Saturday, June 30, 2018

Someone is confused

Terribly confused. (And I don't believe it's me.) He even stated it for the record, too!

How can he be a lover of Big Government, while being a hater of government? He can't.

On the "Hates government" side he has:

  • Taxation is theft. (Yes it is. Even if you like what it pays for)
  • "government hating" (which seems a dubious claim, considering)

On the "Loves government" side he has:

  • "military and law enforcement supporting" (HUGE welfare programs, and what other molesters does he support?)
  • "illegal immigrant hating" (it takes a government to declare something "illegal" and to decide something is "immigration")
  • "border security" (HUGE welfare program, and why does he hate property rights?)

On the "irrelevant to the topic" or "insufficient information" side, he has:

  • "Gun waving" (Cops wave guns. Troops, too. Government extremists love guns-- as long as they control them. Guns are just tools and it depends on who you are pointing them at)
  • Free speech (speech can be pro-liberty or against... but where is he throwing it?)
  • anti-abortion (I know people who are pro-liberty, and reasonable, on both sides of the issue)
  • school choice (is this school I'm allowed to choose regulated and funded by government? Does my choice include not funding schools at all?)
  • anti-handout (except when he's handing other people's money to military, law enforcement, ICE employees, etc. apparently)
So, yes, this guy (who I probably should have redacted, but I'm not going to) is mighty confused. That's why he's a "conservative".

No, "liberals"/"progressives" (who are neither) are not more consistent. I laugh at their confusion and hypocrisy just as much. And when I find a comparable hilarious example, I may share it as well.

Statists-- they don't get that way by being smart or consistent.

Thank you for helping support
Follow me on Steemit and Medium


  1. Yes, he is very confused. His core values are contradictory, undeveloped.

    If he hated government, he wouldn't support police and military or borders. If he knew what reality humans rights and life are, he would not refer to people as illegal.

    He might be someone reachable though, with a little work. But it is overall more efficient to just whack people like that.

  2. He's a right-statist who favors some freedoms and wants to trample on others - like the vast majority of people, they want the rights they cherish respected, while casually wanting to get rid of other people's rights they find icky. Gotta try and move the needle towards freedom one issue at a time when convincing people not to archate so much.

    Jim Henshaw

  3. Right boot, Left boot? Makes no difference which foot the boot is on when it's on your neck.

    Maybe more effecient to "whack" people like that, yes. Morally right? Not necessarily.

    Not dictating to anyone. Just sayin'...


    1. It is difficult to judge someone who has been brainwashed from birth into a false reality requiring a whole lot of bizarre rationalizations to make sense of it.

      Then again, as you say, it doesn't matter when there is a boot on your neck. A boot on your neck is a boot on your neck. Whatever the reason, it needs to be removed.

      If asking nicely doesn't work, a dagger to the knee cap should do the trick.

      Whacking people like that isn't necessarily personal.