Sounds like you have a love/hate relationship going on.
.... for the course where they teach you how to tell when you’ve lost the argument?
+++++++++++++++++
No such courses in woke, Leftist schools because THEY are always “right” (correct) and we are always wrong ... or racist, or misogynistic or whatever name-calling they have to do to avoid admitting they are wrong.
Work or starve.
John Smith, Jamestown Colony
I’ve noticed leftists, no matter how ill informed and out of touch with reality, typically push the idea that they are mentally superiority and anyone who doesn’t agree with them is stupid. The public indoctrination camps and modern leftist culture teach their followers arrogance and condescension instead of how to debate intelligently or to open their minds to different possibilities and viewpoints.
It’s sad really. It means they can push the most idiotic, illogical things and their people will eat it up without question because they are already certain they and they alone have all the answers.
I always ask such people to describe the ethics of a “right” that obligates the service of a second party.
I’ve never had a leftard address that question directly.
A perfect definition of socialist states.
Ironically, I have known a great many professionals - doctors, for example - who don’t have a problem with providing a free service, or trading for service, or working for half-pay on the occasion.
It’s called charity, good will, giving back to the community, and it used to be a normal part of being a professional whose services are highly valued and in demand. “I have made a comfortable living off what I do; I can afford to be generous every so often as a good example to others.”
Socialism makes a sacrament of freeloading and renders true charity impossible.
The answer to that is pretty simple, albeit still above a leftist's head. The kind of freedom that the poster has in mind is freedom from want. He or she obviously sees it as oppression that his needs aren't met by default without any effort on his part.
What he is not considering is freedom from coercion. A government large and powerful enough to provide you everything you need is powerful enough to make you do anything it wants, or take all that you have. It can tell you what or what not to eat, drink, wear, or read. It can restrict you from traveling wherever you like. It can tell what you can and can't say, and what you must say. Most importantly, it can make you do whatever is necessary to perpetuate its own power. If you won't bend to their will, then they have the power to starve you out, throw you into a work camp, or even take your life. All of those things were done repeatedly in the twentieth century by governments that claimed to be protecting the so-called 'little guy.'
If you have the freedom to live and work as you see fit, all that limits you is your own imagination and your own choices. A lot of people who have made poor choices don't like to hear that because they prefer to blame others or society at large for their lot in life. Others who have managed to make a decent living for themselves like to advocate for socialist policies because they fancy themselves as compassionate benefactors to the downtrodden, when they really aren't willing to give from their own good fortune to provide for a stranger.
I guess I got long-winded there, but it just chaps my hide when people are too obtuse to understand this simple truth and get so sanctimonious about their own false or misplaced compassion that they look down on me for wanting freedom from government interference in my life.
Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty and the pig enjoys it.