The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Retirement Discussions / Retired Fools


Subject:  Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date:  5/12/2008  8:56 AM
Author:  stockmuncher100 Number:  13083 of 22171

Well when the left contradicts itself in the course of a single post, and that's pointed out, then they often get angry.

Example: In this thread, AM has repeatedly flip-flopped from admitting that she's a leftist and simultaneously trying to deny it. I pointed this out to her and she got angry.

I pointed out that the leftist theory of taxation is qualitatively different from most people's idea that we should be able to keep what we earn as private property and only pay in taxes what can be legitimately justified [however you want to measure that]. The leftist theory is that everything you earn actually belongs to the government, and whatever you are allowed to keep is basically political. There's no recognition of a right to private property because the State is all and the individual means nothing.

AM basically conceded this point, but apparently she is so immersed in leftist ideology that she doesn't even realize its philosophical foundations. I think that's because on a very fundamental level she probably doesn't like paying too much in taxes, either, so she's basically resentful of her own ideology. However, for her to admit: "Yes. The government takes too much of my money in taxes, and that sucks," would require the wool to come off her eyes and result in possibly intolerable cognitive dissonance. That's a fearful prospect, your entire world view being turned upside down. That's why I made the point about Ron Paul. You can be a right-winger and oppose the war if you want. But if you do it from a principled position that the federal government has limited powers and therefore should not be interfering in Iraq without a darn good reason, that also blends into the economic realm, "O.K. I've philosophically decided government has exceeded the legitimate exercise of its power in Iraq. So there are limits on what government should be able to do. Now how do I justify unlimited government power to tax me, or anyone else, unless they demonstrate a darn good reason? Especially when they are using those taxes to support improper exercise of power in Iraq?"

You see that's the problem the leftists have. It's also displayed with the opposition to FISA. If government has unlimited power to tax, why shouldn't it have unlimited power to wiretap? If government has unlimited power to take all the children away from the FLDS compound, why shouldn't it be able to detain alleged foreign combatants in GTMO indefinitely? And so on.

This sort of cognitive dissonance has been displayed on these boards recent with PeterRabit's shunning because of his quaint notion that the U.S. Constitution applies to FLDS members, and that they should have individual rights [hard left like SLL doesn't agree because there is no recognition of individual rights]; and Hochizen's more recent shunning because he won't march in lock-step on the Hillary v. Obama issue.

The end result of the fear of this cognitive dissonance--"Oh man have I been that wrong for all this time?"--generates internal conflict with ends up with the angry name calling. The angry name calling is a way to end participation in the conversation and to end the need to follow one's own thoughts to wherever they may lead.

The leftists don't want to even entertain the idea that government's powers over the individual should be subject to limitations, as a fundamental notion. Because socialism doesn't believe government has limited powers. So leftists will support or oppose various government actions on an unprincipled--and by that I don't mean immoral, I mean, "without reference to a set of guiding principles"--, ad hoc, emotionalized basis.

And that's how you end up with leftists such as SLL basically standing for the position that American citizens who happen to be members of FLDS have no due process rights; whereas suspected foreign combatants should be entitled to all due process rights. The two positions are inherently contradictory, unless one believes that government has unlimited power to do whatever it wants. And "whatever it wants" is whatever I happen to want, if I happen to have the political power to make it so.

So, SLL, and goofy hoofy, for that matter believe they are "correct" simply because their stated positions frequently get lots of "recs." "Recs" are "votes." You are correct if you get the most "recs/votes." Any expression of a difference of opinion, such as by PeterRabit or Hochizen, is intolerable because, if entertained by others, might cause you to get less "votes," hence have less "power."
Copyright 1996-2020 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us