My reply to Paul Trombley
(his original comment is below my reply)-
Do you normally take what people say out of context then add your own distortions? You should work for the Daily Show they are always doing that.
1. Why did you cut off the sentence "an Indicrat is a proponent of a government..." and add your own context?
Why do that, when the full sentence reads- "An Indicrat is a proponent of a government that champions individual rights, free enterprise and creativity." ?
That's like me calling someone a serial killer but leaving out what they were actually killing...like cockroaches, for instance.
If you want to have an intelligent conversation with someone you should quote them accurately instead of lying or obfuscating via omission.
2. Why do you automatically assume that if someone is a "proponent" of a government that means they are a proponent of a collectivist or statist government?
The founding fathers of the U.S. were proponents of a government, a republic. Whether it be a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Socialist or Communist, all of these are proponents of their respective forms of government. The only group that aren't proponents of a government are anarchists.
Do you not know what the word "proponent" means?
Anyway, all that other stuff you wrote is so incoherent to me that I simply can't respond to it, especially since you start your whole diatribe with a false premise.
If you're gonna create a false premise to begin with, then there's no point to this discussion.
However, I will create a MAIL section on my website and post you letter and my response.
Thanks for writing, Paul.
1. Why did you cut off the sentence "an Indicrat is a proponent of a government..." and add your own context?
Why do that, when the full sentence reads- "An Indicrat is a proponent of a government that champions individual rights, free enterprise and creativity." ?
That's like me calling someone a serial killer but leaving out what they were actually killing...like cockroaches, for instance.
If you want to have an intelligent conversation with someone you should quote them accurately instead of lying or obfuscating via omission.
2. Why do you automatically assume that if someone is a "proponent" of a government that means they are a proponent of a collectivist or statist government?
The founding fathers of the U.S. were proponents of a government, a republic. Whether it be a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Socialist or Communist, all of these are proponents of their respective forms of government. The only group that aren't proponents of a government are anarchists.
Do you not know what the word "proponent" means?
Anyway, all that other stuff you wrote is so incoherent to me that I simply can't respond to it, especially since you start your whole diatribe with a false premise.
If you're gonna create a false premise to begin with, then there's no point to this discussion.
However, I will create a MAIL section on my website and post you letter and my response.
Thanks for writing, Paul.
From: Paul Trombley
To: indicrat
Sent: Sat, Dec 15, 2012 10:28 am
Subject: generalizing about "a unique kind of Libertarian"
Dhruva Gabri'el,
Perhaps you are a comic genius who mocks tikkun olam on the sly.
Perhaps not.
Now, you wrote that
"[a]n Indicrat is a proponent of a government...". In other words, an
Indicrat is a collectivist and a statist. It appears that the indicrat
is a militarist, too, and I've never encounted a statist who didn't want
to coerce other people to bear the costs of establishing the
statists' unstable order. Sure enough, you fit the stereotype.
To
finance indicratic statism, including the militarism that fascinates
the indicrat, the indicrat wants a shakedown racket stet up and operated
under the color of law. Surely the indicrat does not think that anyone
is entitled to shirk the portion of costs assigned to him or her, does
he? Well, no, so the indicrat wants self defense against the racket to
be counted as a crime.
Like
other pushers and shovers who appoint theirselves as the saviors of the
world, the indicrat wants an aggressive, crusading military, too. After
all, "the Indicrat stands up for individual rights everywhere in the
world" in the manner of an internationalist capo di tutti capi and his
crew who operate a protection racket on the pretext of helping others. How
very magnanimous of the indicrat. It would appear that the
indiecrat has much in common with the bleeding hearted social
democrat who cares so much about others that she screams for government
to coerce other people to bear most of the burdens implied by her alleged caring.
It's
unfortunate that militarism commits the indicrat to crony capitalism,
too. After all, militarism wants government to be well supplied with
tents and bayonets and Gatling guns and ammo. This commits the indicrat
not only to robbery but also to a process of political
entrepreneurialism through which are chose winners and losers in the
contest to profit from the sales of military goods and services to
government. This engine of crony capitalism should endear the indicrat's
government to leftists, who always and everywhere strive to merge
commerce, government, and the management of businesses while at the same
time crying from one side of their mouths that capitalism leads to
fascism.
Indeed,
"an Indicrat is a unique kind of [ahem] Libertarian", although
indicracy does not appear to pose "a new threat". In fact, it's merely a
variation on a theme popular in the 1920s and 1930s. Perhaps we should
recognize the indicrat as a kind of neocon thug who has made peace with
central planning and the supposed need for a "government healthcare
payment bureau". Yes, I know. It's ironic that the indicratic lover of
Krav Maga is basically just a fascist who prates about how his
collectivistic system will protect and guarantee freedom. Karl Marx
would smile secretely in approval, though of course not be caught dead
in public doing so lest another person connect the dots from
communism to indicracy, er,
fascism.
It's by the way that every Indicrat's interests would be served well by disdaining music, an illiberal art, for music arrests an indicrat's development in proportion to his or her preoccupation with it.
All the best and in humor,
Paul
