Smarmy, self-impressed...typical Maddow. And fundamentally untruthful with her assertion that speaking out on behalf of a cornerstone element in the Bill of Rights is "anti-government"...Today's Gun Rights Examiner column gives another example of a media subversive hating and conflating.
So why was April 19 chosen? [More]
Share the link?
5 comments:
Perhaps she's right, in a way. The Bill of Rights IS "anti-government", in the respect that it is restrictions on what government is allowed to do to the people. Of course, she means to insinuate that we are nothing but anarchists.
to the same extent that the liberty-minded needs to win back the positive image of capitalism -- voluntary exchange, mutual profit -- this contingent ought also abandon the 16th century conservative definition of "anarchy," which is used to imply violent chaos.
the reason for this is that the word means "no king." the same people who moved to holland and then to america to engage in voluntary exchange for mututal profit, for peace and prosperity, and for liberty, did so to escape a king, really more like an emperor.
these were 16th century liberals, though today we'd call them libertarians for what many of them said and did. they had a king already: Jesus Christ. him not being around, the next best thing seemed to be a civil order which provided the good governance of the society by respecting property rights. no small coincidence that property rights are the crux of capitalism and liberty.
if one's head is truly on straight, then one needs not "agitate for anarchy" or some such nonsense. simply realize that that's what you live in already, and that the laws of economics prevent society from going on forever while socializing production, and that it must be abandoned in both warfare and welfare.
"socialism is workable only in heaven where it is not needed, and in hell where they've got it." cecil palmer.
perhaps you could codify the entire argument with a slogan such as, "self-government is not anti-government."
Lets make sure we understand the lexicon of the other side of the political spectrum. Being a Constitutionalist is, by definition, anti-government.
Remember also, there are MANY in government who hold to the same concept.
Saying the words "Constitutional limitation" scares them. They perceive it as a direct threat to their power. Political power is what they care about.
i don't disagree that they have their ideas, however wrong.
but how can they argue against "self-government" at any level, personal up to national? how can they possibly imagine it means something other than it does, without betraying their statist intention? because "self" references them when they talk about it, they cannot take a page out of orwell, and try to do something like paint "constitutional" as "anti-government."
think about it. it's unassailable.
"The reaction of a person to the idea of a truly free society is an excellent moral litmus test. The more negative the reaction, the more likely you're dealing with a sociopath."
Post a Comment