Clinton, Obama, Obama, Clinton....?

[amicus]

Let me set the scene first, if I may.

Been on a writing binge lately, first time in a long time. I usually write in silence, or with music...tonight...I wanted to hear the debate between the two remaining Democrat contenders...I just let it play on and on for hours as I wrote....

Finished the story, edited and posted and submitted, on several sites....who knows?

But...I listened and I heard...

Both are educated and cultured and excellent public speakers, orators, if you will, something none of the other side ever are...I understand all that.

Both are true believers, immersed in the dreams of Government having all the answers to all the questions. Both empathetic to the poor and underprivileged and the downtrodden, same old Marxist Dialectic.

And I wonder again, as I have before, how the simple advocacy of human freedom can stand up against the onslaught of the good of the whole over the primacy of the individual.

My battles have been fought, for longer than many of you have lived and breathed. I guess it is up to you now.

Good luck...for those of you who revere the essential concept of human rights; it be a bumpy road ahead.

Amicus....

 

[keeblercrumb]

Let me set the scene first, if I may.

Been on a writing binge lately, first time in a long time. I usually write in silence, or with music...tonight...I wanted to hear the debate between the two remaining Democrat contenders...I just let it play on and on for hours as I wrote....

Finished the story, edited and posted and submitted, on several sites....who knows?

But...I listened and I heard...

Both are educated and cultured and excellent public speakers, orators, if you will, something none of the other side ever are...I understand all that.

Both are true believers, immersed in the dreams of Government having all the answers to all the questions. Both empathetic to the poor and underprivileged and the downtrodden, same old Marxist Dialectic.

And I wonder again, as I have before, how the simple advocacy of human freedom can stand up against the onslaught of the good of the whole over the primacy of the individual.

My battles have been fought, for longer than many of you have lived and breathed. I guess it is up to you now.

Good luck...for those of you who revere the essential concept of human rights; it be a bumpy road ahead.

Amicus....

Thank you.. And we bid you a fond farewell.

-KC

 

[amicus]

Yeah, sure, asshole...I ain't done yet! Bite me!

The irrascible Amicus guy....

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

The confrontation is an old one. One side incites violence for equal results, and the other side advocates appreciation of real diversity.

 

[keeblercrumb]

AMICUS

The confrontation is an old one. One side incites violence for equal results, and the other side advocates appreciation of real diversity.

That's it!! This is clearly some bad shit we scored this time. That post just makes no sense to me....

Welll give me another toke..... and I will read it again.

-KC

 

[keeblercrumb]

Yeah, sure, asshole...I ain't done yet! Bite me!

The irrascible Amicus guy....

Damn........ and just when you got our hopes up.

Sigh......

But let me me look that up in my "Witty Repartee for Idiots" book....

Nope...Neither "asshole" nor "bite me" made the cut.....

But I am glad you are writing again.


-KC

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Keebler

Okay. Do the work yourself. Read Marx, then Ivan Turgenev. Born and died same year.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Keebler

Okay. Do the work yourself. Read Marx, then Ivan Turgenev. Born and died same year.

Well at least you are hundred years ahead of Amicus's politics...

-KC

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Keebler

I think many people dont want a savior. Theyre content to be serfs, enjoying their work and simple pleasures.

There are all kinds of slavery. Some forms are a lot more fun than others.

 

[Pure]

huh

how the simple advocacy of human freedom can stand up against the onslaught of the good of the whole over the primacy of the individual.

from amicus, admirer of the Patriot Act, Gauntanamo, warrentless wiretapping, waterboarding etc.

oh, and how does he rationalize these apparent departures from 'libertarianism'-- national defense= "good of the whole."

go figure.

 

[Liar]

And I wonder again, as I have before, how the simple advocacy of human freedom can stand up against the onslaught of the good of the whole over the primacy of the individual.

In a sense, the same philosophical point that I have been trying, to no avail, to communicate to you:

Sovereignity of the individual is all fine and dandy, but unless the people also have reasonable opportunities to make use of their freedoms, all the pretty talk about them are just that, empty words.

Saying "all men are free" doesn't nessecarily make them so. Many many things, and not only government, limits their freedom. Poverty, social pressure, societal prejudices, habits, lack of infrastructure... all limit your freedom. Just like laws and buerocracy do.

The modern left is of the opinion that some Goverment is needed to help minimize the other things that limits peoples' freedom.

Granted, in their enthusiasm, they'll probably go for overkill. It's happened before.

But there you have it. Realpolitik instead of onlu lofty ideals. That's why there IS such a thing as Government to begin with.

 

[amicus]

In a sense, the same philosophical point that I have been trying, to no avail, to communicate to you:

Sovereignity of the individual is all fine and dandy, but unless the people also have reasonable opportunities to make use of their freedoms, all the pretty talk about them are just that, empty words.

Saying "all men are free" doesn't nessecarily make them so. Many many things, and not only government, limits their freedom. Poverty, social pressure, societal prejudices, habits, lack of infrastructure... all limit your freedom. Just like laws and buerocracy do.

The modern left is of the opinion that some Goverment is needed to help minimize the other things that limits peoples' freedom.

Granted, in their enthusiasm, they'll probably go for overkill. It's happened before.

But there you have it. Realpolitik instead of onlu lofty ideals. That's why there IS such a thing as Government to begin with.

~~~~

Been on a writing binge lately, seven stories finished, edited, some posted elsewhere, some submitted here...just waiting for my Lit. adversaries to find and trash...such a deal.

Your response email showed up in my mailbox and so here I am, wasn't going to take the time as we have both been down this road before and ne'er the twain will meet, I guess....yet another try...

That, in general terms, is a response to your first sentence above. Essentially, yes, it is a philosophical point you and I both labor to express and explain. The extreme pole you your philosophy is slavery, in which government dictates all aspects of the individual. The extreme pole of my advocacy, is Anarchy, wherein government does not exist.

I think you do not openly advocate total slavery, as I do not total anarchy.

You want more government, I want less government, and therein lies the rub.

I am going to present, as briefly as I can, a little scenario I created to illustrate the point I wish to make. Granted, it is my scenario and I can craft it as I will, to suit my own purpose, but I will try to do so with logic and reason and consistency that that it might be easily understood and defended.

Without thinking about it, many people look to government as a continuance of parental concern and responsibility. That a parent should care for a child is a pretty natural thing, I think, it extends to the supportive family tree and contributes to the bloodline and the vitality of a special associated group of humans.

It is natural, I think, for parents to nurture a child; to provide for it, as they are capable, to educate and train it, again, as they can, and to prepare the child for eventual separation and its own separate, but connected, identity.

It is a huge transition, those blossoming years of early adulthood, when the child begins to take on its own identity and assert its own individuality and personal choices and preferences. It is a difficult time for both parent and child, as each has invested a great deal of time in effort to reach that state of individual self existence.

Wise parents restrain their accustomed control of the child and all it the freedom to discover both the good and bad of independent existence.

What ever you think a 'government' should be, I assert and assure you, it cannot be parent to the citizen that resides within.

The only path to psychological maturity, for an adult human being, free of parental control, is a long and winding road of trial and error, success and failure. That is, I think, as it should be.

If you reflect the opinion of most here, you feel that government, as Hillary Clinton put it just today, "has a moral obligation to provide health care to all the people; the people have a 'moral right' to that care..."(Paraphrase from a news item)

The fatal flaw in that concept is simply this: government has nothing to offer in terms of providing health care, or any other service, to the people of a political gathering.

Government is not a doctor or a nurse or a hospital, it has no skill or expertise at healing, none.

All government can do is use force to take assets, skills and services from some and give them to others, once again, with the use of force; government has the power to command, demand, and insist upon obedience.

Therein begins the slippery slope and commences a battle that is centuries old. The basic political documents that the United Staters rests upon, is the totally new concept that government must be limited in its authority to act and command obedience. And that those powers be written and spelled out and defined. As the guaranteed rights of the individual are enumerated and explained and defended.

In my eyes, and by the spirit of our constitution, government is authorized to raise and sustain an armed force to protect the sovreignty of the entirety; a police force to protect the rights and properties of the citizens; and a court system to adjudicate differences of opinion between citizens.

That concept of government is alien to most of the world, and most likely you also, but, Liar, et al, it is what America is all about, and it is the political philosophy I personally advocate.

Although you will surely disagree, perhaps it may provide an avenue of understanding about my position on all subjects, as they all derive the the concept that each individual possesses the innate right to life, liberty and property.

Amicus...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

Some nice folks in the Mississippi Legislature filed a bill commanding restaurants to refuse service to fatty's.

I agree with your parent analogy for what some want from government, and I especially agree with your construct of why government exists.

Mostly I want government to leave me alone.

 

[Pure]

ironies of 'libertarianism.'

ami and the exceptions

my position on all subjects, as they all derive the the concept that each individual possesses the innate right to life, liberty and property.

except those suspected of subversion, or whom the Leader decides are 'bad persons.' witness ami's support of the Patriot Act.

 

[Liar]

That concept of government is alien to most of the world, and most likely you also, but, Liar, et al, it is what America is all about, and it is the political philosophy I personally advocate.

Although you will surely disagree, perhaps it may provide an avenue of understanding about my position on all subjects, as they all derive the the concept that each individual possesses the innate right to life, liberty and property.

No, I understand this philosophy perfectly.

Did you understand mine?

Let me try again:

Innate right to life, liberty and property does not, by itself, mean that people have those things. If you say to the people "you have rights" and do nothing else, nothing much will have changed.

People will still be enslaved, by other things than the letter of the law. Stuck in social conventions, stuck in ignorance, stuck in poverty, limited by lack of opportunity, by lack of security, by other people's greed and many many other factors.

Whithout adressing those things, a declaration of rights becomes, when we look at it practically, not much more than useless words on a paper.

Freedom is not just rhetoric. It takes some fucking hard work.

 

[amicus]

No, I understand this philosophy perfectly.

Did you understand mine?

Let me try again:

Innate right to life, liberty and property does not, by itself, mean that people have those things. If you say to the people "you have rights" and do nothing else, nothing much will have changed.

People will still be enslaved, by other things than the letter of the law. Stuck in social conventions, stuck in ignorance, stuck in poverty, limited by lack of opportunity, by lack of security, by other people's greed and many many other factors.

Whithout adressing those things, a declaration of rights becomes, when we look at it practically, not much more than useless words on a paper.

Freedom is not just rhetoric. It takes some fucking hard work.

~~~

No Liar, I think you do not understand at all.

Stuck in social conventions, ignorance, poverty, lack of opportunity, security, greed and other factors...

Those are human problems and we are fraught with them, from disease and famine to natural disasters and you purport that 'government' by taking from those who have and giving to those who do not, and enforcing moral edicts about social conventions and ignorance can be solved by the use of force?

Governments don't cure disease, a ten year investment in the education to become a doctor, solves cures disease and enlightens. Government cannot educate a child, another human, a 'teacher can, set them and the people free to educate themselves and their children as they will, don't consider the use of force to 'make' them learn whether they want to or not.

Government cannot create opportunity, creative people do, innovators, entrepreneuers can and so, if you only set them free.

There are police and courts to redress the use of violence and fraud in dealings between people, we do not need a benevolent father to administer discipline and guidance.

Grow up man! Jesus!

Amicus...

 

[elsol]

ami and the exceptions

my position on all subjects, as they all derive the the concept that each individual possesses the innate right to life, liberty and property.

except those suspected of subversion, or whom the Leader decides are 'bad persons.' witness ami's support of the Patriot Act.

*yawn*

Actually this is a misunderstanding on your part, Pure...

See, we don't really mean "Life, Liberty, and Property."

We mean "Property, Liberty, and Life"...

1. If you try to take my shit, I can take your liberty and/or your life.
2. If you try to take my liberty, I can take your life. (Where try means, I think you're trying.)

Unless of course, you're a female... then we DO mean "Life, Liberty, and Property."

 

[amicus]

*yawn*

Actually this is a misunderstanding on your part, Pure...

See, we don't really mean "Life, Liberty, and Property."

We mean "Property, Liberty, and Life"...

1. If you try to take my shit, I can take your liberty and/or your life.
2. If you try to take my liberty, I can take your life. (Where try means, I think you're trying.)

Unless of course, you're a female... then we DO mean "Life, Liberty, and Property."

~~~~~

Actually, no, Elsol, from a different direction...

Life is the primary value...without life...there is nothing.

Liberty, the freedom to live that life...means nothing without the means to support and sustain it, i.e. "property", thus, in logical, rational fashion one constructs a philosophical understanding of the essentials....

Ami...

 

[Liar]

~~~

No Liar, I think you do not understand at all.

Yes I do.

But clearly you did either not read or not comprehend my post.

Once again you prove the futility of attempting even the most basic philosophical discussion with you.

Grow up man! Jesus!

I did. That's why I over and over make attempts at conducting civil discourse instead of hurling ad hominems.

Look, Amicus. You may think I'm wrong about issues. You are free to disagree with me. But I'm not the one debating like a five-year-old here.