Reality or politics?
I'm glad, in a way, to see that the Albuquerque news has returned to addressing reality, rather than Obamality. The bad thing is, this reality is concerning the suffering of innocent people. Lost balloonists, and dead toddlers, and the loss of local jobs that government policies have made inevitable. In that case I guess it would be better to have no real news to report and keep focusing on the putrid emanations of The Anointed One.
Real, innocent people are what matters in this world, and it is better to be concerned over such things than to care about how to get your piece of the action from the politicians and bureaucrats who are busy stealing it "on your behalf" (while skimming a sizeable cut for themselves and their cronies, of course). What really matters is completely different from what lying politicians believe matters.
Real life. This is just real people concerned about the events that affect their everyday lives. No one wants to be forced to worry about politics. Yet, for our own self defense we must, at times, focus on it. We need to know what new violation of our individual human rights is being dreamed up by the enemies of civilization in government offices and legislatures across America. Sometimes we may be able to nip it in the bud if we know what is going down. Just think what would have happened if Americans in 1776 had been able to stop the Constitutional Conspiracy that stole liberty from them and their descendants. In other cases, it is good to know what normal, voluntary, non-harmful actions you need to be secretive about to avoid being kidnapped by thugs in uniform.
When politics and real life meet, tragedy is the result. There is enough tragedy without adding unnecessarily to the suffering. Coercion against the innocent is never OK, especially not for the purpose of taking advantage of them or violating their rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. It's time for Statists to grow up.
*
Please help!
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Libertarians: 'selfish' and 'childish'?
Libertarians: 'selfish' and 'childish'?
The news in Albuquerque is still dominated by the lingering aroma of The Anointed One's visit. Reminiscent of a dead skunk on the highway, the fumes just won't clear. The difference is that I actually enjoy a slight smell of skunk. Anyway, back to The Deceiver in Chief. What he said while in town seems to generate a lot of discussion. I can't understand why since everything he has said in the past turned out to be lies. Just assume the same will be true of his most recent utterances as well, and move on.
So today I'll address two of the favorite retorts that authoritarians seem to keep at the ready in case they encounter a libertarian. That libertarians are "selfish" (usually the opinionizer is a "liberal"), or that they are "childish" (generally this comes from the "conservative" side).
"Progressives", by claiming that libertarians are "selfish", are being selfish. Liberalism is self-centered. They serve their own selfish interests by demanding you give up some of your interests to serve theirs. Liberals worship the defective among us. That is fine as long as they spend their own time and effort catering to these individuals. Yet, they selfishly use the coercive force of government to make you serve that which they worship. They are so addicted to the "Mommy State" that they can't stand to see people who do not need to be mothered to death, and who do not need to be forced to "share". Of course, this category also spills over to "conservatives" from time to time on different issues (issues which usually shouldn't BE issues).
"Conservatives" often claim libertarians are "childish". They can't allow libertarians to prove that voluntary interactions are better than brute force. They threaten to take all their toys and go home when we don't wish to play their coercive "games". They would rather give up the areas that libertarians would be on their side of than to agree to leave people alone to make their own decisions and face their own consequences. They are so addicted to the "Strong Father State" that they can't stand seeing people not getting their spankings when they do something that offends their "morals" (cough-cough). They worship (often literally) the strict, authoritarian Punisher of Deeds, and use the blunt force of The State as the means to mete out retribution for your "offensive" acts. Yet, this category, too, often spills over into the "Progressive" cult where such things as "gun control" are concerned.
Me, I'm strong enough to leave people alone to live their own lives as they see fit; only meddling if I see someone initiating force, fraud, or theft. That isn't "selfish", that is the height of generosity. Nor is it "childish" since it is the core of being an adult living among adults.
*
Please help!
The news in Albuquerque is still dominated by the lingering aroma of The Anointed One's visit. Reminiscent of a dead skunk on the highway, the fumes just won't clear. The difference is that I actually enjoy a slight smell of skunk. Anyway, back to The Deceiver in Chief. What he said while in town seems to generate a lot of discussion. I can't understand why since everything he has said in the past turned out to be lies. Just assume the same will be true of his most recent utterances as well, and move on.
So today I'll address two of the favorite retorts that authoritarians seem to keep at the ready in case they encounter a libertarian. That libertarians are "selfish" (usually the opinionizer is a "liberal"), or that they are "childish" (generally this comes from the "conservative" side).
"Progressives", by claiming that libertarians are "selfish", are being selfish. Liberalism is self-centered. They serve their own selfish interests by demanding you give up some of your interests to serve theirs. Liberals worship the defective among us. That is fine as long as they spend their own time and effort catering to these individuals. Yet, they selfishly use the coercive force of government to make you serve that which they worship. They are so addicted to the "Mommy State" that they can't stand to see people who do not need to be mothered to death, and who do not need to be forced to "share". Of course, this category also spills over to "conservatives" from time to time on different issues (issues which usually shouldn't BE issues).
"Conservatives" often claim libertarians are "childish". They can't allow libertarians to prove that voluntary interactions are better than brute force. They threaten to take all their toys and go home when we don't wish to play their coercive "games". They would rather give up the areas that libertarians would be on their side of than to agree to leave people alone to make their own decisions and face their own consequences. They are so addicted to the "Strong Father State" that they can't stand seeing people not getting their spankings when they do something that offends their "morals" (cough-cough). They worship (often literally) the strict, authoritarian Punisher of Deeds, and use the blunt force of The State as the means to mete out retribution for your "offensive" acts. Yet, this category, too, often spills over into the "Progressive" cult where such things as "gun control" are concerned.
Me, I'm strong enough to leave people alone to live their own lives as they see fit; only meddling if I see someone initiating force, fraud, or theft. That isn't "selfish", that is the height of generosity. Nor is it "childish" since it is the core of being an adult living among adults.
*
Please help!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)