Saturday, March 17, 2007


Pretty Words = Pretty Wrong

Whether they know it or not, the left has a tendency of using "pretty words" to describe their positions. Their language can be deceptive, and sometimes make outright lies to convince people to support their beliefs. By using language as a mask, they have successfully managed to make their Big Government and Socialist agendas seem reasonable. I'm gonna try to go through all of them.

Let's start off with taxes. Ask a Liberal what taxes are and what will they say? "It's when the government asks people to give their fair share to society."

The first lie is that the government is asking, and you are giving, and the entire process is voluntary. That's not the case. Try not paying your taxes, what happens? Maybe you'll only get fined, but go on, keep avoiding taxes. It may take time, but eventually you'll see the gun in the room. At the end of the day, you either pay your taxes, or you spend time in the pokey.

What are taxes really? Theft, stealing, mugging, looting, need I go on? How can you compare taxes to anything other than being mugged? Some guy sticks a gun in your face and says "give me money or else," and it's considered stealing, but when the IRS sticks a gun in your face and says "give me your money or else," it's called taxes?! Give me a break!

But the left will always jump to say that you benefit from taxation. My first reaction, so what? If a mugger takes your money and buys you a Slurpee it's no longer stealing? And what if he got you a blueberry Slurpee, and you wanted a strawberry Slurpee? Shouldn't you have been left to decide what you wanted to get with your money? But worst of all, what if he took your money and got someone else a Slurpee?

Are you seeing the benefits here? I'm not. It seems to me that the government is taxing you because they think you can't be responsible with your money. No, if you want to buy a product or service, then you should choose to do so on your own account. Why does government think they have the right to do so for you? Do you even trust them with your money? I don't. They'll either get you an inefficient service, or an inefficient service for someone else entirely. Again, where are the benefits? How do I benefit from having half of the money I make taken from me? Don't you think if everyone was taxed less, we'd be better off?

Think about how much better things would be if people had more money. Companies could sell products for less, up their wages and hire more people. That means people will have more money, be able to afford the products or services they want and overall live a better life.

Oh, and isn't having more jobs a better solution to poverty than welfare? I should think so.

Back to that quote though from the beginning though.

The second myth is that you somehow owe something to society; some kind of a debt, and you must contribute your end. This insinuates that you didn't actually earn the money you have. You were just fortunate, or lucky (the liberal words for hardworking and successful). Isn't that insulting? You work, and work, and work, and as soon as you reap the benefits of it, the government thinks it's fair to take that from you. No, there is nothing fair about taking money from someone who worked for it, to give to someone who didn't. They didn't deserve that money. There's nothing fair about it. It's unfair.

Its punishing success, and rewarding failure. What do you think this does to people's drive to better their lives? You think they want to work hard now? Nah, they'll take the free ride. Who wouldn't take free money? Which is exactly what welfare is by the way.

Every time the government steals from you, they put some fancy smanchy word in front of it.

When you buy land, it's supposed to be yours right? Well, when the government makes you pay money to live there, or they seize the property, what do you call it? I call it renting property from the government. They call it property tax.

When you work and a portion of your salary goes to the government, what do you call that? I call it slavery. They call it the income tax.

When you die and 80 percent of your wealth goes to the government, what do you call that? I call it grave robbing. They call it the estate tax.

Why all of these taxes? Their answers are again pretty words to describe something that is very ugly. They say it is "pooling your resources to provide for the common good. It's cooperation over competition."

If you bug them enough about it, they'll admit that it's a Collectivist mindset, and if you didn't already know, Collectivist is the pretty word for Communist.

I apologize for the pun in advance, but "pooling your resources" means the fruits of every one’s labor are going into one big basket. Johnny Appleseed put in more fruits because he spent more time picking them, but everyone gets to take out the same amount. Do you think Johnny still has an incentive to pick so many fruits? No matter how many he picks, he still gets the same. Now, when everyone realizes this, what happens? No apples are picked, and everyone goes hungry because of this Communist mindset.

The fact is that Capitalism is what's best for the so-called common good, because more people are better off. Cooperation is just an excuse to place your burden on society, and when everyone does this, nothing gets done.

But the madness doesn't end here, I've got plenty more pretty words for you.

When the left calls for the nationalization of a service, or support an existing nationalized service, do you think they use the word "nationalize" on you? Bah, why do that when we've got pretty words, right? Public, free, universal, you've heard all of these before.

Public education is really government-run education. Universal health care is nationalized medicine. Public property is government owned property. Not so pretty any more, huh?

And stop telling me that these government services are free. They steal from you to pay for it. Once you get that through, then you may have opened your mind up to a free market solution, but the issue of efficiency is the final nail in the Socialist coffin.

Contrary to popular belief, in competition people win. Companies compete for your money. How do you become the company that gets to sell the product? By producing a product that is of good quality and low price. In competition, the consumer always wins, plus, the company that loses isn't necessarily out of the game (unless they really suck). Now they have an incentive to work harder to please the consumer.

When the government owns industries, things don't work this way. The government is the one and only option, it is the monopoly. It doesn't have to compete for your money; in fact they force you to buy their product. Do you think the government has a motivation to grow if people will always buy their product? Of course not. This is why government bureaucrats get lazy. Their job is secure, they don't have their assess on the line like private workers do. They can expect their paycheck no matter what, so why work? What's the point? You're always going to get that paycheck. This is the reason why the nationalization of industries reeks in inefficiency.

Ah, but the left will go even further and say you have a right to these so called free services. Umm, no. You have the rights to life, liberty, and property. You don't have the right to free housing, food, and medicine. Why? Because these liberties are at someone else's expense. Someone else is paying for that free sandwich you hold in your hands, and my guess is that they didn't choose to do so voluntarily.

The intentions for helping the poor are great, don't get me wrong, but this is not what helps the poor. Again, if people are taxed less for this free money, companies could afford to open new jobs and hire more people. Now the poor have a way of escaping poverty. Living off the government just keeps them alive; it doesn't throw them into the middle class or something because they're not working.

Last but not least is their use of the word Democracy, which is mob rule. Hey, power to the people sounds great, but what powers are you talking about? They believe the majority can enforce any policy, no matter how wrong it is. They believe the majority has the right to vote for laws that restrict your natural rights to life, liberty, and property.

This is why we have a Constitution, and this is why we should have a stronger Constitution. The people should never have the right to vote away your freedom. Remember, what's popular isn't always what's right. Think about it this way, if we were a Democracy during the Civil War we'd still have slaves. Just because slavery was popular, doesn't mean it was right.

So the next time you talk to your Liberal buddy, make sure you listen to the language he uses, and tell him what the reality is of what he's saying. Sure, accuse him of using pretty words, and he'll accuse you of using ugly words. But here's the thing, you're looking at reality, and reality is pretty ugly.


As I said earlier, you're right on just about everything. There's no way the libs would gain any support using the real words.
Robert M. said... As I said earlier, you're right on just about everything.

No, actually he's WRONG on just about everything. Taxes are theft? Have you never heard of the social contract? Taxes are part of an agreement that voters make with government, a contract in which citizens agree to exchange their money for the government's goods and services. To consume these goods and services without paying for them is itself theft, and is rightly punished as breach of contract (Myth: Taxes are Theft).

When "we the people" (the government) provide these goods and services we do so for the benefit of everyone, without thought to how much profit we can squeeze our "customers" for. Libertarians and far right Conservatives want to turn over these functions of the government to big business and the private sector -- whose ONLY motivation is profit. Because they're eliteists who believe that rights only exist for those who can afford them.

As Leo Strauss (who, since his death, he has come to be regarded as an intellectual source of neoconservatism in the United States) said, "There are the rulers and the ruled; those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right -- the right of the superior to rule over the inferior".

Those with wealth are "superior" and those without wealth are "inferior". Those with wealth will take whatever actions necessary to hold on to and increase their wealth, regardless of whether or not those actions are "illegal" or "immoral".

Now the Libertarian will argue that this quote from a Neoconservative is contrary to what their hero, Ayn Rand, would advocate. But my point is that both Neoconservatives and Libertarians believe we should be ruled by a wealthy elite. That is the end result of unfettered, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism -- an American aristocracy of inherited wealth. Their philosophies may differ -- the "pretty words" they use to sell their philosophies may differ -- but the end result of those philosophies is the same.

Laissez-faire capitalism, undermines individual freedom for many people by creating social inequality, poverty, and lack of accountability for the most powerful (Wikipedia: Criticism of libertarianism). Their claim that handing over government functions to the private sector will result in "competition", which will lead to "efficiency"... These are the pretty words they use to disguise their lies. Which is why when George W. turns to the private sector for rebuilding Iraq or cleaning up after Katrina the end result is not effeciency nor cost effectiveness, but large scale corruption and fraud.

Robert M. said... There's no way the libs would gain any support using the real words.

Cody was partially right when he said, "Whether they know it or not, the left has a tendency of using "pretty words" to describe their positions. Their language can be deceptive, and sometimes make outright lies to convince people to support their beliefs". All of what he said in these two sentences is completely true, except he should have used the word "Right" instead of "Left".

It is the Right who has mastered the art of manipulation through the use of doublespeak. It is the Right who has noted Republican propagandist Frank Luntz on their side. Mr. Luntz produces an extensive yearly briefing book to be disseminated among members of the Republican Party to popularize the phrases Republicans should use to frame all debates and discussions. These phrases can then be used by Republicans in their talking points.

Mr. Luntz redefined "manipulation" as "explanation and education" (Daily show interview 4/19/2005), and "Orwellian" as "speaking with absolute clarity, to be succinct, to explain what the event is, to talk about what triggers something happening -- and to do so without any pejorative whatsoever" (Fresh Air interview 1/9/2007).

According to Wikipedia, "Orwellian" means "An attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past... practiced by modern repressive governments". Sounds like the Bush administration to me.

One of Luntz's "redefinitions" includes renaming the "estate tax" the "death tax" and spreading lies in regards to who this tax applies to. In his article Cody says, "when you die and 80 percent of your wealth goes to the government", and calls it "grave robbing". I think you need to get your facts straight. Your article clearly implies that this tax applies to everyone, which is blatantly FALSE -- This tax only applies to net estates in excess of $2 million. More than 99 percent of estates are not subject to this tax. They pay NOTHING. Among the few estates that do owe taxes, the "effective" tax rate averaged about 20 percent in 2005 (the latest year for which IRS data is available) (2/7/2007, The Estate Tax: Myths and Realities).

The estate tax is not "grave robbing". It isn't a tax on the deceased; it is a tax on the heirs to the estate of the deceased. The elimination of the estate tax is desired by the Right because they believe American would best be served by plutocracy instead of democracy (which is why Libertarians refer to democracy as "mob rule"). Under George W. the gap between the rich and the poor has widened. Because this administration has purposefully instituted polices to bring this about. But they use their "pretty words" to disguise their true intentions. They believe a wealthy minority has the right to buy our politicans and write our laws (laws which allow them to consolidate their wealth and power). "We the people" need to wake up and vote these elitist plutocratic Republicans (and Liberitarians) out of office. They do not represent the interests of the majority of Americans.

As George W once let slip, "This is an impressive crowd -- the haves and the have-mores". "Some people call you the elites; I call you my base". Supposedly this was a "joke". It seems that whenever George tells the truth it is phrased as a joke. Like when he revealed his desire to be a dictator instead of the president.
Voters do not make an "agreement with government". The first part of the word "agreement" is "agree"; I never agreed to taxes or to having government do things for me, I was born into that.

"We the people" does NOT mean the government. It means the CITIZENS. The Constitution was written in this way specifically in order to emphasize that the American PEOPLE were in control of their nation, something which has not remained the same. And to say that government cares nothing about making money is ridiculous. Thousands of politicians and millions of civil servants out there are concerned primarily with their own wallets, which inflate at OUR expense.

Libertarians, like liberals, believe in a philosophy which is unattainable; the difference is, most libertarians realize it, which is why we do not advocate the complete elimination of government, merely its limitation.

As for capitalism "undermining individual freedom", that is a liberal redefinition of the word "freedom". Freedom means self-determination, not entitlement.

Your claims that conservatives manipulate truth are simply laughable. Liberals have made an industry of manipulating the English language (known as "political correctness"). One person's mistaken definition of "Orwellian" is not a grand conspiracy; a cohesive attempt to change the meanings of hundreds of English words and eliminate many others entirely IS.

Whether you want to call it grave robbing or not, placing a tax on the transfer of money from one private individual to another is theft. Few people would accept a government tax on wire transfers, yet we should accept a tax on receiving inheritance? Why?

As for Bush's "dictator" comment, are our leaders not allowed to have senses of humor now? You would not have done well in Churchill's Great Britain, my misguided friend - he made most of his best points and all of his worst enemies by using humor.
Don't bother JB. We've been dealing with this "dervish" guy a long time. Years actually. The more you try reason, or logical thinking, the more links, irrelevant facts, and eventually off-topic rants he pulls up. It just gives you a headache. Just ignore him.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?