Rating: 
Summary: A Work of Brilliance and Infallible Logic
Review: While many authors seem to have written countless book before they final pen a magnum opus, it seems that Mr. Vazsonyi burst upon the literary world with a book that eloquently defines the difference between the two different political ideologies that are extant in the world today. The two ideologies according to the author are what have come from the Franco-Germanic school of thought versus the other that is based upon the Anglo-American philosophy. If there is a downfall of the book it is that the author has penned his tome to those that have a requisite knowledge of world and political history. It also presupposes that one has watched and understood the paradigm shift that Socialist entities (Communist, Fascist, Nazi's, and Bolshevik's) have taken over the last ten years. With that being said and if you are an intelligent observer of world politics this book is easily digested and imparts a plethora of political savvy upon the reader At this point I am at a loss of how to review this book anything that I write will do a disservice the original text therefore I will just cull some quotes out of the book that I think will give the reader a fair assessment of the authors style and wisdom. The frames of the Constitution understood the wisdom of making few laws. The fewer the laws, the broader the agreement.. The broader the agreement, the less need for enforcement. The less enforcement, the less friction between government and the governed. And the less friction, the less waste of time and energy. The time and energy thus freed vastly increase people's creative capacity.
That, in a nutshell, is the success story of the United States of America. (49) Under a variety of labels, the former (Franco-Germanic thought) is unconcerned with the human nature, and seeks only those outcomes it considers "desirable." The latter (Anglo-American thought) has always engaged in creating the circumstances that, based on human nature and empirical evidence, will offer the best chances for individual success. While the later holds that successful individuals will constitute a successful society, the former believes that a good theory will produce a "good" society - communism being the ultimate "good society." (67) Once again, the more groups we have, the more "rights" we have. The more groups we have, the farther we drift from the rule of law. The more groups we have, the more restrictions we have on our true rights: Individual rights.
Individual rights reflect our similarities; group rights emphasize our differences. Individual rights promote equality; group rights cultivate inequality. Individual rights permit every one of us to be special; group rights create stereotypes. Individual rights are unalienable, and are guaranteed by the Constitution; group rights are born at activist rallies, conferred by a party-political executive branch, and confirmed by a temporal judge. Group rights can be taken away be an even louder rally, a different regulator, a new judge.
Individual rights and group rights are mutually exclusive; we can not have it both ways.
Individual rights provide a sense of security. The greater the sense of security, the more of people's creativity will be converted to productivity. The higher the productivity, the greater the sense of independence.
Group rights instill fear. The greater the fear, the more the limitations on human activity. The greater the limitations the more total the dependency on the wielders of regulatory power.
Group rights - invented rights, that is - come, of course, with an important financial dimension. The bearer is entitled to unearned benefits - more directly put, to the fruits of other people's labor. Of greater significance, however, is the gradual destruction of society by the fear that attends group rights. (78-79) Individual rights make up the foundations of liberty. Individual rights impose limitations on power. Individual rights had to be, indeed came to be, the first "slice of the salami." The dismantling of individual rights occurred through the establishment of group rights. And since group rights have no basis in law, their introduction ushered in the deconstruction of the rule of law. (116) The work ethic, and competence in one's chosen endeavor, not only allowed Americans to achieve affluence and create abundance, they were also great equalizers. The idea that everyone out to work was a powerful mitigator of the different circumstances of birth. Of even greater consequence was the respect for competence which, in American society, replaced the scale of values assigned to various types of work. It was not what one did, but how one did it that mattered. Competence was expected whether a person swept floors or split atoms. (205) If human reason governs supreme, religion and morality have no place and no legitimate function , and indeed, such is the Franco-Germanic position. Right and wrong become arbitrary categories, "subject to change without notice." The same applies to values and, ultimately, to facts. Truth cannot survive in the scenario. Consequently, telling the truth is not longer a requirement, and taking an oath carries no meaning. Anglo-American thought recognizes the capacity of human reason to argue and advocate either side of an issue with equal success. Human reason, therefore, cannot be left solely to it own devices. Moral guidance's is essential in reaching decisions that successfully walk the tightrope between the self-interest of and individual, and the community interest of society. (253-254) These quotes are not be meant all inclusive of the book it is just a small smattering of the succulent material that you have at your hands. Good Reading.
| 
