Authoritarianism is becoming trendy.

Post Reply New Topic

I think you're projecting and/or straw-manning here, it's not simply stubborn adherence to abstract principal that causes people like myself to be wary of expanded government programs, particularly massive and invasive ones like state healthcare, but experience and logic. Aside from the cost, which is substantial, I'm much more concerned with the state having yet another lever of control over peoples lives, one particularly likely to be used by meddlesome busybodies who now feel they have a right to dictate behavior now that they have a financial stake in peoples health. Add in the new layers of bureaucracy and the massive and ever expanding constituency of state dependent voters that would be created, and I don't think I need to invoke any particular principals to justify my skittishness.



We understand that just fine, we just prioritize personal liberty over attempts to make life "fair". If I hire someone for a job that requires sight and they go blind, why is it my responsibility to continue to pay them for a task they can no longer perform? I wouldn't have hired a blind person for that job in the first place, why am I stuck with them now? Do you think people open businesses, at great personal risk and with no guarantee of success, in order to provide jobs for the disabled? Entrepreneurship is difficult enough as it is, why burden it further with a role better performed by the state?



That's positive liberty vs negative liberty stuff, and could occupy its own thread by itself. Personally, I happen to support quite a bit of positive liberty positions because I think they're efficient, but I'm still uncomfortable with it, as I don't like bringing coercive power to bear on others, even for what I think are good causes. Contrast that with the progressive zeal to bring the guns of others to bear on their enemies, and tell me which is the more "moral" path.



I don't think it's the sole end of most libertarians, but once you accept how little you actually know about everything and everyone, it seems extremely arrogant to try and impose your will on them regarding what is best for them. At heart, libertarianism is a path of humility, letting people act in what they believe to be their best interest with minimal interference, after accepting that we don't actually know what is best.

How is this a logical progression of the discussion? I invite you to retrace the thread and try harder. Much harder.

My initial point was that federal intervention in defense of civil rights doesn't meaningfully take rights away from others, except if you're of the mind that people should have the right to sh*t on other citizens who belong to groups they don't like. How is that difficult to understand? How is that indefensible?

Hardly. You used a vague assertion that because government intervention can be good, attacks on free speech and property are justified in general, then proceeded to move the goalposts - as you're continuing to do.



Wherein you claim your redefined position to be insurmountable.

Seriously, you're only wasting your own time.

I agree time is being wasted here, but from my perspective, it's not from my end of the conversation.
And when did I ever say that attacks on free speech and property in general is justified? I said the government has a responsibility to step in to protect civil rights. The treatment of African Americans under Jim Crow was one such case when the government had to step in. Another is how the rights of LGBT Americans need defending by the federal government today.

redefining words to satisfy your own agenda....lol or you and people who think like you just don't know what the word progressive means. If its the latter:

progressive
favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters:
a progressive mayor.
2.
making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.:
a progressive community.
3.
characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
4.
(initial capital letter) of or relating to any of the Progressive parties in politics.
5.
going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.
6.
noting or pertaining to a form of taxation in which the rate increases with certain increases in taxable income.
7.
of or relating to progressive education :
progressive schools.

And for the big shocker authoritarianism isn't a synonym for progressive..... , and just to really clear things up here is what authoritarianism means:

authoritarian

Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
adjective
1.
favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom:
authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.
2.
of or relating to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.
3.
exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others:
an authoritarian parent.
noun
4.
a person who favors or acts according to authoritarian principles

So more opposite than anything, no more excuses for confusing the two and remember the dictionary is your friend.

But you probably think gay marriage ought to be re-outlawed, love to take pre employment drug tests, support the war on drugs as well as the prison industrial complex and think the authorities are usually right am I right? So its ok if they tell us how to live our personal lives, invade privacy and restrict personal freedoms.

But requiring taxation to fund public services/programs is downright evil? also what do you feel is an attack on free speech...freedom of speech does not include a right to verbally harass others. And since when have property rights here included 'not having to pay taxes'? they haven't so that means taxation is not a violation of property rights.

How is that just and fair? And passing laws that say you cant use your racism or things like that to deny someone a job, serving them is a far cry from kicking in their door and telling them to do as you say for the sake of obedience. Also pretty sure people already have the right to choose who they live with....just stop, you're making yourself look ridiculous.

This is why charity does not effectively address poverty, and exactly why the tax funded social safety network is necessary, it doesn't depend on people 'caring'.

Also taxation is not considered stealing in this country, if you don't like it you could always move to another country right? Also tax money goes to public services....the public are the taxpayers, so what do you mean? your angry at your fellow taxpayers for not caring enough about your dislike of the tax policy?

Sorry but I think it is you who should go back and read, I do not see where it was implied or stated that attacks on free speech and property are justified in general...could you re-quote this statement or implication?

Sweetleaf-

As you have made common cause with me against my adversaries, I just wanted to say: thank you.

misnomer, n.

Pronunciation: Brit. /(ˌ)mɪsˈnəʊmə/ , U.S. /ˌmɪsˈnoʊmər/

A wrong name or designation, esp. one which conveys a misleading impression.

progressive, adj. and n.
View as: Outline |Full entryQuotations: Show all |Hide all
Pronunciation: Brit. /prəˈɡrɛsɪv/ , U.S. /prəˈɡrɛsɪv/ , /proʊˈɡrɛsɪv/

Of a disease or disease process: increasing in severity or extent over time.

Nice try but that is how the word is used in medicine, that is not applicable to this discussion which I thought was on the topic of people who identify as progressive politically, it certainly was last I checked. And not sure why you posted a random definition of misnomer.

Read the thread again in its proper context. I'm not requoting the whole thing for your benefit, with annotations, just for the sake of demonstrating what is apparent to all.

Here's a hint to keep you on track. Watch for the moment Kraich decides to travel back to a time before anyone involved in the conversation was born in order to justify modern authoritarianism.

If you're still confused, please google "intellectual dishonesty" and read everything you can find on the subject.

I did read it in its proper context...and never asked you to requote the whole thing with annotations, just the part where its implied or stated that attacks on free speech and property rights in general is justified.

And if it was 'apparent to all' that this was said or implied how do you explain at least two people in the thread including the one who supposedly said it don't find it apparent at all? And I will just leave the rest of your overly wordy attempt at mockery here.

Keep going, you're almost there. Enlightenment is just around the corner.



Ooh, you were so close. Bad luck.



That's abundantly clear.