“you’re gettin’ the goodies, stop your whining”—progressive hypocrisy (part one)   Leave a comment

A clever philosophical trick now being employed by those smearing opponents of the current government power grab.  The basic argument:  if you benefit in any way from collectivist treats (Medicare, handouts, public highways, ObamaPelosicare, parks, tax cuts, fill in the blank..), you have no right to gripe, and no philosophical leg to stand on.    A seemingly reasonable and fully argued position—with an ugly moral premise smuggled in for those who are willing to accept the attached guilt.  It is also full-on hypocrisy posing as righteousness.

As our current non-representing representatives are militant in their intent to leave no industry, no private decision, and no power outside the Federal Governments all-seeing, all-knowing  eye and reach, one must come to the conclusion that any authority the Fed usurps must be accepted uncritically-providing alms are subsequently handed out to any impertinent dissenters.  —“Be quiet, you small government greedy capitalists, and enjoy the candy while we burn down the store.”  Smart, amusing drivel.

The paradox lies not with those racist, tea baggin’, violent, seditious retirees on Social Security opposing fascism with a happy face, but with those who demand subservience to the new State-as-God religion.  Just as one can be ethically opposed to abortion yet happily leave that difficult decision and its aftermath outside the realms of the law, one can demand that Congress keep within its Constitutional restraints while indirectly (or even directly) benefitting from policy one is opposed to. 

My personal favorite of these progressive arguments from intimidation is directed at Social Security or welfare recipients.  It is formulated in a “but you “need” the help, so if you hate “the system”, don’t be part of it-or stop complaining about it” condescending nod.   Collectivists accept completely the notion of “need” as an unspoken claim against others–  so they argue that if you “need” their allegedly benevolent help you have an obligation to refuse it and suffer if you oppose socialism.  Such a compassionate approach from the apostles of moral righteousness.  Moral blackmail against the very oppressed or deserving masses they seem intent on capturing with love and benevolence.  If the recipient in question is genuinely in need and is qualified to receive such help (whatever the hell that means) than the argument implies that ethical opposition disqualifies the recipient by default.  Ms. Progressive, if your “victim” is due such alms by your morality-than it is his by right, is it not?  If so, than it remains a right regardless of your opinion of his moral opposition.  If such alms are not a right,  and you continue to bully America into believing that they in fact are, than collectivism’s moral argument fails utterly.  so which is it? 

Such is the dilemma faced by the collectivist.  He can claim a superior moral code only by arguing that socialist goodies are either rights-or alms.–they cannot be both.  If they be alms, they are bribes to those who claim the right to the wealth of others.  If they are rights, than only those who properly may have such rights are those who oppose them—as no man may claim the right to steal from others, and profess moral outrage at those who refuse to be victimized by a government designed to protect one’s rights.

Advertisements

Posted April 23, 2010 by cchashadenough in Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: