I drive right-wing trolls crazy: Here’s why they still don’t understand anti-capitalism arguments - By Jesse Myerson

Originally found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

---------------------------

I commented on his previous article here. That missive was rife with half-formed arguments, misdirections, and straw men. Let's see if he can straighten things out. Read on:
---------------------------

Having previously attracted the ire of conservatives in my role as a publicly self-identified communist who advocates for collective ownership of property, I should have seen it coming. Knowing how giddy my critics would be, I shouldn’t have tweeted when my backpack, containing my computer, was recently stolen from a friend’s car. When I did, conservative Twitter had such a ball taunting me with Extremely Hilarious variations on the same “liberating property” line that they made a whole entire Twitchy out of the affair (my apologies if this is the first you are learning of that site). Now, don’t get me wrong, crowing over the misfortunes of one’s political opponents is good fun and a natural right, but for best results the taunts should be both witty and coherent. On the matter of wit I’ll defer to you, but in the coherence division this late episode was sorely lacking.

Specifically, the barbs confused possessions with property, a long-acknowledged dichotomy I have attempted to articulate on television, social media and here at Salon, evidently in vain. So, once again: When I advocate collectivizing property, I am talking about financial assets (land deeds, stocks, bonds, patents and other intellectual property monopolies, and so forth), not personal possessions that human beings use on an ongoing basis, like computers or backpacks or clothes or cars or whatever. The latter are for use, the former for making money. If the occasional blurriness of these categories is reflected in dictionary definitions, that does not eliminate the obvious conceptual distinction. ("Obvious conceptual distinction?" Hardly. It is a contrived, artificial distinction, the primary purpose of which is to reassure us that we'll get to keep our stuff when government comes to confiscate everything else. On what basis he is able to claim this is unknown, because the ability of government to follow "the rules" has never been demonstrated in a free society, let alone a communistic one.)

Nor, despite charming insinuations to the contrary, does the distinction alone undermine pro-capitalist arguments. It is perfectly possible to differentiate between property – known by some as “the means of production” or “capital” – and personal possessions – known by some as “the fruits of production” or “stuff” – and still make the case that property is better owned privately than publicly, but right-wing Twitter declined to make this case, preferring instead to pretend, ears finger-plugged, “la la la” gleefully ringing from each freedom-loving throat, that there is no difference between a stock and a sweater. (Sweaters and other use-commodities can also be collectivized in lending libraries, as some communities do with bikes, cars, tools, toys and, obviously, books – but this is not crucial for ending capitalism.) (Yes, it is possible to differentiate between property and possessions. It is also possible there is a utopian world with pink unicorns and rainbows. What the author seems unable to comprehend is that the "means of production" he so earnestly wants government to confiscate is still someone's stuff. He only wants to draw a line between some stuff and other stuff.)

Conservatives just don't understand

Conservatives just don't understand. Rich people are evil. They want to throw the poor into the street, the sick to die, and the rest of us to drink dirty water and breathe polluted air. They got their wealth by stealing it. They are what's wrong with this country.

They hate government, but government is good, because it takes that money from the rich and gives it to the people who really deserve it. So, government should have as much power as possible, because its power must be brought to bear on society to cure its evils. The rich must pay government their fair share, because they are hoarding it and keeping it from doing the most good. Government must have that money, and those greedy conservatives are keeping their money from us. 

Everything wrong with this country is because of conservatives. If only they would shut up, we would have justice. Hateful and intolerant, conservatives believe the way you do because they are bigots with low IQ. They just don't see the nuance and shades of gray. They are unenlightened. They hate science. They fear progress and resist change. In fact, they want to return us to a time when blacks were property and women were barefoot and pregnant. 

Conservatives, don't bother denying it. A denial is proof that I'm right. And all the evidence you present is invalid, because its faked by shadowy moneyed interests, doubtless provided by people who are on the payroll of Big Oil. Either that, or your evidence should be ignored. Better still, your evidence will be thrown back at you, properly interpreted by people who are clearly smarter than you. 

If you had two brain cells to rub together, you would simply agree with my superior wisdom and insight. But you won't, because you just don't get it: Government is the answer to every problem.

Judge rules Wisconsin abortion law unconstitutional - By Daniel Bice and Cary Spivak

Originally found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
--------------------------------

It continually amazes me how judges think they have the power to unilaterally overturn duly-passed laws and constitutional provisions. The reason they continue to do so is because no one makes them answer for their actions. 

Judges serve at the pleasure of legislatures, and can be impeached for various reasons. But the typical response of people is to appeal the ruling [which cedes its legitimacy], or simply abide by it.

However, if a judge can face consequences for racist emails, surely judges can experience the same for flouting the law, ignoring the constitution, or overturning long-established precedent on a whim. 

Here's yet another judge that deserves censure. He overturned a perfectly reasonable law that enhanced the quality of services performed and/or the medical professionals that preform them, and his reasoning was strictly political: He was political attributing motives to those who favored the law, and overturned it based on those assumed motives. 

Read on:

Wittich’s behavior cruel, dismissive - letter by Martha Collins

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

----------------------------
First Ms. Collins' letter:

I cannot express enough my dismay and disappointment at Rep. Art Wittich’s cruel and dismissive maneuver on HB 249. He clearly did not listen to the people of Montana or to his constituents here in Gallatin Valley. Wittich a hypocrite in the fact that he has state health care coverage but would openly deny any coverage for 70,000 working Montanans under Medicaid Expansion.

Wittich is clearly representing other entities that are not from Montana. I am appalled and disgusted.

Martha Collins, Bozeman

------------------------------

Claims like these appear frequently in the Chronicle's opinion pages. They are talking points, probably regurgitated from leftist websites. They become inviolate truth in the eyes of those who parrot them and take on a life of their own, and no amount of realtalk can counter them.

In the Soviet Union, Capitalism triumphed over communism, In this country, capitalism triumphed over democracy. - By Mark Karlin

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
--------------------------------------

This post first appeared at Truthout.



In the Soviet Union, capitalism triumphed over communism. In this country, capitalism triumphed over democracy. (As I continually point out, America is not a democracy, it is a representative republic. And as you will discover later, the author's complaint is not about capitalism.)

Perhaps one can argue that there is still hope for democracy, the kind of faint pulse that an experienced paramedic detects when others have declared a person found lying in the street dead. Perhaps there is the chance that defibrillation or emergency surgery can yet resurrect an actual robust democracy and not just the appearance of one. In short, the last rites haven’t yet been given to democracy in the US, but the priest is hovering near the body.

Lebowitz’s quotation suggests the fundamentally overarching reality that a global oligarchical system has, at an accelerated pace, been steering democracies to achieve plutocratic goals. (Well, no. The statement was about capitalism, not plutocracy.) 

They are an unaccountable force deciding the future of the world’s economy – and within that framework – its political direction. Plutocrats, the likes of those whom meet at Davos every year and those whom the World Bank and IMF represents, are the new superseding political force in the world. The plethora of trade agreements give corporations, for example, sovereign powers over certain areas. More significantly, economic issues favoring the ultra-wealthy and corporations are the key focus of governmental entities such as the G-8 and G-20. (This nearly impenetrable paragraph, which characterizes the entire article, drips with marxist doctrine. Marxists are all about the rise of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie.)   

The Libertarian Delusion - by Robert Kuttner

Our comments in bold.
----------------------------------

We would venture to say that most, if not all, refutations and critiques of conservative/libertarian thought are based on ignorance of what they believe. Sometimes it's deliberate, because the Left wants to maintain and accumulate power. Rarely, it is due to honest misunderstanding. We think the below very long presentation is the former.
----------------------------------

This article appears in the Winter 2015 issue of The American Prospect magazine.

The stubborn appeal of the libertarian idea persists, despite mountains of evidence that the free market is neither efficient, nor fair, nor free from periodic catastrophe. (Interesting that the alternative, government intervention and central planning, is orders of magnitude worse. 

We suspect the author is using words like "efficient" and "fair" in a different sense than the typical person, let alone how a libertarian might use them.) 

In an Adam Smith world, the interplay of supply and demand yields a price that signals producers what to make and investors where to put their capital. The more that government interferes with this sublime discipline, the more bureaucrats deflect the market from its true path.

But in the world where we actually live, markets do not produce the “right” price. (The author seems to expect perfection, that is, each transaction gets it exactly right according to his particular criteria. This is an unreasonable standard, a standard to which the author does not hold for his own preferred economic mechanism.

Interesting, though, is the fact that it is the fairytale utopian economics of central planning that defines our present system, where we in fact have a "world where we actually live" manifestation of what the author prefers. What a disaster this has been! How many times does the Left get to try their hairbrained schemes on us? How many failures do we have to endure? When do we get relief from big government advocates so that we can actually try a libertarian theory or two?)

Affordable housing issue has a simple solution - letter by Steve Kirchhoff

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes, My comments in bold.
--------------------------

Mr. Kirchoff is a doctrinaire Leftist, committed to the idea that government solutions are the default choice for any problem. In a somewhat surprising departure, in this letter he calls for a more limited government approach. I think.

Read on:
----------------------------

When it comes to facing problems, the simplest solution is often the best. (Will he propose the simplest solution, that is, will he tell the City to sit this one out? Well, no.)

Yet when it comes to solving Bozeman’s affordable housing problem, solutions from the City Commission over the years have been far from simple. I know, because I was involved in drafting the complicated and unwieldy ordinance that the current commission threw into the trash can of history — without it ever having produced a single unit of affordable housing. (A refreshing admission. The results matter to this man, which is a rare statement from a Leftist.)

Today, watching from the sidelines, I am more convinced than ever that the Bozeman City Commission would be best served by crafting a simple solution to the affordable housing problem. (He assumes there is a problem, and that problem is actionable by government. But I would not concede that. There is no right to own a home, nor is there a right to own that home in Bozeman, no matter how interested government might be in trumpeting such an outcome. Just by virtue of identifying some houses as "affordable" and others not, inserts an imbalance into the equation that cannot be reconciled. The ripple effects are manifold and uncontrollable. 

That is why the City failed in its earlier attempts. This is not a case of a good idea being improperly executed. It is simply a bad idea, period.) 

BASIC BIBLE DOCTRINE? BY STEVE FINNELL

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------------------

Mr. Finnell has made frequent appearances in our blog, usually when he publishes a missive that contains new assertions. New assertions are relatively infrequent, however. His blog is replete with post after post making identical claims. He's nearly a one-note samba.

Also noteworthy is Mr. Finnell's unwavering militant confidence, coupled with a complete unwillingness to engage his commenters. So he is at once supremely sure of himself yet completely disengaged from any give-and-take dialogue. 

The below article is no exception. He presents for us an encapsulation of all he believes to be doctrinally true in a take-it-or-leave-it format. No room is given for the Great Debates of the past centuries, where topics of faith and doctrine have been discussed, studied, and examined by the great Christian thinkers of history. These men of principle and godliness have come to varying conclusions about many of these issues, offering thoughtful explanations and insights into why they came to those conclusions. 

But Mr. Finnell will have none of this. He knows the single correct answer to all these "basic" questions of faith and doctrine with a breezy ease, pretending there is no divergence of opinion. He apparently has surpassed the intellect and credentials of every man who has ever offered analysis. 

So, you either agree or disagree with Mr. Finnell. And, if you disagree, you are not on the side of truth. You have diverged from the correct faith. 

Read on:
-----------------------------

Do most churches teach or preach basic Bible doctrine in the two hours of preaching and teaching on Sunday morning? No, they do not. Why is that? 1. Most church leaders do not understand basic Biblical concepts. 2. Many church leaders who do understand basic Bible teaching refrain from teaching the truth for fear that they might lose their leadership positions. 3. Others honestly believe they will lose church members if they teach Biblical facts. [The truth is most people will not accept the truth. Is that a valid reason for not preaching God's word?]

How would the members of your church congregation answer questions concerning basic Bible doctrine and Biblical concepts?