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 -
This guy doesn't know anything about slavery. It wasn't until 1912 that US workers became entitled to one day off per week thanks to the pesky government. Corporations exist to maximize profits. If you think that this will result in prosperity for everyone, you don't know a thing about history.
The concept of corporations is absurd. It allows for the owners to be shielded from risk of bad behavior.
Maybe if shareholders of Exxon has their financial necks on the line the oversight of management would be much better and various accidents would not occur.
You're first mistake was using "liberal" and Reason in the same sentence....lol
"liberals" are mouth foaming, rabid zealots who spew lies in the name of truth while selling us all into perpetual slavery...something democrats excell at
Jebus, Choate must have sent out indian runners to all the steam rooms and massage parlors to get a myriad of comments like yours.
No one reading ZH trusts government, except for those of you in institutions and asylums.The communist democrat progressive gay gender neutral liberal slaves want to tax & control everything in the fricken world. Just like Hitler.
Jeremy spits out a tirade about the misuse of the word "progressive" while at the same time misusing the word "liberal".
Frankly, these people can have the word "progressive". It does not have any special meaning. You can progress towards anything. "Liberal" however is related to liberty and these people have no desire for it.
Words have meanings. One way to control dialog is to control that meaning.
That's what Political Correctness is all about. 'Control the language, control the debate'.
Around a century ago the CPUSA, realizing that the word "communist" was toxic, began calling themselves "progressives". Fast forward to today, and the average progressive would balk at being called a communist even though they are advocating pure communism. The top commies know what they are doing.
We need to split the country into two.
Throw out the lunatic fringe of Kalifornia, Washington, and Oregon, keeping only those libery-loving folks. Clean out Denver and parts of North Carolina and South Florida while we're at it. Ship em' all NorthEast for resettlement.
So, we take the South, Midwest, and West in one contiguous United States of America, and they get the The Union of Worthless Cockroaches which comprises the Northeast, Great Lakes, and eastern portion of Virginia. Their chief domestic products will be in Banking, Government Spending, Grievance, Torts, Services, and Wal-Mart.
Ours will be technology and manufacturing, argiculture, medical technologies, software, aerospace, clean energy, and guns.
All Comservatives want is to have the kids fight Proxy Wars
Liberals want Kinds to expand Welfafre
Both are fucked up and to think the nation follows these bozos.
Just FYI most wars in the last century were started by Democrats. Might wanna research your position on this a bit.
Liberals want Kinds ( what is a Kind?) to expand welfare. I need help with this but if you are against welfare, I agree.
Actually its not a both anymore, they are the same team. Just different letters and colors to confuse the sheeple.
HAve a great day.
Excellent article......but why does he feel he has no right to oppose 'White Man’s power slipping through my fingers'? White men built America and power would not be slipping through their fingers were it not for a treasonous plot by an internal Fifth Column waging demographic warfare through mass immigration from the Third World, beginning with the Immigration Act of 1965.
What other race or ethnic group, anywhere in the world, would not object in similar circumstances?
The Flaw with the left/right paradigm is that it is unidimensional. A better picture of political stance should include an axis ranging from "statist" to "non-statist." The world's smallest political quiz remedies the issue.
Ronald the Retard
Uttering those famous words, Reagan the Conservative kicked the one trillion dollar National Debt ball to where it is today: $19 trillion.
No, Ronnie
Conservative Hypocrisy is the Problem.
It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.”
THE QUOTE IS FROM PATRICK HENRY OF VIRGINIA NOT SAMULE ADAMS.
The quote is not altogether original
Proverbs 17:28
You are surely a retard. Probably white challenged, like Obozo.
“Is it not an endlessly expanding list of rights —the “right” to an education; the “right” to health care; the “right” to food and housing. That is not freedom. That is dependency. Those are not rights. Those are the rations of slavery – hay and a barn for human cattle.” - Alexis de Tocqueville
There are no conservatives left in America, except maybe Ron Paul.
Conservatives do not become entangled in wars of aggression.
They do not spend money they don't have and borrow it from our children and grandchildren.
They do not have the world's biggest military and bases in 130 countries.
They do not let the infrastructure of the country fall into disrepair.
I could go on forever, but all the imposters who call.themselves conservatives are something else.
Oh Jebus. Compared to every developed left-leaning nation in the world, the US is ridiculously, massively conservative.
Travel. Learn. Fuck a nice lefty in Sweden and after your pillow-talk tell her what you've just written. See if she doesn't run to the loo for a whore's bath through peals of laughter.
You have no clue what the %$%$# the definition of conservative is at all. You're just one of those worthless voters that was Republican and "conservative" and once the neocons came along and rebranded globalism as conservative, you sheepishly and unquestioningly followed them right dow the path to our destruction.
There are very few conservatives in America. Paul Craig Roberts is a conservative. So are David Stockman and Ron Paul. Pat Buchanan a little bit. Other than that, not much out there. The rest are neocons which are conservative in half-name only.
If you cannot recognize this then you are a worthless voter indeed.
I stopped pulling the lever when I recognized my private voting records were for sale, wholesale. But I guess you're just into jerking it, explains why you're going blind.
If you waited until you figured THAT out then I have got to wonder how much hair you have on your palm.
I travel a lot. I left America a few years ago. I spend most of my time in China. In many ways, America is more socialist than China.
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.
Are YOU able to distinguish between the actual system as it has evolved and a (very useful) theoretical construct of what in some situations is still one of its basic mechanisms?
Second, contrary to popular belief, conservatives really are concerned with the plight of the poor in this nation.
Yes, I see some of you from time to time down at the soup kitchens being charitable.
But the fundamental question, given that there will be government, is "Whose government is it?"
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:
You are right, these are demands. "Rights" always begin as demands. They become universal when enough people agree on them. These two demands make sense if you are one of the millions who are trapped in the position of depending on a job working for someone else - or a check - to survive. The actual system (as opposed to the "free market") seems to require the threat of unemployment to maintain "labor discipline", a "right" which the owners seek to preserve or expand.
Most of us could agree on this one; the actual ruleers of our land might give it lip service in the name of the "free market", but judging by their actions they loathe it and subvert it at every turn.
Again, for those trapped in wage servitude, raising these to a right supports their demand a better deal for their labor. Those whose profits depend on minimizing wages and maintaining their workers in a state of fear and desperation will oppose these rights.
The Bill of Rights is about limits on what the Government can do. It leaves undefined what the individual can do. In America in the 1790's that made sense. In today's America many have little more than the right to die in the gutter. Millions live their lives in fear of getting branded and ending up unemployable
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.
There we go. This is about the demands of those who work for you for a bigger share of the pie. The pie is generally much bigger thowever than just wages + profits. If you aren't a billionaire banker it might be worth joining with your workers to look at where the rest of that pie goes and how you could work together to recover and share more of it.
Everything that modern liberalism accomplishes is accomplished at the barrel of a government rifle.
Odd complaint, given the overwhelming evidence of the extent to which corporate and wealthy folks control the government at all levels.
What angers me the most about you is the eagerness with which you allow the incremental enslavement to occur. ... 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.
If you define being a free man as being a capitalist, entrepreneur or head of an enterprise, if by seeking a path to freedom you me seeking to escape from wage sevitude, that would require destruction of a system that requires huge numbers of wage workers would it not? For most of us the only realistic escape is through rewriting the contract to make working for a wage less like slavery.
Servitude can exist in a free society, but freedom cannot exist in a slave nation.
If you could put yourself in the position of one of the millions who experience America today as a kind of slave nation, you would see the irony here.
... 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.
You tried it once before. How did that work out for you?
So you're okay with panhandling others for your "rights"?
Go learn a trade and you won't be "forced into wage servitude". You can hire yourself out to the highest bidder like your boss does.
Oh wait. He has to compete against lower bidders to get the work to "exploit" you. Imagine that.
Then there's always that bugaboo about forgoing consumption in order to save capital to invest in the tools and materials to start a business and everyone knows that's a drag for someone who deserves so much more, like you.
Much easier to screech and demand your rights.
Got it.
Sounds like the boss you're talking about is part of the real economy, doing real work. As such, in this economy, he's struggling too. He may have started out as a worker. The way things are going he may end up back there. He has more freedom - and more headaches - than his workers, but his hands are tied in so many ways, He's at the mercy of a rigged market, a rigged tax system, rigged regulations and a rigged credit market that's going sour on him again. And he has to deal with resentful, dishonest employees who try to even the score for themselves at his expense. He's part capitalist, part worker, part gang leader. He didn't cause this mess we're in, and he gets hammered from both sides. No wonder he's angry!
Politically, to get the economy really moving again he needs to help break the hold of the billionaire corporations and banks on our economy. The only possible way forward right now is to make common cause with his workers - the ones that make him angry every day - and support Bernie. Not easy.
Do you see another way?
You completely misunderstand the Bill of Rights. Completely
Live back in the woods, keep a low profile and you will have a mellow life. Like Oddball said, "you got too many negative waves, man."
I'm not American and just wanted you to know how completely incomprehensible and strange this sounds. To start with what the hell actually is a "liberal"? We have Liberals here (capital L) who were recently comprehensively voted out of office but I have learnt at least that isn't what you mean.
Also how can you have" rage" against health care - most developed countries such as mine have had government run health care systems for decades and surely it's a good idea? Are you really going to let people just die if they can't afford a doctor?
Most developed nations - Europe and Asia - are beginning to collapse.
(so your anecdotal drivel is worthless)
the usa is collapsing without universal healthcare. the nations with healthcare pay the same overall tax rate as usa citizens but complete healthcare is included in their taxes.
So you want us to collapse faster with universal healthcare?
Look, there are pros and cons to your argument, but please, do not call healthcare a "right".
Rights are inherent, they are not granted at the expense of someone else.
Yeah, maybe so.
But we blow up more shit than all of them combined, so there's alway that to be proud of.
Sorry your kid got turned down for that liver transplant but, honestly, that guy that does bookkeeping for the National Health, his Grandmother was in line long before your kid.
Really.
And please, dumbass, don't get me started on the joys of Obamacare when my sister was dying of cancer.
(it was just great)
(so helpful)
ZH is eat up with right wingers. They make as much sense as the financial system.
Explain what a "right" winger is. I hear this BS from anyone that loves big government, Obama and hates the Constitution. You lefties don't have a clue about what your glorious government has done to the people of this country.
The blacks rejoiced when Obama was elected and what has he done for them? He has pitted his race against everyone else at every turn. He has separated this country in more ways than anyone in history. He has bankrupted this country at a faster rate then all presidents combined. And now black unemployement is at history high levels due to the left's compasionate handlouts.
Lefties can't think for yourselves. You use a BS term like right winger to evicerate anyone that believes in freedom and the US Constitution. You can't even comprehend that everything your party has done takes away your liberties and gives them to the cronies in charge.
Anyone that hands their personal responsibility for both themselves and their families to the likes of Obama deserve what they get.
If you aren't one then it shouldn't bother you. If you think I am leftist then you have a very narrow mind. I know that R&L both suck the big one and I would not piss on either side if they were on fire.
In America we have a saying our mothers teach us to address your very comment;
"If all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you follow them?"
So all the other countries jumped off a bridge into government run sickcare, shall we follow just because they all took the plunge???
I am sad for you that the only alternative you could come up with for lack of government run sickcare is death.
Check out the library at mises.org and start reading.
Your mother mislead you.
What she should have asked you is, "If all your friends ducked when someone swung a machete at their head, would you duck too?"
If other people are doing something that makes sense, you shouldn't refuse to do it just because they did it first. That's not "following." It's just common sense, and an honest willingness to change your mind when the facts have changed.
Too many mothers asking too many kids the wrong questions.
Are you really as doltish as you represent yourself to be??
Jumping off a bridge is not in the same class of actions as ducking a machete. Way to address my point with a pithy observation dummy.
Are you trying to address what I said or just enjoying mental masturbation??
americans have not yet realized healthcare is a utility not a business. the economics of healthcare run counter to the economics of commerce. the goal of profitting from healthcare requires the incentive to make people sick and keep them sick to maximize profit. this runs counter to the goal of the definition of healthcare which is to make people healthy and keep them that way. the fact that the usa healthcare system is the most expensive in the world, double the second most expensive system with the highest morbidity rate in the first world is the logical outcome of a for profit healthccare system.
A for profit system that is in bed with corrupt government officials who whore themselves out, yes.
In a free market the opposite occurs.
You don't believe we have free market capitalism do you?!?
the free market obligates profit from sickness.
In Amerika, "freedom" means the freedom to starve, freeze, or die of treatable diseases if you lack the cash to procure these basic necessities...
...even though we live in the richest country in the world.
In Amerika, "freedom" means the freedom to starve, freeze, or die of treatable diseases if you lack the cash to procure these basic necessities...
...even though we live in the richest country in the world.
I stopped reading at "Paul Ryan."
The very first paragraph says it all: "no, I'm not a racist." Methinks the pinhead doth protest too much.
Obviously not a scholarly vent, as the word "Liberal" should and must be taken back from the newspeak fools.
Whatever happened to Liberty? Has it ever existed?
Yell at the dog and rage all you want but a VOTE has value, Sort of like fiat money vs Gold