Posted on 06/01/2003 6:32:05 PM PDT by B-Chan
Oh my! The "enemies of freedom" who wrote the constitution and the bill of right's to limit the kind of federal involvement this wanker advocates are back "in command now"
I suppose someone dug them up?
PS: You can tell this guy is a certified know-nothing because his page is filled to the gills with every gaudy, tacky, ridiculous bell and whistle conceiveable.
It looks like Hawaian shirt and moves like gear oil at the south pole.
He's also desperate for attention, as he included half the dictionary in the page title in the hope fooling someone into giving him a hit.
I'm betting he is in his 20's and a recent graduate of a very liberal university. He writes like the Manchurian Candidate who has had "the truth" pounded into his head so well that he really can't think for himself.
Ayn Rand and Hitler is just the easiest example of his totally screwed up view of life and politics. Nazi = National Socialist German Worker's Party. I don't associate socialist movements with the right wing but the libs have been trying to make us believe this for 60 years. The Nazis were socialists and instituted a typical totalitarian socialist government. How do you possibly connect the dots between that approach to Government and the philosophy of a woman who's lifetime goal was the destruction of totalitarianism?
I'm betting he is in his 20's and a recent graduate of a very liberal university.
I know Mr. Vecchio personally. He is in his mid-thirties; I'm not sure about his educational history. He is a family man and a military veteran.
Please note that my sole purpose in posting this essay was to facilitate discussion of the ideas presented therein, not of the author as an individual.
Hitler was a successful socialist. I was going to call him a successful socialist totalitarian but that would be redundent. All successful socialists are totalitarians.
Joe Vecchio is successful socialist tool.
There are none so blind...
...Republics are less suceptable to corruption, though not immune. We have had a pretty good run, and still have a chance if we can keep from becoming a welfare democracy or as this bloke hopes, a globalist plutocracy.
I think that you've pretty much nailed it, though it starteled me a bit when I read the first clause of your first sentence. Regarding Republics' susceptability to corruption though, I'm afraid we may have crossed the Rubicon on that one. And it may surprise you when I say that I don't think that the politicians are the biggest part of the problem. It is the entrenched bureaucrats who carry over from government to government. They don't have to stand for election as do the politicians and, barring outright fraud and other criminal activity, they seem to be able to stay around forever. In most cases, they are protected from dismissal.
That is the correct answer, or at least part of it.
Monday, June 02, 2003 17:57WHEN FRETARDS ATTACK
BChan Leads Free Republic Into A Pre-Emptive Strike Against Pax LiberalisA Pax Liberalis Editorial By Joe Vecchio
My pal BChan posted the Pax Liberalis article on Free Republic, and within a few hours there were over fifty replies, I'm quite surprised, actually. There were a few typical fretard comments, such as I have said this a hundred times; in a pinch this article can be printed up and used as toilet paper... and Ping! Commie turd alert. Can't argue with that logic. I'm flattered that one reader assumed I was a college graduate, I'm not, just a high school diploma here, which is probably why I wasn't capable of going into more detail about my vision.
One of the more interesting posts said that, since I am in favor of a single global government, it represents a direct threat to the Constitution of the United States. and that anyone seriously advancing the idea of a global government should either be arrested for sedition (if a US citizen) or deported immediately. Another claimed I was "dangerous," both to them and to "90% of his fellow Democrats."
The main comments came from two camps: one stating that Hitler was a "socialist," the other claiming that Rand and Hitler have nothing in common. The first point is ridiculous: just because the title of the Nazi Party was the "National Socialist Party" doesn't make them socialists. For those of you who care to hear it, here is the difference, as briefly as possible: socialism is where the government controls the economy. Fascism, or as Mussolini best described it, "corporatism," is where the government is controlled by corporate interests. As for Rand, I placed her on the right because, like fascists, she was against the idea of government interfering with private industry (I see these things in purely economic terms, you see).
BChan claimed that I once told him that everybody in the United States should have their incomes taxed at 70%., which I never said. If I remember the conversation rightly, I was referring to the upper tax bracket, affecting the wealthiest people, which was at close to 90% in 1960, and which Reagan dropped to less than half of that. But I certainly don't believe now, nor have I ever believed, that everyone should be taxed at that rate. Ridiculous.
Several other comments made what I think is an interesting point about the First Amendment to the Global Constitution, which says that The state shall grant to all persons born on the planet Earth, on any colony or otherworldly province owned or politically aligned with the United Nations of Earth at the time of birth, or any vessel registered to the Earth, the rights of citizenship, and make lawful provision for all others. The state shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law without distinction as to origin, ethnicity, religion, gender, physical disability or sexual preference. Their objection was that "the state" doesn't grant anything. Allow me to elaborate on this:
Kangas has this to say about what a liberal believes about rights: Liberals believe that group survival is more efficient than individual survival. That is why true hermits are so extremely rare. But any group effort requires group agreement, cooperation and coordination. This in turn necessitates a social contract defining each member's rights and responsibilities. In the U.S., voters have created their social contract in the form of their constitution and laws. Breaking the law constitutes breach of contract, and legitimizes the appropriate law enforcement measures.
What forms the basis of rights and property found in the social contract? Whatever the voters agree to -- which means they can be anything, as indeed history has shown. And how are their rights and property defended? Primarily by the enforcement mechanisms authorized by the contract: police, military, legislatures, courts, etc. Without such enforcement, the agreements themselves would be precarious, and nothing could stop a stronger neighbor from violating your rights or your property.
Many conservatives consider rights to be natural, inalienable, God-given and self-evident. But rights cannot be natural, like the laws of nature, because they can be broken. They cannot be inalienable, because history is filled with examples of people who never had rights in the first place, or had them taken away. They cannot be God-given, because the world's religions widely disagree on what rights are; even Judeo-Christianity allowed slavery for thousands of years, whereas today it doesn't. Rights cannot be self-evident, because slavery was viewed as natural by Aristotle and defended by the Church as such until the 19th century. The fact that rights have changed so much throughout history demonstrates that they are social constructs. Liberals believe that advances in moral philosophy and science are responsible for our improving concept of rights.
Under the Pax Liberalis, "the state" represents the social contract Kangas talks about, and "the state" is given its power by the only truly legitimate authority: the consent of those governed. The people on Free Republic view government as a separate entity supposedly unconnected to those governed. Objectivists in particular barely recognize the authority of any government, seeing any organized group as a threat to their own individual sovreignty. "Every Man For Himself!" is about as basic a way to put it.
Therefore, whenever someone mentions "the state," to them, they get visions of some illegitimate entity whose purpose is to steal both their rights and their property. The hardcore types believe the fallacy that everything government does is evil (even when it's necessary) and that everything private industry does is sacrosanct. This is, of course, pure bullshit. Private industry and public institutions are run by the same creatures: human beings. And human imperfections afflict both. Liberals (such as myself) recognize a legitimate balance between public institutions and private industry (as well as a free press), a balance that works together and acts as a counter between the different natures of both. But since most of the denizens of FR are ideologues themselves, they cannot grasp this concept. Anyone who disagrees with their world-view is either a "commie turd" or "needs to be arrested."
I didn't bring it up in the course of the Pax Lib article, but if I may be permitted to digress a bit, let me say that it is my hope that, once the human race has achieved the unity I hope it will achieve, then the next step is the colonization of space. And when that day comes, I would like to see all the remaining fretards in the world rounded up, foisted into a spacecraft, and sent to Mars or some other barely hospitable place and allowed to try their hand at objectivism first hand. Give 'em enough food for maybe a year, and the supplies to build simple shelters (safe but Spartan), and see if they can practice what they preach. I'll lay odds the last one will die only when there's nothing left of the others to eat. And as far as I'm concerned, any idiot who refuses to understand the contribution that others have made in their lives (apart from the military), deserves what they get.
I read through all of their comments and there really wasn't even an attempt at an intelligent discussion of the matter, unless you count the guy who threw in a few multisylabbic words in a vain attempt to deceive us into thinking he knows something. Snide comments, personal attacks launched towards me and the web site, etc. etc. were the prevailing attitude.
The compassionate part of me thinks it's sad that such an important issue can't be discussed rationally, but then I remember that these are not rational people. Notice how often they use the term "socialist" when there's nothing in my article that promotes any such thing. Of course to them, being as self-centered as they are, any group as large as a women's bridge club constitutes a form of socialism. I also remember that I didn't post this on their site to begin with, that was done by BChan in a vain and rather childish attempt to make me look bad. He claims that "he used to feel as I do now but he learned better." I don't know what he believed in the past, but it's obvious he's turned into a cynical, crabby old man with some rather strange and unworkable worldviews of his own (a monarchist? Isn't that what we created this country to get away from in the first place?).
And I'm going to repeat what I said before: their fifteen minutes are almost up. The clock is ticking, and the kids are waiting in the alley. One way or another, this thing is going to get settled, and we'll see what direction the world
x
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.