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 -
Good until you got to "education," which has been no such thing going back to the early days of the Industrial Revolution:
"We don't need a nation of thinkers. We need a nation of workers." — John D. Rockefeller
No wonder, then, that we are now a nation not only of wage and debt slaves but of indemic, intractable, and catastrophic stupidity (and people think their vote matters):
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/18/republican-voters-bomb-ag...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-24/two-thirds-young-democrats-eage...
"Right now the .gov is a convenient enforcement tool for the corporations that control us."
Want proof?
ObamaCare:
Corporate America wrote it top to bottom.
In a nutshell...
A. You MUST BUY a private product.
B. If you really can't afford to pay the price, then Government MUST BUY IT for you!
Every businesses dream come true!
Jeremy is angry and reacting to the propaganda, the divide and the illusion written and produced by our rulers. In other words he's reacting to the duped method actors playing their parts -- ignorantly for the most part, yes -- rather than those who have written the script. The propaganda is very sophisticated, make no doubt nor mistake about it.
These traitors need to be rounded up and put on trial at some point.
I remember a BBQ 2 summers ago where my neighbor tried telling me Bloombergs Slurpee law was for my own good.
Eventually got kicked out from being invited to those BBQ's.
That said, I am a mean drunk when I am drunk when liberals are around.
People will drink what you set in front of them...proven time and again...so if the size limit was 16oz, they'd drink 16oz and most would not buy 2@16oz to "defy those Liberals".
Soda is pure carbs and there's no doubt we eat too much carbs and that it's been an EXPENSIVE health disaster.
If you want to drink 2 gallons of soda a day, fine, but why should my health insurance premium reflect the cost to help pay for your fat, diabetic ass?
I don't have a "1 sentence solution", but we've got to find a way to make the people causing the damage PAY FOR IT!
Heavy trucks bust the fuck out of roads; and they pay a higher tax to cover the damage they cause...who has a problem with that? Why can't we start there and apply that same principal to the "corporate food" industry that is destroying the health of so many?
Hey fuckface, Dont give me that we are all interconnected shit after you liberals have dismantled the entire system that incentivized individualism and in its place erected a system of the borg collective. You wanted us all linked as a hive and than moan and groan about individual choice infringing on the group. Too bad fuck face....I like cigarettes, scotch and loose women !!!11 i dont ask for your judgment,...all I demand is my freedom....that means LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE,...ya fucking little cunt bitch!!!1111
Hey Fuckface, I'm not a Liberal.
PS. The place you work at, is it "Freedom" for everyone, or is there a structure...ya, know, rules set by the few for the many?
Nazi,...statist......whatever,...
get off of my front porch, bitch !!!!!111111
It's not the same principal, the trucks pay for the damage that they caused not the highway builders. People who do unhealthy things to THEMSELVES get what's coming to them. This is really the whole point of this article, we need to reinstill PERSONAL RESPONSIBLITY for things in all people. Taxes are supplying an education (of sorts) and parents are SUPPOSED to educate their children so there should be no excuses. If you smoke, it's not Philip Morris' fault, if you eat ice cream every night while on the couch watching football, it's not Ben & Jerry's fault, it is TOTALLY YOUR fault. For shit sakes, you would think in the day of utter technological brilliance the human race would not be going backwards in personal intelligence...
It's not the same principal, the trucks pay for the damage that they caused not the highway builders. People who do unhealthy things to THEMSELVES get what's coming to them. This is really the whole point of this article, we need to reinstill PERSONAL RESPONSIBLITY for things in all people. Taxes are supplying an education (of sorts) and parents are SUPPOSED to educate their children so there should be no excuses. If you smoke, it's not Philip Morris' fault, if you eat ice cream every night while on the couch watching football, it's not Ben & Jerry's fault, it is TOTALLY YOUR fault. For shit sakes, you would think in the day of utter technological brilliance the human race would not be going backwards in personal intelligence...
Remember - it's always the "liberals" or "conservatives" fault, never the two. Keep Americans divided!
All devout liberals should be made to stand up for their beliefs, counted, and have their wages garnished for 30% to support all of the social programs that they desire. Once that money is exhausted, contributions by the rest of us would be voluntary.
Wouldn't that be some shit?
I would actually be ok with a 50% tax rate. Have you seen taxes in every other country??
Oh no...I was talking 30% over and above what we already pay- which in my case is around 40% total.
Ah... I'm sitting on 26% right now. Colorado and all.
PR is just 4% Hot women, who actually shave under their arm pits. Hey, if your into to that...ok, no worries!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR0C00-Tt7s
Beam me up!
I am sitting at 39% Federal 9% State plus Property tax fuel tax...on and on FUCKERS. We need TRUMP.
What we need is term limits and a lobbying ban.
Great start, add to that no campaign donations allowed from anyone but registered voters and that's with a annual per campaign limit of a rather small number, say $250. Protects from all special interest and the rich folk!
Great start, add to that no campaign donations allowed from anyone but registered voters and that's with a annual per campaign limit of a rather small number, say $250. Protects from all special interest and the rich folk!
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/bill-bennett-they-will-kill-trump-...
Beam me up!
that attitude is certainly pitiful
if you think the tax rate ought to be 50% then by all means put your (own) money where your mouth is and leave me out of it.
"All devout liberals should be made to stand up for their beliefs"
LOL! Another "Liberal/Conservative" moron.
Hey Lunatic...YOUR SIDE just FULLY FUNDED the ENTIRE list of "SOCIAL PROGRAMS" the "Liberals desire".
Pull your head out.
Yeah Moron, we are talking REAL conservatives like me, not the nutty neocon small "r" assholes led by ryan traitor and mcconnell senile..
Didn't we try all that unfettered free market thinking during the Reagan years? And his sucessor was booted after one term mainly due to the nasty recession that followed. Bush Jr. went all in with deregulation, you know, getting government out of the way. And we got a bust so deep the Fed is still printing like madmen in the effort to bail out those most eagerly gunning for profit during the fleeting boom, the banks and Wall Street.
Odd that growth in America was highest when tax rates were at their peak to, isn't it? The pro-growth crowd screamed for lower taxes, and now we have a debt situtaion that can never be fixed. Great work there.
We tried it this guy's way over and over, and busts seem to follow right behind. More pure drivel from the Mises bunch.
Let me guess? You are a communist democrat?
Communist Democrat is redundant.
Well Hungarians are fairy tails
How long did it take you to get the spelling right on those big words?
People ignore that shit... the nation's greatest economic prosperity occurred during a period of a heavy progressive tax. But anyway forget Bush/Reagan... if you wanna see what unfettered capitalism looks like check out the late 19th century. You had the owners and the serfs. That's how it will happen every single time.
Wanna know what's funny? Capitalism and socialism have exactly the same problem: they are a by product of the industrial age. Neither can achieve its intended purpose because industrialism demands inequality; a relative few must own the means of production and the rest have to be a little bit dispossessed. Why? Because an industrial economy is dependant on hundreds of millions of jobs that nobody would do if they had a choice.
No, it was because we won WWII, and had no competition. That ended, ans so did our greatest wealth creator.
Give the rich more money, they'll SAVE us. In fact, if money helps that much..send them YOUR very own!
Diazepam ... 100 mg hit
This is a 'propaganda piece from 2012.' It paints the world as zero-sum game and its ultimate goal is to make sure that every gullible reader supports the economic status quo of the rich minority. For a better perspective on this article see this:
http://stevemuratore.blogspot.com/2013/10/is-jeremy-n-choate-really-beac...
thanks for pointing out that this turd article is from 2012.....
I gave it a one star only cause I could not give it a negative rating....
Debt-Money is the disease........welfare/warfare are just symptoms of said disease...
And I would suggest that those who wondered how FDR sold America to his CFR masters (he was not a 'class traitor' but an instrument of his class-conscious masters) read the works of Garet Garret.
I suppose you could have called him a 'paleoconservative' in his warnings about what FDR was doing to our freedoms even then, what his 'brain trust' of Keynesians were going to do - and did - to the economy, to sound money, etc. , as he was a contemporary of FDR. Garret saw what the seed of American socialism was about to bring forth, and sounded the warning. But as usual, few heard or paid attention.
And, now behold the fruit of the poison tree.
I think I will bookmark/print this and give it to a liberal who doesn't seem to understand why I feel as I do. I doubt that it will do much as the school of liberalism is much like the madrasas.
But it's horseshit. It's simply not true. The .gov gives far more handouts to corporations and the MIC than to citizens. Why aren't you bitching about that?
Wealth Distribution for the chosen ones in Israel in the form of AID.
Both sides need to eat your dinner to live.
RIPS
I really don't know the mix of who gets subsidies, welfare, bailouts, exemptions, etc, etc, etc, and guess what, I really don't give a rat's ass because every single one of them, without exception needs to go away. No one, no company, no nothing deserves or is "entitled" to anyone else's stuff or money. That's what I'm bitching about and what all true citizens of USA need to be bitching about.
If it bothers people that the gov doesn't give out handouts, then form a charity and those people can transfer their hard-earned monies until they die - that is fine with me.
This libertarian dogma can't address the issue of why an increasingly wealthy society has to preserve poverty and misery in order to "protect" freedom. How rich do we have to get before we feed the hungry and treat the impoverished sick? Is there any point at which we can afford to behave decently toward the unfortunate? The notion that sharing wealth is a terrible assault on freedom is profoundly destructive. By this logic, giving money to your children is an unreasonable restraint on personal freedom.
There is no natural law dictating that wealth can only exist in the presence of poverty.
Ain't nobody stopping you from giving your wealth away.
Oh, you want mine too?
I think I see where the problem lies...
It is the FORCED/INVOLUNTARY sharing of wealth that is the terrible assault on freedom. And yes just handing your children money is a horrible idea, make them earn it so they respect it.
And by the way, how much did you donate to charity last last year? Did you go work a soup line or gather donations and give them to the needy? Or did you just do what the .gov forced you to?
I prefer a voluntary society personally, where morals and work ethics get you ahead. And if you sit and do nothing, you get exactly what you have earned.
We don't have to feed the hungry. We have to provide an environment where they are allowed to fish as much as anyone else. Are you are inclined to put the hungry into a permanent class? That's what the government loves, needs, and wants.
Yessiree Bob! Everyone is going to go out and WORK! The crippled, the mentally ill, the alcoholics. Make 'em work or starve! Libertarians are ignorant and selfish people who are one serious accident or major illness away from realizing why jungle Capitalism is not a desirable political system.
These people you cite need CHARITY, and charity needs to be volutary or it is not charity. And these are the roles of family and community not federal mandate. The crippled are the responisbility of their family, no other. The mentally ill are the responsibilty of their family, no other. Alcoholics are not disabled, stop drinking, lack of impulse control is not a disability. You are free to donate as much as you wish, by all means go ahead. But to hold the threat of prison over your neighbor to force him/her into the same donation you give is evil.
I have determined I need your money more than you, give it to me, or you will be imprisoned and your possesions forfeited to me.
You can't reason with a Liberal/Progressive. They are beyond such petty things as facts. They only care about the "feels". In fact, trying to reason with a Liberal/Progressive is much like trying to reason with a two year old when they are in mid-tantrum.
Every day, I swear that I am going to start the Leave Me Alone Party, so I won't have to listen to any more left, right, blue, red, liberal, conservative, white, black, Hispanic, Muslim,Jew, unique snowflake, millennial, boomer, divided, bullshit. Blathering on, about how important it is, to carry a label on my forehead, identifying me as a "supporter" of someone else's cause...Get over it. Be a "individual" for once in you're god forsaken lives and try to accept other individuals for what they are... not who, or what they "belong to." Y'all make my head hurt with all of this sub-divided crap! Try being just you, instead of having to neatly slot everything, into where you "think" it should fit.
Now I need to start drinking early and heavily...
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
THIS is the proper response. THIS POST above is really waht "Liberty" is and those that do not defend and will not comply with "Inalienable INDIVIDUAL Rights" and the li itation of Government ON 'those rights" is the enemy. regardless ow what "team they play on"
Well Said Sir!
Yeah OK mostly, and it is good perspective to look back at FDR's bill of rights, and I'm sure you can look back at earlier progressives and see much the same.
But two things. First, modern "liberalism" isn't about the right you have to good housing, it's about whether you need to make a wedding cake for gay couples, and whether you're allowed to question the role of CO2 in global warming, and whether you get a say on whether 500 Syrian refugees are housed right next door to you, paid for by your taxes.
Second, our country today is unbelievably rich in money, in goods, in all kinds of crap. We don't have a "right" to say it shouldn't all be owned by the top 0.01%, but hey, we're gonna say it anyway. Left and right ought to agree on this, because we're not going to have any kind of a country if 99.99% are being robbed, even if they aren't exactly starving even so.