"Let me put it in concrete terms, using
an everyday example: property taxes. Both the (so-called) left and right
agree on the principle, with their differences coming down to the amount
of the tax and how the monies extorted thereby are to be spent. The
“Democrat” or “liberal” wants to make sure the local government schools
are well-funded. The “conservative” or “Republican” agrees -- he
just wants to make sure the money doesn’t go to fund the teaching of
evolution or the advocacy of gay marriage. Neither of which ultimately
matters, of course, to the former (more precisely, never
was) land or home owner. He pays, regardless. And if he
declines to pay, both types of authoritarians -- on the “left” and the
“right” -- will draw their knives and seek his blood. Literally, they
will kill him, if it comes to that. If he declines to pay the money they
demand -- and attempts to defend himself against their
demands."
Let’s Start Here
February 16, 2012
By eric
Before a sensible conversation is possible, everyone has to agree on
definitions. The fact that millions of Americans don’t agree on
definitions is arguably the main reason why political conversation in
this country is so often incoherent -- and we therefore get nowhere.
For example, we have the ongoing “debate” (so-called) between Republicans
and Democrats, “conservatives” and”liberals.” It is like the “debate”
between the National Socialists of long-ago Germany and the communists of
Soviet Russia. Fascism, communism -- they are both in fundamental
agreement, much as they argue (often fiercely) about the particulars. It
is the same with our Republicans and Democrats. They do not fundamentally
disagree. Both urge that society be organized on an authoritarian
collectivist basis -- though they each call this by a different name.
They disagree merely on the ways in which this force is to be organized
-- and how it is to be used.
Most Americans are either socialists or fascists, to one degree or
another. On the political “left” we have those who favor economic
redistribution in the name of “the poor.” On the political “right,” we
have those who favor economic redistribution for the sake of “defense”
and other cartelized manifestations of big business.
But both meet in the middle.
They agree that rights are really conditional privileges, granted (and
limited) by “society.” Neither respects ownership of our persons, let
alone our property. Both exert their power over the individual by
coercive, collectivist mechanisms which the individual is required to
obey in exactly the same way as William Wallace of Braveheart
renown was told he had committed treason against “his” king by refusing
to Submit and Obey. When Wallace tells his inquisitors that “never in my
life did I swear allegiance to him,” the blase reply, “It matters
not -- he is your king,” is just exactly the same reply any
individual American would receive today (by form letter) from, say, the
IRS. And it would be affirmed by most Americans, too.
So, definitions.
To have a proper conversation in 2012 America, we should begin by
dispensing with the intellectually dishonest and conversationally
incoherent terms, Republican and Democrat, liberal and
conservative.
There are authoritarians of various inclinations – and people opposed to
authoritarianism in all its manifestations.
Let me put it in concrete terms, using an everyday example: property
taxes. Both the (so-called) left and right agree on the principle, with
their differences coming down to the amount of the tax and how the monies
extorted thereby are to be spent. The “Democrat” or “liberal” wants to
make sure the local government schools are well-funded. The
“conservative” or “Republican” agrees -- he just wants to make sure
the money doesn’t go to fund the teaching of evolution or the advocacy of
gay marriage. Neither of which ultimately matters, of course, to the
former (more precisely, never was) land or home owner. He
pays, regardless. And if he declines to pay, both types of authoritarians
-- on the “left” and the “right” -- will draw their knives and seek his
blood. Literally, they will kill him, if it comes to that. If he declines
to pay the money they demand -- and attempts to defend himself against
their demands.
An anti-authoritarian is repelled by the spectacle. Because he rejects,
in principle, the shedding of blood to lubricate the machinery of
authoritarianism. You are either a free man -- the owner of your person
and any property you duly pay for, without restriction of condition. Or
you are not. Free men are not reduced to “company town” servitude by the
making of their “ownership” of property conditional on paying rent
to the government each year in perpetuity. You either own your land, your
home -- or you do not. Similarly, either your physical person is yours --
or it is not. “Democrat” “liberals” believe that it is not -- that your
physical person is merely a constituent cell of the Great Collective.
Hence, for example, seatbelt laws. And on the “Republic” and
“conservative” side, the war on (some) drugs. Your body is not
yours. The collective claims it first.
Here again, the anti-authoritarian takes a fundamentally different view.
He does not point guns at you “for your own good” -- or for any other
reason, except in self-defense.
It is time to choose sides. You are either an authoritarian of one
description or another. Or you are opposed to authoritarianism. There is
no middle ground, no having your authoritarianism and your
liberty, too. So-called “moderate” authoritarians believe the latter is
possible but in fact, it is only a transitory condition. When it comes to
human rights, once ground has been given for any reason, you will soon
find yourself without any ground at all left to stand upon. It is only
question of time before whatever remnant remains of your former rights
are shredded in their entirety. It is like a steer trying to stay on its
feet amid a pack of hungry lions, hoping they will only rip off
some of his flesh and be satisfied with that.
So, let’s begin with proper definitions -- and call things by their right
name, openly.
It will be a good start.
Throw it in the Woods?
http://epautos.com/2012/02/16/lets-start-here/
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
