I make "American Thinker" one of my regular stops during my morning reading. And one of my favorite writers there is "Robin of Berkeley," a self-described former liberal who has seen the light.

A couple of days ago she wrote a very insightful article about the mind of the liberal. It, in itself, makes good reading. But, one of the comments following her article was particularly good.

I think he hits it spot on. We've seen this play out on this forum over the years, haven't we?

Here it is:

MoreKowBell says:
May 11, 2011 at 4:07 pm

Ms Robin –

I keyed on your statement: “progressives don’t just carry beliefs; they are their beliefs. Their ideology is their identity.”

I’ve struggled mightily for an explanation regarding why progs just don’t get it. How one can compartmentalize rank hypocrisy and extraordinary willful blindness to the level that they do astounds me.

For the Marxist / Leninists, the answer is simple. It’s a means to end, so they lie, cheat, steal and do whatever it takes to damage the U.S. in order to destroy capitalism and its alleged attendant inequitable shortcomings.

But for the life of me, the useful idiots, and parts of media, appear to be completely irrational and in denial. The pattern often seems to be to take a kernel of truth, misrepresent it or deny proper context, then when confronted or exposed to contradictory facts, they oftentimes rely on an emotional response (shout-down, raising their voice, impugning one’s motives, etc). Or sometimes they reduce their argument to one of moral equivalency (e.g., your president was just as bad, or the U.S. is a genocidal nation, etc). Apparently their ability to rationalize and project is boundless.

It seems to me average progs will respond frequently with great emotion while losing a debate. Apparently this gives them a psychological way out of the discomfort or dissonance of admitting their world view isn’t perfect. It’s as if winning the debate (at least in their mind) is what matters, as opposed to a reasonable exploration of the issue. I guess winning makes them happy.

One possible explanation, regarding the true believers, is the U.S. has never been, in my life time, this close to bankruptcy. If the Marxists/Leninists can continue to add trillions to the national debt, the interest payments will become unsustainable leading to a failure of the markets. They smell blood and are simply going for it, with knowledge the media won’t amply criticize.

But for the life of me I simply couldn’t comprehend how so many people, especially the credentialed educated, can repeatedly deny or ignore material facts that are supremely germane to a particular situation or argument. This pattern of behavior defies logic. Frustrating beyond description.

Another area where the progs seem to be heavily involved is in group identity. It appears they derive a disproportional amount of their mental wellbeing or self identity by belonging to a particular leftist group. Maybe fear of betraying the group (fear of social isolation) has something to do with it.

Thanx for insight. But now realizing that so many people think and behave in such a manner is depressing.

Dave,
"For the Marxist / Leninists, the answer is simple. It’s a means to end, so they lie, cheat, steal and do whatever it takes to damage the U.S. in order to destroy capitalism and its alleged attendant inequitable shortcomings."
Let me probe a little deeper. To set the stage let me remind you that I've made plain my conviction that Mr. Gatto did a yeoman job in exposing the public schools and the oligarchy's role in structuring our public schools of today. But having bit off all he could chew in one study he left open the formation of the oligarchy prior to 1890 when the oligarchy began planning the public school system.
If you go to Youtube.com and listen to Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism you can find a beautifully clear definition of Classical Liberalism and the progressives/socialists/collectivist-liberals of today.
The only thing left dangling in the wind is the history of the oligarchy prior to 1890. Given Mr. Gatto's book, Underground History of American Education and Dr. Stephen Davies' video Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism plus access to the Internet I believe we can start putting it together.
First, I have never seen communism, Fascism or Nazism -- I've only seen dictatorships using those labels as cover.
Second, I don't believe there is a monolithic oligarchy presently in charge of our schools. Instead there seems to be competing groups of collectivist liberals competing for leadership of our society. Some are independent of the others, some or semi-independent and others are owned lock, stock and barrel by another group. I've hesitated to go into detail as that situation is very obscure.
Today, George Soros seems to be very actively attempting to take over the Democrat Party as well as the communicatiosns industry. I offer you
http://www.mrc.org/bmi/commentary/2011/Unreported_Soros_Event_Aims_to_Remake_Entire_Global_Economy.html
as a summary of what he seems to be into.
Anyway, please continue writing. I believe we can get a long way to figuring out how we got into this mess.
Ron

The right mindset produces dumber propaganda than the left mindset.

The Laws of Physics do not give a damm about either of them.

Saw some video that said there were 900,000,000 cars in the world. Did they get added to the GDP of every different country? Where will they get subtracted as they depreciate to eventually be trashed.

What has the RIGHT said about that?

What has the LEFT said about that?

A Libertarian told me that accounting should not be mandatory because nothing should be mandatory. A socialist told me accounting should not be mandatory because the math would make capitalism seem logical.

A degreed economist told me this:

Economists are NITWITS! <- Link

psik

Psikey,
"The right mindset produces dumber propaganda than the left mindset."
If you look at Stephen Davies video Decline & Triumph of Classical Liberalism you will find the difference proceeds from the right having historically been a higher class of people. As a result every left wing pressure group today uses Saul Alinsky's formulation for ridicule and the tactics of personal destruction. Tune in to the latest jokes about Rush Limbaugh, Clarence Thomas, Sarah Palin, etal.
The problem is that those tactics today mark the left as the ignoramuses they are. Witness Newt Gingrich and Governor Cuomo at the Cooper Union Debate. Gingrich used his time to present a reasoned speech on the topic. Cuomo did a half hour of one liners. As far as the audience could tell he hadn't brushed up on the subject at all. That was an insult to the audience.
Ron

Psikey,
"Higher class meaning "richer" with a vested interest to protect."
Why no I didn't say that. You see, that statement is exactly contrary to the truth. If you bother noticing the net worth published for members of Congress you will find the left wing is clearly the richer party. After all what party does Jay Rockefeller, the Kennedys, etal belong to?
Ron

If you believe the Democrats are really the Left that is your business.

The Democrats are just a pretense to maintain the Delusion of Democracy. They keep a real opposition from developing.

Curious how Socialists, Communists and Capitalists can all fail to suggest something as simple as mandatory accounting in the schools or a National Recommended Reading List.

But they can all talk about economics and education.
.

Psikey,
" ThIf you believe the Democrats are really the Left that is your business."
ere are certainly parties to the political left of the Dems but they are the big organization that anchor the left.

". . .all fail to suggest something as simple as mandatory accounting in the schools or a National Recommended Reading List."
Why would you even want to have a mandatory public school much less mandate course content? That is nothing but an invitation to the oligarchs.
Ron

Your Senator Is Probably a Millionaire

Louise,
"This chart, for example, shows the most popular investments among legislators, with General Electric and Bank of America topping the list"
I didn't follow the bail-out votes real carefully. Wasn't at least one of those companies a major recipient of the bail-out money sponsored by the left wing? So left wing Senators protected their wallets?
Ron

It is simply the result of government school dumbing down combined with a Darwinist materialist worldview. If there is no objective Truth then Truth simply becomes whatever is decreed (and given support via engineered consensus) by the biggest mouths given the most publicity and approval by "opinion-makers". People refuse to acknowledge the illogic, the downright proven FALSITY of their position. They don't have to in their view because Truth is what they say it is. Economics does not have set rules and processes in their view, we can CHOOSE what "kind" of "economics" to force on people, for the "greater good", of course.

It is all religion. These strident and illogical statists (of the left AND right) have so little (or no) faith in God that they feel the impulse to make things perfect here on earth....they see no other way, no hereafter. They believe they can perfect man themselves completely ignoring that the "perfectors" are themselves also imperfect and not competent to be deciding what is best for others.

These "educated" people the writer refers to do not exist, educated people don't accept false positions, illogic, as true. They have been TOLD they are "educated" and have diplomas and credentials saying they are but the reverse is true. They have been kept FROM true education. Most are simply job trained and indoctrinated into accepting the dogmas of the Darwinist materialist statist and the impotance of FEELING, not thinking, and not OFFENDING preferred groups...which ends in the reduction of humanity to herd animal status subservient to the most ruthless.

I'm never sure why you think objective truth can be found and adhered to at the same time this prevails:

Louise,
Okay, there is no truth, objectivity doesn't exist and science is either bad or non-existant. Doesn't sound like any fun to me. Are you sure this isn't an intelectual game thought up by Sophmores?
Ron

I think you missed the point I was attempting to make, Ron. On the one hand, js argues that objective truth, absolute truth, is knowable. She doesn't say how we are to determine objective truth, but that humans can determine it.

On the other hand, she claims that people have no right to tell other people what to do or how to live (except in their own "covenant" communities), since "flawed humans" have no basis for which to make judgments on other people's lives. In this sense, she is pitching a form of Postmodernism.

I'd say it's a pseudo-intellectual game js thought up, and a strange one at that.

I am at a complete loss as to what you find in my postings that is consistent with postmodernism. My worldview is the exact opposite of this quote from one of your essays:

"Postmodernists have helped us see that reality is more complex than we had imagined. It does not exist objectively, “out there,” simply to be mirrored by our thoughts. Rather, it is in part a human creation. We mold reality in accordance with our needs, interests, prejudices, and cultural traditions."

>>>>>On the one hand, js argues that objective truth, absolute truth, is knowable. She doesn't say how we are to determine objective truth, but that humans can determine it.<<<<

I can provide a reading list. There is also private divine revelation. Ask and ye shall receive.

>>>>>>On the other hand, she claims that people have no right to tell other people what to do or how to live (except in their own "covenant" communities), since "flawed humans" have no basis for which to make judgments on other people's lives.<<<<<

Correct.

>>>>> In this sense, she is pitching a form of Postmodernism.<<<<<

How so??
My posting is entirely consistent with Christianity. If the Truth of Original Sin (the most provable and obvious objective Truth) is accepted (instead of the lie that "perfect" people can be created using "molding", training, "education" and drugs), then the influence of "experts" and "leaders" diminishes.

>>>>>I'd say it's a pseudo-intellectual game js thought up, and a strange one at that.<<<<

Of course you would.

You're saying that while objective, knowable truth exists (via reading lists and divine revelation), people are free to do whatever they want to, since no one has any right to tell anyone else what to do.

>>>>You're saying that while objective, knowable truth exists (via reading lists and divine revelation)<<<<<<

Actually, the ideas IN books on reading lists

>>>>> people are free to do whatever they want to, since no one has any right to tell anyone else what to do.<<<<

WHO do you consider righteous enough to decide how everyone else should live, what they should think, eat, etc. Even if such a person existed by what authority would they be "decider" for anyone else?

You're saying that even though objective truth, absolute truth, can be known, knowing that truth doesn't matter because no one has the right to tell anyone else what to do and everyone should be free to do what they want to.

Society doesn't function without acknowledging certain truth, that murder is wrong, for example.

Some people believe being driven to war through a sense of patriotism or the lack of employment is wrong.

Some people believe corporate-government cronyism is wrong, that corporate personhood is wrong, giving corporate entities the rights of human beings. Instead of Third World countries being lifted up to US labor and other standards, the United States is being dragged down by the corporate overseers so they can make a profit.

Some people believe that theft and corruption are wrong.

You certainly believe you can call for all the dumb-down factories to be closed tomorrow, even if it means putting small children outside or leaving them inside unattended, to fend for themselves when a single parent in working.

So far, the only case in which you believe it is OK to coerce people is in keeping them out of a "covenant" community.

I'm not talking about thinking or eating. I'm talking about general rules that citizens abide by - or used to - in order to make community life versus isolation possible.

I hope you realize that you're negating what you've said about objective truth with such remarks. But you don't seem to realize it at all.

Are lynch mobs wrong? Picture post cards celebrating such ghoulish events wrong?


Without Sanctuary

Is slavery wrong?

Should Nazi war criminals have been brought to justice at Nurenberg?

If you don't believe anyone has any right to tell anyone else what to do, then you don't have any conception of justice.

BTW, I knew you meant in books, not on the reading lists.

>>>>You're saying that even though objective truth, absolute truth, can be known, knowing that truth doesn't matter because no one has the right to tell anyone else what to do and everyone should be free to do what they want to.<<<<<

No. It absolutely matters and people should behave in a moral manner. I am saying it is immoral and illogical to FORCE people to live according to anyones truth. You can persuade, you can defend yourself and you can shun those whose behavior objectionable.

>>>>>Society doesn't function without acknowledging certain truth, that murder is wrong, for example. <<<<

You think people need to be forced to believe that murder is wrong? Do you think the state invented this Truth?

>>>>>Some people believe being driven to war through a sense of patriotism or the lack of employment is wrong.<<<<<

As I do.

>>>>>Some people believe corporate-government cronyism is wrong, that corporate personhood is wrong, giving corporate entities the rights of human beings.<<<<<

Also a bad idea FORCED on people.

>>>>>> Instead of Third World countries being lifted up to US labor and other standards,<<<<<

Lift them up, how?? By forcing some regulation on others? Why not simply let free markets reign and lift them? They would explode, as the US did during the industrial age. Not only that, the US would be more competitive if regs weren't redistributing manufacturing overseas. Your ideas of lifting some means that some others will be penalized or looted and that is immoral.

>>>> the United States is being dragged down by the corporate overseers so they can make a profit.<<<<

Take the force out of the picture and let freedom rule. End of problem.

>>>>>Some people believe that theft and corruption are wrong.<<<<<

I nhave certainly complained about it enough. And I don't need laws against theft and corruption that are selectively enforced. Do you remember the old laws against "influence peddling"?? Now it is all respectable and called "lobbying".

>>>>>You certainly believe you can call for all the dumb-down factories to be closed tomorrow, even if it means putting small children outside or leaving them inside unattended, to fend for themselves when a single parent in working.<<<<<

So what you want is free babysitting. If that is the case why not crusade for community centers available for kids where they are not jailed and turned into dumbed down conforming cattle?

>>>>>So far, the only case in which you believe it is OK to coerce people is in keeping them out of a "covenant" community.<<<<

That is simply free association. Why are the rights of someone to force himself on others superior to the rights of people to choose who they live among? Why should some people be allowed rights of association and some not?

>>>>>I'm not talking about thinking or eating. I'm talking about general rules that citizens abide by - or used to - in order to make community life versus isolation possible.<<<<<

Some folks do not want your kind of community or a one size fits all huge centrally ruled community. Some folks want THEIR kind of community, unique and individual for them and their values.

>>>>I hope you realize that you're negating what you've said about objective truth with such remarks. But you don't seem to realize it at all.<<<<

Nope. And you are not explaining it.

>>>>Are lynch mobs wrong?<<<

Yes. But I do not need a law telling me not to lynch people. And laws against murder are routinely flouted, often by our "heroes" in blue.

>>>> Picture post cards celebrating such ghoulish events wrong?<<<<

???Of course! But I do not need a law to tell me that.

>>>>Is slavery wrong?<<<<

Of course, which is why I advocate market anarchism. Taxation and statism is slavery.

>>>>>Should Nazi war criminals have been brought to justice at Nurenberg?<<<<<

There shouldn't have been a National Socialist state to begin with. The Nazis did what states do. But Nuremburg was a joke. Do you see Bush, Cheney, or the Obammunist being tried for THEIR war crimes?? No, because they have power.

>>>>>If you don't believe anyone has any right to tell anyone else what to do, then you don't have any conception of justice.<<<

Oh? I noticed that you have not answered my question. Who do you think is perfect and flawless enough to decide how all the rest of us should live? Whose intellect is that vast, morality that unassailable? Who do you want running YOUR life? What justice are you referring to? You think Nuremburg was justice?? Where is the justice for the millions of raped women and children of Europe the Red Army ravaged, many repeatedly and in gangs? Perhaps, like Ron, you think they deserved it for living in the National Socialist state.

>>>>>Because by that time, the Earth will most likely be in even worse shape than it is now. The market, as you so naively believe, does not automatically solve every problem, despite your desires for a consumerist cornucopia.<<<<

The worst and most lasting eco-disasters have been state sponsored/inspected, Chernobyl, the Aral Sea, the disappearing Colorado River, that nasty BP spill had a government "inspector" on site from what I have read. The truth is there is no incentive for state crats to protect "public" property. And "public" property is frequently made unavailable to the "public" who has paid for it, anyway. Private property is more cared for, more protected in most cases. And this does not mean corporations who go into 3rd world areas and pay off the local governnments to steal and kill on their behalf have rights to that property.

>>>>Quote:
So what you want is free babysitting. If that is the case why not crusade for community centers available for kids where they are not jailed and turned into dumbed down conforming cattle?XXXXXX
Who is going to pay for community centers?<<<<

So, you are justifying the jailing and dumbing down of kids as babysitting because you do not want to be bothered with really individually DOING anything about these legions of poor kids who you believe will be starving in the streets. You want to loot people to further damage these kids, perhaps worse than they would be by hunger or apprenticeships?

>>>>> You? No, no, no, you already seethe with resentment saying you have to work nine months a year to pay taxes.<<<<<

Yes. I am much less likely to donate or volunteer for a community project when I am already looted and enslaved to pay for your jailing of kids.

YOU are the one promoting it, you are the one defending it. It is your position. How is it not jail?

Tax-supported community centers might be an answer to the problem. The point I'm making is that I don't see how small children can be left alone all day in single, working-parent households that don't have 3,000 bucks to pay for alternative education or the free time to homeschool.

I imagine there would be a lot more dead children in the nation's inner cities and rural backwaters were public schools closed tomorrow. Of course, you most likely believe it's their own fault for being poor anyway, so what the hell, right?

>>>>>Tax-supported community centers might be an answer to the problem. The point I'm making is that I don't see how small children can be left alone all day in single, working-parent households that don't have 3,000 bucks to pay for alternative education or the free time to homeschool.<<<<<<

"Tax supported", my EYE! Why should they be tax supported? This is YOUR big issue, babysitting for the poor! Run a volunteer day care center instead of spending OTHER peoples money! Or the single parents they work together, come up with a plan to care for/educate their kids cooperatively. Not all parents work 9-5.

>>>>>I imagine there would be a lot more dead children in the nation's inner cities and rural backwaters were public schools closed tomorrow.<<<<

Yes. You would imagine that....while at the same time blathering about Farragut and emancipating 7 year olds.

>>>>> Of course, you most likely believe it's their own fault for being poor anyway, so what the hell, right?<<<<

I am being logical. You would recoil in horror that ANYONE should FORCE their traditional values re: recreational sex, marriage, use of leisure time for worthwhile pursuits, maintaining some kind of employment. Or even point out that unwed teenage motherhood courts poverty. This would simply be TOO intrusive, how DARE anyone do this!

Yet, you have NO problem FORCING people to PAY for the bad choices made by other people who do not adhere to traditional morality and behavior. With freedom to shack up at will and have fatherless children or to father children all over the place, comes the responsibility to pay for the consequences of your actions, NOT the right to demand others pony up because you're "poor".

>>>>>I see. So if the fathers abstinence training doesn't take, the sins of the father are visited upon the son. Right?<<<

You don't see the truth of that? People make bad choices and their children suffer for them. Sometimes kids suffer for righteous choices parents make.

>>>>>Obviously saving your own tax dollars is more important to you than saving human lives.<<<<

I am SO selfish to object to being looted to pay for the mistakes of others. Why, taxation at gunpoint is ALL about SAVING LIVES!!!! Well, now that you have explained THAT to me I'll just gladly work 12 months of the year for Charlie Rangels taxes and Michele Obamas 20 something jet entourage vacations to Europe, since they're SAVING lives and all. It is very obvious NOW that you have explained it so carefully to me, that ENDS DO JUSTIFY MEANS!!! I have seen the light! For THE CHILDREN!!! For THE POOR! PRAISE GOVERNANCE! HALLELUJAH GOVERNANCE! MINE EYES HAVE SEEN THE GLORY!

>>>>> The full ugliness of your views is on display here now for all to read.<<<<<

Which is why neither of us should be forced to live in the same "society". To you looting and slavery is beautiful, done at gunpoint "for the poor", to "save lives". I mean, it certainly saves YOU from getting YOUR hands dirty doing PERSONALLY anything about these poor devils you want others enslaved to support. You abhor the notion of black slaves in cotton fields working for aristocrats but well, for the pooor, for the "schools", for the ...whatever "societal good" you deem desirable...now THAT slavery is A-OK. It is so much fun spending OTHER peoples money and directing OTHER peoples lives to fit YOUR values, isn't it? So BEAUTIFUL.......
Your "beautiful mind" is on display here for all to read as well.

>>>>Are single working parents going to pay for community centers?<<<<

I have much sympathy for the widowed single parent. The divorced and never married, not so much. If you can't pay the price you shouldn't engage in recreational sex. But in any case, their marital status is not my business it is theirs. And the demand that I be required to subsidize people who are in financial straits because of their bad moral choices is clearly immoral itself. Your sneering rhetoric about my objecting to state servitude reveals that you do not believe in individual rights, property rights, or in limiting the state at all. The only rights you see are the rights of states to tyrannize on behalf of the "poor", most of whom have no incentive to be productive because of state promotion of the politics of victimhood.

>>>>>So far, the only case in which you believe it is OK to coerce people is in keeping them out of a .........to choose who they live among? Why should some people be allowed rights of association and some not?XXXXXX
As much as you hate being part of this country, it is a country, not segregated enclaves of closed communities. That's what this country is about.<<<<

No. It is YOUR view of what "this country" should be. Actually, it is a lot of people with different values and views that have been forced through indoctrination and conformity training in an effort to create a uniform, unified, obedient borg worshipping state experts and edicts on what they "should" value, how they "should" feel privileged to be looted for the greater good. There are already PLENTY of "segregated enclaves", many "segregated enclaves" of liberals who will not live in ways they envision as desirable for the "great unwashed" (see Ted Turners zilllion acre reanch, Ted Kennedys fight to keep windfarms away from HIS ocean front property, Robert Redfords hypocritical crusade against "development" while he sells high priced lots of scenic property (high prices keep the riffraff out, you know).

Quote:
>>>>>I'm not talking about thinking or eating. I'm talking about general rules that citizens abide by - or .......THEIR kind of community, unique and individual for them and their values.XXXXXX
Good luck creating "values" communities.

??? I never said I wanted to create values. I only said that people should have the right to live among people they want to live among.

>>>>>Golly, a lot of people did need to have people let them know that lynching and slavery and murder are wrong. Not you, of course. You'd probably only tell people to stay out of your "values" community and use the right water fountain<<<<<

??You stilll are not explaining how I am negating objective Truth. You are also ignoring that the state usually ALLOWED or PARTICIPATED in lynchings, just as they are now jailing minorities at astronomical rates now, tazing people to death, beating people to death, shooting people in their own homes and doing it with IMPUNIY. If I don't like being told to use a certain water fountain then I know tthat I do not want to hang out among folks who dislike me, for whatever reason. You cannot legislate LOVE or RESPECT. You can indoctrinate guilt, you can "mold Minds" and change perceptions with propaganda but there will always be those who do not respond to it.

>>>>>Should Nazi war criminals have been brought to .......for THEIR war crimes?? No, because they have power.

It isn't keeping some people from trying to bring such war criminals to justice, along with the CIA and its black sites where "enhanced interrogation techniques" have become the standard.<<<<<

They are simply doing what the state classes do and always HAVE done. Your notions that you can have GOOD masters, GOOD humans wielding absolute power is unbelievably naive.

>>>>>If you don't believe anyone has any right to tell anyone else what to do, then you don't have any conception of justice.<<<
Oh? I noticed that you have not answered my question. Who do you think is perfect and flawless enough to decide how all ........Red Army ravaged, many repeatedly and in gangs? Perhaps, like Ron, you think they deserved it for living in the National Socialist state.XXXXXXXXI believe the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act and Obomba's orders to assassinate Americans living abroad should be changed!
No, I don't think that about the<<<<<

You still have not answered my question. Obama is a dictator figurehead whose atrocities are whitewashed and spun by the state ministry of truth for the dumbed down American herds. My mind is boggled by the statements of dunces applauding the assassination of Osama, as if they have the slightest inkling of what is REALLY going on or if the man is really guilty of anything. We are fed a diet of lies and propaganda and people lap it up unquestioningly, even obvious lies and illogic (Trade center building 7??). But this is what STATES DO.

I don't know what your question is.

The answer to government and illegitimate force, however, is not anarcho-capitalism, I know that much.

And here I thought you didn't like zoning laws. Turns out you simply want to zone everything in the universe, telling people (that old-fashioned concept of the public) where they can live, work, walk, drive and do anything else.

You think David Duke could help you promote this concept? After all, you told me, his desire was to make the KKK a peaceful organization.

I truly don't think there is anything to be gained in engaging in such futile exercises in, er, conversation.

>>>>I don't know what your question is.<<<<

Who is intelligent enough, morally righteous enough, GOOD enough to rule over millions of other, diverse people they do not even know? Who do you want ruling over you?

>>>>The answer to government and illegitimate force, however, is not anarcho-capitalism, I know that much.<<<<

FOR YOU I'm sure that is true. You should have whatever form of state you prefer.

>>>>And here I thought you didn't like zoning laws. Turns out you simply want to zone everything in the universe, telling people (that old-fashioned concept of the public) where they can live, work, walk, drive and do anything else.<<

??? If someone WANTS that kind of state, they can have it. All they have to do is contract with others like them and set it up. A zero freedom state. I can't see a lot of people wanting it, but some will.

>>>>>You think David Duke could help you promote this concept? After all, you told me, his desire was to make the KKK a peaceful organization.<<<<<

That is what he said. I'm not sure what David Duke has to do with this, other than to attempt to portray me as a potential lyncher. Duke is a racialist, believe the white race is superior, harbors animosity toward Jewish interests (like the MSM). Now, I'm not sure what all the angst over Duke is about when we have blacks routinely excluding whites from activities, demonizing whites, committing crime against whites (have you seen the statistics on black on white crime vs white on black? Remember "Beat Whitey Night"??). Duke is simply proud of his race and promoting it. The bad thing about that is his race happens to be white. And that is politically incorrect. I don't see much difference between the KKK marching and trying to intimidate than Obamas Black Panthers intimidating at polling places back in '08.

>>>>>I truly don't think there is anything to be gained in engaging in such futile exercises in, er, conversation.<<<<<

That is because I will not participate in your dialectic. I hold to principle and logic. You refuse to.

>>>>>
Obviously, no one.<<<<
Thank you.

>>>>>That is why I believe in constitutional rights - now largely down the drain thanks to the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, Homeland Security, TSA feeler-upper feeler-downers, domestic spying, etc.<<<<

Gee, how could that have happened with "Constitutional rights"?? Your inalienable rights are endowed by your Creator, NOT by the Constitution. And, BTW,you really are not being truthful. When you had an opportunity to support a true Constitutional candidate in the last presidential election you opted for the audacious Marxist hopey-changeyness, NOT the strict Constitutionalist.

>>>>>The only way to restore constitutional rights is through citizen activism.<<<<<

Nonsense! Participation in the scheme simply validates it and wastes time and energy. You are marginalized and defused unless your "activism" is useful to the state in some way, creates dysfunction and hate.

>>>> You, however, say this only legitimates a state you claim is illegitimate.<<<<<

Of course. How'd it work out for the millions who made their voices heard to the "representatives" over the bailouts?? Shoot, I saw how it worked time and again in little old school board meetings. They are EAGER for your “activism” and “participation”. They need it for the dialectic process to proceed. Bickering IS the process. We bicker while they loot and terrorize.

>>>Quote:
Duke is simply proud of his race and promoting it.XXXXXXX
Now there's something to be proud of, the fact that you were born with white skin color. How about eye color? Does that count as a source of pride? Hair color? Whether or not one's forebears were members of the Daughters of the American Revolution?

I agree that it is a little silly. I tend to agree with Morgan Freeman. The “race” issues would go away if we’d stop TALKING about it. Racial strife serves the state. Divide and conquer. But it is not my place to tell David Duke what he can be proud of, decide his values for him. To my knowledge he has killed no one and has highlighted the “cultural” demonization of white males and Western Civilization. And ticked off a lot of Zionists as well. Now how big is the Obammunists body pile? Bush? Clinton? Lincoln? FDR?

>>>>>Quote:
That is because I will not participate in your dialectic. I hold to principle and logic. You refuse to.XXXXX
The only logic or principles you adhere to are the servo feedback loop of your own belief system in whatever alternative universe you dwell. You have little to no understanding that the world doesn't work according to the anarcho-capitalist beliefs you think it should be able to.<<<<

“Servo-feedback loop?? That aptly describes YOUR dialectic spiral much more than my simple refusal to participate and validate it, which is all I am advocating. I WANT you to continue to HAVE your state, you and Ron. You can wave the Constitution as they irradiate you at airports and steal your property and be happy as clams bickering and being “activist“ demanding that each other be looted, junk touched, tasered in your own homes. I WANT you to have that. You SHOULD, it is your right to consent to be governed. All I am saying is those who do not have JUST as much right to NOT be ruled, to withhold consent.

>>>>>So day after day, year after year, you repeat your Fantasy Land falsehoods as if they were a viable form of governance.<<<<

I absolutely do not. Do you not see the ILLOGIC of this statement??? The whole point of anarcho-capitalism is that it is NOT a “viable form of governance”. IT IS NOT “GOVERNANCE“. Can you not even conceive of the idea? People just living, working, cooperating without being herded, ruled, terrorized, looted by other less capable and moral humans??? YOU are welcome to your beloved GOVERNANCE. Those who have no need of it have JUST as much right to reject it as you have to demand it. Your rights to demand to be ruled do not supercede those of people who have no use for it.

I most often post about opting out of statism in DEFENSE against you or Rons state worshipping posts or attacks against me. I love your admission that no one is fit to rule over other people yet your illogical clining to the notion of statism in the face of it. But what you really mean is that YOU don't think YOU need to be ruled, it's just all those OTHER people out there who need to be ruled, looted, herded, indoctrinated, jailed, tazed, groped, propagandized by "governance".

>>>>>I'm never sure why you think objective truth can be found and adhered to at the same time this prevails:
Quote:
If there is no objective Truth then Truth simply becomes whatever is decreed (and given support via engineered consensus) by the biggest mouths given the most publicity and approval by "opinion-makers".<<<<<

Objective Truth exists independent of opinion makers and engineered consensus. No one has to ADHERE to objective Truth at all. We simply need to stop trying to FORCE UNTRUTH on people, or OUR versions of TRUTH. I believe I understand and know some objective Truth. You disagree. I could be wrong and as a human of no more intrinsic value or less fallible than you I have no moral right to force MY Truth on you. I can PERSUADE but not force.

>>>>In viewing liberty as the highest good,<<<<

I have never called liberty "the highest good". Removal of tyranny of other humans is simply necessary for people to reach their full human potential and to not be forced to live their lives as resources for those with access to force.

>>>>you seem to repeatedly state that this is supposed to happen, not that everyone will be seeking objective truth.<<<<

That what is supposed to happen?

>>>>Quote:
It is simply the result of government school dumbing down combined with a Darwinist materialist worldview.

Pre-Darwin and government school, the world was not a pretty place, either.<<<<<

??? The world IS not and WILL not be perfect. The poor will always be with us. The rich man will steal the poor mans lamb. The little foxes spoil the grapes. Expecting "experts" and "leaders" to make the world "better", give them the monopoly on force necessary to mold such a utopia and the most evil and ruthless will become "experts" and "leaders". We see this borne out repeatedly.

>>>>I see your view of objective truth, absolute truth being knowable, and freedom in defiance of what you believe to be absolute truth as contradictory.<<<

As I posted above, I could be wrong (although I don't think I am). And for that reason I have no right to demand that my ideas be forced on you...and vice versa.

>>>>>So, even though, according to you, truth is objective and knowable, no one is under any obligation to adhere to what can be known?<<<<

Correct.

>>> "Life and let live" rules, despite objective truth?<<<<

It must, no human can force his ideas of Truth on anyone else. If that right is accepted (as statism is now) then the force is used by the most ruthless to aggress against others with THEIR "truth", which may be right or wrong.

>>>>> Further, those who are living and letting live, are under no obligation to reach others with their understanding of objective truth?<<<<

TEACH, yes. Force, no.

>>>>What is supposed to happen? That everyone follow their own understanding of truth, their subjective understanding of truth, which you seem to equate with freedom.<<<<

Yes.

>>>>OK, how about forcing public schools to close tomorrow to end dumbing down?<<<

Just stop stealing money from people to pay for them and let those who want them pay for their kids to go there.

>>>>How about forcing the military-industrial complex to disband and study war no more?<<<<

Fine with me.

>>>How about forcing public libraries to close so that taxpayers would not have to fund them?<<<<

Also a good idea. Private libraries of REAL literature can be established or books can be read free online.

>>>>How about abolishing the IRS since you believe (know?) that taxation is theft?<<<

Absolutely! Of course it is theft! What is your definition of theft?

>>>>How about ending welfare tomorrow and forcing the poor man to find his own lamb?<<<<

Absolutly. It is going to happen anyway. The country is broke BECAUSE of these social programs and military adventurism.

>>>>Suppose someone decides to drive over someone else with his car? Would you try to teach the person not to or force him not to?<<<<

Nope. The wronged party can deal with the drivers insurance co. or the perpetrator can be shunned and refused trade. Life can become very hard, very fast.

>>>>What do you consider the highest good, if not liberty?<<<

God.

>>>>>If people are not adhering to the objective truth you claim to know, what are they adhering to?

Their own subjective understanding or outright falsity? Of course they have to adhere to what they know to be true.<<<

Yes.

>>>>>I was not referring to experts and leaders, nor to perfecting the world. There is a difference between improving what is broken in the world and perfecting it.<<<

What if what you think is “broken” is not broken at all? You obviously think free association is a great evil. I do not. I do not think someone who simply wants to choose who he associates with is being bad or wrong. Maybe some people do not WANT your “improvements” forced on them.

>>>>I think it vastly oversimplifies to believe that the problems the world faces today would not have come about were it not for government schooling and a materialist worldview. <<<<

I don’t. I think we would have a very different world today but for the conforming brain laundries.

>>>>>Of course people manufacture propaganda as a stand-in for truth, to persuade and influence, just the way Bernays did. Facebook is now in the news over this, hiring a PR firm to trash Google.<<<<<

That is what people do. That is what the government schools do, but you choose to not to use them as an example, you choose to use private companies. Why?

>>>>>What good does it do to KNOW OBJECTIVE TRUTH if one does not adhere to it?<<<<

But you SHOULD adhere to it. Why do you assume people won’t? People will live in all kinds of ways. The thing is, they’d have to get along, cooperate, to economically survive.

>>>> Does knowing imply action?<<<

No.

>>>>>I am trying to make a concerted effort to understand what you are saying, but it still makes no sense to me. Apparently the only forcing you believe people should be allowed to indulge in is the forcing of people out of their own covenant communities.<<<<

Only if they breach their contract they signed on joining the covenant community. Why shouldn’t people be free to associate with whoever they want and exclude whoever they want? Why do you find this so awful??

Knowing does imply action. If you know something and don't act in accordance with that knowing, you don't know what you think you know.

Trying to engage in rational conversation with you and Ron does get to be a chore.

>>>>>Knowing does imply action. If you know something and don't act in accordance with that knowing, you don't know what you think you know.<<<<

Nonsense. I know a lot of things but do not act on that knowledge in every case.

>>>>>Trying to engage in rational conversation with you and Ron does get to be a chore.<<<

As is trying to arrive at even basic definitions with you. At least Odin freely admitted his ideology and and defined his words and didn't ignore questions that would allow the truth of a thing to be arrived at.

I understand your frustration with Ron but take exception to being lumped in with him. I do not debate like Ron does, nor do I share his Neocon ideology. You are much closer to Ron in that regard than I am. You just want "the pie" of everyones property spent on social programs and he wants everyone elses property spent on militarism and empire. Neither one of you will admit the dehumanizing enslavement of statism itself in your pursuit of perfect worlds. With him it is the great Evil of "Liberals" who dare to try to wield the sword of the state and with you it is the Evil "corporations" wielding the sword of the state. Neither of you sees a thing wrong with the sword of the state itself being used against the people, except when it is used in ways not in accord with your personal view of the world as it "should" be.

>>>>Really? I never noticed your objecting to being "lumped in with him" when you get together with him to insult me.<<<<

What "insult" are you talking about?

>>>>>I don't believe that government per se is evil statism.<<<<<

I am well aware of that. In fact you view the state as a Force for Good, rather than the legalized mafia it is.

>>>> I believe that people's private pies are acquired through common, societal means<<<<<

Whoa. What are these "common societal means"?? What "common societal means did Jeff Bezos use when he had the idea for Amazon? Wozniak and Jobs? Henry Ford?

>>>> and that taxation is not theft because everyone has the opportunity to earn a living - or should - and SHOULD pay taxes, their own fair share of whatever it takes to keep the society functioning.<<<<

Again, whoa! By what authority do you assert this "should"? Who decides what is "fair" given that your authority is righteous? What do you mean by "keep society functioning"? Are you seriously saying that "society" cannot exist unless it is looted and tyrannized by other members of "society"?? I've got news for youse: when a society exists to be enslaved and plundered for a ruling class it is no longer much of a "society".

>>>> Not via government-funded research tax dollars going to private corporations, however.
<<<<

Well, now. Just WHO is giving the TAXPAYER FUNDED, yes, TAXPAYER FUNDED (because government HAS no money of their own), money to those evil private corps to begin with? It is not the idea of the looted taxpayer, I assure you.

>>>>Quote:
Neither of you sees a thing wrong with the sword of the state itself being used against the people, except when it is used in ways not in accord with your personal view of the world as it "should" be.XXXXX You believe that society should exist based on closed-off little enclaves in a privatized world, "covenant" communities.<<<<<<

Not necessarily. If people WANT that, they should have it.

>>>>>>I do see "a thing wrong" with the sword of the state used AGAINST the people. But I also believe that people allowed corporatocracy to take over government.<<<<

How did they allow it? By not voting for GOOD looters?? LOL! What "people" did you expect to stop it? The 99% who, "working within the system" "made their voices heard" and protested against the trillions in banker and union bailouts? And were IGNORED? The ones who are stripped of gun rights and treated as guilty at airports? The ones dumbed down for generations and taught to love Big Brother in the kidjails? Of course! The state class wielding absolute power are not bad, it is us who have zero power who are not stopping them who are the culprits!

>>>> This does not mean that it has to remain this way forever.<<<<

Well, YOU are welcome to reform statism for your own life. When you create your perfect state, let me know and I'll come for a visit.

>>>>You might try reading this to try to figure out how things got this way and how to reclaim government from the corporations that now control it.<<<<

Nah, sorry, no thanks. I am not interested in "reforming" evil, either the state or the indoctrination gulag. I am willing for YOU to live in such a system, if that is what YOU want, and live your life endlessly bickering over who gets "the pie", although I doubt there would be much "pie" for you to to loot for "society" but give to corporations.

>>>>>But no, you believe in a privatized market economy, privatized roads, privatized security forces, privatized everything, including the sale of one's own body parts for transplant.<<<

Only if one wants that. You are free to live in a community that is fully communistic and "unselfish".

>>>>>I don't. In fact, I can't imagine a much worse society in which to live than the ones you describe when talking about anarcho-capitalism and free markets,<<<<

So don't live in one. Contract with others and form your own commune/kibbutz type arrangement where there are no evil corporations or "sweatshops". What is the big deal?

>>>>>as if market mechanisms were a good stand-in for government.<<<<<

As if??? You are not getting this. Open your mind. Why would I want to "substitute" ANYTHING for state tyranny?? Market mechanisms are simply that. The most efficient, cheapest and fair means of production and distribution.

>>>> Nor am I pursuing perfect worlds.<<<<

Of course you are! You and Ron BOTH are. Instead of letting excellence and liberty call the shots, you want to be as little gods and decide how the pie of other peoples productivity "should" be divvied up, how they "should" live, what they "should think". You are a regular Church Lady with all your moral superiority in service of statism as YOUR "greatest good".

>>>>The only apparent place where you feel property ownership should not prevail is in intellectual property.<<<<<

That is because it doesn't exist. An idea is something that is used by someone else you still have it. Not only that, in our current culture protected ideas are MADE prevalent and stored in peoples heads without their even realizing it via the media. IP is actually not a property right, it is a control on thought and behavior.

>>>> As if any book author or inventor should spend years creating something, only to give it away for free the next day.<<<

Oh, dear!! No one would write books without copyright law! LOL! You are against something being given away for free??!! But it benefits "society"! Why are you protecting THIS particular piece of "pie"?? Perhaps because it is so close to YOUR pie?

>>>> There is a legitimate need for copyright law and intellectual property rights for a certain limited number of years.<<<<

B.S.! Besides, your great state priests in black robes simply EXTEND the "protection" as they see fit for the corporations. And now we have universities and labs copyrighting the DNA of other humans, sometimes even without their knowledge. Someday the plan is to have to apply for permission to reproduce, and I'm sure, pay a royalty for the "right".

>>>>>You also claim to believe in self-ownership. However, that concept goes out the window if you think a mother should sacrifice her own life so a fetus can be brought to birth.<<<<<

I hope I would. Maybe you have to be a mother, or want to be one very badly to understand that. But I'm not saying YOU should have to. It would be personal choice. No one elses business.

>>>>> Gee, I guess women aren't self-owners after all. Turns out only men get to claim privilege as their own.<<<<<

How so? I believe that the unborn are human. You do not. Another reason why we should not live in the same "society". You need a "society" where the unborn can be butchered at will, even "celebrated" as a great "liberty".

>>>>>And how would you wield the force and coercion of private security forces in your Dream Land Anarcho-Capitalist utopia?<<<<<

I am not the one promising utopia. All I promise is liberty. The rest is up to you. YOU are the one claiming government does all sorts of good and society can't exist without it, claiming the utopian notion that you just need "good" rulers and "the people" need to control them and THEN "society" will be all that it "should" be....No thanks.

>>>>>>Would you charge anyone concerned over product safety or environmental safety with eco-terrorism? <<<<

Concerned? No. I wouldn't "charge" anyone with anything, except perhaps property destruction and demand recompense if they did.

>>>>>Look over any thread where you and Ron have both commented on my commentary. Insults galore to be found there.<<<
No time to go proving your point. I thought there was something in particular you objected to.

>>>>Another one of your "Why I hate government" diatribes, sprinkled with a few more insults and accusations, containing no positive suggestions on ways to make things better.<<<<

Here's a suggestion that I continually make that you never seem to grasp: STOP trying to ""make things better". Leave people ALONE. Free us from the tyranny of your "good intentions". My idea of how to "make things better" is to STOP trying to shove ways of making things better at gunpoint down peoples throats. LEAVE us alone. Maybe we don't want what YOU think is "better". Maybe you have no right to "make" anyone or anything "better", at least not by forcing another utopian scheme/reform on them via "governance". You are welcome to make YOURSELF "better", of course. But I'm sure you think YOU are fine just the way you are.
>>>>>Quote:
Whoa. What are these "common societal means"?? What "common societal means did Jeff Bezos use when he had the idea for Amazon? Wozniak and Jobs? Henry Ford?XXXXXX
How about roads, shipping, employees, telecommunications and computer infrastructure, copyright law . . . ad infinitum.<<<<<<

But they already OWN the roads, paid for them with taxes. No one provided them for free. There is no separate borg called “society” like a Great Oz that provides roads and other taxpayer funded “infrastructure”. Your notion that all are eternally beholden to the Great nebulous Society borg for anything they achieve /produce after they have been looted at gunpoint to pay for it is ludicrous and self serving. As far as copyright law, that is the game the current system of “governance” forces on people. And I don’t see that Henry Ford stopped a lot of people from using assembly line techniques. Rather, the rulers found it quite useful for their mind laundries.

>>>>Law, you know, that harebrained concept adjudicated in courts of law.<<<<

So your authority for demanding the looting of people by other people and decreeing their “fair share” to be looted is the looters? Dirty job, but someones gotta do it, right?

>>>>>Henry Ford?
Chapter 11 of Underground, by John Taylor Gatto
"4Many people I meet consider the Ford Foundation a model of enlightened corporate beneficence, and al-
………………was one of them."
Are you referring to the encouragement Ford gave Hitler, for which he won the Grand Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle? Or his Frederick Taylorized assembly lines where the dumbed-downed grads found employment instead of fulfilling their human potential?<<<<<<

OOOOooooooo, noooooooo. Hitler, Nazi, evil, Nazi, Nazi, NAZI…eeeeeeeeekkkkkkkkk!!!!
Shall we go into the awards given the NYT reporter Duranty for his propaganda whitwashing the atrocities of Stalin, because, well, the NYT LIKES commies? As usual you see no evil but Hitler and Nazis. Shall we demonize and castigate Henry Ford (who had many faults) for his eugenicist views while ignoring those same views by Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood? The statement by Prince Philip that he’d like to be reincarnated as a deadly virus to wipe out most of the 3rd world? At least Henry Ford provided a useful business model. Hitler also greatly admired Saint Abe Lincoln, you know.

>>>>>Funny how you seem to reject public school dumbing down, but actually embrace the other societal wonders men like Ford brought about, including the I AM AMERICAN song workers sang in the factory, assembly line efficiency and who knows what else. At the same time you manage to laud industrial magnates (the capitalists, as in anarcho-capitalism), you try to blame me and the Fabians for the massification of humans into hive drones, the soviet man.<<<<<

Where the industrial magnates and business leaders and I part company is when they begin to use “governance” to mold society to THEIR benefit. And you have no issue with that as long as “society” is being molded as YOU deem proper. Well, I don’t like being molded by YOU or THEM.

>>>>>>Quote:
Are you seriously saying that "society" cannot exist unless it is looted and tyrannized by other members of "society"??XXXXXXX
No, I am referring to taking society back from the corporate "looters" and welfare recipients.<<<<<

What about the members of society who are not up for grabs by you OR them?

>>>>>Your commentary would all be quite comical were you not serious about the absurdities you post here.<<<<<

And a post from you would not be complete without this hackneyed insulting (oh, but I am so awful with my joining Ron and “insulting“ you)“ending”. I think it is the “editor” in you. Must have an “ending” to make the post “complete“, tie it together, and might as well sum up any points I might make as “absurd”

Aha, so you do favor force and coercion, but only for the things you agree with in principle.

Taxation isn't theft if you use public roads, public transportation, other infrastructure, fire departments and those "heroes in blue" you love to disparage.

And btw, the military adventurism - with over 1 million dead Iraqis - is now to the tune of trillions. Where are the social programs that come close to those figures? That support Boeing and Raytheon and other "defense" contractors?

>>>>Aha, so you do favor force and coercion, but only for the things you agree with in principle.<<<<

? What are you referring to?

>>>>Taxation isn't theft if you use public roads, public transportation, other infrastructure, fire departments and those "heroes in blue" you love to disparage.<<<<<

Why isn't it? What is yourt definition of theft? Do you have one? Or do you simply decide arbitrarily that stealing for the things you want others to pay for is not theft?

>>>>>And btw, the military adventurism - with over 1 million dead Iraqis - is now to the tune of trillions. Where are the social programs that come close to those figures? That support Boeing and Raytheon and other "defense" contractors?<<<<<

So your definition of theft depends upon amount stolen and the purposes for which it is stolen? The ends (ends YOU favor) justify the means? What makes YOUR ends better than say, Cheneys? Please articulate your definition of theft. I am not trying to pick on you ("Aha"!!..???), I want to understand why you think stealing is not stealing if government does it for the ends you favor.

>>>>>Quote:
Nope. The wronged party can deal with the drivers insurance co. or the perpetrator can be shunned and refused trade. Life can become very hard, very fast.XXXXXXX
If the injured party were dead, his problems would be over. Your own might not be, relying as you do on the market and insurance companies to solve all problems - the ones God doesn't take care of.<<<<<

?? I'm not sure what you are referring to. The role of insurance would simply be a type of guarantee of a standard of behavior...or financial restitution for loss suffered by others for our transgressions/mistakes. This seems to freak you out. This makes no sense as under the current system there is little restitution for wronged parties, other than INSURANCE. People are fed into the criminal justice industry, jailed, lives ruined, fines paid, not to victims, but to the state. People would have the right to restrict their associations and trade to insured people, people would have the option to not be insured and run the risk of finding trade difficult. For example, what would be so wrong with a young person who caused a death in a car accident to contract with the family of the deceased to work in some capacity for a length of time as restitution? There would be only social pressure providing incentive for this, the person might find others unwilling to trade or socialize with him unless he does behave in a manner of responsibility. This is where smaller, more homogeneous communities would be of value. If the individual left without restituting (?), people in a new community might require some kind of recommendation or insurance,guarantee of a standard of behavior before trading or socializing.

My definition of theft is taking something from someone that doesn't belong to you. Get it?

As explained above, I do not view taxation as theft because people earn a living in society based on societal mechanisms, not strictly market mechanisms (unless you're von Hayek in Chile), and people have an obligation to support the common ground that allows societies to function.

>>>>My definition of theft is taking something from someone that doesn't belong to you. Get it?<<<<

Then by your own definition, taxation is theft.

>>>>>As explained above, I do not view taxation as theft because people earn a living in society based on societal mechanisms, not strictly market mechanisms (unless you're von Hayek in Chile), and people have an obligation to support the common ground that allows societies to function.<<<<<

No, what you are saying is that you think some people should be allowed to steal to finance YOUR ideas...and have decreed that THIS is "not theft".

Got it?