The Pathology of Leftist Denial

Heh! Indeed. Unfortunately, leaving people alone is definitely NOT part of the Progressives' game. The Right at least pays it lip service - then gives us the Patriot Act and DHS for our collective "benefit". Fukem both, IMO!

 

Looks like libertarians exercising their personal liberty.

 

The United States didn't exist in 1699, but if your family has taken advantage of the security and opportunities the American People have afforded them since the inception of the nation, often at great cost and sacrifice, through the agencies of a government of, by, and for those people, then your debt is considerable, indeed!

 

What makes them scary is their idea that the state has some claim or ownership on individuals and families.



- - - Updated - - -

The land and settlers did. Who's quibbling now?

 

soon after that, eli whitney was granted a patent for the cotton gin

is that an example of what you call a free market?


patent -noun |ˈpatnt|

1) a government authority to an individual or organization conferring a right or title, esp. the sole right to make, use, or sell some invention

source: new oxford american dictionary

the concept is based on greed, but there aren't any free markets

every market has restrictions that, by definition, restrict its operation

but, let's say there is a free market and i want to buy your little brain

so i make an ad with an offer & post it in 'soldier of fortune' magazine

a few days later, a guy shows up with your brain, shows me the video

of him neutralizing you and removing your brain, and i pay him for it

there you go, an example of what a free market might be like, right?

i don't think so, he wouldn't let me write a check, he demanded gold

oh well, let him keep the stupid thing, it's not worth a dime anyway


There Is No Such Thing as a Free Market - By HaJoon Chang

"The free market doesn’t exist. Every market has some rules and boundaries that restrict freedom of choice. A market looks free only because we so unconditionally accept its underlying restrictions that we fail to see them. How ‘free’ a market is cannot be objectively defined. It is a political definition. The usual claim by free-market economists that they are trying to defend the market from politically motivated interference by the government is false. Government is always involved and those free-marketeers are as politically motivated as anyone. Overcoming the myth that there is such a thing as an objectively defined ‘free market’ is the first step towards understanding capitalism."

"So, when free-market economists say that a certain regulation should not be introduced because it would restrict the ‘freedom’ of a certain market, they are merely expressing a political opinion that they reject the rights that are to be defended by the proposed law. Their ideological cloak is to pretend that their politics is not really political, but rather is an objective economic truth, while other people’s politics is political. However, they are as politically motivated as their opponents.

Breaking away from the illusion of market objectivity is the first step towards understanding capitalism."

http://truth-out.org/author/itemlist/user/45418

 

Thus flows the logic in the mindset of the authoritarian elitist egalitarian! A thief does not like to be interrupted whilst in the act. That is the only "honour" amongst thieves!

 

Except that it isn't because we're not usually arrested for criminal activity that isn't protesting the government, but try again. It's always fun to read what constitutes for wit these days.

- - - Updated - - -

The day that you post anything in your own words aside from banal ad homs will be a sign that the Pale Rider is approaching on the horizon.

 

Guess what. We progressives aren't either.

Glad we cleared that up.

 

Sure.

 

You took that phrase way out of context. Dr. Perry said exactly what needed to be said and many just don't want to face up to it.

 

Of course. One either owns oneself or they do not- there is no "in-between" state. The second the state claims ANY type of ownership on you or the fruits of your labor they and their supporters stake the claim a person has no right to self ownership.

In another thread, Longshot made an excellent argument. If one person does not have the right to own another (slavery), then how can individuals confer upon a collective, state or "society" a right they do not have?

It was an unimpeachable argument that left the statists dumbfounded.

 

I didn't take her out of context. She is a raving lunatic most days.

 

That's nonsense you're spouting, really.

 

The state can grab your ass and throw you in a uniform and ship you off to shoot people in some jungle. Since there is no "in-between" in your view, where did you get this obvious delusion that you "own yourself"? You obviously don't and no one has in the history of this nation.

 

Bet me! There's always Canada - or Venezuela, as the case may be. I know I'll never be sent into another politicians' bs war again and you can take that to the bank.

 

No, it really isn't. She's divisive and hysterical.

- - - Updated - - -

So you're for the state telling women they can't have an abortion because the state owns their body?

 

How on earth did you possibly come up with that question from my post?

 

You assert that I want to use Federal government services.

I do not.

You are wrong. Again.

- - - Updated - - -

Because, according to you, the state owns people, obviously...

Anyway, just because something is currently done does not make it morally acceptable!

How many times must I explain this incredibly simple concept?!

And, yes, we WERE free, completely and utterly in the eyes of the Confederation, in 1784.

 

You just said that we don't own ourselves. If this is true and say Rick Perry becomes president and manages to get antiabortion laws passed then by this logic, that's okay.

 

Au contrair.......

I was simply illustrating the existance of cooresponding pathology of rightist denial, with emphasis on Libertarian righties.

My posts have broken no forum rules. It's rather un-Libertarian to attempt to stifle my participation in this thread, because you don't like what I say.

 

Actually, you weren't illustrating it because you were wrong in every instance. Moreover, he's not using government force to stifle your participation. He's asking that you shut up.

Totally different.

 

Exactly! Don't let them get away with this bull(*)(*)(*)(*) that "you're taking her out of context."

I saw the original advertisement on the days it was played by the the network, and not a damn thing was "taken out of context."

 

Johnny-C is actually a good person. He has a lot of faith in people that they don't deserve. He was giving her the benefit of the doubt--that she doesn't deserve.

Also her "apology" wasn't.

 

I believe you mean "au contraire."

If you're going to attempt to be knowledgeable, you're going to have to study up.

That's what intelligent people do, because the more knowledge you have, the more you realize you don't know.

As I'm sure you are an intelligent person, don't refrain from the leg work.

 

Re-read my post again. You obviously misunderstood it. And even if I had, you logic is faulty. The fact that I do not "own myself" doesn't make any law the Govt passes "OK".