"Libertarianism is just anarchy for rich people." I read this somewhere on the internet. It is a perfect, succinct summary of exactly the pseudo-intellectual philosobabble that is libertarianism.
"Let the poor people be poor together and f-- themselves into drugs and prots, as long as _I_ get to have all the money." That is what libertarianism entails. It is the modern-day equivalent of "Let them eat cake." Marie Antoinette had said that in a flippant response to, "The poor people cannot afford bread."
I think the problem is that any BS thrown out into the ether is filed under the umbrella category of "intellectualism."
Unfortunately, that word is used too broadly, including being used incorrectly as in the wrong definition. Intellectualism, by definition, has to have a lot of thought put into it. Libertarians have not really thought through their hypothetical situations.
Ignorant dumbasses fortunate enough to be born into white upper-middle-class families.
prsrss and drug dealing are symptoms of a failing society. a society that has failed to provide jobs, adequate wages, and educational opportunities to everyone.
oh, yeah sure. people choose to sell drugs and prso, just like how people choose to be homeless. Or how people choose not to be able to afford a college education. or how people choose to have to drop out of grade school and start working labor jobs to support their families. Or how people choose not to be able to afford fresh fruits and vegetables and instead buy cheap junk food.
Just like how teachers choose to be paid excruciatingly low wages, right?
We really need to get away from the idea that anything that happens is purely by choice and under our control and that luck or misfortune has nothing to do with it.
We need a paradigm shift *away* from the far-too-widespread notion that America is still the land of opportunity and freedom. Thirty years ago, yes America was the land of freedom. That was still true back then. Having choices, having the realistic ability to exercise options, did exist back in the day. Social mobility was possible. But not any longer. This is not the case today.
The twin [[diseases, afflictions]]] of being fiscally conservative yet socially liberal is the most selfish, irresponsible, destructive-to-society combination imaginable. If you expect people to be able to make conscious decisions to do the right thing, to do what is healthy and beneficial for themselves, and yet *at the same time* you do *not* leave open the opportunities -- as well as the financial support -- for them to realistically pursue those options. This is ludicrously, phenomenally ignorant of the realities facing Americans today.
Related story: As a society, we really need a paradigm shift away from the unfortunately widespread notion that just because something happens, this automatically means all parties consented to it. Just because porst happens, does not automatically mean it is consensual. What those women really need is a shelter that they can go to, counseling, and training and certification for some sort of respectable job.
The proposal put forth by libertarians is pure adolescent fantasy. It equates to anarchy, to nihilism. It is abject deterioration of society. Their prevalent stance can be summed up thusly: let the poor people f-- themselves into drugs and prostitution, as long as I get to keep all money ever.
Libertarianism assumes that if rich people keep skimming off the middle class, the economy will still continue to work just fine. This in spite of the obvious fact that the economy is ingrained into the social aspect of a people.
"Libertarians" say that any activity that takes place between consenting adults__
And what, you think this activity sprang up completely out of the blue? You think there was no chain of occurrence leading up to that point? I suppose that you also opine that poverty, gang violence, nonexistent educational or career opportunities, dwindling social aid, all the things that lead someone into drugs or prostitution -- these things are all simply consenting adults being consenting adults as well.
Nothing exists in a vacuum. You would do well to remember that alcohol is already legal and has been for ___ years. Yes, during prohibition, consumption increased. However, legalizing it has not cut down on alcohol-related traffic deaths, alcohol-related sexual assault, drunken domestic violence. All these things can be and are done by adults buying it and consuming it legally, not just by minors that purchase alcohol with fake IDs.
Some other examples: a woman who is trapped in a domestic violence relationship -- well, she is still there, so she must be okay with it, right? Wrong. Victimization. A kid is being picked on by bullies at school. Well, the bullying continues, so he must be okay with it, right?
Another analogy: just because Dr. Jack Kevorkian's patients _did_ finally succumb to assisted suicide, that must mean they fully understood what was happening, and they consented to it, right?
Eh, whatevs. Libertarianism is just another example of middle-class white boys trying to be badass. Same as how middle-class whites love "The Sopranos," "Dexter," and movies like "The Godfather." MCWs like those shows because they like to fantasize that they, too, can rise up in force and defend themselves against black and/or Latino gangs, drug dealers, and the ilk.
I've talked about this trend before. Because they do not have any monetary or political power like rich white people, and yet at the same time they are not at the point of having nothing to lose like ghetto poor people, MCWs do not have any recourse. Therefore they like to live vicariously through their entertainment choices. This includes TV shows, movies, video games. I suppose it was inevitable that this wanting-to-be-badass would eventually manifest as a sociopolitical ideology. What's the matter, cupcake, you're not getting enough tail?
"Let the poor people be poor together and f-- themselves into drugs and prots, as long as _I_ get to have all the money." That is what libertarianism entails. It is the modern-day equivalent of "Let them eat cake." Marie Antoinette had said that in a flippant response to, "The poor people cannot afford bread."
I think the problem is that any BS thrown out into the ether is filed under the umbrella category of "intellectualism."
Unfortunately, that word is used too broadly, including being used incorrectly as in the wrong definition. Intellectualism, by definition, has to have a lot of thought put into it. Libertarians have not really thought through their hypothetical situations.
Ignorant dumbasses fortunate enough to be born into white upper-middle-class families.
prsrss and drug dealing are symptoms of a failing society. a society that has failed to provide jobs, adequate wages, and educational opportunities to everyone.
oh, yeah sure. people choose to sell drugs and prso, just like how people choose to be homeless. Or how people choose not to be able to afford a college education. or how people choose to have to drop out of grade school and start working labor jobs to support their families. Or how people choose not to be able to afford fresh fruits and vegetables and instead buy cheap junk food.
Just like how teachers choose to be paid excruciatingly low wages, right?
We really need to get away from the idea that anything that happens is purely by choice and under our control and that luck or misfortune has nothing to do with it.
We need a paradigm shift *away* from the far-too-widespread notion that America is still the land of opportunity and freedom. Thirty years ago, yes America was the land of freedom. That was still true back then. Having choices, having the realistic ability to exercise options, did exist back in the day. Social mobility was possible. But not any longer. This is not the case today.
The twin [[diseases, afflictions]]] of being fiscally conservative yet socially liberal is the most selfish, irresponsible, destructive-to-society combination imaginable. If you expect people to be able to make conscious decisions to do the right thing, to do what is healthy and beneficial for themselves, and yet *at the same time* you do *not* leave open the opportunities -- as well as the financial support -- for them to realistically pursue those options. This is ludicrously, phenomenally ignorant of the realities facing Americans today.
Related story: As a society, we really need a paradigm shift away from the unfortunately widespread notion that just because something happens, this automatically means all parties consented to it. Just because porst happens, does not automatically mean it is consensual. What those women really need is a shelter that they can go to, counseling, and training and certification for some sort of respectable job.
The proposal put forth by libertarians is pure adolescent fantasy. It equates to anarchy, to nihilism. It is abject deterioration of society. Their prevalent stance can be summed up thusly: let the poor people f-- themselves into drugs and prostitution, as long as I get to keep all money ever.
Libertarianism assumes that if rich people keep skimming off the middle class, the economy will still continue to work just fine. This in spite of the obvious fact that the economy is ingrained into the social aspect of a people.
"Libertarians" say that any activity that takes place between consenting adults__
And what, you think this activity sprang up completely out of the blue? You think there was no chain of occurrence leading up to that point? I suppose that you also opine that poverty, gang violence, nonexistent educational or career opportunities, dwindling social aid, all the things that lead someone into drugs or prostitution -- these things are all simply consenting adults being consenting adults as well.
Nothing exists in a vacuum. You would do well to remember that alcohol is already legal and has been for ___ years. Yes, during prohibition, consumption increased. However, legalizing it has not cut down on alcohol-related traffic deaths, alcohol-related sexual assault, drunken domestic violence. All these things can be and are done by adults buying it and consuming it legally, not just by minors that purchase alcohol with fake IDs.
Some other examples: a woman who is trapped in a domestic violence relationship -- well, she is still there, so she must be okay with it, right? Wrong. Victimization. A kid is being picked on by bullies at school. Well, the bullying continues, so he must be okay with it, right?
Another analogy: just because Dr. Jack Kevorkian's patients _did_ finally succumb to assisted suicide, that must mean they fully understood what was happening, and they consented to it, right?
Eh, whatevs. Libertarianism is just another example of middle-class white boys trying to be badass. Same as how middle-class whites love "The Sopranos," "Dexter," and movies like "The Godfather." MCWs like those shows because they like to fantasize that they, too, can rise up in force and defend themselves against black and/or Latino gangs, drug dealers, and the ilk.
I've talked about this trend before. Because they do not have any monetary or political power like rich white people, and yet at the same time they are not at the point of having nothing to lose like ghetto poor people, MCWs do not have any recourse. Therefore they like to live vicariously through their entertainment choices. This includes TV shows, movies, video games. I suppose it was inevitable that this wanting-to-be-badass would eventually manifest as a sociopolitical ideology. What's the matter, cupcake, you're not getting enough tail?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment