It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Statist's Conceit

page: 1
17
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   

The Statist’s Conceit.


I become suspicious every time someone advocates for government intervention in human affairs. But I cringe even more when he pretends that his advocacy is a reflection of his selflessness and compassion.

In other news, a socialist is alleged to have assaulted a libertarian. Bowling Green resident Rene Boucher allegedly attacked his well-known neighbour, senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, leaving Paul with 5 broken ribs and bruised lungs.

A neighbourly squabble? Perhaps. But according to neighbours, both men would often argue about healthcare. As one might expect of someone of the far-left, Boucher was an advocate for national healthcare, while Paul, always the principled libertarian, was opposed to such ideas.

It is not yet known whether the assault was politically motivated, but the politics and lives of the actors serves as a sufficient analogy. Both are physicians. Boucher is a socialist and Paul is a libertarian. Yet only Paul offers free healthcare (when he is not fighting for liberty on the senate floor, he provides free healthcare to those in need), while Boucher could only ever muster enough compassion to advocate for free healthcare, while violently attacking those who don’t.

Bernie Sanders, himself a socialist, revealed the statist’s conceit during the confirmation hearing for Rep. Tom Price.


“No we are not a compassionate society. In terms of our relationship to poor and working people our record is worse than virtually any other country on earth. We have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any other major country on earth and half of our senior, older workers have nothing set aside for retirement. So I don't think compared to other countries we are particularly compassionate.”


Whose relationship to the poor and working people? The State, of course. But the United States also happens to be one of the one of the most generous and charitable nations on Earth, not to mention it ranks high in empathy, well above their most statist and welfare-happy counterparts.

This is a notion I don’t understand when some statist or other signals his virtue by demanding from The State free healthcare, free housing, free education, higher wages, more vacation days, etc.—why don’t you just do that? If you are so compassionate, why don’t you yourself provide these privileges? Become a philanthropist. Start a company and provide high wages to your employees. Become a doctor and offer your services for free. Become a professor and offer free education. Not only will you prove yourself compassionate instead of always having to tell us you are (in the words of Margaret Thatcher "power is like being a lady... if you have to tell people you are, you aren't"), you also won't be complicit in giving The State a monopoly on all civil affairs.

The answer is fairly simple: they are not compassionate, and if they are, they are not compassionate enough to act beyond their perpetual state of pity. On the contrary, to the extent that they would rather The State show compassion where they tend to lack it, suggests that they would much rather not think about it altogether, let alone to act on it.

Not only would taxes (read: someone else’s money) fund compassion, but it would also fund their own peace of mind, absolving them from the guilt of never providing any compassion, care, and kindness themselves.

That is the Statist's Conceit

- LesMis



edit on 6-11-2017 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 07:22 PM
link   
You've got a future!



Good stuff!

I would add something, but your OP needs no amendment.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Seriously...

Broad brush stereotyping is the best you can come up with?

That's just weak.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: maria_stardust
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Seriously...

Broad brush stereotyping is the best you can come up with?

That's just weak.


If that’s the best criticism you could come up with, then I’d hate to see what a weak criticism is.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Conceit, thy name is LesMisanthrope.

By all means, wear my quaint observation as validation for your weak assertion. I'm cool with that.



Or, perhaps you could have stated your point of view without having to grab at the low hanging fruit otherwise known as stereotyping. That's what makes your thread so disappointing.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Too bad Obamacare isn't Socialism, instead its Textbook Corporate Fascism.

Not that deep down there's all to much of a difference between the two.




posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: maria_stardust

I dont get this stereotyping allegation. In what way did he stereotype who, aside from the basic premise of talking about statist's? If that's your angle, well how could one talk about statist's without it being "stereotyping"?



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: maria_stardust
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Conceit, thy name is LesMisanthrope.

By all means, wear my quaint observation as validation for your weak assertion. I'm cool with that.



Or, perhaps you could have stated your point of view without having to grab at the low hanging fruit otherwise known as stereotyping. That's what makes your thread so disappointing.


I will wear your disappointment as a badge of honour, because I have a sneaking suspicion you’re disappointed because it hit too close to home.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Too bad Obamacare isn't Socialism, instead its Textbook Corporate Fascism.

Not that deep down there's all to much of a difference between the two.



Yes I thought the term statism was more accurate.


+1 more 
posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Painting with an awful broad brush there. I know many people on the left (some admitted socialist but most not) who spend great amounts of time, money, and energy in helping others. Many of these people have also chosen career paths based on their ability to help people as opposed to their ability to make money. The large majority of these people are quite humble and you will never heard their story told. I myself am not a socialist nor a leftist. I am in a profession where I could make a lot of money but have chosen, instead, to follow a path of service. I do this not because I'm a great humanitarian but because I measure success in a way quite different from the accepted norm.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Painting with an awful broad brush there. I know many people on the left (some admitted socialist but most not) who spend great amounts of time, money, and energy in helping others. Many of these people have also chosen career paths based on their ability to help people as opposed to their ability to make money. The large majority of these people are quite humble and you will never heard their story told. I myself am not a socialist nor a leftist. I am in a profession where I could make a lot of money but have chosen, instead, to follow a path of service. I do this not because I'm a great humanitarian but because I measure success in a way quite different from the accepted norm.


It sounds like you’re painting with a broad brush. I never mentioned the left nor right, except when describing the attacker of Rand Paul, who was, according to people who knew him, a socialist. I specifically said “statist”. So unless the people you know are statist, we are talking about two different things.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: maria_stardust




Or, perhaps you could have stated your point of view without having to grab at the low hanging fruit otherwise known as stereotyping. That's what makes your thread so disappointing.


What you fail to realize is that he is not stereotyping, as you put it. He was profiling, and I happen to agree with him with what I have observed during and after the campaign. He hit that nail square on the head. Your just disappointed because you know it is true, you see it within yourself. That would disappoint anyone.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Painting with an awful broad brush there. I know many people on the left (some admitted socialist but most not) who spend great amounts of time, money, and energy in helping others. Many of these people have also chosen career paths based on their ability to help people as opposed to their ability to make money. The large majority of these people are quite humble and you will never heard their story told. I myself am not a socialist nor a leftist. I am in a profession where I could make a lot of money but have chosen, instead, to follow a path of service. I do this not because I'm a great humanitarian but because I measure success in a way quite different from the accepted norm.


To bad the socialist that attacked Ryan doesn't think like you.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: 3daysgone

Stereotype has a specific meaning. In the context of earlier criticisms, the word was used wrongly.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

A distinction without a difference in this situation. Unless I'm completely mistaken, it's a tenet of the left to believe that the way to deal with societal issues and ills is to place the power within the gov't to solve said problems. Socialists are leftist by definition and therefore statist.

It seems to me that the point of your OP is that people who want to give power to the gov't to help the underprivileged are those that do nothing to help them themselves. I reject that point. Just like the fact that a certain number of people who lean right are greedy pigs, I would never say that all those who so lean should be painted by that brush.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: TobyFlenderson

You are making a good argument just now, and just now you reminded me of...

Poorer conservatives more generous than wealthy liberals – new study

Ut oh, I posted a stat that favors conservatives. That must prove that I'm one too...




posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

A distinction without a difference in this situation. Unless I'm completely mistaken, it's a tenet of the left to believe that the way to deal with societal issues and ills is to place the power within the gov't to solve said problems. Socialists are leftist by definition and therefore statist.

It seems to me that the point of your OP is that people who want to give power to the gov't to help the underprivileged are those that do nothing to help them themselves. I reject that point. Just like the fact that a certain number of people who lean right are greedy pigs, I would never say that all those who so lean should be painted by that brush.


Reject it all you like, but the point of the OP is not what you believe it to be. The point of the OP is that those who advocate for government power are not showing compassion, kindness, or generosity by doing so. Often it is a replacement, posturing, and showing off, and a particularly dangerous form of it.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 06:18 AM
link   
This is a very broad brush stereotype of what socialism is about, designed and written to appeal to conservatives so that they can, as clearly indicated by the comments above, feel as if they are superior to liberals.


How do you know those who advocate for government power are just showing off? Because you don't personally like what they stand for?


It all comes down to what you believe the job of the state should be. And that answer includes a spectrum of things, from keeping the citizens safe from threats domestic and foreign, to improving the lives of as many of the citizens as possible.


And here we find the core of the left/right split in American politics. The right in America wants to get rid of every part of the state apart from the security apparatus, while the center thinks the state should also work towards improving the lives of as many citizens as possible.


The problem with minimal statism is we return to how things were before the 20th century, when the vast majority of people were dirt poor, the few were massively rich, and poor people died brutal ugly empty deaths.

And certainly you can argue that the drive of Neo-Liberalism (poorly named, it is anything but liberal) and the economics of the new right, is all about establishing a Neo-Feudalism. THe rich people see no reason why they should pay for anything for poor people anymore.

But here's the thing, the compact between State and the People came about largely because the desperate starving powerless poor eventually got driven to do things like the French Revolution, and rich people wound up getting their heads chopped off. So in response to that, rich people around the world realised it was worth spending a bit more in taxes to raise up the general level of everybody else, so that society was happier and more stable.


Therefore, socialism works for both the rich and poor.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Painterz

The only one making “broad brush stereotypes” is you. No, socialism does not work for either the rich or poor, and we can point to the countless socialist states throughout history that have failed. That’s completely beside the point— I’m not talking about socialism.

No one who made a stereotype criticism in this thread knows what a stereotype is.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: maria_stardust
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Conceit, thy name is LesMisanthrope.

By all means, wear my quaint observation as validation for your weak assertion. I'm cool with that.



Or, perhaps you could have stated your point of view without having to grab at the low hanging fruit otherwise known as stereotyping. That's what makes your thread so disappointing.


I will wear your disappointment as a badge of honour, because I have a sneaking suspicion you’re disappointed because it hit too close to home.
NICE!




top topics



 
17
<<   2 >>

log in

join