Dear Liberal… Here’s Why I’m So Hostile

[Virgil Showlion]

sufficient-reason.tumblr.com/post/26781491317/dear-liberalheres-why-im-so-hostile

Lately, I must admit that my hostility towards your political ilk has ramped up, pretty dramatically.

Now before I waste too much of your time, let’s establish who I’m talking to. ...

On commonality:

First of all, let me say that we probably agree on more things than you think. Even between Tea Party Patriots and Occupy Wall-Streeters, I’ve observed a common hatred of the insidious alliance between big business and big government. ...

On what progressives demand:

Though I can’t begin to discern the thoughts of every liberal who may read this, nor can I assume that every liberal has the same notion of an ideal society, in my arguments with liberals over the years, I couldn’t help but notice the influence that FDR’s Second Bill of Rights has had in shaping the beliefs of the modern liberal with regards to domestic policy. ...

At this point, you’re probably screaming, “Right on!!”, and who can blame you? What sane person in the world doesn’t want everyone to be gainfully employed, adequately fed, smartly clothed, appropriately sheltered, and properly educated? These are the goals of every moral society on the planet, however we cannot ignore the fundamental question of, “At what cost?”

On the difference between conservatives and progressives:

If you’re moderately intelligent and intellectually honest, you’ll quickly see what separates the rights laid out in the real Bill of Rights from those laid out in FDR’s misguided list – none of the rights listed above require the time, treasure, or talents of another human being.

FDR’s list is no “Bill of Rights”. It’s a list of demands. If I have a right to a job, doesn’t that mean that one must be provided to me? If I have a right to adequate food, clothing, and recreation, doesn’t that mean that I am entitled to those things, and someone should provide them to me? If I have an inherent right to a decent home, once again, doesn’t that mean it should be provided to me, regardless of my ability to afford one or build one for myself? 

The rub:

You may be getting anxious, now, wondering what FDR’s Second Bill of Rights has to do with my antipathy towards your political philosophy. It’s quite simple – your political beliefs are a threat to liberty – not just for me, but for my three boys and their children as well. I care much less about the America that I’m living in at this very moment than I do about the one that I’m leaving Nathaniel, Charlie, and Jackson.

Everything that modern liberalism accomplishes is accomplished at the barrel of a government rifle. You do not trust in the generosity of the American people to provide, through private charity, things such as clothing, food, shelter, and health care, so you empower the government to take from them and spend the money on wasteful, inefficient, and inadequate government entitlement programs. You do not trust in the personal responsibility of the average American to wield firearms in defense of themselves and their families, so you seek to empower the government to criminalize the use and possession of firearms by private citizens. Everytime you empower the government, you lose more of your personal liberty – it’s an axiomatic truth.

Much, much more in the article itself, but these excerpts will have to do.

Thoughts? Has the "social contract" gone too far? Is everything that modern progressivism accomplishes "accomplished at the barrel of a government rifle" as Mr. "N. Choate" contends? Is it wrong to do so?

[Shooby]

Meh. I am not going to explain myself to them.

[ArchietheDragon]

have a beer and be less hostile.

[Shooby]

Hostility is a 2 way street.

[ArchietheDragon]

Jan 3, 2016 20:32:17 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Hostility is a 2 way street.

so is drinking a beer.

[ken a.k.a OMK]

I'm not reading the article but will take Archie's advice.

[mroped]

Is anyone interpreting the "right to a job" as a walk up to HR of a private company and ask, ney DEMAND! that he/she is entitled to a job?

It is a shame! Such poor understanding of meanings!
( on the other hand it shouldn't come as a surprise since "well regulated militia" means any kook with a gun! )

[fishy999]

Oh please!  Want a list of reasons I am hostile to conservatives?  

We can both put up the straw men.  

I am with the 'drink a beer' faction.  

Dear Conservative- I understand you completely- I consider you a soon to be extinct ugly remnant of society

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 3, 2016 21:19:22 GMT -5 mroped said:

Is anyone interpreting the "right to a job" as a walk up to HR of a private company and ask, ney DEMAND! that he/she is entitled to a job?

It is a shame! Such poor understanding of meanings!
( on the other hand it shouldn't come as a surprise since "well regulated militia" means any kook with a gun! )

What does the "right to a job" mean? Explain it to us.

[Deleted]

The government should be the employer of final need. ie. no welfare, show up and work for your paycheck. CCC. all that jazz... (I'm just doing this quick because I want to post before husband )

[mroped]

Alright Virgil! Being that you are Canadian, I understand why you wouldn't know!

FDRs "second bill of rights" was created so to speak during hard times- depression and so on.
Jobs were absolutely hard to come by so the administration came up with the idea of Public Works: roads, bridges, public parks etc. That put back to work many individuals, gave them a purpose and took them off of welfare/social assistance.
FDRs approach was that if one individual cannot find a job that would pay for his living then there is always something to be done, a place that your time and skills could be put to use, to the benefit of the society of which you are part of. In exchange for your welfare/social assistance you could work on public lands as not to make you feel that you are "handed over" this money. 
His idea GAVE you a sense of entitlement to your pay because to some extent you earned it.
And he declared that a "right to a job"!
Simple as that!

It is assumed that one would do that out of a sense of pride, of personal worth. Working however you can for what you get is better than just stretching a hand out.

The system is still applied in Romania, my country of origin. They call it "section 529" Rampant unemployment made them look for alternatives and some smart guy dug up FDRs approach and put it to use.

[busymom]

I read the article.  Just another extremist.  I think he needs a "chill pill".   Apparently, in his mind, the sick need not be taken care of, nor the elderly in their old age, just to give a couple of examples. And trusting local charity has the means to do it all is just crazy!    (Our church operates a small food shelf, & it is used on an "emergency" basis.  It doesn't take much to wipe the shelves clean.  Private charity is a benefit in the communities who have it, but it cannot begin to cover all of the needs out there.)

[OldCoyote]

The Mormons do a pretty good job of taking care of their own.

[Deleted]

There are legitimate reasons why a secular government should not rely upon religious organizations to provide comprehensive social services.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 3, 2016 23:14:48 GMT -5 oped said:

There are legitimate reasons why a secular government should not rely upon religious organizations to provide comprehensive social services.

Yeah. Religious organizations have standards.

[Deleted]

Great. Your religious organization has standards. So, they turn away anyone who doesn't meet their 'standards'. Meanwhile, the extremist 'other' religion offers free care to anyone... with a side helping of conversion to their goals... and the promise to vote in the next election (can you say Hamas anyone? ).... No issues there...

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 3, 2016 22:47:23 GMT -5 busymom said:

I read the article.  Just another extremist.  I think he needs a "chill pill".   Apparently, in his mind, the sick need not be taken care of, nor the elderly in their old age, just to give a couple of examples. And trusting local charity has the means to do it all is just crazy!    (Our church operates a small food shelf, & it is used on an "emergency" basis.  It doesn't take much to wipe the shelves clean.  Private charity is a benefit in the communities who have it, but it cannot begin to cover all of the needs out there.)

People might have more money to share and a greater will to share it if the government wasn't taxing the snot out of them to take care of other people. Every penny that the government spends on "cover[ing] cover all of the needs out there" comes from the taxpayer or from debt.

The "extremist" who wrote the article hit that particular nail squarely on the head. Progressives don't trust their countrymen--their supposedly "free" brethren--to do the right thing. They believe government needs to force charity at the point of a gun.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 3, 2016 23:55:24 GMT -5 oped said:

Great. Your religious organization has standards. So, they turn away anyone who doesn't meet their 'standards'. Meanwhile, the extremist 'other' religion offers free care to anyone... with a side helping of conversion to their goals... and the promise to vote in the next election (can you say Hamas anyone? ).... No issues there...

So start up your own organization and help those you deem worthy of helping. Help the ones nobody else will. It's a free country.

Or at least it was supposed to be.

[Deleted]

You missed the point.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 3, 2016 22:46:05 GMT -5 mroped said:

Alright Virgil! Being that you are Canadian, I understand why you wouldn't know!

FDRs "second bill of rights" was created so to speak during hard times- depression and so on.
Jobs were absolutely hard to come by so the administration came up with the idea of Public Works: roads, bridges, public parks etc. That put back to work many individuals, gave them a purpose and took them off of welfare/social assistance.
FDRs approach was that if one individual cannot find a job that would pay for his living then there is always something to be done, a place that your time and skills could be put to use, to the benefit of the society of which you are part of. In exchange for your welfare/social assistance you could work on public lands as not to make you feel that you are "handed over" this money. 
His idea GAVE you a sense of entitlement to your pay because to some extent you earned it.
And he declared that a "right to a job"!
Simple as that!

It is assumed that one would do that out of a sense of pride, of personal worth. Working however you can for what you get is better than just stretching a hand out.

The system is still applied in Romania, my country of origin. They call it "section 529" Rampant unemployment made them look for alternatives and some smart guy dug up FDRs approach and put it to use.

This may be news to you, but requiring that people work to qualify for social assistance has been a defunct policy for the better part of a century.

No, when progressives talk about the "right to a job", they aren't talking about government make-work programs to qualify for social assistance. Requiring people to work is inhumane. Think of the disabled, the single mothers, the elderly, the unemployable, the drug-addicted.

To the progressive, the "right to a job" means an exorbitant minimum wage, no discrimination in hiring or firing (no matter how reasonable), powerful unions, protections for privileged groups, free education and training, hard caps on executive compensation, indefinite support for the unemployed and unemployable, and hiring quotas for groups nobody wants to employ.

It would be nice if they'd stuck with Pres. Roosevelt's vision, but he's a raging, heartless conservative by today's standards. The 2012 equivalent dollar value of his entire "New Deal" program over half a decade was just under $325 billion, or about what America now spends on social assistance in three months. (Purchased using debt, I might add.)

[Deleted]

Well when FDR said it he was talking about CCC.

And when I talk about it... that is what I mean.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 4, 2016 0:02:54 GMT -5 oped said:

You missed the point.

The point being that Americans, like all people, are small-minded religious nutcases who might freely place standards on the beneficiaries of the sweat of their brow. This is unacceptable, thus the government must see to it that the proceeds of people's labour is confiscated and redistributed in accordance with the wishes of the state, whose judgment is superior to that of the small-minded people clinging to their guns and their religion.

I'm familiar with the doctrine.

[Deleted]

Still missing the point.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 4, 2016 0:25:24 GMT -5 oped said:

Well when FDR said it he was talking about CCC.

And when I talk about it... that is what I mean.

Then you're an apostate of true progressivism in that regard.

You're heartless, your views are antiquated and inhumane, and they're precisely what are being "progressed" away from.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 4, 2016 0:31:29 GMT -5 oped said:

Still missing the point.

I give up. What is "the point"?

[dondub]

Yeah. Religious organizations have standards.

Best not put a Spotlight on the Catholics then.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 4, 2016 1:00:14 GMT -5 dondub said:

Yeah. Religious organizations have standards.

Best not put a Spotlight on the Catholics then.

My parents are Catholic.

They've devoted a substantial part of their retirement to charity work affiliated with the church. Everything from building houses in Mexico to soup kitchens to reading to the disabled. This is in addition to paying 55% of their life's incomes (and another 15% in sales tax plus heaven knows how much more in liquor taxes, municipal taxes, car taxes, per-item taxes, taxes on taxes) to the government in exchange for virtually nothing in return (they kept themselves healthy, saved for retirement, will never qualify for any kind of assistance until the day they die).

So why don't you tell us all about how those damned Catholics can't be trusted with the money they earn. Remind us how blessed the rest of us to have Big Brother there to prevent that 55% from also being pissed away on Catholic charities.

They aren't fans of message boards, so I'm at least grateful they can do it without putting up with the ignoramuses in cyberspace.

[Deleted]

Jan 3, 2016 21:19:22 GMT -5 mroped said:

Is anyone interpreting the "right to a job" as a walk up to HR of a private company and ask, ney DEMAND! that he/she is entitled to a job?

It is a shame! Such poor understanding of meanings!
( on the other hand it shouldn't come as a surprise since "well regulated militia" means any kook with a gun! )

Since it actually DOESN'T mean that... your point is completely and utterly lost.

[Deleted]

As far as the thread subject is concerned though... Everyone that's a citizen of they country they are in OR has the appropriate work Visa has a right to A job... what they don't have is a right to ANY SPECIFIC job.

There's only one reasonable and acceptable "discrimination" to employment: "is the person capable of fulfilling the requirements of the job?" If yes, hire them. If no, don't hire them.

Age (as long as they are old enough to work legally in the position), gender, race, sexual orientation, marital status, religion, and disability that won't affect performance... should all have exactly ZERO effect on a person's ability to become employed.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 4, 2016 1:38:45 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

As far as the thread subject is concerned though... Everyone that's a citizen of they country they are in OR has the appropriate work Visa has a right to A job... what they don't have is a right to ANY SPECIFIC job.

There's only one reasonable and acceptable "discrimination" to employment: "is the person capable of fulfilling the requirements of the job?" If yes, hire them. If no, don't hire them.

Age (as long as they are old enough to work legally in the position), gender, race, sexual orientation, marital status, religion, and disability that won't affect performance... should all have exactly ZERO effect on a person's ability to become employed.

Paragraph #2 conflicts with paragraph #3.

A person's age, gender, disabilities, race, religion, orientation, and marital status can all have a predictable impact on their ability to perform a particular job effectively or at all. All of these can also correlate heavily with other tangible factors that impact work ability.

An employer doesn't get to discriminate against Asians, for example, if he can prove that Asians consistently sell 30% fewer cars than black sales associates in his highly black-centric neighbourhood. Either he has the discretion to hire the best person for the job or he doesn't; his rationale is irrelevant. Over the years, our society has shifted from overwhelmingly "does" to "does not"--to its detriment, conservatives would say, even without the employer's loss of freedom.