The Pathology of Leftist Denial

Good, then we all agree, and I stand corrected for my misconception and apologize to the both of you for my erroneous assumption

I feel that the matter of 1st and 2nd trimester abortion should be a decision made by the families of those involved. Last I checked, the DNC wants it legal, and so do I. The LIbertarian platform is against abortion, and also against any legislation at the federal level, and the GOP wants it outlawed completely at the state and federal level

Bill Oreilly?....progressive?.....

I don't think this situation you are opposed to was caused by ideology, rather it was caused my financial interests.

What was wrong with the post you repsonded to? or this one? I wasn't trolling in the least, and your response was civil.

 

See my post above. My post responded to Ted's, which asserted: 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.

What I said was that, based on his view, you don't own yourself, proved by the fact that the state can forceably throw you into a war, and has been able to do that is our country was founded. Based on his view, we obviously do not own ourselves.

 

Why should I feel compelled to shut up? and how is that not stifling the free flow of ideas?

 

shall i chalk your lack of a reply up to incompetence or an acknowledgement of defeat?

oh look, another fairy tale from zosiasmom

 

Ummmm.... you said this.

PS. I feel honored that you quoted me in your signature. Especially the second one. Only a person of extraordinarily low intelligence and no understanding of politics would accept a complex political term being reduced into a two line definition in a mass published dictionary!!

 

NO. Capitalism is based on the drive for self-betterment in terms of station and wealth. That is not debatable.

Ask Ayn Rand.

 

Yes, I did say those two things. The unfortunate thought process that leads you to believe the two are mutually exclusive (rather than synonymous, as they truly are) is highly suspect; suspect, in that I suspect you are grasping at straws. Unfortunately, there are no straws to grasp - only needles.

The premise: One may check the boxes of the programs he wishes to pay for.
My response: I pick none of them. That seems damn fair to me.
Your response: Aha! You like government programs!

You are clearly incapable of comprehending English (and I can say that, because you started the ad hominems).

And we both know that my signature takes nothing out of context. There are no "complex political terms" to be bandied about; you believe that A: freedom is not freedom (you said so yourself); and B: the Merriam-Webster dictionary is not sufficient to define a word since it doesn't fit Almighty frodly's ideology.

I know it is tempting to revise history. Please refrain.

 

As you and GW actually illustrated a blank page with white crayon, I have nothing to refute.

I'm pretty good, but I'm not good enough to argue against an assertion that hasn't been made.


You sure did a bang-up job replying to Zosiasmom, though! That's the most intelligent thing I've seen since my dog ran headfirst into a tree three seconds ago!

 

Whilst the continent's age might well be calculated in eons, and the first humans settlers dated at 16,000 years or more, those antecedents would not generally be regarded in acknowledging one's responsibilities to the American society of whose benefits one partakes.

 

That's still a protection of private property - since an idea is the property of its owner, the government can have a role in protecting the direct theft of it. That's the sole purpose of government - to protect rights that are under DIRECT assault from other individuals or groups.

And your article, while interesting, is long-winded and was just disproven by my statement above. So.... what now?

 

Yes, it does. That's the very definition of what you're saying.

- - - Updated - - -

So do you believe that anyone but you owns any part of you or your property?

 

You can't prove ANY of that. Please try.

 

Who has made food safety laws so onerous that people can't sell produce from their own backyard to their neighbors? Not libertarians.

Who has made it impossible for women in the city of Chicago to own guns for their own protection against rape? Not libertarians.

 

I get fruit from my neighbors. But frankly, I'm very happy the Govt regulates food production. Is it really your liberterian ideal that there would be no regulation of food quality?

 

Why do the whackjobs fantasize, get themselves in a dither, and throw tantrums about their boogeyman whom they call "libs" or "leftists" - actually, normal folks who would prefer not to eat tainted meat or have their kids bullet ridden by berserkers?

Don't they notice that society has organised itself into such a civilised order from which they, themselves, benefit considerably?

 

Nonsense.

Depends on what you mean by "owns" but I have legal title.

- - - Updated - - -

Well said. But apparently not, as they'd rather (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about having give up some of their hoard to pay taxes. Which proportionally have been the lowest in 60 years on the federal level.

 

The printing of money by the Fed is also a form of taxation by virtue of devaluation - albeit a form of taxation that is not voted upon by any elected representative.

In any case, you have still failed to refute. G'day.

 

It's not, but inflation has been lower in the past few years than it has been in the past few decades. So what?

Failed to refute what?

 

That's not what he said. In fact, based on his posting history I am fairly certain he believes in self ownership.

I think you are just confusing natural law with positive law. This is how I would summarize his stance: Given current government legislation (positive law) the state does not respect the individual's natural right to self ownership.

Obviously positive law is the law of the land. Natural law is simply the use of reason to logically deduce moral behavior. I am sure Ted supports the existence of the natural right to self-ownership.

Perhaps he can clarify.

 

In extracting wealth - value as defined by government monetary regulation - from a society that creates and maintains for them that opportunity, they incur a responsibility to it.

If they wish to pretend they are not dependent upon the social structure, they can abscond, or stop utilizing the means that it creates for them.

They appear to be so peevish because they are alienated from America, and don't like to admit to the obvious interdependence upon which they rely.

 

Jeez, how many times do I have to explain a simple post?

That is *exactly* what he said, I quoted his post verbatim. Why would you suppose I claimed he believes anything differently? I never said or intimated such a thing. What he said was "One either owns oneself or they do not- there is no "in-between" state." What I said was based on that view, and given the state can take you and force you to fight in the military, it's obvious you don't "own yourself." I never said that was his belief. That was my argument of what his view implied.

I didn't say a damn thing about natural law or positive law. How could you think I was confusing them?

Good for you. He can speak for himself as to what he means. I couldn't care less.

 

I wouldn't go so far as to say that income taxation is slavery or unconstitutional as some here believe. However, this is a very silly argument. It can easily be used in regards to anything. Example: If you don't like the current distribution of wealth (which is skewed towards the wealthy) you can abscond.

 

Again well said. Or to put it a little differently, the quid pro quo of being in a society where you have the infrastructure, people and rules that allow you to make an unimaginable fortune is that if you are successful you have to share a portion of it to fund the government and help out those that aren't so lucky.

 

I said that once some months ago. I think most of us start out as Liberals. We saw the need to make change. We wanted to help everyone and try and fix all the wrong in the world. We believed that if we threw more money at it, we could eliminate hunger, the poor and make is all pretty close to equal. It's only after living long enough and knowing how people behave that we learn the truth and switch to be much more conservative.

 

Not at all. The concept of self ownership comes from natural law theory. It is a natural right. Based on his view, the state doesn't respect/recognize this natural right. He infers this from current legislation (positive law.) But positive law has absolutely no impact on natural law or the existence of natural rights (like the natural right to self ownership.) It's still incorrect to say that "based on his view, we do not own ourselves."

And of course you've talked about positive law. The moment you brought up "state can take you and force you to fight in the military" you were speaking about positive law. Maybe you just don't know what positive law is?