The other day on G+, someone shared this picture into his stream:
Welfare is the means to power. Power must be grabbed first.Once anyone wrests control of power, then that one can achieve one's political goals.
Unless men and women are willing to arm themselves and kill enough others to gain control by violent overthrow, the means to power is welfare doling.
Politicians can not gain power without securing enough votes. Without enough voters, any pol can not gain office and thus do as his financiers bid her or him. The way poles secure votes is through bribing voters with welfare doling.
Politicians can not exist without your enemies. Welfare recipients are your true great enemy. Likely, your Medicare grandmother is your enemy, your SSDI cousin is your enemy. The Pell Grant recipient college student from down the street is your enemy.
And then this gem of a fellow, Chuck, chimed in:
By Chuck's words, Chuck seems to be unwilling to rob someone directly, so Chuck champions men and women with real balls to rob everyone else, merely so Chuck can get his kickback crumbs for supporting them.
Likely, Chuck prefers sweet sounding rhetoric like welfare instead of what he seeks, kickback. So, like millions of others, Chuck shall accept the lie that a kickback is welfare.
Under the constraint of his kickback crumbs, Chuck can express his preferences dishonestly rather than making himself valuable and thus exchange worthy in a voluntary fashion, which would let him get his preferences expressed voluntarily.
I asked Chuck why, exactly, should anyone be forced to pay income taxes or face prison merely because Chuck wants to live at their expenses? What makes Chuck so important and thus so deserving that anyone not related to him and not voluntarily wanting to give to him should be forced to give to him or become imprisoned?
I asked Chuck where are his relatives? Where are his mommy and daddy? Why didn't Chuck forge better relationships or perhaps any at all with his relatives and neighbors? Why aren't they paying for him voluntarily? However, Chuck failed to answer.
Ironically, it seems as if Chuck hasn't been living up to the social compact through voluntary action, action he had complete control over doing.
All contracts are voluntary. There is no such thing in law as an involuntary contract. Imposing action upon another by force while no voluntary contract has been agreed upon has a name. We call that slavery. We call that servitude. We see that one has become the chattel and thus the property of another.
Using "society" is disingenuous to mean a people under rule, or a people living within a defended, bounded area. Yet, all too many do so when trying to justify their Dystopian visions.
Men can attest the word society to the 1530s meaning friendly association with others, entering English from the Old French societe, in turn from Latin societatem in turn from socius meaning companion.
Though he differs in degree, how does Chuck differ in kind to any tyrant in the history of humans who wanted others to use force on his behalf so that he could live without honestly producing something wanted by others and then engaging in honest exchange?
At day's end, humans want to get their preferences expressed and met. If they can't do so voluntarily, they will seek other means.
Few humans have bravery. Yet, some do. They will impose their will upon others.
Most who can't get their preferences expressed and met voluntarily, shall seek the few who have bravery to help them achieve their wants.
And there you have it. This is what is wrong the earth over with humans. This is why there is suffering as there is.
Even if Chuck isn't seeking welfare, but merely supporting politicians who dole out welfare in exchange for gaining and locking power, then Chuck is as bad as the ones who accept welfare and thus have revealed your immorality, the same as they do.
It's only a matter of degree, but not different kind, when someone champions politician-doled welfare acquired by involuntary means or when someone champions politician-doled subsidy to bomb makers and farmers.
At least an immoral man of bravery would acknowledge reality and say something like ...but I want stuff and I don't want to earn the buying power to get that stuff through honest exchange by first packaging up my skills through time into something all would call a product, selling that product to the highest bidder, so I am going to use my muscles and willingness to murder to get what I want.
The problem with all of the Chucks of our world is their intellects are insufficient while their greed — their want to get something without giving up something else wanted in a voluntary exchange — is all too sufficient for them not to see reality. They try to justify their immorality, their inhumane action, their misanthropic action to get their preferences expressed and met by any means, if necessary.
Others be dammed! As long as the Chucks get their way and gets to live their lives, free-to-them, getting their preferences expressed and met under constraint of what robbers shall dole to them for his pledge of loyalty, well screw everyone else who wants to be free, free in mind, body and soul, free in self.
To support his push for PPACA, Obama argued that in future, a person is going to need medicine and thus a person ought to be compelled by law to buy medical bills paying insurance, now, to cover that alleged actuarial eventually.
If everyone accepts Obama's premise as true and thus his conclusion, it's then easy to apply the same template and logic to other things.
Likely, Chuck prefers sweet sounding rhetoric like welfare instead of what he seeks, kickback. So, like millions of others, Chuck shall accept the lie that a kickback is welfare.
Under the constraint of his kickback crumbs, Chuck can express his preferences dishonestly rather than making himself valuable and thus exchange worthy in a voluntary fashion, which would let him get his preferences expressed voluntarily.
I asked Chuck why, exactly, should anyone be forced to pay income taxes or face prison merely because Chuck wants to live at their expenses? What makes Chuck so important and thus so deserving that anyone not related to him and not voluntarily wanting to give to him should be forced to give to him or become imprisoned?
I asked Chuck where are his relatives? Where are his mommy and daddy? Why didn't Chuck forge better relationships or perhaps any at all with his relatives and neighbors? Why aren't they paying for him voluntarily? However, Chuck failed to answer.
Ironically, it seems as if Chuck hasn't been living up to the social compact through voluntary action, action he had complete control over doing.
All contracts are voluntary. There is no such thing in law as an involuntary contract. Imposing action upon another by force while no voluntary contract has been agreed upon has a name. We call that slavery. We call that servitude. We see that one has become the chattel and thus the property of another.
Using "society" is disingenuous to mean a people under rule, or a people living within a defended, bounded area. Yet, all too many do so when trying to justify their Dystopian visions.
Men can attest the word society to the 1530s meaning friendly association with others, entering English from the Old French societe, in turn from Latin societatem in turn from socius meaning companion.
Though he differs in degree, how does Chuck differ in kind to any tyrant in the history of humans who wanted others to use force on his behalf so that he could live without honestly producing something wanted by others and then engaging in honest exchange?
At day's end, humans want to get their preferences expressed and met. If they can't do so voluntarily, they will seek other means.
Few humans have bravery. Yet, some do. They will impose their will upon others.
Most who can't get their preferences expressed and met voluntarily, shall seek the few who have bravery to help them achieve their wants.
And there you have it. This is what is wrong the earth over with humans. This is why there is suffering as there is.
Even if Chuck isn't seeking welfare, but merely supporting politicians who dole out welfare in exchange for gaining and locking power, then Chuck is as bad as the ones who accept welfare and thus have revealed your immorality, the same as they do.
It's only a matter of degree, but not different kind, when someone champions politician-doled welfare acquired by involuntary means or when someone champions politician-doled subsidy to bomb makers and farmers.
At least an immoral man of bravery would acknowledge reality and say something like ...but I want stuff and I don't want to earn the buying power to get that stuff through honest exchange by first packaging up my skills through time into something all would call a product, selling that product to the highest bidder, so I am going to use my muscles and willingness to murder to get what I want.
The problem with all of the Chucks of our world is their intellects are insufficient while their greed — their want to get something without giving up something else wanted in a voluntary exchange — is all too sufficient for them not to see reality. They try to justify their immorality, their inhumane action, their misanthropic action to get their preferences expressed and met by any means, if necessary.
Others be dammed! As long as the Chucks get their way and gets to live their lives, free-to-them, getting their preferences expressed and met under constraint of what robbers shall dole to them for his pledge of loyalty, well screw everyone else who wants to be free, free in mind, body and soul, free in self.
To support his push for PPACA, Obama argued that in future, a person is going to need medicine and thus a person ought to be compelled by law to buy medical bills paying insurance, now, to cover that alleged actuarial eventually.
If everyone accepts Obama's premise as true and thus his conclusion, it's then easy to apply the same template and logic to other things.
- All persons shall need housing. Sometimes bad things happen, thus all persons should be compelled by law to buy rent / mortgage bills insurance.
- All persons shall need food. Sometimes bad things happen, thus all persons should be compelled by law to buy food bills insurance.
- All persons shall need electrical energy. Sometimes bad things happen, thus all persons should be compelled by law to buy electric bills paying insurance.
- All persons shall need food. Sometimes bad things happen, thus all persons should be compelled by law to buy food paying insurance.
- All persons shall need new work skills. Sometimes bad things happen, thus all persons should be compelled by law to buy education bills paying insurance.
So I asked Chuck,
- Why didn't you buy rent / mortgage bills insurance?
- Why didn't you buy food bills insurance?
- Why didn't you buy clothing bills insurance?
- Why didn't you buy electrical energy bills insurance?
- Why didn't you buy higher education, new skills acquisition bills insurance?
The irony is that Chucks fail to honor the social compact and fail at responsibility to themselves and to all others with whom you might have relationship, if any. Instead all Chucks advocate tyranny and violence, forcing and coercing others to behave and comport to their Dystopia vision, that in your vacuous, weak-intellect mind seems to be Utopia.
Gab It
