The Pathology of Leftist Denial

That doesn't make a single bit of sense. Prove otherwise!

 

It's actually freedom that's enslaving you, dontcha see? Freedom is Slavery, understand, Party Member? Once we establish the World State we'll never have to work for those greedy bastards that employ us and keep the economy afloat ever again!

Good, now take some soma. A gramme in time saves time!

 

It is typical to attack an allegation with either a valid assertion to the contrary
OR
an attack against the group responsible for the allegation; i.e., "your party is worse because they like it when individuals succeed and increase their respective financial status in a free economy without stealing from taxpayers."

 

Evidence shows that nearly all gains from today's Republican policies go to people who are already rich. There is less increasing of financial status in America today than in any industrialized country.

 

The budget is huge. You have spent trillions. Nearly all aspect of life is regulated. You can't even nam one business not subject to big regulation. You have a record high welfare state. What republican policies are you talking about again?

 

INGSOC. Street level progressive frogs have been boiled (by the progressive political / academia / media complex) to deny their own natural rights and liberties for some utopian promise of centrally planned and administered "fairness", "equality" "social justice" and "common good".....so much so, they cannot even acknowledge....much less admit... the levels of authoritarianism that surrounds the delivery of such. .....myths.

 

Uh... Republican policies? None of the true conservative policies have been implemented (except for the Bush tax cuts) since Reagan. They worked quite well during Reagan's time.

However, libertarian policies would work better, in my opinion.

The ghost of free market past agrees with me.

 

Co Tracy with America and the balanced budgets were also republican policies but that is about it.

 

Agreed wholeheartedly, though "myths" is rather kind way to put it.

I think Dewey said it quite well: "Genuine ignorance is... profitable because it is likely to be accompanied by humility, curiosity, and open mindedness; whereas the ability to repeat catch-phrases, cant terms, familiar propositions, gives the conceit of learning and coats the mind with varnish waterproof to new ideas."

You and I know that they aren't neutral in terms of ignorance. They are negatively (that is, incorrectly) knowledgeable, in that they have learned so much that is wrong that they understand LESS than what would define them as ignorant.

So, realizing that they are no longer ignorant, they mistakenly assume that their knowledge is of the positive sort (their negative knowledge will allow no other assumption).

Self-righteousness and self-satisfaction in negative knowledge leads them to complacency and a refusal to think freely.

If they did think freely, they would return to ignorance, then gain in positive knowledge as they recognized as myths the falsehoods which are portrayed as fact by their authoritarian leaders.

How skillful is our enemy, the masterminding Statist!

 

Who could argue against "fairness" and "equality"??? (or the "safety" and "security" of "the children"??)

 

"victim / oppressor" strawmen.

 

Agreed.

This argument is a tired old hag, much like the one "free-market capitalism doesn't work because it isn't working now" even though it doesn't even EXIST now.

 

I doubt they see it that way. Very few people are consciously evil.

Everyone wants liberty in some form - even if it's only for themselves. We should concentrate on showing them that liberty and coercion cannot coexist.

 

That's the worst, I think - and God may agree with me, though I don't wish to speak for Him.

Proverbs 6:16-19:
There are six things the Lord hates,
seven that are detestable to him:
17 haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,
19 a false witness who pours out lies
and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.

When the Statist cries "racism" where there is none; when he says "damn the rich," though the rich pay for our food; when he claims "misogyny," "xenophobia," "greed," "intolerance"; it is then that he stirs up conflict in a previously nonconflicted community.

How these people pretend to justify such blatant lies and the sowing of dissension is beyond me.

 

If you don't want to pay taxes, you are welcome to leave.

 

Another one. Coerce, beat, whip, smother, throttle, rob, insult, belittle and berate privately owned production (the progressive left's Beast of Burden) into "compliance".....then scream "CAPITALISM DOESN'T WORK!!!"

 

The very definition of "community organizing"

 

Just so everyone knows, this is what the OP's libertarian hell/"society" looks like.

 

Not hardly. No one can be aligned with liberty that still wants a state. The very term is derived from the Latin (libertas or liber) meaning "free".

Some of my first fights on this board if you care to go back far enough were with Ethereal and Webrockk (they can both verify this) on Citizen's United because, like you, I don't like the power and influence of large corporations over our daily lives. I understand that corporations dictate our politics, telling us what to eat, think, drink, wear, etc. Unlike you, however, I understand that this only happens because of government. Government has the only monopoly on force. The collusion of business and government--and this is no single party issue--is what enslaves us to a onerous, corrupt system. You are forced to eat GMO foods whether you want it or not because a bunch of Democrat Congressmen are in bed with Monsanto. You can't eat the fish from the Shenendoah river because a bunch of Republican Congressmen wrote the loopholes for the amount that Merck can legally dump in it and the relatively small fines that occur when they go over.

None of these regulations that progressives in Washington sell you that will protect people from big business every actually do.

Instead, exactly like they are supposed to, they hurt small to mid sized businesses who can't get around the specific loopholes written for Smithfield or Monsanto or Merck or Johnson and Johnson or Exxon or BOFA or GM, et al. Those regulations are sold to help the consumer not get killed or whatever, but their real purpose is to shut down small businesses and backyard businesses and grow large ones. As a result of ever-increasing regulations we have fewer businesses than every before.

It is why it is impossible to "buy American" because the smaller businesses cannot compete with taxes and regulations--and they are stupid things like door sizes, hallway widths, where containers can be placed, etc.

So we grow towards economic oligopoly which is what you purport to be the great danger. We don't have capitalism. Capitalism is a "free market". We have corporatism.

I believe in economic freedom, as well as, personal and individual freedom. I believe in personal responsibility. I believe in me being able to make a choice as to whether or not I'm willing to trust a local farmer and buy his food rather than go buy milk or kale that came all the way from China. The type of system you want will tell me--for my own good--what I can buy and where I can buy it. That's not freedom.

Freedom is messy, sure, but it is better than the alternative. You simply cannot have and retain individual freedom when economic freedom is lost and vice versa. We are a fine product of that. A government that can control business is a government that will--and has--moved to control people.

If you can tell someone what pork they can eat for their own good, you can spy on them for their own good, lock up drug offenders for their own good, lock up people who video cops for the people's good, and so on.

You want to restrain big business? Lift the regulations on small to mid-sized companies, lower their taxes here in the US and allow them to compete and serve you. Starve the beasts.

 

When you say things like proportionally you're supposed to explain what they are proportionate towards or else you're just making stuff up. I can say that our laws are proportionally lower than other countries in history with the benchmark being Stalin's Russian (although, admittedly we are close). Come on. If you don't feel like jumping in the pool don't splash us from the sides. It's annoying.

 

No one should be indoctrinated. I had socialist indoctrination as a child behind the Iron Curtain. Oddly, enough I got it here, too. People should either do the research--and that includes asking questions or else, just admit to themselves or others that they are a drone.

Tell me, since you are not in denial, philosophically and morally...why should any individual have to involuntarily commit their taxes?

I am a pacifist and don't believe in violence and my money goes to more than building roads. It goes to a global death machine that has caused the death of millions of civilians.

I believe in food freedom and want the choice to buy food from local farmers. Why should I have to pay for regulatory agencies that prevent me from doing so?

I believe in the Bill of Rights. Why should my money go to support spying?

The liberal argument that the money all goes into a pile and I get roads out of it and someone gets $1400 a month for their kids blah blah we all support each other blah blah and that we have a Republic so if you don't like where the money goes you can vote for the other guy blah blah ...

...is just the Wizard's head telling you a bunch of garbage.

No one on the left or right in Washington wants the system to change. They know that the two party system keeps the corporatism rolling and the wars financed and the Monsanto's and drug companies happy so they tell you that you have a choice when you don't.

When you justify the use of force by a government entity for any means--even some "greater good"--in your case economic power against corporations it does not stop there. It will keep going until everything is controlled...just like now. It's like letting a dog pee in one corner of your carpet. He won't stop there.

 

Socialism engenders interventionist government and requires interventionist government to perpetuate itself.

I grew up in a socialist state that, I imagine, was started with the idea that the masses shouldn't be chained to corporations and the uber wealthy. The workers revolting didn't think that tearing down businesses would also mean, spying, lack of free speech, gulags, etc. That is just the end result of allowing the government to control more than it should.

--And for the Republicans, wars are the result of the military industrial complex's influence over Washington by supporting think tanks like the CFR and Heritage.

With government there can be no freedom. Limit government, increase freedom.

 

You live in Germany allegedly and are 18 allegedly. I'm not sure you understand fully the (*)(*)(*)(*)ery that exists here so I'll let the "off the rails" comment go because you don't have to live with the day to day frustration of liberalism in practice.

He's a liberal. So was Thomas Jefferson and in fact it is the Jefferson' and Paine's who were the embodiment of the term.

Acquaint yourself with history and terminology.

You really aren't one to talk since all you do is throw down Democratic talking points. You rarely attend to philosophy, Stagnant, which is a shame because you're not an idiot.

Philosophy and active discussion about the "why" we do things and the "end result" that we desire can explicate the problems inherent in the system.

If the end result is that we want everyone to live comfortably and freely, and modern governments are unable to provide this without creating so many regulatory felonies that we are each committing at least three a day (http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx) then the problem is with government not the lack of government.

 

Proportionate to GDP. Taxes paid relative to what the economy produces have for that past three years been the lowest in 6 decades. But how many threads do we see from the 1% apologists who complain taxes are too high. They are richer than ever, they have doubled their take of the nation's income and wealth (to 20% and 40%, respectively),they get special tax breaks, and all they can do is (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about taxes, which are proportionately the lowest in 60 years.

All this stuff about "liberty" is just a ruse for them to (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about having to pay taxes. Because more is never enough.

 

Finally. Thanks.

There's the rub.

No, the upper echelon of that 1% are richer than ever, but since it starts at $300k with those who are well off and jumps up for the 1% of the 1% who make billions its a big of a stretch to make that statement.

Also: http://www.theatlantic.com/business...eir-highest-total-tax-rate-since-1979/266764/

That means the people making $300k will be hosed royally while the Romney's sip cocktails in Belize and the Facebook Tycoons live it up in Singapore.

This stupid line about 1%'s is just totally bogus. Higher taxes won't hurt the big business CEO's or slow down the growth of large business. The people you are allegedly angry with--and I'm not sure you really are--wouldn't exist without Obama, Bush, Pelosie, Reid, Issa, Ryan, etc.

A bunch of uber wealthy people fed by government exist because of government. Regulations, not tax evasion, made them rich. Lacking in competition tends to do that.

Bah. Your opinion only. The guy making $300k didn't oppress anyone and he certainly can't influence government. Wake up and smell the oligarchy that your support of the Democratic party helped pay for. And while you're at it send a postcard to Bill Clinton thanking him for all his help shipping jobs overseas.