Okay...well we actually do agree. Unfortunately for the last few generations we have been sitting by trying to play by the rules while the left was making small but steady incremental plans to completely undermine all that was intended and set forth by the founding documents.VMI77 wrote:Yes, I got it. My response was both a general remark about the nature of so called "reality" shows, and a specific comment on the agenda driven nature of COPs. You were contrasting a show like COPs with a show like Law and Order --I"m contending that they are both fictional and agenda driven. I don't think that because COPs purports to depict direct experience and Law and Order is at least one step removed from it, that COPs is necessarily any more "realistic" than Law and Order. All we're talking about are different methods of distorting reality. In fact, given the selective focus of COPs versus the broader focus of a show like Law and Order, one might well make the case that COPs is actually more fictional.Medic624 wrote:Huh, Do you even READ what people write when they respond? I had already said it was "loosely based in reality and HIGHLY edited".
I don't think we are saying the same thing. You're saying that collectivist thought reflects radical left thought; I'm saying collectivism is the defining feature of left thought, and the defining feature of libertarianism is the concept of individual rights and responsibilities. I'm also saying it isn't just a matter of ignorance: that if those you assume are confused understood the meaning of the Constitution, a good number of them would reject it. Of course there are also collectivists on the Right, but the fundamental defining principle of libertarianism is that ONLY individuals have rights, not groups. There is no middle ground between these two positions, just like a woman can't be half pregnant --you either believe rights are individual rights or you don't. Yes, there are probably varying degrees of collectivism, from mild socialism to full out communism, and the milder collectivism allows some room for individual rights --with the condition that when there is conflict they are subordinate to the collective. That's not the principle embodied in the Constitution. In fact, without subordinating individual rights to group rights --collectivism-- politicians couldn't rob Peter to pay Paul, and nearly the entire edifice of modern US government would be defunct.Medic624 wrote:And, we're saying the same thing as far as the Left (or the extreme left wing faction)...If given the choice and nailed down most believe in the tenets of the Constitution BUT still want all the handouts to go along with it. Its not as simple as that but, that just shows they dont fully understand what it means when they read;We hold these truths to be self‐evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Most who assign themselves and align with a specific way of thinking when pressed realize theyre not as not as ALL this way or THAT. Im a (mostly) Libertarian with some Republican leanings. Its just not all black and white or radical as I believe you to portend it to be.
Like Schumpeter in my signature quote below, I think most people like lofty phrases about freedom, maybe even like the idea of it in theory, but aren't up to living it as their reality. Most people prefer safety to liberty.
Safety is only so appealing option because the majority cannot think about anything but their own needs or the needs of their collective agenda.
