Right Thinking From The Left Coast
Do, or do not. There is no 'try'. - Yoda

Fun On Campus II
by Lee

The other day I wrote a post about the way that liberals on college campuses view the right of freedom of speech.  In other words, they wan to ban any speech that they don’t happen to agree with.  Here’s another example.

A professor at Northern Kentucky University said she invited students in one of her classes to destroy an anti-abortion display on campus Wednesday evening.

NKU police are investigating the incident, in which 400 crosses were removed from the ground near University Center and thrown in trash cans. The crosses, meant to represent a cemetery for aborted fetuses, had been temporarily erected last weekend by a student Right to Life group with permission from NKU officials.

Public universities cannot ban such displays because they are a type of symbolic speech that has been protected by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Witnesses reported “a group of females of various ages” committing the vandalism about 5:30 p.m., said Dave Tobertge, administrative sergeant with the campus police.

Sally Jacobsen, a longtime professor in NKU’s literature and language department, said the display was dismantled by about nine students in one of her graduate-level classes.

“I did, outside of class during the break, invite students to express their freedom-of-speech rights to destroy the display if they wished to,” Jacobsen said.

That’s right, folks.  To liberals, freedom of speech involved unlesahing violence to stifle the peaceful speech rights of anyone who disagrees with you.  Perhaps I should exercise my free speech rights and kick this woman’s fucking teeth in.

Posted by Lee on 04/16/06 at 03:49 PM (Discuss this in the forums)

Comments


Posted by on 04/16/06 at 05:21 PM from United States

And you’ll never see something like this reported in the mainstream media.  Fucking liberal assholes.  Hopefully someone gets their ass shitted on for this.

Posted by Aaron - Free Will on 04/16/06 at 05:24 PM from United States

Apparently, abortion clinic *bombings* are freedom of speech, too, in her view?

Posted by on 04/16/06 at 05:57 PM from United States

If we did this it would be a hate crime but they pull this shit and its freedom of speech..stupid bitches

Posted by on 04/16/06 at 07:07 PM from United States

Could I brick in the door to her classroom thereby demonstrating symbolic protest to her being a arrogant cunt?

Posted by on 04/16/06 at 07:34 PM from United States

“I did, outside of class during the break, invite students to express their freedom-of-speech rights to destroy the display if they wished to,” Jacobsen said.

Yeah, but isn’t that really called “vandalism” or maybe classified as destruction of property...but I’m sure the ACLU would be willing to make a case of free speech out of it.

Posted by on 04/16/06 at 07:37 PM from United States

I go to a state university that isn’t particularly liberal or anything, but I’ve still been really surprised by some discussions I’ve had with other students. For example, when the whole Danish cartoon fiasco was going on, I got into a debate with two guys down the hall from my dorm room, one of whom is a Muslim. It just blew my mind that two typical liberal college students could have no interest at all in freedom of speech when it came to something politically incorrect like that.

Another memorable event was last September (I think)… Is anyone else familiar with Brother Jed? He’s this crazy preacher guy that apparently spends time at a lot of major universities. Anyway, his “world headquarters” are here at my university—lucky us. He got a bit carried away, I guess, and pissed off a lot of folks. So, all these liberal college students (particularly the LGBT bunch) started marching around with a bunch of signs to protest his “hate speech.” It devolved into a shout fest and, apparently, everyone was asked to leave. Brother Jed hasn’t been back since.

I think the last South Park episode was right-on. It’s incredibly easy for us to rant and rave about freedom of speech here in the States because it’s never really been challenged… At least not to a large extent. It’s actually pretty depressing that the Western World caved in so easily when such a challenge did arise with the Muhammad cartoon controversy. We chicken out when defending free speech might actually have consequences.

I don’t think it’s a problem limited to liberals, either, although the instances of their hypocrisy on this issue are especially amusing.

I suppose that’s a bit off-topic, though. In general, I just think the concept of “free speech” has devolved into a bad joke anymore.

Posted by on 04/16/06 at 07:54 PM from United States

There is no free speech at Cal State Channel Islands. It is implicitly stated so when you’re reviewing the policies to attending and/or living on campus.

“Harassment includes physical or verbal abuse, threats, intimidation, coercion or other conduct with threatens the health, safety, or well-being of any person. Speech protected by the First Amendment is not exempt from this policy.”

“The use of rude, vulgar, indecent, or obscene verbal or written expressions, public or private, while protected by the First Amendment, are considered detrimental to the university community and are not condoned or allowed.”

Fun, fun, fun.

Posted by on 04/16/06 at 08:30 PM from United States

Witnesses reported “a group of females of various ages”

Translation: The campus sluts.

Note: don’t even think I am calling women who get abortions “sluts”.  But the most liberal, pro-abortion chicks just happen to be massive sluts.

Posted by ? on 04/16/06 at 08:32 PM from United States

Seriously Universities prevent free speech?  This seems a little far out.  I dont think Northern Kentucky University is a typical example of our finest university systems.  Most Universities i have been at are so disorganized i dont think they could prevent any thing that happens on campus let alone free speech. 

david

Posted by on 04/16/06 at 08:44 PM from Australia

“Harassment includes physical or verbal abuse, threats, intimidation, coercion or other conduct with threatens the health, safety, or well-being of any person. Speech protected by the First Amendment is not exempt from this policy.”

This would presumably make the speech code enforced by this university unconstitutional. Speak to these guys about it. They are the first real threat to liberal university’s policies aimed at limiting free speech across American campuses. 

*laments the fact that there is no Bill of Rights in Australia*

Posted by on 04/16/06 at 09:30 PM from United States

This would presumably make the speech code enforced by this university unconstitutional.

Not really, the First Amendment doesn’t apply to private institutions. In the article you posted, the University was breaking a state law that makes schools practice the same free speech policies as the Constitution.

Posted by on 04/16/06 at 09:33 PM from United States

Oops, he was talking about a State University, which the 1st Amendment would apply to. My bad.

Posted by Drumwaster on 04/16/06 at 09:41 PM from United States

Not really, the First Amendment doesn’t apply to private institutions.

California State University is not, I repeat NOT, a “private institution”. They are subsidized by taxpayer money. As such, it IS unconstitutional for any government agency (such as the State college and University systems) to limit speech.

That having been said, there are some limits to public speech, primarily involving instigating speech (you cannot order someone to commit a felony) and immediate threats to public safety (’you cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater’ being the classic example.

The college is going to claim that they are doing it to protect minority rights and the Ninth Circus (where it will immediately end up, it being an action involving a state institution and Constitutional rights) will agree with them.

Posted by on 04/17/06 at 04:57 AM from United States

http://www.nku.edu/~jacobsen/

Posted by The Contrarian on 04/17/06 at 07:08 AM from United States

I don’t think it is in me to ever be surprised again by the immoral and unprincipled actions of universities and college professors. Three bitter years at NYU have taught me a lot about free speech, namely that most students of this generation do not understand what it is, and that many colleges will not stand up for it.

School sucks. I figured that out at age five, and my opinion has yet to change.

Posted by on 04/17/06 at 07:54 AM from United Kingdom

That having been said, there are some limits to public speech, primarily involving instigating speech (you cannot order someone to commit a felony) and immediate threats to public safety (’you cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater’ being the classic example.

I assume there are more reasons than these two I would imagine (but don’t know) you can not go and stand inside a court house and shout Bush = Hitler all day long. No protest zones enforced by the Federal government when ever a President (although this is most noticable under Bush) goes anywhere would be another example.

I do wish you lot would stop calling these people “liberals” though. They are nothing like liberals but left wing fanatics. Part of the whole problem with political discourse is the destruction of the word liberal - when in fact a lot of you lot are really liberals. If we got the meaning back from that word we could really discuss the difference between left wing / right wing and liberal / non liberal.

Posted by on 04/17/06 at 08:29 AM from United States

College is supposed to be about getting a higher education, not jabbering about abortions or baby harp seals, or organizing the next revolution. One of the reasons I’m glad I went to a private university. Save the free speech until after you actually learn what the hell you’re talking about.

Posted by on 04/17/06 at 08:37 AM from United States

They are nothing like liberals but left wing fanatics.

There is very little difference between the two in the US anymore.
Blame DU and ANSWER and all those other groups that pushed the rudder and set a hard left course.
Posted by on 04/17/06 at 08:44 AM from United States

No protest zones enforced by the Federal government when ever a President (although this is most noticable under Bush) goes anywhere would be another example.

AFAIK, these have only seen two Presidents, and I’m not sure how it’s ‘most noticable’ under Bush. They came about as a matter of necessity (under Clinton, following the violent protests in Seattle during the WTO summit), because ‘protestors’ have shown that they are unable to self-regulate the violent elements among themselves. It is usually beneficial for elected officials to see/hear protests, but not so beneficial for them to be mauled and stoned to death, or hit in the face with a molotov cocktail.

Posted by on 04/17/06 at 09:02 AM from United States

No protest zones enforced by the Federal government when ever a President (although this is most noticable under Bush) goes anywhere would be another example.

The only reason it’s “most noticable under Bush” is because the MSM harps on it to help push the “Bush is a dissent stifling fascist” meme.

They are nothing like liberals but left wing fanatics.

In the U.S., “left wing fanatic” is the definition of liberal.

The moonbats have so hijacked that term, it’s become an insult to be called a “liberal” to all but the most obtuse.

That’s why the leftist loons decided to attempt to label themselves “progressives”. (after much “focus grouping”, of course)

Posted by Drumwaster on 04/17/06 at 09:09 AM from United States

you can not go and stand inside a court house and shout Bush = Hitler all day long.

Sure you can. Get yourself a soapbox and a good corner with lots of traffic, and have at it. In fact, people do it in San Francisco and Berkeley almost every day. They do it online all day, every day.

Posted by on 04/17/06 at 09:45 AM from United States

Boy, has grad school changed since I went!  Then again, when I went to grad school, it was filled with men.  There was, maybe, one or two women at that level. 

So, THIS is what happens when women control the university!

Oh, yeah, babes, you’ve done a MUCH better job than the men did!  Institutional vandalism.  Professors (female variety) who plan and direct the vandalism and theft.

Posted by on 04/17/06 at 10:32 AM from United Kingdom

There is very little difference between the two in the US anymore.
Blame DU and ANSWER and all those other groups that pushed the rudder and set a hard left course.

I don’t think you can just blame the left for making liberal a dirty word, the right are just as bad at finding any extreme left wing position and saying - oh look this = liberal.

The problem is that there is now no word for liberal which is a shame because even though a lot of people disagree on this site, more of the beliefs are liberal - it’s just the left/right aspect that is different.

For example liberal policies would be:

- against state healthcare
- pro gay marriage
- pro abortion
- pro gun ownership

You see? Liberal policies cut down the middle on the typical left/right thing - neither one or the other. It’s such a shame that this important political word has been corrupted to mean extreme left when it means nothing of the sort.

Posted by Drumwaster on 04/17/06 at 10:46 AM from United States

For example liberal policies would be:

- against state healthcare
...
- pro gun ownership

Um, maybe in Padder-land, but not here in the real world.

Roughly speaking, liberals believe that for every human problem, there exists a taxpayer-funded solution, and that if people had no means of hurting one another (by either word or deed), this would be a happyhappyjoyjoy world in which we would all sit around in a great big circle and sing Kumbayah instead of needing nasty things like military and police.

There is a reason that Sir Thomas More used the word “Utopia” to describe his version of paradise. Care to guess why?

Posted by on 04/17/06 at 10:49 AM from United States

There is another term for left wingers who aren’t as extreme as this wacko professor.  The word is “Moderate”.

Posted by Drumwaster on 04/17/06 at 11:07 AM from United States

There is another term for left wingers who aren’t as extreme as this wacko professor.  The word is “Moderate”.

But it isn’t the “moderates” who are calling the shots nowadays. Have you been hearing some of the things that are being said by the “Democratic Leadership” (Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, et alia)? Not very “moderate”, are they?

Posted by on 04/17/06 at 11:09 AM from United Kingdom

Roughly speaking, liberals believe that for every human problem, there exists a taxpayer-funded solution, and that if people had no means of hurting one another (by either word or deed), this would be a happyhappyjoyjoy world in which we would all sit around in a great big circle and sing Kumbayah instead of needing nasty things like military and police.

Drum, all you are saying is left = liberal. Can’t you understand that this is not what liberal means? or even it if has been peverted now into just meaning left then we have lost an important distinction?

I consider myself generally liberal, I am for legalising drugs, against smoking bans, for gay marriage, pro abortion, pro immigration etc. Those are my liberal tendancies. My anti-liberal ones are my concerns about guns and my attraction to state healthcare.

Can’t you see that some pro-liberal things are “right” and some are “left” and vice versa. Liberal != left. It’s only the nutty left and the extreme right that have tried to change the meaning of such an important word.

Posted by on 04/17/06 at 11:13 AM from United Kingdom

But it isn’t the “moderates” who are calling the shots nowadays. Have you been hearing some of the things that are being said by the “Democratic Leadership” (Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, et alia)? Not very “moderate”, are they?

Someone who is pretty far right is never going to agree to what someone on the moderate left is, and vice versa. What a silly point to try and make.

I doubt you would find a political party throughout the rest of the world that is more right wing than the democrats on most issues (not on some social ones, e.g. gay marriage).

Posted by on 04/17/06 at 11:16 AM from United States

For example liberal policies would be:

- against state healthcare
- pro gay marriage
- pro abortion
- pro gun ownership

Guess there are no liberals in England then

Posted by Drumwaster on 04/17/06 at 11:22 AM from United States

Someone who is pretty far right is never going to agree to what someone on the moderate left is, and vice versa.

I can easily agree on what a moderate Democrat is, and I can even give you two examples - Zell Miller and Joseph Liebermann.

But those two are not running the party. I know that moderates exist, it’s just that they are on the fringe, and under attack by the more “mainstream” members of the Leadership. (Joseph Liebermann is actually being threatened in the Senate primary this year because he isn’t liberal enough. Look it up.)

I doubt you would find a political party throughout the rest of the world that is more right wing than the democrats on most issues (not on some social ones, e.g. gay marriage).

I can come up with quite a few. The fact that you cannot says more about your failings than it does about reality.

Posted by Mister Minit on 04/17/06 at 12:34 PM from Europe

I do think that Padders has a point. America has twisted the political definition of “liberal” to include many very illiberal concepts. However, Americans do have a word that does mean liberal, i.e. libertarian. All you need to do is say “liberal” when talking to a non-American and “libertarian” when talking to an American.

What I object to however is that on this blog (and maybe America in general), liberal seems to be such a general “someone who I disagree with” term that, to right-wingers, it applies to scrotally-inflated pacifists AND Stalin, Hitler etc.

Posted by Drumwaster on 04/17/06 at 12:52 PM from United States

AND Stalin, Hitler etc.

Yeah, because those two were only labelled “socialists” by their critics, right? The National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics weren’t at all socialist, were they? Like I said, modern liberals believe that for every human problem, there exists a taxpayer-funded solution, and that the government can do no wrong, by definition (except when those nasty ol’ conthuglikkkans are running things, in which case, Amerikkka is the source of all evil in the world).

However, Americans do have a word that does mean liberal, i.e. libertarian.

Libertarian !== Liberal, in no sense of the word, but thanks for playing.

Posted by on 04/17/06 at 01:11 PM from United States

Apply “liberal” and “conservative” to quantity of government. You’ll soon see that liberals apply government “liberally” and there are no true conservatives left in power.

Posted by Mister Minit on 04/17/06 at 02:48 PM from United Kingdom

Libertarian !== Liberal, in no sense of the word, but thanks for playing.

What the hell are you talking about?

Why did David Cameron recently describe himself as a liberal? Was it because he is such a committed socialist?

Why were Reagan and Thatcher described as neo-liberals?

Posted by Mister Minit on 04/17/06 at 03:04 PM from United Kingdom

And I remember reading in the Financial Times about a speech that Jaques Chirac gave about the dangers that “liberalism” posed to Europe.

And by “liberalism” he wasn’t referring to socialism, he was referring to laissez faire capitalism.

Posted by Drumwaster on 04/17/06 at 04:22 PM from United States

How about you read the fucking dictionary, you goddam moron?

so·cial·ism n.

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Do ya get it yet, gumdrop? Collectively owning everything, by means of the government. What it doesn’t own outright, it regulates to the point of submission, and taxes it to the point of starvation in order to pay for programs that make the liberal “feel good”. That is the shortest description of the modern Democratic Party I can come up with, and it has NOTHING to do with libertarians.

The classical “liberalism” (which is the mindset that originally established our form of government, and which is almost the exact opposite of what is commonly referred to as a “liberal” mindset) you appear to be espousing has NOTHING to do with libertarians, either.

Libertarians want the government reduced to the absolute bare minimum, kept small and starved and inoffensive. Public officials aren’t elected, they are drafted for the duration.

Go crack a poli-sci book and quit wasting my time.

Posted by on 04/17/06 at 04:32 PM from Australia

Libertarian !== Liberal, in no sense of the word, but thanks for playing.

I disagree Drum. The word “liberal” in its classical sense does essentially mean “libertarian” by today’s definition. Don’t believe me? Read “Capitalism and Freedom” by Milton Freidman; the bible for us libertarians.

The American left commandeered the word back in the sixties so that today, as you point out, the word has a completely different (indeed, almost polar opposite) meaning. Today’s liberals are yesterday’s socialists; and yesterday’s liberals are today’s libertarians.

Posted by on 04/17/06 at 04:37 PM from Australia

Do ya get it yet, gumdrop? Collectively owning everything, by means of the government. What it doesn’t own outright, it regulates to the point of submission, and taxes it to the point of starvation in order to pay for programs that make the liberal “feel good”. That is the shortest description of the modern Democratic Party I can come up with, and it has NOTHING to do with libertarians.

Exactly right. Like I said, today’s “liberals” are just socialist wankers who have assigned themselves a different name.

Posted by Mister Minit on 04/17/06 at 05:30 PM from United Kingdom

Drum,

WHAT ON EARTH HAVE I SAID THAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT I DON’T KNOW WHAT SOCIALISM IS? I DON’T GET IT.

That is the shortest description of the modern Democratic Party I can come up with, and it has NOTHING to do with libertarians.

I’m not talking about Democrats, and I’ve certainly not said that Democrats are libertarians. All I said was:

I do think that Padders has a point. America has twisted the political definition of “liberal” to include many very illiberal concepts.

By illiberal I meant a centrally controlled economy/big government - something on which you seem to agree, except you would probably use a different adjective.

Liberal comes from the latin “liber” meaning free, and in a political sense therefore meant free from government. I typed “define:liberal” into google and the first defintion included:

a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets

It has maintained this meaning outside of America, but I (and I think padders to some extent) was mearly pointing out that in America it means the exact opposite (economically speaking anyway), which is a bit odd if you ask me.

Then I pointed out to padders that it is stupid to moan about the American definition of the word (which is what I think that he was doing), as the actual names don’t really matter.

And padders said that there is now no word that describes liberal in the old sense. I disagreed as what us Brits describe as “liberal,” yanks describe as “libertarian.”

AGAIN, WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT I DON’T KNOW WHAT SOCIALISM IS?

Posted by Drumwaster on 04/17/06 at 05:56 PM from United States

AGAIN, WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT I DON’T KNOW WHAT SOCIALISM IS?

Gee, I dunno… Maybe that totally unnecessary and incorrect distinction you drew above? Ya think? (Or do you?)

It also doesn’t help that you were trying to equate liberal with libertarian.

If you think that you have simply been misunderstood (maybe because you’re using Google for a dictionary), then I suggest you start using words with more clarity.

(And if you think that Reagan was liberal, you really need to get those rose glasses checked.)

Posted by on 04/17/06 at 06:23 PM from Australia

I think half of the problem here stems from the fact that the word “liberal” has different meanings in the US and elsewhere. Here in Australia, we have quite a conservative government under John Howard. It’s probably the most Reagan-like government that Australia has ever had; it has cut taxes, supports aggressive foreign policy, extremely pro-US, reduced welfare programs, etc. Basically, the best government we’ve ever had.

Howard is the head of the Liberal Party of Australia, yet in America, he would be classified as a conservative Republican.

Posted by Mister Minit on 04/17/06 at 06:27 PM from United Kingdom

maybe because you’re using Google for a dictionary

The definition came from <a href="http://tinyurl.com/f7228">Princeton</a>. The same description is found in the very same dictionary that you used to define <a href="http://tinyurl.com/sxu9v">socialism</a>

Posted by Mister Minit on 04/17/06 at 06:28 PM from United Kingdom

maybe because you’re using Google for a dictionary

The definition came from <a href="http://tinyurl.com/f7228">Princeton</a>. The same description is found in the very same dictionary that you used to define <a href="http://tinyurl.com/sxu9v">socialism</a>.

Gee, I dunno… Maybe that totally unnecessary and incorrect distinction you drew above? Ya think? (Or do you?)

I don’t actually recall referring to socialism at all.

Are you trying to wind me up? You can only be misinterpreting what I’m saying on purpose.

And I think that I’ve made myself quite clear, not that I had anything particularly interesting to say in the first place.

And if you think that Reagan was liberal, you really need to get those rose glasses checked.

From wikipedia:

In international usage, President Ronald Reagan and the United States Republican Party are seen as leading proponents of neoliberalism. But Reagan was never described in this way in domestic US political discussion, where the term is most commonly applied to moderate Democrats like the Democratic Leadership Council.

Posted by Mister Minit on 04/17/06 at 06:29 PM from United Kingdom

I don’t know what happened there, you’ll have to cut and paste the links i’m afraid.

Posted by Mister Minit on 04/17/06 at 06:30 PM from United Kingdom

I think half of the problem here stems from the fact that the word “liberal” has different meanings in the US and elsewhere.

And that difference is what I’ve been talking about - not that I had anything interesting to say about it in the first place.

Posted by Mister Minit on 04/17/06 at 06:40 PM from United Kingdom

Drum, serious question: Do you ever purposely not understand what people are saying in order to frustrate them? I’m sure I’ve seen you do this sort of thing before.

Posted by on 04/17/06 at 07:47 PM from United States

Well Minit, you did mention stalin and hitler.  Why don’t you go read from there and where socialism comes into play.

This is a blog dealing with America, on an American website, run by an American citizen.  Guess which definitions get to be applied here? 

What you are attempting to do Minit is to bring about the soccer/football argument an application to the word “liberal.” You don’t like the way America uses the words liberal or football tough luck its our game and if all you’re going to do is whine that we don’t play it the same way as the kids across the street do then we’re not going to let you play.

Posted by Mister Minit on 04/17/06 at 08:20 PM from United Kingdom

You don’t like the way America uses the words liberal

Actually, I think that it was padders that doesn’t like the way America uses the phrase “liberal”.

I said: “Then I pointed out to padders that it is stupid to moan about the American definition of the word (which is what I think that he was doing), as the actual names don’t really matter.”

I did however state that it’s odd (just odd, not wrong or evil) that the American definition seems to be the exact opposite (on the economic side anyway) than the classical definition.

The reason that I mentioned Stalin was that I’m sure that people have referred to him as a liberal here, and I’m not really sure that he even fits the American definition of the word (I can’t be bothered to defend this position, if you disagree with me then by all means say so, just don’t expect a debate).

I think that I’m done with all of this. Good night .

Posted by Drumwaster on 04/17/06 at 08:28 PM from United States

The reason that I mentioned Stalin was that I’m sure that people have referred to him as a liberal here,

Actually, he goes a bit beyond socialism into Communism (which is just socialism with a strong internal police - because we can’t trust the proles after all...)

“Then I pointed out to padders that it is stupid to moan about the American definition of the word (which is what I think that he was doing), as the actual names don’t really matter.”

And continued on to make a really STUPID comparison, but that’s all right, you can live.

Posted by Mister Minit on 04/18/06 at 05:56 AM from Europe

Just for the record, I don’t think that I said anything stupid at all. That is all.

Posted by on 04/18/06 at 07:30 AM from United Kingdom

Jeez! Someone got outta the wrong side of bed eh, drum?

Let me recap.

It is Ironic that ‘liberal’ is the label for a group of people who want to curtail our freedoms (or liberties) through massive govenrment intervention into our lives.

Now can we all go back to arguing about religion or gay marriage?

Posted by on 04/18/06 at 08:02 AM from United States

Do ya get it yet, gumdrop? Collectively owning everything, by means of the government. What it doesn’t own outright, it regulates to the point of submission, and taxes it to the point of starvation in order to pay for programs that make the liberal “feel good”. That is the shortest description of the modern Democratic Party I can come up with, and it has NOTHING to do with libertarians.

Actually, the definition you posted says owned collectively OR by a centralized government. Which I think spells out the actual problem with socialism. When Socialism was first thought up, the OR by a centralized government wasn’t part of it.

The original utopian idea of socialism is the former. Everything is owned by everybody, collectively.

The nature of the world, and mankind in particular, renders the utopian idea of socialism unattainable, because most people aren’t satisfied owning the same thing as everybody else. And if you don’t have a governing authority, they will take more than their allotment. So the only way to attain anything resembling socialism that lasts more than 36 minutes is for a centralized government to own it all, and portion it out equally.

Except that socialist governments never really do that; some are more equal than others, in particular those in the government. And government is singularly inept at managing assets in an actual progressive way so that the assets grow at any kind of rate exceeding the rate of inflation. So invariably, socialist governments either fall, or become expansionists to gain more assets from others, since they are unable to grow their own. When their expanionism reaches it’s limit, the government falls. A few come to the realization that the only way they can survive is to combine elements of other doctrines to water down the socialism. Which results in a little more longevity for the government, and a little more mediocrity for the populace.

---

The only thing that really qualifies today’s Democrats as ‘liberals’ is their fanatacism about the civil liberties of non-Christian non-Whites.

Posted by dakrat on 04/18/06 at 08:27 AM from United States

Jeez! Someone got outta the wrong side of bed eh, drum?

I thought vampires slept in coffins. 
;)

/runs for cover

Posted by Drumwaster on 04/18/06 at 08:53 AM from United States

/runs for cover

You can run, but you can’t hide, mister! :-p

{/launches heat-seeking, eye-poking missile after dakrat}

Posted by on 04/18/06 at 09:03 AM from United States

You can run, but you can’t hide, mister! :-p

{/launches heat-seeking, eye-poking missile after dakrat}

Looks like Drum wasn’t kidding....

:P

Next entry: Just Say Mao

Previous entry: Eggy-Weggies and Ultra Violence

<< Back to main