The Logical Conservative: Limited Federal Government

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Jan 19, 2010 8:15 am

An essay on limited government, by a supporter of same.

-Crissa

Props to Frank for finding it.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Tue Jan 19, 2010 2:58 pm

Crissa wrote:An essay on limited government, by a supporter of same.

-Crissa

Props to Frank for finding it.

That's some amazing cognitive dissonance. Basically boils down to 'Everything should be allowed to do whatever the fuck it wants with (and on) their own property', 'The government should not be allowed to do what it wants with (and on) its own property', 'I should be allowed to do whatever the fuck I want on anyone's property', and, of course, 'If you disagree with me then you're a fascist'.

And then there are the few random bits of decrying double standards thrown in, which while totally reasonable, have nothing to do with the 'fascism' argument at all.

You might be a fascist if you . . .

. . . operate from the premise that morality is relative.

. . . want to impose your moral code on strangers.

. . . itch to make other people act as you believe they should act.

. . . object to the examples in this essay.

Heh.

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:27 pm

I also love that he thinks that it's fascist behavior to think that poisoning people is not okay.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Jan 19, 2010 11:04 pm

What about bank fraud, tax evasion, and money laundering? Fascists apparently hate that bank fraud, and so you shouldn't, I guess.

-Crissa

Cielingcat · Post by **Cielingcat** » Tue Jan 19, 2010 11:12 pm

That "essay" is quite clearly a parody.

You might be a fascist if you . . .

. . . equate non-coercive choice and actions of which you disapprove with fascism.

Like seriously, no way this is serious. It's someone trolling the site, there's no other explanation.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Jan 19, 2010 11:57 pm

I always hope, but I'm usually proven wrong.

Though yeah, "non-coercive" is way above the reading level of the rest of the piece.

-Crissa

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 1:00 am

http://www.russellmadden.com/index.html

I seriously doubt it is a troll, the dude has an entire website full of a number of essays of crazy rantings.

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 1:04 am

I mean check this out

Dear Mr. Higbee:

Thanks for contacting me. My father served in Europe in WWII, so I understand the emotional connotations people have for the flag. Like you, I do not believe people should disrespect what the flag stands for.

Unfortunately, I do not support the Constitutional amendment you propose. Protesters do not burn the U.S. flag, they burn a U.S. flag. Assuming the flag is their personal property, they have a right to dispose of that property as they see fit...on their own property (though not necessarily on public property).

I see respect for property rights as a fundamental foundation for a free society. Once one grants the principle that one group of people may dictate to certain other people how they may or may not peacefully use their property, there is no stopping that process. Without the recognized and respected right to decide how to use your property, you become nothing more than a servant, acting how those with more power than you tell you to act.

Respect for property rights has become virtually nonexistent in our country. Governments at all levels tell us how to utilize our homes and property; what we can or cannot buy or sell or build; even what color to paint our homes. Our income is not seen as belonging to us but to the government which permits us to keep some small percentage of what we earn. We become part-time slaves in which others determine how our work, our lives will be led. Whether it is gun rights, the food we eat, who we can hire and fire, government seeks to intrude its tendrils into every nook and cranny of our lives.

I believe this trend is dangerously wrong.

Freedom demands that we protect unpopular opinions and unpopular choices or it means nothing. Protecting the popular is no test of liberty. Each of us has the right to be wrong. I see the proper role of government as protecting our individual rights, as respecting our individual moral autonomy, in creating the conditions for each of us to make our own personal and peaceful choices. Government does not properly have the right to impose one set of morality on us all...because that always boils down to the biggest, strongest gang imposing its will on the rest of us.

So, again, I regret I must disagree. I personally respect the ideas the U.S. flag represents too much to violate those principles. While I treat my personal flags carefully, I do not think "there oughta be a law" to prevent others from treating their property differently. I personally believe persuasion -- not force -- is the proper way to handle disagreements in our society.

Best,

Russ Madden

Libertarian candidate for Congress

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 1:32 am

What government agency is responsible for the color of your home?

-Crissa

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 1:56 am

Crissa wrote:What government agency is responsible for the color of your home?

-Crissa

I assume that like most crazies, he mistakes homeowner societies and other private organizations that he disagrees with for the government.

Cielingcat · Post by **Cielingcat** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 2:11 am

I went and read the "essay" again.

askghdeswjkazfyldlzsfvfgizdfuhdbszfcopc ,djzhk;a zl vljsdc;lzscjk gzvdk;aslizvc ;aoi spizg o bsuksfd gpvazh

NONONONONONONOARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

You might be a fascist if you . . .
. . . equate non-coercive choice and actions of which you disapprove with fascism.

You might be a fascist if you . . .

. . . object to the examples in this essay.

WHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHWYWHYWHWYHWYWHYWHWYHWYWHWY

I DO NOT HAVE WORDS FOR THIS

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:14 am

as a side-drift, HOAs often make neighborhoods look better, or sell better. So much so that in California, part of the legal documentation you must sign are waivers saying whether the house or property you're buying is or is not a part of one.

Because while it may make the homes look nicer, fewer people actually want to be in one, and the existence of it is often not mentioned if at all. Because sellers want the positive side (HOA agreements make the neighborhood look nice) without the negative side (HOAs are not popular with buyers who don't want needless restrictions on their property use).

We just bought a house without an HOA. Our house can be any color we want.

However, we can't build a house too close to the neighbor's house and overshadow them or peek in their windows. We'd need their permission to do so. And we can't overbuild our septic tank, because that would mean shit would flow down everyone's street. And... A dozen other things that have very important reasons behind them.

-Crissa

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:28 am

Crissa wrote:What government agency is responsible for the color of your home?

That is typically handled (if at all) at the lowest level of government. God help you if you live in a "historic" neighborhood where the natives had no sense or good taste.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:47 am

Did you know that your option of where to live was not assigned on high, and that such neighborhoods do not spring whole cloth around you?

It's like people who move in next to an airport and complain about noise. That's about how I think about people who complain of historic districts and HOAs.

They did not have to buy or live there.

If you pre-exist it... Well, they have a specific clause for that, you know?

-Crissa

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:55 am

Crissa wrote:Did you know that your option of where to live was not assigned on high, and that such neighborhoods do not spring whole cloth around you?

I've lived where I've lived (on and off - not counting college and the 9 year period I was in Key West) for almost 40 years. Only recently has there been talk of establishing a "historical district" so yes such neighborhoods can spring suddenly from whole cloth around you.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 5:24 am

No, they can't. They take something called 'public support'. Your duly elected representatives and whatnot. Elected.

You totally have the choice to buy in or not to buy into an HOA or historical district. They come with benefits and drawbacks. No one can put you in an HOA you don't want; and a historical district won't stop you from using the property as you had been.

Also, there's this word that applies to uses for the property prior... Gosh, maybe you know what it's called?

-Crissa

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:53 am

My favorite part is how many of the sections have to do with how the "fascists" are trying to keep him from running an under-the-table casino and then avoiding taxes on the revenues by hiding them in numerous tiny bank accounts taken out under an assumed name. That is really an incredibly specific thing to get upset about. And it really has nothing to do with Fascism.

I mean the stuff about how you might be a fascist if you think that things should be voted on is some great unintentional irony. And the part where he thinks that paying for services you aren't using right now is oppression and so is having services not be available when you want them is some nice math fail. But the real window into madness is the part where we won't be truly free until he can run an underground casino out of his house and launder all the money. That is the honey in the comb.

-Username17

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:19 pm

To be totally fair, he probably doesn't think that laundering is actually a bad thing, since he probably thinks any taxes at all is automatically facism.

Sort of like Tzor.

Wait a minute...

Contradicts himself, a total idiot, thinks the government should not be able to regulate anything except when he doesn't like it...

Fuck, it is Tzor.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 2:26 pm

Kaelik wrote:To be totally fair, he probably doesn't think that laundering is actually a bad thing, since he probably thinks any taxes at all is automatically facism.

Sort of like Tzor.

Wait a minute...

Contradicts himself, a total idiot, thinks the government should not be able to regulate anything except when he doesn't like it...

Fuck, it is Tzor.

Where do you get the notion that I think "any taxes at all" is facism?

(And then again, are we talking German facism or Italian facism; I need to know the color of the shirts that the taxes are wearing.)

I just recently (as in last fall) went through a brutal election where the moron of a Democratic incumbent constantly argued that he was for lower taxes. He did this by decimating the local police department so that crime was ramant, attempting to eliminate the local dispatchers to force an already stressed out county level dispatch with no local knowledge of the town area to take over; a move that would have resulted in massively longer response times and possible deaths because of those response times.

Governments should be lean; but not anexoric.

Also I don't know where my likes and dislikes ever came into the notion of regulations. Really I think you pull most of this shit about me out of your ass, because it stinks to high heaven and I think it's causing global warming.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 5:03 pm

tzor wrote:Where do you get the notion that I think "any taxes at all" is facism?

(And then again, are we talking German facism or Italian facism; I need to know the color of the shirts that the taxes are wearing.)

I just recently (as in last fall) went through a brutal election where the moron of a Democratic incumbent constantly argued that he was for lower taxes. He did this by decimating the local police department so that crime was ramant, attempting to eliminate the local dispatchers to force an already stressed out county level dispatch with no local knowledge of the town area to take over; a move that would have resulted in massively longer response times and possible deaths because of those response times.

Governments should be lean; but not anexoric.

Also I don't know where my likes and dislikes ever came into the notion of regulations. Really I think you pull most of this shit about me out of your ass, because it stinks to high heaven and I think it's causing global warming.

Tzor, you have some pretty strange politics wherever it is you live (Florida? New York?). A Democrat arguing for lower taxes? And people that elect him on that platform? What the hell?

[Edit] Nobody with at least half a brain thinks that a government can be run without taxes. And we know that Tzor has at least half a brain. [/Edit]

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:43 pm

CatharzGodfoot wrote:Tzor, you have some pretty strange politics wherever it is you live (Florida? New York?). A Democrat arguing for lower taxes?

They say that all politics is local. All local politics is loco. I could go on about the local elections; it was almost a soap opera at times. (There is a flip side, because the idiot was the biggest cause of all commercial enterprise leaving the downtown area, which in turn causes more pain for residents.) The biggest Gilbert and Sullivan moment was when he sent out a campaign flyer with a photo of Ronald Reagan on it.

I'm on Long Island; technically in New York, but really a land all unto itself.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:49 pm

People with brains don't go into local politics.

-Crissa

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 10:25 pm

tzor wrote:[

I just recently (as in last fall) went through a brutal election where the moron of a Democratic incumbent constantly argued that he was for lower taxes. He did this by decimating the local police department so that crime was ramant, attempting to eliminate the local dispatchers to force an already stressed out county level dispatch with no local knowledge of the town area to take over; a move that would have resulted in massively longer response times and possible deaths because of those response times.

Governments should be lean; but not anexoric.

Why not get together and private private funding to the police force, or hire your own rent a cops?

More seriously, any argument for law enforcement applies just as much for public healthcare - we know that providing mental healthcare and drug care etc directly reduces the crime rate.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 2:09 am

cthulhu wrote:
tzor wrote:[

I just recently (as in last fall) went through a brutal election where the moron of a Democratic incumbent constantly argued that he was for lower taxes. He did this by decimating the local police department so that crime was ramant, attempting to eliminate the local dispatchers to force an already stressed out county level dispatch with no local knowledge of the town area to take over; a move that would have resulted in massively longer response times and possible deaths because of those response times.

Governments should be lean; but not anexoric.
Why not get together and private private funding to the police force, or hire your own rent a cops?

More seriously, any argument for law enforcement applies just as much for public healthcare - we know that providing mental healthcare and drug care etc directly reduces the crime rate.

But he doesn't like those, so of course, taxes for them are automatically bad.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 2:26 am

cthulhu wrote:Why not get together and private private funding to the police force, or hire your own rent a cops?

You mean Private Police ... I don't think that's a good idea actually.

cthulhu wrote:More seriously, any argument for law enforcement applies just as much for public healthcare - we know that providing mental healthcare and drug care etc directly reduces the crime rate.

Mental healthcare and drug care (I'm assuming rehabilitation here) is properly a function of government especially since the state has a definite interest and it is often tied up with the criminial system.