🚀 go-pugleaf

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:ieefrv85qvqkbhn4994afpci1h5ik6e2ii@4ax.com...
> "rex" <rexy@ij.net> wrote:
> >"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:wMFtb.31778$Hb3.11180@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> >> "joe" <joebird_11@netzero.com> wrote in message
> >> news:bp6qhi$13sp$1@news.wplus.net...
> >> > yes they could have done the raid in a private school too, had the
> >> principal
> >> > invited them in to do it ( as is the case in the S.C. school) the
> >> difference
> >> > is that in a private school the principal would have to answer to
angery
> >> > parents.
> >>
> >> Don't public school principals have to answer to parents too? Or at
least
> >to
> >> the school board, who the parents elected?
> >
> >That is the classic reasoning of totalitarian socialism.
>
> Not really.  Totalitarians would not care whether the principals are
> answerable to anyone except the totalitarian power.

Yes, really.  You can point to no totalitarian who has not used the very
cliche that Roger used in defense of government.   Regardless of what you
claim to think that they really "care" about.

> >If the issue is
> >education, food, clothing, shelter, TV, widgets or any goods or services,
> >then a freedom advocate will point out how people provide for needs in a
> >free market economy, and the response of the classic totalitarian
socialist
> >is that everything that people have in a free society can be provided by
a
> >totalitarian government because "Don't government providers have to
answer
> >to citizens too? Or at least to the provider board, who the citizens
elect?"
>
> Therefore the argument is valid to justify neither a totalitarian
> socialist government nor a totally free market approach, since it does
> not distinguish.

Therefore the argument is used to justify totalitarian socialism and has
been by everyone of them.
as for a free market, it doesn't use government providers.  You are
completely illogical.

> >It is frightening how commonplace that response has become and how the
> >people who provide that response to one subject (e.g. schools) NEVER
OPENLY
> >expand the response as was done in the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics,
> >Communist China, the National Socialist German Workers Party, Cuba, etc.
> >It is as if the people who use that simplistic response do not know all
the
> >horrible ideologies that have used that same response.   Very
frightening.
>
> Even horrible ideologies do some things properly, or they would never
> manage to stay in power long enough to be seen as horrible.
>
> Your argument is fallacious.

Thanks for proving I was right about your defense of horrible ideologies.
Otherwise, your argument is fallacious and illogical.

> On the other hand a "free market economy" hasn't existed since the
> world was confined to primitive barter systems (if even then), so it
> has even less stature in the modern world than a horrible ideology.
> Libertarianism is thus a worse-than-horrible ideology, it is a
> seemingly impossible one.

Thanks again for proving I was right about your hatred of freedom and a
free-market economy.  People engage in free market acts all the time, only
limited by the way that people like you intervene to prevent people from
engaging in completely free trade.  Totalitarian socialism has no
respectable stature in the modern world because it is a horrible ideology.
Your philosophy (er lack thereof) is worse-than-horrible
ideology, because it is rubber stamp statism, where you simply defend
horrible ideologies, and you do so knowingly.

You proved everything I said. Period.  It is amazing that you responded with
a complete defense of the same cliche reasoning that is used by totalitarian
socialists, even after I directly confront you with the point. Period.
You are a "rubber-stamp statist."  Period. You do not think philosophically
about the range of your own comments, and you simplistically rubber-stamp
government programs that others start (because you are not enough of a
creative thinker to come up with your own socialist ideas).  Point to any
website or even other group posts where you attempt to explain any political
philsophy or philosophy of government that you hold (you hold none, other
than rubber-stamp statism) or point to any philosophical defense of liberty
(calling for the reduction of government programs, laws, socialism) that you
have ever made.  You can point to nothing.  You are a rubber-stamp statist
who uses the cliches of totalitarian socialism.

> lojbab
> --
> lojbab                                             lojbab@lojban.org
> Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
> (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
> Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:                 http://www.lojban.org






-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----