Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: who puts the con in contradiction?

Posted 4 years ago on Sept. 12, 2013, 12:12 p.m. EST by equibble (34) from East Point, GA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Con is short for conservative. Lib is for libertarian. The common faults of con/libs always include an obtuse (not ordinarily deliberate) misapprehension of the value of the individual and the importance of the community. They don't seem to understand that there's no great wealth without a community that works cooperatively to produce it; no wealthy individuals who have no employees to produce things for them and fundamentally: money is not wealth but represents material goods in trade.

At the base of faulty structure of con/lib thought is a contradiction. Their cult of the individual denies the primacy of community when the prizes are claimed but stress it in times of crisis like war or natural disaster and for many of us in many ways but never for themselves in any way. They want all to cooperate to work to produce the goods whose consumption and trade are the economy but claim the greatest rewards of production, distribution, trade/commerce and finance as their individual property. They expect soldiers to die to protect the community and police, firemen, school teachers and others to work for little economic reward, for the good of all, but corporations and the rich who own and/or control them act first and foremost for individual gain. And all the while the cons and libs consider themselves wholly consistent and righteous.

Con/libs use the constitution as a touchstone reference that supports all their claims on the property and goods produced by the community. They especially stress the importance of private property and the founding fathers/constitutional protection thereof. I have to wonder how many of them have actually read the document. None have ever indicated to me that they knew that the word property appears only once in the constitution! adopted in 1787. It also appears in the fifth amendment ** that says it's security and ours demands that it not be subjected to search or seizure without due process of law. Private property specifically as a class of property in the fifth says it shall not be taken for public use without “just compensation.”

  • ! Article. IV.; Section. 3; Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

  • ** Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by equibble (34) from East Point, GA 4 years ago

As can be seen: in the constitution private property is mentioned once in Amendment V and then only with respect to regulation of its appropriation for “public use.” However, con/libs exhibit a fanatical belief concerning constitutional protection of private property that indicates a gross ignorance of the document. Ironically, the constitution is their most frequent reference and refuge from its reality. Except for delusion, they have no vision whatsoever.

[-] 1 points by agkaiser (2078) from Fredericksburg, TX 4 years ago

write on!