Alexis deTocqueville, writing of the activists of his day:
“The members of these associations respond to a watchword, like soldiers on duty; they profess the doctrine of passive obedience; say, rather, that in uniting together they at once abjure the exercise of their own judgment and free will; and the tyrannical control that these societies exercise is often far more insupportable than the authority possessed over society by the government which they attack. Their moral force is much diminished by these proceedings, and they lose the sacred character which always attaches to a struggle of the oppressed against their oppressors. He who in given cases consents to obey his fellows with servility and who submits his will and even his thoughts to their control, how can he pretend that he wishes to be free?”
Health care is a right, background checks, freedom of choice, economic security, climate change, the common good – these are the modern watchwords which, like soldiers, liberals salute and obey with no regard to their own judgment or will.
That your liberal brethren have surrendered their freedom is the root of their violent objection when you declare that your own is not for sale. Do they loathe being unfree? Do they envy and resent that your free will and better judgment have empowered you to refuse to be equally unfree with them?
Yes and Yes. Wouldn’t that make you scream in anger too?
America's CURE - by Jeff Neal 
they SHOULD scream louder when what they have screamed for doesnt work, or costs them much more than promised – but they wont, bc it would rattle their belief in human gods…and they SO want to believe in human gods…
I would disagree. I do not think you would want to debate an educated liberal, I think most of them would eat you alive. I think you fall into the fallacy of passing off phrases as argumentation without either recognizing it, or being unconcerned with it. I think the quote from deTocqueville could as easily be applied to your blog as to those you oppose. You use a lot of catchphrases, but are you actually prepared to debate the finer points of the issues involved?
OK, KG – make an argument. Evaluating mine is not making one. Try making an argument one time. Your criticisms of mine are tedious and not germane.
Fair enough.
Are you the same Jeffrey Neal who went to the University of Virginia? If so, you should know about the influences of Thomas Jefferson, and how his writings were influenced by John Locke. As John Locke postulated, the governments of the world, democratic that is, are reflected in the Social Contracts of the day. If the social contract of the US reflects background checks, universal health care, and similar activities, then you belong to that society.
Yet you seem upset and angry, not that you want to give up the benefits of that society, but that anyone would dare suggest that you also accept the limitations placed on you from that society. You want to have your cake and eat it too. How can a social contract exist if everyone takes from the benefits, but refuses to also make the sacrifices?
There is no basis for the suggestion that I think freedom is a license other than your own confused conflation of the two words.
I am not a party to any contract other than one I enter of my own free will. I wasn’t born subject to any contract, I was born a free person with one limit on my behavior – a prohibition against infringing on any other person’s identical and reciprocal freedoms.
It’s not complicated.
Actually, whether you like it or not, you are part of a contract. You can be forced to do things you do not like because society has deemed that some things are required from you, but in return provides you some level of protection. This is the philosophical underpinnings of the US Government. To deny it is to deny that you are getting wet while outside, soaked, and standing in a deluge.
If you do not like the society, you are free to leave it however. Afghanistan, Somalia, and parts of Nigeria are relatively government free, you could try those if you would like to leave.
But screaming, as you constantly advocate, is what a child does when it does not get its way, but does not want to give up all of its toys, either.
Hogwash. You don’t like my freedom, you leave, you piece of slime who thinks have a claim on my life because I was born, because I breath. I’m sorry for you that I will not admit that you have such a claim, I’m sorry it makes you feel cheated, but that’s your problem, not mine. I pity a life that thinks the way you do. A waste of a mind and flesh. Try harder to own yourself and maybe you won’t covet what other people produce for themselves and for trade with others for things that improve their lives.
I do not think you understand. You are using ad hominem because as I said, you are not prepared for a real discussion, and I am not even a liberal, I am just well read in political philosophy. The society has a claim on you because that is how almost every modern liberal democracy operates, that I can think of at least. There might be one that does not operate this way but after five minutes considering it, I cannot think of one.
Like I said, you’re just unprepared for anything like this. Have you ever read John Locke? Just to skip to the chase, why not demonstrate it by quoting the political philosophy that supports your position, and show how it was incorporated into the Constitution? I can easily do this with Locke.
So, if John Locke says I’m bound by a ‘contract’ I never read, you have a claim on my life. Good point.
I was thinking I could post on Howard’s site without being censored, so unless you are scared to have someone point out your shortcomings there, could you provide me the website?
go away
I think I get it. You’re terrified aren’t you? It’s easy to bluster here where you are unchallenged, but when you have an actual challenge, you run away. It is fitting, I suppose, it does match your argumentative style. You are a small child who has no idea why life has gone wrong for him and are so angry and you cannot blame yourself.
I did some reading up on you, and I can see why you censor every comment. If someone were to find out about Advantis, or Monument, you would be humiliated, and you cannot blame yourself for the failure. But it ultimately all is your fault. Obama did not mess you up, you did, but based on your posting style I am guessing that you cannot ever admit you were ever wrong.
So you hide here, trying to control what people can see, but that is really fake. You’re impotent, You cannot really hide your failure, a Google search would show it, but here you can pretend. It’s like when my cat sits behind the curtains, the curtains do not touch the floor, and it’s bottom half is exposed, but it cannot see others so it assumes others cannot see it.
You are not screaming, you’re crying with the unfairness of it all, while really knowing you’re to blame for all of it. This whole website is a coping mechanism for a small terrified person.
It is sad really.
Yes, I’m hiding which is why (1) my name is on my blog, (2) you so easily found me, and (3) why you identify yourself with 2 letters and pretend that because you can Google my name that you’ve found out some, apparently very poorly kept, secrets about the fact that some businesses fail.
Good work.
You wanted suggestions for topics:How can people believe in God but not in spirits/ghosts? Why do they believe in God? Is it easier to have faith in god than to believe in spirits? Just a su38estion&#g2g0;