get it straight, ‘libertarians’
normally, people calling themselves libertarian writers/educators completely screw in at least two major ways the beginning of the battle for freedom. not through mere coincidence, these are typically the same fucks yammering about “credibility” and other such generally illogical rot (given undisputed premises, credibility is wholly irrelevant in a logical argument). they’re the same type who right now are thinking, “he just said ‘fucks’”, as if it matters.
line it up, dumbasses. first, fundamental rights (those usually being discussed) cannot be “taken away”. any language to the contrary is simply brainwashed gibberish you’re re-spewing reflexively from an overdose of “good citizen 101″. do not, as jim fedako just did, refer to “additional loss of property rights”. it’s the language equivalent of spreading your legs and begging a rapist to take it easy on you. do not say, “our rights are being clipped one by one” or similar filth.
why? this should be obvious. such language supposes that rights are so weak that someone can “take them away”, “reduce”, or whatever. they cannot. if you can’t get that straight, stop talking about liberty. you should never apologize in any way for demanding freedom. the path in the other direction was constructed by the state, and it’s a killer.
cousin of this battlefield acquiescence: the primary appeal to utilitarianism. stop it! you don’t need to defend with a slide rule the exercising of unalienable rights. you are handing over everything in your correctness arsenal when you play this favorite game of totalitarians, which is always the theoretical and preposterous designing, beyond principle, of how things “should” operate. listening to “anarchists” regularly rock this gadget is enough to induce vomiting.
review for the slow:
- fundamental rights cannot be modified, removed, misplaced, or destroyed, and your language should always bear out this truth, shirking state-ridden buzzphrases. unalienable rights flow logically from the presumption (still not disproved) that all humans are created equal with regard to rights.
- do not ever base your primary intellectual defense of liberty on utility. easier said than adhered to.
voluntarism is superior only because it assumes throughout that all humans are created equal with regard to rights. despite plenty of posturing otherwise, no other political philosophy does so. you’ll throw this away by denying in your language the only core tenet you hold that’s worth a damn? if a right can be taken away, that presumes someone was able to do it. therefore, that person has been accorded, in your very language, superior or extra rights that you swear don’t even exist. what do you get for the implied assertion of this impossibility? dick.
BTW, i only mention jim fedako above because it’s his post i saw when in a mood to rant (again) on this thing that bugs me daily. this language corruption pervades supposed liberty circles, and should be removed altogether. within a few hours i could cite hundreds of examples of similar self-destructive language, all presuming malleable rights.
May 8th, 2010 at 06:55
If rights are so strong what are you ranting about again and again?
May 8th, 2010 at 09:25
please tell me you tripped, your head and flailing arms entering randomly that comment as they struck the keyboard on the way to the floor.
shit, i hope you’re okay. say “wigga wagga wooga” if you can read this.