One American's Rage Spills Over: Dear Liberal... Here's Why I'm So Hostile
Submitted by Jeremy Choate via Sufficient Reason blog,
This essay is a bit of departure from my usually reasonable and logical approach to important issues. That’s not to say that the essay isn’t well-reasoned and is bereft of logical argumentation, but I freely admit that it’s polemical, in nature. Sometimes you’re just pissed, and you need to vent. Here’s my vent…
Lately, I must admit that my hostility towards your political ilk has ramped up, pretty dramatically. No, it’s not because we, at this point in my life, have a half-black president in the White House, and I’m some closet racist who is becoming increasingly frustrated at the prospects of the White Man’s power slipping through my fingers. I know that you’ve accused our side of such nonsense, and the thought keeps you warm at night, but I can assure you that it is a comfortable fiction of which you should probably divest yourself.
Now before I waste too much of your time, let’s establish who I’m talking to. If you believe that we live in an evil, imperialist nation from its founding, and you believe that it should be “fundamentally transformed”, lend me your ears. If you believe that the free market is the source of the vast majority of society’s ills and wish to have more government intervention into it, I’m talking to you. If you believe that health care is a basic human right and that government should provide it to everyone, you’re the guy I’m screaming at. If you think minorities cannot possibly survive in this inherently racist country without handouts and government mandated diversity quotas, you’re my guy. If you believe that rich people are that way because they’ve exploited their workers and acquired wealth on the backs of the poor, keep reading. Pretty much, if you trust government more than your fellow American, this post is for you.
First of all, let me say that we probably agree on more things than you think. Even between Tea Party Patriots and Occupy Wall-Streeters, I’ve observed a common hatred of the insidious alliance between big business and big government. As Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) so correctly noted, government should never be in the business of picking winners and losers in corporate America, and no person, organization, union, or corporation should have their own key to the back door of our government.
Second, contrary to popular belief, conservatives really are concerned with the plight of the poor in this nation. You accuse us of being uncompassionate, hateful, racist, and greedy, but studies have shown that when it comes to charitable giving, conservatives are at least (if not more, depending on the study you read) as generous as liberals in caring for the poor. The difference between us is not in our attitude towards the problem – it’s our attitude towards the solution. We believe that the government does practically nothing well (since without competition or a profit motive there is no incentive to do well) and has made the plight of the poor far worse than it would have ever been had government never gotten involved. For a stark example of this, look no farther than the condition of the black family in America since the “War on Poverty” began. You believe that more government is the answer, and that if we only throw more money at the problem, the problem will go away. We believe, as Reagan so aptly stated,
Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.
Third, as people who might actually have to avail ourselves of a doctor’s services at some point in our lives, we are just as concerned with the condition of America’s healthcare system as you are. While we believe that America has the world’s most capable physicians, has the world’s most innovative pharmaceutical industry, and is on the cutting edge of medical technology, we also understand that the delivery system is far from perfect. However, unlike you, we see a grave danger in turning the administration of that delivery system over to the same entity that is responsible for giving us the United States Postal Service. There are private sector solutions that should certainly be explored before we kill the system, altogether, by giving it to the government to run.
Now that we’ve touched on a couple of points of common ground, allow me to explain my aggressiveness towards your efforts to implement your progressive agenda. First, let’s talk about the word “progressive”, since you now seem to prefer that word to “liberal”. In order to label something as progressive or regressive, one must have some idea as to what constitutes progress. What is the ideal towards which you are striving? An idea is considered progressive if it moves us closer to the ideal and regressive if it moves us further away. So, what is your ideal society?
Though I can’t begin to discern the thoughts of every liberal who may read this, nor can I assume that every liberal has the same notion of an ideal society, in my arguments with liberals over the years, I couldn’t help but notice the influence that FDR’s Second Bill of Rights has had in shaping the beliefs of the modern liberal with regards to domestic policy. The rights that FDR cited are:
- The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
- The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
- The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
- The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
- The right of every family to a decent home;
- The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
- The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
- The right to a good education.
At this point, you’re probably screaming, “Right on!!”, and who can blame you? What sane person in the world doesn’t want everyone to be gainfully employed, adequately fed, smartly clothed, appropriately sheltered, and properly educated? These are the goals of every moral society on the planet, however we cannot ignore the fundamental question of, “At what cost?”
I’m not sure whether FDR was a shallow thinker or simply a shrewd, Machiavellian politician, but the fact that he framed each of these ideals as a human right should be troubling to every freedom-loving person in America. After all, what does it mean for something to be a human right? Doesn’t it mean that it’s something to which you are entitled simply by virtue of your being human? Let’s think about some of the basic rights that the real Bill of Rights delineates: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to petition the government, freedom to bear arms, freedom from illegal search and seizure, etc.
If you’re moderately intelligent and intellectually honest, you’ll quickly see what separates the rights laid out in the real Bill of Rights from those laid out in FDR’s misguided list – none of the rights listed above require the time, treasure, or talents of another human being. Your right to speak requires nothing from anyone else. Your right to practice your religion requires nothing from any of your fellow citizens. Your right to bear arms means that you are allowed to possess weapons to defend yourself and your family, but it makes no demand that a weapon be provided to you by anyone. A true human right is one that you possess, even if you’re the only person on the entire planet – and it is unconditional.
FDR’s list is no “Bill of Rights”. It’s a list of demands. If I have a right to a job, doesn’t that mean that one must be provided to me? If I have a right to adequate food, clothing, and recreation, doesn’t that mean that I am entitled to those things, and someone should provide them to me? If I have an inherent right to a decent home, once again, doesn’t that mean it should be provided to me, regardless of my ability to afford one or build one for myself?
You might protest that FDR only meant that we have the right to pursue those things, but that’s not what he said, and why would he? If we live in a free society, our right to pursue those things is self-evident, is it not? Besides, if he only believed in our right to pursue those things, he would not have felt the need to implement the New Deal.
You may be getting anxious, now, wondering what FDR’s Second Bill of Rights has to do with my antipathy towards your political philosophy. It’s quite simple – your political beliefs are a threat to liberty – not just for me, but for my three boys and their children as well. I care much less about the America that I’m living in at this very moment than I do about the one that I’m leaving Nathaniel, Charlie, and Jackson.
How does your political bent threaten my and my sons personal liberty, you ask? In your irrational attempt to classify things such as clothing, shelter, health care, employment, and income as basic human rights, you are placing a demand upon my time, my treasure, and my talents. If you believe that you have a right to health care, and you are successful in persuading enough shallow thinkers to think as you do, then it will place a demand upon me to provide it to you. If you believe that you have a right to a job, and more than half of America agrees with you, as a business owner, I am obligated to provide one to you, even if it means making my business less profitable.
The fact is, you can rail against my conservatism all you wish. You can make fun of my Tea Party gatherings, and you can ridicule patriots in tri-corner hats until you wet yourself from mirth, but one thing is for certain: my political philosophy will NEVER be a threat to your freedom. If you feel a burning responsibility to the poor, conservatism will never prevent you from working 80 hours per week and donating all of your income to charity. If you feel a strong sense of pity for a family who cannot afford health insurance, my political philosophy will never prevent you from purchasing health insurance for this family or raising money to do so, if you cannot afford it, personally. If you are moved with compassion for a family who is homeless, a conservative will never use the police power of government to prevent you from taking that family in to your own home or mobilizing your community to build one for them.
However, you cannot say the same for liberalism. If I choose not to give to the poor for whatever reason, you won’t simply try to persuade me on the merits of the idea – you will seek to use the government as an instrument of plunder to force me to give to the poor. If we are walking down the street together and we spot a homeless person, using this logic, you would not simply be content with giving him $20 from your own pocket – you would hold a gun to my head and force me to give him $20, as well.
Everything that modern liberalism accomplishes is accomplished at the barrel of a government rifle. You do not trust in the generosity of the American people to provide, through private charity, things such as clothing, food, shelter, and health care, so you empower the government to take from them and spend the money on wasteful, inefficient, and inadequate government entitlement programs. You do not trust in the personal responsibility of the average American to wield firearms in defense of themselves and their families, so you seek to empower the government to criminalize the use and possession of firearms by private citizens. Everytime you empower the government, you lose more of your personal liberty – it’s an axiomatic truth.
What angers me the most about you is the eagerness with which you allow the incremental enslavement to occur. You are the cliched and proverbial frog in the pot who has actually convinced himself that he’s discovered a big, silver jacuzzi. Somehow, you’re naive enough to believe that one more degree of heat won’t really matter that much.
I have the utmost respect for a slave who is continuously seeking a path to freedom. What I cannot stomach is a free man who is continuous seeking a path to servitude by willingly trading his freedom for the false sense of security that government will provide.
I am reminded of Samuel Adams’ impassioned speech where he stated:
“If ye love wealth (or security) better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”
Servitude can exist in a free society, but freedom cannot exist in a slave nation. In a free country, you have the liberty to join with others of your political ilk and realize whatever collectivist ideals you can dream up. You can start your own little commune where the sign at the front gate says, “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need”, and everyone can work for the mutual benefit of everyone else. In my society, you have the freedom to do that.
In your society, I don’t have the same freedom. If your collectivism offends me, I am not free to start my own free society within its borders. In order for collectivism to work, everyone must be on board, even those who oppose it – why do you think there was a Berlin Wall?
In conclusion, just know that the harder you push to enact your agenda, the more hostile I will become – the harder I will fight you. It’s nothing personal, necessarily. If you want to become a slave to an all-powerful central government, be my guest. But if you are planning to take me and my family down with you, as we say down here in the South, I will stomp a mud-hole in your chest and walk it dry.
Bring it.
(84 votes)
»
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Oh looks, it's soo cute.
Who QEd trillions of dollars into corporate pockets?
A. Obama
B: "Liberals"
C. "Poor, Lazy" welfare slouches that always vote Democrat.
D. The Fed
Hint: It wasnt C
What the fuck do you think progressivism is? If you're claiming the left and Progressivism aren't balls deep in whatever orifice of you choice, you're one ignorant fucktard.
What in Pelosis vagina are you babbling abot? Are you saying the 'right' is coming for our guns? Are you dyslexic?
Nobody is coming for your guns, despite what you hear from Rush and Alex Jones.
The govt is most certainly coming for the guns, despite those grabbers doing it, saying they aren't while calling YOU a gruber to your face. Apparently you cant google (v), read or even watch videos.
I kind of get where you are going, but it is wrong to blame conservatives as if they constitute the war party by definition. It is simply not true, as Ron Paul clearly demonstrates.
Ron paul is a fringe character on the right. He is a microscopic fraction of the right. The right is absolutely the war party.
So democrats murdering babies with abortion get a pass?
So Republicans fully funding Federal abortions year after year get a pass?
Always Abortion! lol... I thought the topic at this point was "The War Party". Oh, forgot... Abortion is war against the unborn. As Conservative Eric Robert Rudolf - soldiering for their freedom - clearly demostrated... at the Olympics.
The path to ZERO abortions is by ENDING DEMAND for them.
1. Plentiful, low cost, contraceptives.
2. An A+ adoption system.
3. No increased welfare benefits beyond 1 child.
Those 3 would dramatically cut pregnancies; planned and unplanned.
Republicans control the House ya know...they COULD write a bill SPECIFICALLY dealing with this issue...
I think you are conflating political philosophy and the acts of empires. But I'll play along . Lets do a Tally of the the Peace party and War party
WWI Woodrow Wilson Demoncrat
WW2 Frankling Delano Roosevelt Demoncrat
Korea Harry S Truman - Demoncrat
Vietnam John F Kennedy/LBJ Demoncrat
Persian Gulf War - B41 - War Party
Afganistan / Iraq 2 W43 War Party
Syria/Ukraine/Libya Obama Demoncrat
In the last 100 years, of the major engagements in the world wher ethe US was involved, Demoncrats were in charge 5 of the 7 major engagments.
I think whats missing is that R&D don't work anymore. It boils down to 2 distinct groups. Individulists vs Statists. Anyone who has served as president for the last 100 years has pretty much been a statist or in Obama's case, a straight up Marxist.
Your logic doesn't hold water
I should have read farther down before I posted. So "dittos". Well done, Eingsilverguy
Dont put JFK in there you fuck. They killed him so they could have another war and the Amercan coup. Remove the stick from your ass.
IOW, you chose to yammer something stupid about Ron Paul instead of attempting to refute what he said.
Lets stack up "The right is absolutely the war party." with the reality of the last century
WWI - Woodrow Wilson Democrat
WWII - FDR Democrat
Nuked Japan, put people of color into concentration camps - FDR and Truman Democrats
Korea - Truman Demcorat
Carried out systematic and terroristic racism and violence against blacks in the south Democrats
Vietnam - Kennedy / LBJ Democrats
Panama - Reagan Republican
Kosovo, Bosnia and Somalia - Clinton Democrat
Desert Storm - Bush Republican but with the approval of basically the entire planet - Everybody
Iraq and Afghanistan - Bush Republican
Libya, Yemen, Syria and apparently an untold number of places in Africa - Obama Democrat
So as is typical with libtards, reality doesn't mesh much with the bullshit emanating from their mouths.
WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Countless regime changes, Bay of pigs, pinochet, etal...
ALL collectivist, demoncrat wars. You should live like thx1138, you would probably like it.
Edit I had not refreshed to see your post, you said it better...
That is because ron paul is a republican and a conservitive. The rest in that party are neoCONS and traitors. Along with their leftist friends.......
double post
Your moniker is appropriate. You been consuming mind altering drugs?
Two liberal cunt posts in a row.
@THX 1178 the whole point of the 2nd amendment is protection against tyranny. Furthermore, remember that before the Federal Reserve bankrolled the Bolshevik Takedown, Russia was the most heavily armed society on Earth. And one of the most law abiding, for obvious reasons.
When the US Proxy Vermin/ Bolsheviks took over, one of the first things they did was to ask all gun owners to come forward with their guns for registration. The guns were confiscated, the owners murdered, after which the Bolshevik cowards were free to attack the unarmed civilian Russian populace with impunity, since the men who knew how to use guns were dead. Military men of all levels were killed for their training alone, since they knew how to organize and plan a counter-attack, thus making them a threat to the Bolsheviks. That's how leftism works.
It is interesting to note all the recent false flags and wild attacks out of nowhere which are quickly followed by calls to nullify the 2nd amendment, while the shock is still fresh. We are being systematically terrorized into submission, on the mistaken belief that our "leaders" have our best interests in mind. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are criminally insane degenerates with power.
Something is rotten in DC. Bolsheviks are cowards, and can only terrorize a population that cannot fight back. DC is a hive of Bolshevik vermin just waiting for the opportunity to do to us what their accursed ancestors did to the Russians.
Can't you just hear them: "But it's different this time!"
The Fools dont get it - War is the real "entitlement" welfare - almost all of the $$$ spent are offensive economic mercenary action(s).
since the Korean War $20 Trillion has been spent on war and the preparation for war and the debt is $19 Trillion - social welfare has nothing to do with that debt - all a war burden.
ask anyone randomly what their family has gotten from the Korean War, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan et etc etc etc - zero, nada, nothing as far as i am concerned.
The covert wars which are extended to military conflict were set up by Dulles in the 50's and retained as permanent systems for Corporations to take public property the world over - that is all that is going on
False Flags and Propaganda are tools for the Clinton / Bush Establishment Party to perpetuate the game on the back of the citizens.
they want the Social Security $$ for the MIC - that is next source as money creation runs out - the mime of "welfare" is a prelude to that taking - another Peterson Puppet as the author!
>Dear conservative, you take all of our money and spend it on war. Then you blame us for High taxes.
So Obama has no massive spendings on war? There is no difference between democrats and republicans, you point at them you point at your self. And yes you both are part of the problem.
You both are hypocrists and scambags, I refuse to make any disctinction between you two!
WW I Democrat Woodrow Wilson
WW II Democrat F.D.R.
Korea Democrat Harry Truman
Vietnam Democrat L.B.J.
See a pattern?
but but but "THX 1178" that world ***IS*** the ultimate outcome of what you are creating. You just can't comprehend that.
I am a conservative.
Sure, Iraq turned out to be a bad idea. Fool me once, yada yada. So its absolutely astonishing that lefties were so silent, even apologetic over: yemen, ukraine, libya, and even willing to risk a new cold war, or even a hot one over syria. its not me calling for war. thats your commander in chief, surrounded by a bunch of loons that YOUR side called neo-Cons, not mine. I call them a bunch of un-American Imperialists, Fascists, and Wall Street/Globalist lackeys
I don't fish. I don't listen to country music. I never belonged to a frat. But I support everyones right to do so. And my "military chic" wasn't ordered out of a catalogue, it was purchased the hard way. I can't comprehend what any of those activities have to do with rugged individualism. Conservatism and individualism have no prohibitions against voluntary collective action, only against involutary collectivism enforced at the barrel of a gun.
Something that the DNC and the GOPe have both been doing
Uh oh Tyler, another Daily Kos member infiltrating your site again!
"dear conservative..."
the funniest thing about this nice rant from a perspective of "the rest of the world" is that...
... elsewhere, people would be puzzled. because elsewhere, all the political labels he uses are... different
elsewhere, the core political principles he is defending in this article would count as... liberal (in the classic sense). as here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism (or even neo-liberal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism)
elsewhere, the core political principles he is attacking in this article would count as social liberal, i.e. a mixture of liberalism and socialism (up to socialism, straight) as here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism
counterexample, from Australia, out of wiki, too: "The Liberal Party of Australia adheres to the principles of social conservatism and liberal conservatism."
question: how is it that every single party in every single country that speaks English... has to make a huge hash out of what in other countries is so much simpler and clearer? Australian Conservatives calling themselves the Liberal Party, English Socialists calling themselves "Labour", American Liberals calling themselves Conservatives and ranting about American Social Liberals and Socialists calling themselves Liberals, and so on?
the only answer I have is (deceptively, perhaps) simple: the electoral system, based on "the winner takes all", FPTP
the cultural dimension, though, is as interesting: in all those countries, it's "uncool" to understand ideology, bordering to the strange. people are asked to judge more personalities then ideologies, to be wary of ideology as such, and focus on practicalities more then "egg head" differences
since all those countries practice what some others call "turbo-capitalism" or "ultra-liberal rapaciousness"... I guess there is a system in this peculiar "madness": it has it's own brand of political result
Russian Humor January 3rd, 2016 by Scotthttp://thesaker.is/russian-humor-january-3rd-2016-by-scott/
We are heading for WW3 and then prepare for a disclosure that will rock the entire planet......
http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2016/01/top-secret-alien-ph...
Hey Jerry-buy a clue. The "right" is no more respectful of the US Constitution than the "left".
The bankers thoroughly own both sides of the aisle-and the "debate". They have been busy asset-stripping the nation the last hundred years.
(BTW it why we have the IRS asset reporting requirements; its what they use for their roadmap)
The guys making it happen are on Capitol Hill and K St. They make out pretty good. So I hear. The bankers don't really let this pseudo-argument between the "left" and the "right" get going until the country is pretty well gutted. Until then they just throw money at one side or the other every 4-8 years to keep it going..
Once verything is pretty well cleaned out-then they encourage us at one another's throats while they and the guys making it all happen get the hell outta Dodge.
So sit up and pay close attention to what they hope you won't.
Right, progs to the left of me, and progs to the right, and me stuck outside looking in while they both pillage my wallet.
Here's the thing; Left/Right... the two arms of statism.
The "left" "right" political spectrum illusion began just before the French Revolution, when one brand of STATIST sat to the King's right -the Monarchists- and another brand of STATIST sat to his left -the radicals. Two groups of STATIST oligarchs.
To think properly about the 'political spectrum' imagine instead a triangle, with the 'left' and 'right' branches of STATISM forming the baseline -and true individualism at the apex.
So you see, anything along the 'left' - 'right' baseline is Statist, Big Government doing what it tyranically does. To the extreme ends of the baseline, you will find the Fascist/Monarchist and the Robspierrian/Communist -just as at the extreme apex of individualism you will find the Anarchist. This country was founded upon ideals pretty close to the apex -maximum personal liberty and minimum government Statism. My, my; how far we have fallen. And a large part of that fall is failure to recognize the trap of Statism and this illusion that the only choices are its two flavors -while the 31 flavors of Individualism sit neglected at the peak.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Basic control theory: the sign of the control law can be + or -, but as long as it has a non-zero mag it's still a control law (statist). System theory can't guide anything beyond rule of thumb solutions to our predicaments, but it can clearly identify the perps.
The anti white comments, and the comments likening that guy to a terrorist AND the amount of upvotes they've recieved are very disturbing.
This situation could very well have a HORRIBLE outcome for those not in the FSA.
What an idiot. Another purveyor of the bullshit left/right paradigm. You don't get it, do you? We're fucked either way. Right now the .gov is a convenient enforcement tool for the corporations that control us. Take it away and they hire private armies and just drop the pretense of representation. You won't be any better off.
That is what apologists said in 1776... BEFORE the shots were fired in their defense of their freedom...
Yes the odds were very long, but God stands with the Righteous; and the Righteous stand with God.
In the end, we win.
As long as you understand that "righteous" is a relative term.
With enough violent rebel militia groups, America could follow the example of Syria. I'm not sure if that would be progress.
All divided up and ready to be used like the pawns they are ...............
Indeed ... he had me until "As Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) so correctly noted, government should never be in the business of picking winners and losers in corporate America, and no person, organization, union, or corporation should have their own key to the back door of our government."
Just another fucking gop rimjobber who believes the system can be fixed from within if the Republican party ran all 3 branches of the poisonous tree.
The militarists have no problem with making Boeing and Lockheed-Martin big winners. Sqandering trillions on Iraq and Afghanistan did not diminish the "freedom" of the war crazies, but giving lunches to poor kids is a dastardly assault on their rights. You see, it's their fine sense of principle: giving taxpayer handouts to fat cats in nice suits is proper, but giving tax money to poor kids is an evil deed.
Once again, "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." — Emma Goldman
Emma Goldman, eh? Neither is mutually exclusive, but I wonder if she was speaking from observation, or more so with knowledge of insider information?
I'd say she pretty much saw it all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman
Thx. Now where do i get a shirt w that symbol on it?
Lots of places: anarchism t-shirt
By the way, LM, I'm a graduate of the university your avatar founded. You?
Congrats. In any event, am a product of Central/South eastern PA university engineering curricula. Both curiously (that is, voluntarily) endowed by 19th century 'robber barons', or some such.
Me, I'm just waiting for the PC brigade to demand that all traces of Jefferson be removed from all campuses everywhere:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/22/university-missouri-s...
Irony of ironies, that a Dominion of the Crown is actually a quite rational alternative to all this fake huffing and puffing. I know Jeff would probably not approve, but even he would have to admit that his forebearers also voted with their feet.
http://www.immigration.govt.nz
Well, he did try to note that people on both sides are beginning to see things in the same way:
"Even between Tea Party Patriots and Occupy Wall-Streeters, I’ve observed a common hatred of the insidious alliance between big business and big government."
However, one of the problems with the "gimme some free stuff" crowd is that they necessarily ignore many of the sins of their benefactor, the government. The popular mainstream media meme (and thus opinion of the average Occupy Wall St-er) is that the #1 problem is the "Big Corporations" and "Big Banks". But, they neglect the fact that these entities all exist and behave at a level of immorality afforded them by the laws and regulations imposed (or not imposed) upon them by their very own collective sugar daddy, the Federal Government. So, only half of the bad guys are being unmasked.
Education is the key to seeing this trouble for what it really is, but most folks will not show up for school until they find that they're unable to feed themselves. In other words, when it's too late.