Posted on 02/23/2002 3:18:16 PM PST by Burkeman1
What is the biggest lie of "liberals" in this country ever? What idea, concept, "fact", law, or position is their biggest lie in your mind? What "liberal" lie or cliche really gets your blood boiling whenever you hear it or see it expressed?
Your statement is only true to the collectivist mentality. In a moral society, nothing, absolutely nothing, outweighs the rights of the individual.
I am against legalizing drugs and prostitution for this very reason. I don't want it to be legal to operate a crack house or a bunny ranch next door to my family--and there be nothing I can do about it.
There is no justification for you to do something about it, unless and until your rights are violated.
The behavior resulting from said activities are vices and attract the lowest of the low. There are no benefits, only detremetal effects.
No, the lowest of the low are those who are attracted to the socialist justification for their desire to dictate the thoughts and actions of their fellow man. The losers who succumb to self destructive vice are just the symptom of that socialist disease.
Not everything can be about "self."
You are very correct. It is not about "self", it is about individual rights.
There is nothing communist or collectivist about having community standards that are based in concrete morality. I don't want a whore house operating next door to my family and there be nothing I can do about it. That type of enviornment attracts criminals. My neighbor's right to act like a deviant doesn't outweigh my right to decency. And since concrete truths exist, we as a society have a moral obligation to recognize and promote them.
There is no justification for you to do something about it, unless and until your rights are violated.
A deviant can wallow in the sewer and bring criminals and rif-raf around my family, but I can't do anything about it until one of them comes and assaults me? In the real world criminals and deviants act like what they are, and they shouldn't be given the opportunity to do it anywhere they choose--a thumbs up from society to do whatever wherever.
No, the lowest of the low are those who are attracted to the socialist justification for their desire to dictate the thoughts and actions of their fellow man. The losers who succumb to self destructive vice are just the symptom of that socialist disease.
I'm the lowest of the low because I wouldn't want prostitues and drug addicts around my family, and nothing I can do about it?
Social disease my foot. They have a will and they choose what they like. I'll not de-stigmatize their abhorrent behavior because of the faliability of human nature.
Individual rights are the only concrete foundation there is for a moral code. All other codes are formed out of a collectivist strain of philosophy.
I don't want a whore house operating next door to my family and there be nothing I can do about it.
There is something you can do if you don't like the content of your neighborhood. You can move to a different one. Better yet, you can put your money where your mouth is and purchase enough land to form a buffer zone so that your neighbors activities will not bother you. Of course, I'm sure you find it much easier to go exert some political pull and dictate the behaviors of your neighbors according to your own personal standards by force. That's some morality you've got there.
That type of enviornment attracts criminals. My neighbor's right to act like a deviant doesn't outweigh my right to decency. And since concrete truths exist, we as a society have a moral obligation to recognize and promote them.
You have no "right" to decency. You have the right to not be harmed by force or fraud. So long as your neighbors activities do not exert force or fraud upon you, you have no moral grounds to initiate force against them. Once again, I'll remind you that individual rights are the one and only concrete truth. You may choose to adopt others based upon your own chosen form of mysticism, but that certainly does not give you the right to foist them on others at the point of a badge and gun.
A deviant can wallow in the sewer and bring criminals and rif-raf around my family, but I can't do anything about it until one of them comes and assaults me?
That is correct. You have no grounds to initiate violence against others, except in self defense. Otherwise, it is you who is the rif-raf criminal in the neighborhood. Frankly, I would much rather live next door to a prostitute than to a Mrs. Grundy who seeks to impose their self righteous lifestyle on everyone else.
In the real world criminals and deviants act like what they are, and they shouldn't be given the opportunity to do it anywhere they choose--a thumbs up from society to do whatever wherever.
Yes, I understand that you do act like what you are. However, I would not move to prevent you until you actually violated rights. Furthermore, it is not about doing whatever, wherever. It is about people's right to use their own property as they wish, until such time as their actions violate the rights of others. Unfortunately, you seem to think you have the right to infringe upon the property rights of others and dictate your preferences upon them. That makes you a member of the collectivist clan.
I'm the lowest of the low because I wouldn't want prostitues and drug addicts around my family, and nothing I can do about it?
No, you are the lowest of the low because you choose to violate the rights of others. As I've already stated, you do have options that do not violate other's rights. You just find it easier to resort to force to get your way.
Social disease my foot. They have a will and they choose what they like. I'll not de-stigmatize their abhorrent behavior because of the faliability of human nat
We aren't talking about destigmatizing. We are talking about you championing the use of force. You can stigmatize your neighbors all you want, provided you don't slander them in the process.
"We have a voluntary tax system."
"The growing gap between rich and poor [is bad]" (when it's actually a result of growing collective wealth).
"The Soviets were forced into the arms race by the U.S. military buildup" (doesn't quite explain why Luxemberg didn't feel compelled to participate in the arms race).
"Communism is a noble idea, it just doesn't work" (when it's really a horsesh!t idea).
"Social Security is one of the most successful government programs ever instituted" (uh right. Reminds me of Amway's success).
"The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" (when ALL data are perfectly clear that EACH income quintile, even adjusted for inflation, has been increasing, even for minorities and women).
"The U.S. enslaved me" (when [me] is someone born at least 70 years after slavery was banned, and when Slavery predated the U.S. The fact being, that the U.S. did not start slavery, but it sure did end it.)
"Microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems" (uhh...Linux? MacOS? Unix? OS/2?)
"Global surface temperatures have clearly been increasing as a result of human activity."
"Recycling makes economic sense" (then why isn't somebody paying me to sort through my own trash?)
"Nuclear power is not economically feasible" (when it is the absurd regulations that are not feasible.)
"Nuclear power is just too dangerous." (Anyone care to add up the deaths resulting from nuclear power as compared to coal mining or dam building?)
"Republicans just want to rob from the poor to give to the rich" (yeah, there's a lot of money to be had by robbing the poor. If you believe that then you'll believe that the Red Cross has replaced blood donors with turnips.)
"Violence is never the answer" (it sure seemed to help on the beaches at Normandy.)
"The Constitution creates a separation of church and state" (when the Constitution actually prohibits Congress from making a law respecting an establishment of religion but also prohibits any law from preventing the free expression of religion.)
"The Constitution gaurantees a right to privacy" when all it does is prohibit search & seizure without a warrant.)
Man, I could go on like this all night.
Typical athiest amoral psychobabble.
You have no "right" to decency. You have the right to not be harmed by force or fraud. So long as your neighbors activities do not exert force or fraud upon you, you have no moral grounds to initiate force against them. Once again, I'll remind you that individual rights are the one and only concrete truth. You may choose to adopt others based upon your own chosen form of mysticism, but that certainly does not give you the right to foist them on others at the point of a badge and gun.
What a joke. I guess its okay with you if your neighbors can prostitute themselves, flagging down tricks on the corner. If your daughter decides to join them, I assume you have no problem because, after all, being a whore is wonderful.
That is correct. You have no grounds to initiate violence against others, except in self defense. Otherwise, it is you who is the rif-raf criminal in the neighborhood. Frankly, I would much rather live next door to a prostitute than to a Mrs. Grundy who seeks to impose their self righteous lifestyle on everyone else.
A person living by a moral code of decency is the rif-raf and the whores are the heros in your book. Don't worry, I do understand where you come from. There is no right or wrong in your world. Incest between a grown father and daughter is okay with you because you live in a subjective libertopia where the only thing you care about is your right to act like a pig isn't infringed upon.
Yes, I understand that you do act like what you are. However, I would not move to prevent you until you actually violated rights. Furthermore, it is not about doing whatever, wherever. It is about people's right to use their own property as they wish, until such time as their actions violate the rights of others. Unfortunately, you seem to think you have the right to infringe upon the property rights of others and dictate your preferences upon them. That makes you a member of the collectivist clan.
Right...picking up tricks in a family neighborhood infringes upon no one. Garbage.
No, you are the lowest of the low because you choose to violate the rights of others. As I've already stated, you do have options that do not violate other's rights. You just find it easier to resort to force to get your way.
And you're a mean self-serving jerk who has no standards and wants no standards for anything. You and Peter Singer could be kin. Your low because you can't recognize truth even if it bit you in the arz--that people whoring up and down a family neighborhood is wrong. Concretely wrong.
We aren't talking about destigmatizing. We are talking about you championing the use of force. You can stigmatize your neighbors all you want, provided you don't slander them in the process.
Whatever. Talk to yourself. You're the only one who's listening anyway.
Money comes "from the government."
Needs are rights; indeed, needs trump rights.
The Bill of Rights is a Chinese Restaurant Menu (choose one from column "A" and one from column "B" and reject the ones you don't like.)
--Boris
I had to think so--when first I saw it, I checked your homepage, and #67 just didn't fit with it.
Just so you don't think that nobody is paying attention! :)
This confusion is why so many young people call themselves Liberals and why it takes them so many years to finally figure out that they are really Conservatives.
On a related note, dims used to say that blacks were inferior to whites, and so we had to have lower standards for education, etc. Now that everyone is supposed to be considered equal, dims say that we have to have lower standards for blacks, only now they call it "affirmative action" and say that they are helping blacks.
I don't think that anyone can honestly say that all of these social programs, entitlements and programs enacted by the dims have helped the black community. In fact, many of the ills of the inner city, such as rising crime, fatherless children, poor education, etc, are the result of dim policies. Blacks got off of the plantation in the early 60's mainly because republicans voted for the civil rights and voting rights acts, and the dims have been trying to get them back on the plantation ever since.
Broadcast journalism stole Bush's clear win--by announcing putative "results" of FL 10 minutes before the lines at the Panhandle polls were closed. Those "results" were statistical extrapolations from illegal exit polls."We have a voluntary tax system."
Well, actually we do. If you don't work or invest, you don't pay taxes . . ."The growing gap between rich and poor [is bad]" (when it's actually a result of growing collective wealth).
You mean you actually think opportunity is good?"The Soviets were forced into the arms race by the U.S. military buildup" (doesn't quite explain why Luxemberg didn't feel compelled to participate in the arms race).
The Eastern Bloc didn't fall--it was pushed. Thank God, and Reagan."Communism is a noble idea, it just doesn't work" (when it's really a horsesh!t idea).
FA von Hayek has a whole chapter in The Road to Serfdom dedicated to explaining "Why (under Communism or Fascism) the Worst (always) Get on Top""Social Security is one of the most successful government programs ever instituted" (uh right. Reminds me of Amway's success).
The Federal Government's very own Enron . . ."The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" (when ALL data are perfectly clear that EACH income quintile, even adjusted for inflation, has been increasing, even for minorities and women)
. . . and most members of the lowest quintile are young, headed rapidly out of it into higher (even the top) quintiles."The U.S. enslaved me" (when [me] is someone born at least 70 years after slavery was banned, and when Slavery predated the U.S. The fact being, that the U.S. did not start slavery, but it sure did end it.)
"Microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems" (uhh...Linux? MacOS? Unix? OS/2?)
Mandrake 8.1 here . . . if it's a good idea to hassle Microsoft, just have the government refuse to buy peripherals that won't run Linux."Global surface temperatures have clearly been increasing as a result of human activity."
. . . and correlation is always causation . . ."Recycling makes economic sense" (then why isn't somebody paying me to sort through my own trash?)
"Nuclear power is not economically feasible" (when it is the absurd regulations that are not feasible.)
"Nuclear power is just too dangerous." (Anyone care to add up the deaths resulting from nuclear power as compared to coal mining or dam building?)
. . . and considering the change in computer tech since 1978, instrumentation/control was positively Stone Age stuff when Three-Mile Island went down."Republicans just want to rob from the poor to give to the rich" (yeah, there's a lot of money to be had by robbing the poor. If you believe that then you'll believe that the Red Cross has replaced blood donors with turnips.)
"Violence is never the answer" (it sure seemed to help on the beaches at Normandy.)
"The Constitution creates a separation of church and state" (when the Constitution actually prohibits Congress from making a law respecting an establishment of religion but also prohibits any law from preventing the free expression of religion.)
"The Constitution gaurantees a right to privacy" when all it does is prohibit search & seizure without a warrant.)
Man, I could go on like this all night.
Don't stop on my account; you were doing great! Here's a good one:"Journalism is unbiased."
. . . which leads to the biggie:"Broadcast journalism is legitimate."
It galls me that Lantos of CA will call anyone who disagrees with him a fascist or a Nazi, when he is a full blown socialist.
Liberalism is a form of narcissism and mental illness.
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.