teacherone
09-30-2009, 04:10 AM
... to an-capism? Oops...didn't mean to go that far :eek:
(see this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=212250) for context if needed)
The pictures were meant to shock, but not offend. I figured the juxtaposition would be so jarring that the reader would a) definitely read the wall of following text, and b) examine their internal thought processes about the two men. There was so much hatred and disgust directed at Bush, and rightfully so, but not because he was an idiot, insincere and childlike, rather for his actions. In my opinion, one should not be judged by what one says, or how one says it, but by one's actions-- and if Obama is continuing and escalating Bush's wars, violating the rights of domestics and foreigners, and in the process murdering innocents and american soldiers, then I judge him harshly, and I condemn him exactly as I condemn Bush.
The problem, as I see it, is that Obama supporters have finally an academic intellectual for a president, one who can speak full sentences properly, whose rhetoric matches their "liberal" beliefs of how the country should be run, and they therefor dismiss as unimportant that he is doing the very things that they attacked Bush for. You see this in the media as well. Did you know the Patriot Act was up for renewal? Did you know Obama was pushing Congress to pass it? Now that they can, why is the media not photographing the flag-draped caskets of fallen soldiers, killed under Obama's watch, as they fought to do so under Bush?
The hypocrisy sickens and saddens me, and illuminates how easy people are duped by pretty words like "international community" and "diplomacy." What good are these words if the bombs keep falling, innocents keep dying, and american soldiers keep perishing abroad or coming home mutilated? This is the core issue for me. Even if Bush had followed a liberal domestic agenda, would he not still be the worst president ever had he continued invading foreign countries and imprisoning people without charge or trial? I cannot comprehend how Obama can be judged any differently.
And yes, this does tie into the domestic issues of poverty and education. TRILLIONS of dollars are confiscated from the american people in the form of taxes and go straight into the military. Imagine if this wealth were to remain in the country and put to productive uses. Instead, we have government schools failing their students who find a way out of their government housing projects into the government military where they are promptly sent overseas to die. Every time you hear of a fallen soldier, or of a bombing run gone wrong, know that you funded those deaths because under Obama's orders your private property was forcibly taken from you and directly destroyed.
I[B] don't know if this sounds "esoteric" or "divorced from reality." If it does, it is because I have gone through a long awakening process and you are only seeing the end result, having not witnessed the full transformation. After years of reading, thinking and examining, I realize now that there is only one moral code which can be summed up in one axiom; the axiom of non-aggression. This is based on natural law and natural rights--that man has one basic and fundamental right-- the right to one's person and one's property and by extrapolation, that no man can aggress upon another's person or property without facing aggression himself. This right is inherent, it cannot be given by anybody nor taken away. This right, based on Hobbes' and Locke's work, was included in the founding document of this country, but is now sadly forgotten.
I cannot defend any government that violates my right of private property, forcefully confiscates my wealth in the form of taxation, in order to aggress on other nations and their innocents. However, against the state there is no defense; it has a monopoly of violence and I have no choice but to comply. This ties into your last sentence--about building a "society." To my mind, there is no such thing as "society" or "community"; these terms are abstractions. There are only individuals each with different dreams, desires, wants, and necessities. This is especially true in a country as large as the US with hundreds of millions of individuals all from different cultures and backgrounds. What you call "community" or "society" are really ideals, your personal ideals. It is hard for one individual to fathom that there are others who do not share his personal ideals; but believe it or not, it is true.
What you advocate then, is for one group of individuals to use the government to force other individuals into accepting your ideal "society" or "community." They must not only accept it, they must also fund it. You would use the force of government, to violate their inherent right to private property so that your ideal would become reality. You would forcibly confiscate their wealth, or coerce them into handing it over by threat of imprisonment, to see your utopia realized. Your ideal community then would be the majority mob wielding tyranny over the hapless minority.
Underneath the benevolent cloak of the state, enveloped in words like "empathy" and "compassion", is a gun. It is wielded by the majority, a few elites with political pull, and the intellectuals who guide all their thoughts. It says "comply or else".
What if I didn't share your ideals? If I did not want to be part of your community? Would you point the gun at me too, and say your money or your life?
(see this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=212250) for context if needed)
The pictures were meant to shock, but not offend. I figured the juxtaposition would be so jarring that the reader would a) definitely read the wall of following text, and b) examine their internal thought processes about the two men. There was so much hatred and disgust directed at Bush, and rightfully so, but not because he was an idiot, insincere and childlike, rather for his actions. In my opinion, one should not be judged by what one says, or how one says it, but by one's actions-- and if Obama is continuing and escalating Bush's wars, violating the rights of domestics and foreigners, and in the process murdering innocents and american soldiers, then I judge him harshly, and I condemn him exactly as I condemn Bush.
The problem, as I see it, is that Obama supporters have finally an academic intellectual for a president, one who can speak full sentences properly, whose rhetoric matches their "liberal" beliefs of how the country should be run, and they therefor dismiss as unimportant that he is doing the very things that they attacked Bush for. You see this in the media as well. Did you know the Patriot Act was up for renewal? Did you know Obama was pushing Congress to pass it? Now that they can, why is the media not photographing the flag-draped caskets of fallen soldiers, killed under Obama's watch, as they fought to do so under Bush?
The hypocrisy sickens and saddens me, and illuminates how easy people are duped by pretty words like "international community" and "diplomacy." What good are these words if the bombs keep falling, innocents keep dying, and american soldiers keep perishing abroad or coming home mutilated? This is the core issue for me. Even if Bush had followed a liberal domestic agenda, would he not still be the worst president ever had he continued invading foreign countries and imprisoning people without charge or trial? I cannot comprehend how Obama can be judged any differently.
And yes, this does tie into the domestic issues of poverty and education. TRILLIONS of dollars are confiscated from the american people in the form of taxes and go straight into the military. Imagine if this wealth were to remain in the country and put to productive uses. Instead, we have government schools failing their students who find a way out of their government housing projects into the government military where they are promptly sent overseas to die. Every time you hear of a fallen soldier, or of a bombing run gone wrong, know that you funded those deaths because under Obama's orders your private property was forcibly taken from you and directly destroyed.
I[B] don't know if this sounds "esoteric" or "divorced from reality." If it does, it is because I have gone through a long awakening process and you are only seeing the end result, having not witnessed the full transformation. After years of reading, thinking and examining, I realize now that there is only one moral code which can be summed up in one axiom; the axiom of non-aggression. This is based on natural law and natural rights--that man has one basic and fundamental right-- the right to one's person and one's property and by extrapolation, that no man can aggress upon another's person or property without facing aggression himself. This right is inherent, it cannot be given by anybody nor taken away. This right, based on Hobbes' and Locke's work, was included in the founding document of this country, but is now sadly forgotten.
I cannot defend any government that violates my right of private property, forcefully confiscates my wealth in the form of taxation, in order to aggress on other nations and their innocents. However, against the state there is no defense; it has a monopoly of violence and I have no choice but to comply. This ties into your last sentence--about building a "society." To my mind, there is no such thing as "society" or "community"; these terms are abstractions. There are only individuals each with different dreams, desires, wants, and necessities. This is especially true in a country as large as the US with hundreds of millions of individuals all from different cultures and backgrounds. What you call "community" or "society" are really ideals, your personal ideals. It is hard for one individual to fathom that there are others who do not share his personal ideals; but believe it or not, it is true.
What you advocate then, is for one group of individuals to use the government to force other individuals into accepting your ideal "society" or "community." They must not only accept it, they must also fund it. You would use the force of government, to violate their inherent right to private property so that your ideal would become reality. You would forcibly confiscate their wealth, or coerce them into handing it over by threat of imprisonment, to see your utopia realized. Your ideal community then would be the majority mob wielding tyranny over the hapless minority.
Underneath the benevolent cloak of the state, enveloped in words like "empathy" and "compassion", is a gun. It is wielded by the majority, a few elites with political pull, and the intellectuals who guide all their thoughts. It says "comply or else".
What if I didn't share your ideals? If I did not want to be part of your community? Would you point the gun at me too, and say your money or your life?