by government action. It was the black market that cured people and gave them a decent quality of life. It was the black market that sustained the entire country economy.

And the winner is…

The Fearless Philosophy Blogpost of the Month for the month of March goes to Chas Sprague of Chas’ Compilation with his post titled: Is Islam compatible with a free society? [WARNING: ALL LINKED POSTS FROM THIS SITE CONTAIN GRAPHIC IMAGES] In this post, Chas makes a very important observation:

The compatibility of Islam with a modern and free society has to be one of the most important questions of our times. Our attitude, the way we approach and deal with the Middle East, depends on it. The more I learn about Islam, the more likely the answer would seem to be "no"; at least not without some degree of reformation.

Over the past month or so I have been reading Chas’ blog; one thing seems very clear to me: this man is on a mission to expose the horrors of Sharia Law (Islomofascism). I’m talking about the horrors the MSM doesn’t want to show you on the nightly news (though they have no problem showing images of a few rogue soldiers abusing these same Neanderthals at Abu Ghraib). I’m talking about women being buried alive for allowing some skin to show or stoned to death for being raped. I’m talking about a culture where it is common to hang men, women, and children from cranes in urban areas for all the town’s people to see. I’m talking about a religious festival where even children are encouraged to take a sword to their scalps to make themselves bleed in a "festival" known as Ashoura (shown in the selected post). We are not at war with a civilization; we are at war with barbarians! To call Sharia a ‘civilization’ would be an insult to civilization.

Shame on all the peace-loving tolerant Muslims out there for allowing these sick bastards to continue to commit these acts in the name of their religion (Though from what little I have read from the Koran, the ‘radical’ Muslims are following their religion more closely than the ‘moderate’ ones. The Koran does mention killing non-Muslims in many places.) I would have to conclude that Islam itself needs to be either seriously reformed from within or outright rejected by the civilized world. When we speak of tolerance, these barbaric traditions cannot be part of the conversation. We should all applaud Chas for daring to expose these barbarians for who they are.

Hats off to the top three posts of March!