The -ism’s

The arguments against liberty are often quite funny and typically absurd.

Most often they require a straw man to argue against.

The entire debate comes down to two choices (excluding anarchy, which may be what we get but is unlikely to be a conscious choice) – you can have a society where people are free to do as they wish with the caveats being that you cannot hurt people, steal, damage their property, etc. – or you can have a society where force is used to make other people do as you wish.

This is it. The arguments against liberty always boil down to a rationalization for why a specific person or group of people are entitled to use force to make other people comply with the desires of those wielding force, take their property or even harm them. Always.

Socialism is force. Fascism is force. Corporatism is force.

This is all it is. They may claim that they will wield that force differently in order to benefit different people, but it is force. By the way, the claims that they will wield that force differently to benefit different people are always bogus because none of these people can escape their own human nature that drives them to the same end point.

Socialism, Fascism, Corporatism – they are all doomed to failure from the start. The only question is how much death, misery and poverty they will generate on the way to that failure. The -ism’s fail for the simple reason that they are wholly and entirely dependent on distorting human needs and wants. They depend on driving people into a channel where others know ‘what is best for you and society.’ Your individual needs and wants are to be subverted to what other people think your needs and wants should be. People are then kept in that channel by means of force.

This is how the -ism’s work. There is no alternative because we simply cannot escape human nature – force is required in order to compel the masses to participate in the manner that the central planners of these systems desire.

Liberty requires no central planning and no central planners and hence no force to make people do what others think they should be doing. Liberty requires no channels to drive people into. Liberty simply requires that government defends the rights and property of the individual, i.e. liberty does not compel, coerce or force people to do things – the valid role of government in a liberty system is force only being used in regard to people hurting people, stealing, damaging their property, etc. In other words, in a liberty system force is only used to oppose those who violate individual rights, it is not used to make people do what other people think they ought to be doing.

In a liberty system people decide for themselves what they will do and what they will be. The linchpin of liberty is private property and a free market. This is why the -ism’s always attack free markets and private property first. The reduction and elimination of private property rights and the free market is the road to tyranny – every single time.

The question is do you want to decide what you should be doing with your life, with your property, with your own conscience and volition or would you rather someone else make that decision for you?

Choose wisely…


ob·tuse  (ŏb-to͞os′, -tyo͞os′, əb-)

adj. ob·tus·er, ob·tus·est


a. Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.

b. Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity: an obtuse remark.

c. Not distinctly felt: an obtuse pain.


a. Not sharp, pointed, or acute in form; blunt.

b. Having an obtuse angle: an obtuse triangle.

c. Botany Having a blunt or rounded tip: an obtuse leaf.

I often comment on the acquired obtuseness of American society so let us look at that for a moment. I believe the obtuseness of American society roots back to allowing our ego and indulgence of self-righteousness drive our beings, while at the same time we are living the most pain free existence of all time. In other words, we can indulge our ego and self-righteousness without the severe pain that historically accompanies people indulging their ego and self-righteousness – this may continue at least until the credit runs out.

We have by and large become an intellectually and morally lazy people because, at the moment, there really is no significant downside to that laziness. We are not the first society to go down this path; famously Byzantium and France also traversed this territory. It also famously did not end well for them. The general path is societies that are victorious in an arduous struggle, be that military or otherwise, that then feel they can relax and breathe but they quickly find the replacement for the arduous struggle is to violently argue over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Rather than giving thanks for the peace and victory and building even greater success society turns and fights over trivialities and fiction. The societies expend a great deal of intellectual capital on the meaningless while ignoring the meaningful and obvious – in fact disparaging the meaningful and obvious becomes quite popular.

In order to disparage the meaningful one must consistently ignore the obvious – and the habit of ignoring the obvious in favor of the intellectual and moral contortions required to continually defend the meaningless and fictional is what leads to the obtuseness. ‘Lacking quickness of perception or intellect’ is the outcome of continually denying the existence of the obvious and meaningful. A great number of Americans now measure intelligence purely on the ability to engage in the intellectual and moral contortions of denying the obvious. Echoing the intellectual and moral contortions is quite the social media sport.

As a society we are sliding. For two hundred years the United States was the foremost problem solver in the world – and now it is not that we can no longer solve a problem, we by and large cannot even admit to the existence of the problem. We go about engaging in the intellectual and moral contortions of creating fictional problems (statues anyone?) and fictional solutions while real problems are completely unaddressed.

Meanwhile, the indulgence of ego and self-righteousness allows the continued transfer of wealth from the many to the few to continue – with the accompanying intellectual and moral contortions that enriching the wealthy via government policy, at the expense of everyone else, is ‘progress.’

No, still not at peak absurdity.

Page 5 of 128« First...34567...102030...Last »