By Mike Appleton, Guest Blogger
“We pledge ourselves to use all lawful means to bring about a reversal of this decision which is contrary to the Constitution and to prevent the use of force in its implementation.
-The Southern Manifesto, Cong. Rec., 84th Cong. 2d Session, Vol. 102, part 4 (March 12, 1956)
‘This was an activist court that you saw today. Anytime the Supreme Court renders something constitutional that is clearly unconstitutional, that undermines the credibility of the Supreme Court. I do believe the court’s credibility was undermined severely today.”
-Michele Bachmann (R. Minn.), June 26 2012
Most people are familiar with the opinion in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al., 349 U.S. 483 (1954), in which a unanimous Supreme Court summarily outlawed public school segregation by tersely declaring, “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” 349 U.S. at 495. But many people do not know that Brown involved a consolidation of cases from four states. The “et al.” in the style refers to decisions on similar facts in Delaware, South Carolina and Virginia. And the response of Virginia to the ruling in Brown provides an interesting comparison with the actions leading to the current government shutdown.
In 1951 the population of Prince Edward County, Virginia was approximately 15,000, more than half of whom were African-American. The county maintained two high schools to accommodate 386 black students and 346 white students. Robert R. Moton High School lacked adequate science facilities and offered a more restricted curriculum than the high school reserved for white students. It had no gym, showers or dressing rooms, no cafeteria and no restrooms for teachers. Students at Moton High were even required to ride in older school buses.
Suit was filed in federal district court challenging the Virginia constitutional and statutory provisions mandating segregated public schools. Although the trial court agreed that the school board had failed to provide a substantially equal education for African-American students, it declined to invalidate the Virginia laws, concluding that segregation was not based “upon prejudice, on caprice, nor upon any other measureless foundation,” but reflected “ways of life in Virginia” which “has for generations been a part of the mores of the people.” Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 103 F. Supp. 337, 339 (E.D. Va. 1952). Instead, the court ordered the school board to proceed with the completion of existing plans to upgrade the curriculum, physical plant and buses at Moton High School. When the plaintiffs took an appeal from the decision, the Democratic machine that had for many years controlled Virginia politics under the firm hand of Sen. Harry Byrd had little reason to believe that “ways of life” that had prevailed since the end of the Reconstruction era would soon be declared illegal.
When the Brown decision was announced, the reaction in Virginia was shock, disbelief and anger. Reflecting the prevailing attitudes, the Richmond News Leader railed against “the encroachment of the Federal government, through judicial legislation, upon the reserved powers of the States.” The Virginia legislature adopted a resolution of “interposition” asserting its right to “interpose” between unconstitutional federal mandates and local authorities under principles of state sovereignty. And Sen. Byrd organized a campaign of opposition that came to be known as “Massive Resistance.”
In August of 1954 a commission was appointed to formulate a plan to preserve segregated schools. Late in 1955, it presented its recommendations, including eliminating mandatory school attendance, empowering local school boards to assign students to schools and creating special tuition grants to enable white students to attend private schools. Enabling legislation was quickly adopted and “segregation academies” began forming around the state. Subsequent legislation went even further by prohibiting state funding of schools that chose to integrate.
In March of 1956, 19 senators and 77 house members from 11 southern states signed what is popularly known as “The Southern Manifesto,” in which they declared, “Even though we constitute a minority in the present Congress, we have full faith that a majority of the American people believe in the dual system of government which has enabled us to achieve our greatness and will in time demand that the reserved rights of the States and of the people be made secure against judicial usurpation.”
Throughout this period the Prince Edward County schools remained segregated, but when various court rulings invalidated Virginia’s various attempts to avoid integration, the school board took its final stand. It refused to authorize funds to operate any schools in the district, and all public schools in the county were simply closed, and remained closed from 1959 to 1964.
There are striking similarities between Sen. Byrd’s failed plan of Massive Resistance and Republican efforts to prevent implementation of the Affordable Care Act. There was widespread confidence among conservatives that the Supreme Court would declare the Act unconstitutional. When that did not occur, legislators such as Michele Bachmann, quoted above, attempted to deny the legitimacy of the Court’s ruling. Brent Bozell went further, denouncing Chief Justice Roberts as “a traitor to his own philosophy,” hearkening back to the days when southern roadsides were replete with billboards demanding the impeachment of Chief Justice Earl Warren.
The House of Representatives has taken over 40 votes to repeal the ACA, quixotic efforts pursued for reasons known only to John Boehner and his colleagues. And in accordance with the Virginia legislative model, the House has attempted to starve the ACA by eliminating it from funding bills. Following the failure of these efforts, Republicans have elected to pursue the path ultimately taken by the school board of Prince Edward County and have shut down the government.
Even the strategy followed by Republicans is largely a southern effort. Approximately 60% of the Tea Party Caucus is from the South. Nineteen of the 32 Republican members of the House who have been instrumental in orchestrating the shutdown are from southern states. It is hardly surprising therefore, that the current impasse is characterized by the time-honored southern belief in nullification theory as a proper antidote to disfavored decisions by a congressional majority.
In reflecting upon the experience of Virginia many years later, former Gov. Linwood Holton noted, “Massive resistance … served mostly to exacerbate emotions arrayed in a lost cause.” Republicans would do well to ponder the wisdom in that observation.
Sorry Tony C:
the Third Reich had a generous safety net and national health care and good pensions, etc.
Fascism is National Socialism. Or socialism with nationalist tendencies.
Tony C offered a partial quote from Wiktionary:
Fascism: A political regime, having totalitarian aspirations, ideologically based on a relationship between business and the centralized government, business-and-government control of the market place, repression of criticism or opposition, a leader cult and exalting the state and/or religion above individual rights.
Bron wrote: “Fascism is National Socialism. Or socialism with nationalist tendencies.”
My thoughts:
Fascism is political label whereas Socialism is an economic label. In fascism, the State / Nation is all important. Individuals are expected to lay down all their rights and desires for the benefit of the State. There is no acknowledgement of fundamental or inalienable rights of the individual. If need be, the individual is expected to lay down his life for the State (e.g, kamikaze pilots and suicide bombers). Fascism basically makes the State / Nation the common religion and god of all individuals.
Socialism refers to the State owning or regulating the economic means of production. It is primarily an economic label and involves politics only as the means to achieve the economic system. Socialism can be viewed as a subset of fascism. All economic systems under fascism are a form of socialism. However, not all forms of socialism can be put under the label of fascism. For example, if a brand of socialism allows for the fundamental rights of individuals that cannot be abrogated by the State, then it would be improper to try to force that type of socialism under the label of fascism. There is a similarity between fascism and socialism in that both deal with giving preference to the collective over the individual, but if the socialist system gives preference to the individual by recognizing rights of the individual that cannot be violated by the State, then that violates a basic tenet of fascism.
The democratic socialism of Tony C and Gene H would not properly fit under the label fascism. Their philosophy leans that direction, but does not quite reach it. Their philosophy still recognizes individual rights, just not as strongly as Bron’s libertarian viewpoint would.
I’d say I’m amazed at how many people talk poli sci and economics and yet don’t even know the basic definitions, but at this point I’m not.
RTC:
it is all pretty much the same. I think it is you who doesnt understand.
But then if my philosophy was reasponsible for the deaths of more than 100 million people, I would probably want to distance myself for fear of an emotional breakdown.
You would think the first 20,000,000 souls sacrificed to collectivism would have given it a bad name. But that wasnt near enough.
Skip: You don’t need our definition, the Wiktionary definition will suffice:
Fascism: A political regime, having totalitarian aspirations, ideologically based on a relationship between business and the centralized government, business-and-government control of the market place, repression of criticism or opposition, a leader cult and exalting the state and/or religion above individual rights.
Now for my take, it is equivalent to our current corporatism, combined with National Intelligence, the violation of our Constitutional Rights, and the Partisanship equates to “leader cult” and “exalting the State” above individual Rights. The United States, because we allow too much corporate money in politics, is well on the road to fascism.
It is not completely there; election results still seem to be honored (Elizabeth Warren got elected), but we are on the way.
Democratic Socialism (mixed with capitalism as it is everywhere it is successful) is not Fascism, because socialism does not serve any for-profit corporations. They don’t write the laws. Socialism does not imply the violation of any individual Rights or the exaltation of the State. Socialism mixed with Capitalism does not even have to control markets; for example it can provide education without prohibiting private or religious schooling, it can provide shelter without prohibiting home ownership, it can provide nutritional aid without prohibiting grocery stores, restaurants, or hot dog stands.
Unlike Fascism, which doesn’t give a crap about citizens, Socialism provides a social safety net for the disadvantaged while still providing freedom of choice and self-determination for the not-disadvantaged. It does not prevent them from opening businesses (Fascism would), getting rich (Fascism favors the rich and suppresses their competition), or living a life of luxury. Socialism is not like either Fascism, or Communism (which tries to force equality of wealth regardless of merit, which Socialism does not do).
Skip: But like I said don’t take my opinion on this. You MUST determine this for yourself.
I already have, Skip. The happiest people in the world are in Socialist countries. In fact they dominate the top of the world-happiness chart.
Skip says: There are numerous reasons why so many people believe this to be true
And numerous reasons why even more people believe it to be false. As you say, the vast majority of people believe that Democracy is vastly better than any alternative system.
Skip says: he question however is: if democracy doesn’t work as desired, how can it be the best?
Doesn’t that depend on the desires? If my desire is for medical science to bestow upon me immortality and complete immunity to all afflictions, then my desires are just SyFy fantasies that probably cannot be realized for hundreds of years, and perhaps never.
Does that mean I can’t have “the best” medicine? No. The same thing applies to government. The best government has to be measured on realistic scales that take into account the purpose of government (to protect the weak from being exploited or subjugated by the strong, for one, to reduce costs of basic services all people need through collective non-profit action, for another) and determine how well that is being delivered.
In principle, through Democratic Socialism mixed with Capitalism and Transparency, I think that can be delivered.
Skip says: If we want to alter the destiny of the human race, we just might want to look at a different method of fostering a civil society.
Maybe, but I am not going to look at non-starters. If there is no component of socialism, I consider it a non-starter. If there are no taxes, I consider it a non-starter. If there is no Democracy, I consider it a non-starter. Why waste my time on a construction that has gaping cracks in its foundation?
I do not consider any political system in which citizens have no mandatory obligations to the rest of society, reflected in part by progressive taxation based on income, to be a method of fostering a civil society. I see those as methods of exploitation of the disadvantaged in society.
Skip: There already is a better idea; Democracy and Majority Rule.
It just doesn’t deliver the “rights” you think you deserve as a completely selfish and short-sighted individual, and which could only be secured for you by a tyranny of a minority (of which you are a member), because a super-majority of people reject the degree of selfishness and disdain for lives and wel-being of other people that your “rights” would engender.
We already have our idea. It needs improvement, but so far it has served to end a great deal of subjugation, increase freedom and increase the equality of minorities, women, and homosexuals (although none of that work is complete, undeniable progress has been made).
It is YOU that needs to provide a better idea; an idea that comports with the moral sense of the majority and still delivers on whatever it is you think you want. However, as far as I can tell, those things are impossible to reconcile.
Goggle “why democracy doesn’t work”. Don’t read my essay on it because there is a vast amount of literature and opinions on the subject. Mine is just a brief synopsis.
It is not that it doesn’t exist, it is that, in my opinion and many many others, is doesn’t work for what is in the best interest of the majority which is the primary reason for democracy. All governments, including democracies and democratic republics end up failing over time, and interestingly enough for what I believe are the same reasons. To many people operating in their own self interests end up trying to influence government and money ends up being the motivational driver. It’s interesting that it’s the vary same thing that many believe would happen in a true free market society. But like I said don’t take my opinion on this. You MUST determine this for yourself.
There are books, articles, blogs, etc. that go into great detail on the subject. There are numerous reasons why so many people believe this to be true and it is a vital understanding that alters anyone’s outlook depending on their conclusion.
It is probably the single most important concept that we, as a society must grasp. We have all been taught that democracy is by far the best form of government and I agree. Seems illogical, right. The question however is: if democracy doesn’t work as desired, how can it be the best? The answer is simple: just don’t expect anything real significant to come about from it and prepare for what happens to all democracies depending on where their at in the economic cycle.
If we want to alter the destiny of the human race, we just might want to look at a different method of fostering a civil society. Just my opinion!!!!
By they way, I just noticed that in the second to last sentence above, I typed in the word relevance instead of relevant and honestly I don’t know why I make such silly mistakes. Perhaps it’s some sort of dyslexia or something. There seems to be a disconnect between my thoughts and my fingers. Both my son and daughter were strait A students yet Chelsea’s children have dyslexia like her husband. I have never been diagnosed with anything, Society really didn’t know much about these type disabilities back than. Society was just figuring out that when you throw toxins in rivers it kills the fish and ecology; that the chemicals just don’t magically disappear.
Skip: So the killing of 262 million people in the twentieth century alone, by their own governments says “what” about Tony’s basic irrational thought?
Your assertion my thought is irrational is itself irrational.
Governments can indeed kill their own citizens, but they only get away with that if the rest of the citizens choose not to revolt. The people that can abuse their government positions for selfish gains (including egomania) are always a very small percentage of the total population. If the total population refused to comply, and refused to yield despite deprivation of property or freedom, and risked their lives to fight the corrupt — they would overwhelm the corrupt, that is simple logic. The 1% cannot stand against a concerted and cohesive effort of the 99%, or even 80%. They need that majority to provide the funds they are stealing.
Even by nearly entirely peaceful means (like Egypt) when work stops, dictators (like Mubarak) have to run. Or like Ghadafi, after being pulled from the drainage pipe he was hiding in, their last words are “Don’t Shoot!”
If Governments kill their citizens without consequence, it is because the majority of its citizens chose not to sacrifice their lives, property, and fortunes to end that kind of oppression. That is understandable, but it does not prove anything about the premise: If the vast majority of any country DID choose that sacrifice then lives of men, women and children would undoubtedly be lost, crippling injuries sustained and large amounts of wealth would be forfeit — But no government can withstand the revolt of virtually all of its citizens.
Just like Egypt, even the Army, probably out of their own self-interest, has ultimately sided with the demands of the people, not the dictators.
In the USA, the corruption of the government is only enabled by the apathy of voters. I believe there just isn’t enough metaphorical pain to get most people to engage and demand equitable treatment; well over a majority of people go about earning their living, raising their families, and watching TV and sports and engaged in other entertainments without any civic engagement at all. (Social engagement, but not civic). But if they suffer enough pain (metaphorically) they will demand and get more equitable treatment, as they did after the Great Depression and in the Civil Rights movement.
Wow, people can actually physically revolt against their governments when they become tyrannical? I’m not sure if I understand that concept.
Then what happens? Must we go through the same economic cycle again, and again and again. So let’s see, we have to first have a civil or revolutionary war for society to gain some rights and prosperity and slowly wait for the rulers to become more and more tyrannical over time, before having to take them out again in another civil or revolutionary war. So war, prosperity, tyranny and then war again with the cycle taking about 250 years on average.
Seems like a great plan but I would prefer skipping the war and tyranny part.
Please come up with a better idea.
Skip and Bron,
Neither of you have a clue as to what you’re talking about. Skip, you don’t even describe fascism accurately.
Bron, fascism and socialism are related the same way hot and cold are both variants of temperature, but you’re trying to say hot is cold; up is down; black is white.
Maybe you and your Mensa pal can get together with DavidM and his lady friend on welfare with the $13,000 in the bank, and go in on some investments in Skip’s energy deals.
You socialist are all the same. Criticize without giving us your definition of fascism. What is it?. If you don’t write anything significant down, you can’t be critiqued? Get me your feeling on this RTC.
Any guest blogger: please check if my response to Bron (a few minutes before this post) got snagged by WordPress.
Bron says: Why do you bring in a natural disaster? During those times we should all pull together and help out.
The problem with your philosophy, Bron, is primarily that it fails in extreme circumstances, but your pronouncements are always absolutist rules without caveat or exception. For example, “all taxes are theft.” Or in this case, the charge I was answering was that charity and social issues should be left exclusively to States and local governments.
“We should all pull together and help out” isn’t a solution, I think you are framing your view that way in order to avoid mandatory aid for those in extremis. At least to me, “We should all pull together” sounds like a voluntary system of aid that free riders could avoid; which allows sociopaths the luxury of receiving aid for free when they need it and never contributing their fair share when somebody else needs it. Free riders unfairly profit from society.
Bron says: What you preach is life boat morality. A classic of the left. It is very destructive to real morality.
Who gets to define “real morality”? You?
I am not preaching lifeboat ethics at all, what I am preaching is a natural extension of the family and tribal values that governed both humans and human ancestors for about 250,000 years, and are still hard-wired into most minds (including yours, and that is a compliment) as a sense of fair treatment by others. For all the flaws of our government, we still rely on that sense and count on it to be present in strangers, even for life and death situations (like a jury trial).
Bron says: I have never once called someone a sociopath, in fact I never even thought about it before I came to this blog, most everyone on the left throws it around like a bean bag at a county fair. Do you think everyone who disagrees with you is a sociopath?
Well, I am glad we introduced you to the concept. As I said above, your philosophy falls apart in extremes. We throw around “sociopath” and “psychopath” because those ARE the extremes that must be addressed.
And it is, indeed, sociopaths (or fools) that propose rules that would allow people to be harmed for profit, or endangered for profit, or subjugated for profit, or defrauded for profit. Unchecked sociopathic behavior is precisely what we 55% “on the left” are aiming to correct with government.
Bron says: There is something sinister about using it to stifle argument.
It isn’t intended to stifle argument any more than claiming that 2 times 3 is six. For those of us that care about the welfare of others, harming other people for profit is an absolute wrong, period. The terminally greedy do not understand that; people that revere “profit” as the absolute good do not understand that. But they are only about 15% of the population.
Bron says: I bet many sociopaths do just that when they argue with people and dont like what the other person is saying, it seems like something a sociopath would do actually because he would know instinctively that no one wants to be like him.
Sure. Sociopaths lie for advantage as easily as breathing. That doesn’t mean calling somebody a sociopath indicates sociopathy; the altruistic outnumber the sociopaths about 85 to 1. The overwhelming odds are, if somebody is arguing for an altruistic policy, they are an altruist.
Bron says: Game over in many cases and the rubes are too afraid to call the person out for fear of being called a sociopath.
Then up your game. If I am called a sociopath, I can defend why I am not.
Bron says: it is really quite sad to see you unable to meet DavidM’s arguments without resorting to name calling.
It isn’t a resort, it is a choice. When somebody else refuses to acknowledge a failure in their logic and keeps repeating the same illogical arguments and false assumptions and lies with every response, there is nothing else to do. They are not following the rules of logical debate or investigation, they are pounding a pulpit and spreading lies. Calling them “names” that fit sidesteps them and lets the audience understand the writer is a fraud spreading lies to deceive others into supporting their agenda of selfish profit.
Psychopaths and Sociopaths exist, they are about 1 in 40 or 50 citizens. People that will take unfair advantage to profit from the misery or desperation of others exist too, they are about 1 in 5 people.
Any theory of governance that does not mount a coherent and organized defense of the majority against the minority of predators and Takers amongst us doomed to failure, they are ruthless and will take over and enslave us all.
Where your governance philosophy, or David’s or Skip’s is sociopathic, we point that out because it is the equivalent of claiming, in a mathematical proof, that the conclusion of your premise is that one equals zero. If your governance philosophy leaves sociopathy unpunished, unrecognized, or unchecked, it is unworkable.
Further, if you truly believe that sociopathy is all good, then you are a sociopath yourself. Like Ayn Rand with her deceptive and fraudulent claims that all the hallmarks of sociopathic behavior (selfishness, unfair treatment, profit regardless of the ramifications in human cost, eschewing any form of altruism) are for the greater good, by her assertion alone.
That is why we use “sociopath.” It can be used as an insult, sociopathic behavior is regarded by almost all people as despicable. But primarily it is a proof of failure, a governance philosophy that automatically gives free reign to sociopaths is a non-starter for most of us “on the left.”
Your Aynish philosophy, the Libertarian philosophy carried to the extremes of calling exploitation “freedom,” the modern Christian philosophy of Greed and discriminatory theology encoded in Law, all of those give free reign to sociopaths and Takers, in some cases by dismissing the idea they even exist, in others by asserting volunteer vigilantism will neutralize them, and in the Aynish excuse for a system by the ludicrous claim that any human misery they cause in the pursuit of profit is good for us.
hskiprob,
“So, where can I actually read something from you gbk and/or your socialist buddies that has some relevance?”
Why do you always insult, hskiprob? What makes you think I have “socialist buddies?”
I haven’t tried to debate anything with you hskiprob, on this thread. My only words to you were about your writing.
You make a very common mistake that most libertarians make on this blog:
you put people in categories without knowing anything about them so that you can trot out your scripted arguments; arguments that, in your case, are lacking in content and full of faulty assumptions.
Here’s an example from above:
“Despite our warming of what was going to happen and why for over 35 years now, people like you have failed to join us in solving the many problems that have been exacerbated by increased socialistic policies. Instead of repealing the laws that have been increasing the problems, you call for more, as if they are going to magically void all the bad laws.”
Do you honestly think that only you and your buddies have seen the dangers ahead? This is extremely arrogant.
Many problems have been caused by things other than your red-herring of “socialistic policies.” I don’t call for more “socialistic policies.” I’ve made my views clear in past posts where I think the big problems lie. If your too lazy to find and read them that’s fine with me.
So you put me in a socialist box, trot out your script, and then I should debate? Debate what — your script? Your faulty assumptions of me? Debate from a position I don’t subscribe to so you can keep to your script?
“If you guys can’t come up with something of substance, I’m done with you.”
What of substance have you brought to this thread, hskiprob?
I’ve read the essay you linked to last year, and the one you linked to in this thread — both are unfocused, rambling diatribes where the thesis is lost in a barrage of first person gibberish. It is not clear why either of them were written.
No, sorry, I don’t think you had the knowledge 25 years ago to know we would be in the social and economic conditions we are in today. More importantly, you surely weren’t doing anything to improve the status quo. No one has obviously been able to build a significant consensus on what to do to fight the ruling oligarchy, although many are trying. The oligarchy has very carefully and methodically separated and divided the majority as to continue their dominance and controls.
The libertarians have been trying to point out the problems such as Ron Paul’s movement to audit and Abolish the Fed. We also need to stop the unlawful and fraudulent enforcement of the Federal Individual Income Tax.
But none of the policy changes offered are acceptable to you and your comrades. And when I ask you to present something specific, you tell us to “increase regulations”, even though we are one of the most highly regulated societies in the world.
So that I don’t have to go back and try to glean out something useful from the 50+ posts that I have read from you over the last weeks, like I said, give me a book, a paper, anything………………
You stated: “I’ve read the essay you linked to last year, and the one you linked to in this thread — both are unfocused, rambling diatribes where the thesis is lost in a barrage of first person gibberish. It is not clear why either of them were written.”
What essay, linked to what last year? I’m assuming that you are referring to “Busting the IRS Code; Notice of Federal Tax Lien”, that has been viewed by over 158 people. What is interesting, is that not one person on this blog was able to pick up on why almost all the Notice of Federal Tax Liens, being file against people by the IRS, are legally insufficient. One person however did try to argue that Title 26 is statutorily valid due to it being prima fascia evidence. I actually have no real problem with that argument, even though I think it’s incorrect, because it’s moot to the issue of insufficiency. I thought it was interesting that on a legal blog, not one person was able to pickup on that. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!topic/harrietrobbins/4OTvGSWkYU4
Now that I’ve given you geniuses what to look for, see if you can find both the 5 or 6 exhibits of Notice of Federal Tax Liens presented, as well as the Statutory notations copied and pasted from the IRC, and what makes them therefore legally insufficient.
As far as the relevance of my last paper on “Isms and Other Terms. You stated “It is not clear why either of them were written.” My response and question to you: You don’t know why the perceived definitions of socio-economic words and terms is relevance in a Democratic Republic?
And you wonder why I treat you with such disdain?
tony c:
“Why should I? People in other states are my brethren, too. Why should I let you tell me they have to hang if their State is doing poorly? That if they are flooded or bombed (like 9/11) or on fire or in rubble due to an earthquake, I should just mind my business and let them struggle and die?
Your demand is sociopathic, David.”
Why do you bring in a natural disaster? During those times we should all pull together and help out. What you preach is life boat morality. A classic of the left. It is very destructive to real morality.
I have never once called someone a sociopath, in fact I never even thought about it before I came to this blog, most everyone on the left throws it around like a bean bag at a county fair. Do you think everyone who disagrees with you is a sociopath? I would never have thought of saying that to someone in a million years if I disagreed with what they were saying.
There is something sinister about using it to stifle argument. I bet many sociopaths do just that when they argue with people and dont like what the other person is saying, it seems like something a sociopath would do actually because he would know instinctively that no one wants to be like him. Game over in many cases and the rubes are too afraid to call the person out for fear of being called a sociopath. It is quite an effective tool with which to stifle dissent without having to really argue a point.
I cant say if people on the right use it, it seems to be widely used by the left though. You would think after awhile, a person with any brains would stop using it. At some point it goes from a form of intimidation to childishness as the import wears off and the user is left without much credibility.
For all your education, you sound like a street hoodlum calling people morons, stupid, sociopath, etc., it is really quite sad to see you unable to meet DavidM’s arguments without resorting to name calling.
hskiprob,
“Funny how the other guys are able to understand my writing and respond articulately.”
I assume you are addressing me. I understand your drivel just fine, despite your writing as I’m pretty good at filling in the blanks.
“It’s also interesting that I once read an author that used no capitalization or punctuation and I was still able to comprehend his writing.”
Good for you. I’m sure it was a fascinating read.
“If you can’t challenge the message, criticize the messenger’s ability?”
What are you a messenger of, hskiprob? We really don’t know yet, do we? Why don’t you post a summary of your paper’s methodology?
“Shouldn’t reading all your crap make me a good author?”
I don’t write that much here. How an idea is conveyed carries weight. It tells a lot about the effort of thought that went into it. You’re below the scale right now.
So, where can I actually read something from you gbk and/or your socialist buddies that has some relevance? Maybe you’re a better author than you are a debater. Give me at least a decent book to read that really shows how the mixed economic model is going to make the word a better place.
It has been really sad to watch our society decline over my lifetime. Other than the legalization and decriminalization of marijuana in a few States, not one libertarian enactment has been passed and the usurpation of rights continues to become more and more prevalent. Despite our warming of what was going to happen and why for over 35 years now, people like you have failed to join us in solving the many problems that have been exacerbated by increased socialistic policies. Instead of repealing the laws that have been increasing the problems, you call for more, as if they are going to magically void all the bad laws.
If you don’t like what we offer, than give us a platform and a program of how to get to where you want to be. Perhaps we will join you.
Rebellion has not worked, as Jefferson, Adams, Paine, Washington and Franklin would all be rolling over in their graves if they saw the ramifications of what they had risked their lives and fortunes for.
Same goes for you @Tony. Give us something. You spew out facts and opinions that are not cohesive or often times on tract, jumping from one thought to another. I literally feel like I’m reading somebody in their late teens or twenties. I feel like you have read a lot of material, but just can’t yet put it all together. Write an essay on something that you have been arguing and then put it into a realistic perspective. I know you’re a decent writer as is gbk.
Where I think both of you make a huge mistake, is trying to come to conclusions without having enough facts to support it, especially without looking at the negative ramifications of your position(s). You state your feelings and opinions without supportive evidence.
As an example you call libertarianism, an unrealistic selfish greedy position. What you are not aware of is that many, and I would probably say most, are unlike the Koch bothers. They are in the lower socioeconomic classes. I remember a black guy in one of our LP clubs. The guy barely had enough money to make it to the meeting and other members where not doing much better. Most of the libertarians I know, which are many, participate in political activism almost purely to make our society better. Of course the aspects of companionship and such are there. What real significant benefit does a libertarian have in promoting our beliefs?
If you guys can’t come up with something of substance, I’m done with you. Telling me that you are surprised Gandhi didn’t get shot. I’m very glad he didn’t have someone like you to discourage is actions.
tONY c:
i am not equating survival aid with gifts. Do you truly not understand what I am getting at?
If you cant figure that out god help us.
Skip: Personally, I think Gandhi was lucky he wasn’t just shot in the head the first time he resisted; it wouldn’t have been the first baseless slaughter of resistance the British engaged in.
Skip says: What happens when the greater force is the very humans doing the predation?
It never is. The citizens are always stronger than anybody governing them, whether they realize the truth of that or not.
If the predation of the governor’s is sufficiently onerous, some of the citizens will engage in violent revolt. Like our Founding Fathers. They may win, if enough citizens join them, or lose, if the citizens choose the existing governance.
Also like our Founding Fathers, they will first make valiant attempts at some sort of reconciliation, and take violent revolt (and risking their lives) as a last resort. But, in the end, when all else fails, the choice is subjugation or violence; just like self-defense, just like in the law. There will always be criminals that only violence will stop. When the criminals are the governors, we call that revolt.
DavidM says: but you should work a little harder with hearing the point of others.
I hear them, I disagree with them, and think they are illogical or morally corrupt. Don’t assume I don’t understand because I disagree. I disagree because the approaches you, Bron and Skip advocate won’t accomplish anything I see as good for humanity. I think those approaches are naive and grounded in selfish greed and false assumptions.
DavidM says: Let the States and local governments deal with their social problems.
Why should I? People in other states are my brethren, too. Why should I let you tell me they have to hang if their State is doing poorly? That if they are flooded or bombed (like 9/11) or on fire or in rubble due to an earthquake, I should just mind my business and let them struggle and die?
Your demand is sociopathic, David.
DavidM: Sorry for any misattribution.
DavidM says: Why is it that if somebody expresses something different, they are automatically stupid, a moron, or outright deceitful?
I don’t do that. I infer deceit and duplicity (and stupidity) from people’s communications. Do you think deceit, duplicity, and stupidity do not exist?
They do. And they can be detected. And when I think I have detected them to a sufficient degree of certainty, I call them out.
I think it is truly stupid to equate survival aid with gifts. I also think it is too selfish to do more harm than good by denying people aid. Yes, if we provided NO aid, there could be no fraud, but that “good” is not worth the harm it would cause if we provided NO aid. If some percentage of fraud is the price of saving lives, then so be it, lives are more important than a few bucks, and we can institute punishments and better rules to prevent more of the fraud, as long as those rules do not produce more harm than good.
DavidM says: With my methodology, I can…
Not surprising. Your methodology is self-referential: Nobody verifies whether your conclusions are correct except for you. It is just an exercise in circular reasoning. Circular reasoning lets you come to any conclusion you want.