So I’m listening to Alex today, and it’s, as always, so fascinating. Alex says that anyone who thinks government can ever possibly be good is a collectivist and is delusional. Ok, well, I can sort of see that, even though I’m a lefty, because I think history really does support an argument that governments are always inherently evil, no doubt due to the fact that power corrupts. So Alex goes on to say that government is inherently bad. Well, that follows pretty well from the first statement, so I can kind of see it. So I’m thinking, Alex is about to declare that he’s an anarchist. Right? If Alex thinks government is always bad, he must surely be an anarchist, right? Only he doesn’t, and isn’t. So I feel confused.
See, I could respect it if you right wingers wanted anarchy. At least that would be consistent. I mean, I have a hard time envisioning it as the way we all would really like to live, because it would mean going back to hunter-gatherer days, and I can’t see how that can happen, or how it can be a good thing, but then again, maybe civilization itself is the problem with humanity, right? So maybe an argument can be made that what we need is anarchy. But you guys NEVER actually call for anarchy, do you?! Instead, you call out for PROPERTY to be sacred. But guys, how is property going to be sacred without government in some form to protect it, or at least to legitimize it? In the state of nature, property is pretty much what you can carry, right?
So isn’t there a contradiction in your attitude towards government? You say that government is always bad, and that anyone who thinks it can ever be good is an evil collectivist, but you ALSO say, or imply, that government is good, because Property is sacred, and you can’t have property without government to legitimize it and protect it, can you? Because otherwise, the only way you can have property is to physically defend your possessions against all comers, which means that practically speaking, you own what you can carry, right? So government is good.
See how this goes around in circles? You say government is always bad. But you also say that government is good. It’s bad but it’s good. SO WHAT YOU REALLY MEAN IS THAT GOVERNMENT IS GOOD WHEN IT DOES WHAT YOU WANT IT TO DO, AND BAD WHEN IT DOES WHAT I WANT IT TO DO, right? You are good, I am bad. That’s really the essence of your argument. You good, me bad.
Kinda sucks as an argument, doesn’t it? How about looking at it a different way? Mightn’t it be fairer to say that government can only be good if the citizenry are informed, involved and dedicated to the public good, but that under those circumstances, government can be a great blessing? ISN’T THAT EXACTLY WHAT THE FOUNDERS THOUGHT?
_____________
fightthelies says:
Dude you are spot on. Alex is a phoney d____ and he advocates division; you see all the MSM like Alex it’s there job is to divide the middle class make the tea par tiers hate the unions; p____ on the protesters cus they are not getting it right. Alex Jones is an agent of the NWO
______________