useful idiots and strawmen

My response to K Ackermann's comments from here down:

"You took what I wrote personal, and that's unfortunate because it applies to everyone."

No, I took it personal because you're suggesting that either I don't pay for the services I consume from government, or that I don't want to pay for the services that I consume from government.  Neither is true.  I want to buy what I need when I want it, and I only want government selling me the things mandated by the Constitution.  I want to be free, and I want the same for everyone else.  And you oppose it.

"There is cost we all incur by participating in society. It's unavoidable."

This is a strawman argument.  It simply does not address my actual position.  My point is that we do not "all incur" those costs, even if we do all have a right to the benefits.  And therefore the demand to receive the services of government is completely out of control, as is the scope of what it's come to provide.  Everybody thinks somebody else is paying for everything, and nobody realizes the full price they're actually paying.  Well, I do.

"I have no idea how much you pay in taxes, but I assume it's the same as everybody else in proportion."

That's the most ridiculous thing you've said.  Our tax code is so disproportionate that there is no "same as everybody else."  Everybody is paying different proportions.

"Why not propose an idea to change things instead of lashing out and getting nowhere?"

Change starts by getting voters to realize what a bunch of idiots and thieves you libs are.  Welcome to www.whoisjohngalt.com, and pretty much wherever people are using their brains.

"I worked my tail off so that I can call myself a man of the earth."

Well, as long as you weren't doing it for the money -- or for your family -- then I guess it's okay for you to be a lib.

"I still design electronic products and software, but I only do that for money."

Really?  Oops, I spoke too fast.  How much of that money goes to the state, and how much of it goes to you?  I just want to be clear about whose money you do it for, because I don't think you have a clue for whose benefit you're actually working.

"I don't have a child or grandchild who doesn't know how care for an animal, shoot the center out of a target, balance an equation, say Please and Thank You, stand up for themselves, and stand up for others."

If you taught your kids that "standing up for others" means giving them someone else's money, then you shouldn't have bothered with the "Please and Thank You" crap.  They're still rude.  But they might need to know how to use those guns someday.

"They are good kids"

Sounds to me like they are probably budding socialists, but perhaps some of them are smarter than you.  Statistically, they can't all fall for that liberal/Marxist crap.

"it irritates me that you would be so dismissive of my opinion,"

I am dismissive of your opinion because you are an idiot.  Be irritated by that for a change.

"I am somehow to be blamed for your problems"

You vote to enslave both of us every chance you get.  You're not just to blame for my problems (or yours), you're also part of the problem for a lot of people who'd rather pay for themselves and their own families instead of subsidizing the stupidity that keeps a growing number of able-bodied Americans dependent on government.

"This country used to be great."

You're welcome.  And when you figure out why it isn't great anymore, be sure to thank yourself.  Perhaps you should go back to the original post and read why it's not great anymore.  That'll help move things along.  It all started with morons who equate "socialized education" with "good education," and "socialized health care" with "affordable health care."  Morons like you. 

Tell me: when was the last time you actually considered what could be fixed to make health care truly affordable again (as you claim to want) instead of just making it so that people cannot see the price tag of something very, very, very expensive?  The two ideas are not the same.  When was the last time you actually considered fixing the problem you can actually see?

"If you spew hate and vitriol all the time, anyone who looks up to you is going to think they already started out whipped and defeated."

One of us is a sheep going to slaughter.  One of us is kicking and screaming.  Do you have any idea which one you are???  Who is defeated?  I reserve my hate for irrationality.  You apparently hate freedom.

Comments

[J Green]

You're the biggest hypocrit I've brought myself to read in a very long time. Freedom, yet you actively hate on people because you don't think they're allowed a view point that isn't subsistent to your own without being branded as something derogatory. You. Are. An. Intellectual. Bigot. Despite whether it is a perspective that not only supports your own, but makes up for its short comings and inconsistencies, whether more thought out or requiring additional factual information you could offer, you will attack it.

You. Posted about the evils of rationalization then used concepts of my argument which you ignored to rationalize why you had choosen again to be ignorant of the value in someone elses comment simply to use what you had rationalized to attack them, label them and then played some childish an eye for an eye game where you rationalized your preception of their comment to tell them you were more deserving of what you received from the Government than they were of what they received - which is pathetically ignorant of what they had actually stated. Was it 'they' who hit 'your' nerve? Was it 'your' kicking and screaming that meant you were unable to actually derive the correct meaning from what was being said TO you, not against you.

You keep doing this awful thing of spewing forth unjustified hatred backed by a Randian concept that you emotionally fit to fill the need. There's no logic or reason to the context you use to make your points or your arguements, any learned psychologist would tell you you're imposing your mindset onto others and in doing so only proving how petty you are and how little reasoning and logic you require to zealously back anything, so long as it's something you can spit venom at and feel superior to.

There are countless individuals such as yourself spouting bile for the sake of their supposed cause in every facet of society. You've taken the mantel of John Galt as some sort of veto on logic and reason. Many mentalities such as your own aided in breaking the back of the old Objectivist movement by crippling those who sought reason by enforcing the substitution of your own illogical meanderings.

You will attack anyone who comments on this blog, liberal or otherwise (although you seem to especially like to spit on their side of your imaginary fence) who is not a zombie of your own nature. And what an unpleasant nature it is, to be of intended detriment to all those up and coming thinkers who don't think what you tell them.

To K Ackermann; I would be honored to know you.

[JohnJ]

Is it intellectual bigotry to hate ignorance?

Sign me up!

[John Galt]

"You're the biggest hypocrit I've brought myself to read in a very long time."

You'll be hard pressed to find me living a life different from the one I espouse, making that a very questionable statement.

"...you actively hate on people because you don't think they're allowed a view point that isn't subsistent to your own without being branded as something derogatory."

It's purely defensive. My hostility is directed at people who propose to initiate force against others. I question their motives, I question their reasoning, I question their results. I question the evidence they offer. Their objective is to enslave me -- and you.

BTW, this is for you.

"To K Ackermann; I would be honored to know you."

To know him??? You're funding his retirement, rearing his children. He wants you to pay for his healthcare. Know him??? You ought to be listing him as a dependent on your 1040!

You ought to know him -- he's part of a movement that wants to direct where the fruit of your labor goes. You ought to know him -- he thinks he's your boss. He thinks his causes are more important than yours -- as long as you're paying for them.

[John Green]

I do quite love how your responses do not in anyway counter the points only leave it to the assumption of the reader that you've made them.

"Is it intellectual bigotry to hate ignorance?

Sign me up!"

Statements such as these are the basis of what you, John, use to make counter points, rarely, when you choose to do so. Where do I begin. Yes, it is intellectual bigotry to hate ignorance. Being intolerant of someones opinion is exactly what bigotry is. But that is not the reason for your statement, it is, like many written by faux-Galt simply a statement to unquestionably state you fight ignorance whilst ignoring the question as to whether or not what you are attacking is in fact ignorance. That in and of itself IS highly ignorant, it's very heart and very core is an ignorant statement, by any study of semantics it IS ignorance.

So by all means, sign up to hate yourselves. Leave the real free thinkers to do what they do, which is not ignore, which is not to denounce, but simply live as we live in full view of the facts.

Ignorance is what leads you to believe I pay for any of you in any way. The entire world does not live in your country, I do not pay your taxes, I do not suffer the ignorance of your systems or have in anyway a stake in the outcome of your choices or the conclusions you reach as individuals. Other than whether they are or are not factual. Unlike those willing to jump on bandwagons, hate their neighbour, hate their friends or family or colleagues because they seemingly believe the act of their hateful reaction somehow gives their ignorant opinion justification.

Faux-Galt, to sum you up, to prove your hypocrisy and ignorance I will simply quote you,

"He thinks his causes are more important than yours."

Who are you addressing John? Who thinks their causes are always more important. Which individual among us started a blog, stole the persona of John Galt simply to back their causes? Who does not consider another viewpoint as anything but something to take a hostile stance against?

Thinking up the plethora of ways to respond to you is extremely depressing, I could woefully poke holes till the cows come home. ... You agree that you actively hate, but it's purely defensive. ... against a man who earned what he has so that he might provide for the family he loves. Wow, you're obviously backed into a corner there, John. That makes your responses seem entirely justified now......... You're actively hostile/fighting against those who share similar views and those of intellect who simply use their freedom that you wish on them to think differently. You can't be more persuasive than when you're unleashing your aggression? Is that what you're saying, John? Forbid the thought of what might happen if you actually had to face real Liberals or the real ignorant American's who are the ones sinking your country further into recession, or the CEO's of companies that are taking your jobs and your country's money abroad - draw your gun or are you going to to be irrefutably correct?

[John Galt]

"He thinks his causes are more important than yours."

That is not the original quote; it is incomplete and out of context. In fact everyone thinks their causes are more important than other people's causes. From an objectivism standpoint, everyone's own causes are more important.

What matters is the mechanisms through which we negotiate which causes get resources. My efforts are completely voluntary -- as are my causes, if you look closely. Yet you liken me to someone who, notwithstanding the possibility that you currently live outside of his legal reach, would just as soon use the force of law to compel you to live for his causes -- many of which have not taken the same responsibility for themselves that he, I, and no doubt you, have all taken for ourselves.

[Mitch Baker]

John Green, are you saying that the creator of this blog is not actually the fictional protagonist of "Atlas Shrugged"?

[John Galt]

Truth be told, I seriously kicked around the thought of calling myself "Eddie Willers."

[John Green]

No, John. From an Objectivist's standpoint, the cause that proves itself factually to be more independent of the mind and purely objective is more important. That's pretty much a large part of Objectivism in a nutshell.

Yes, I am acting in such a way as someone who would use force. I reacted to comments you've made in an aggressive and defensive manner more or less as you have done, the moral stand point spiraled downwards from there and I understand it does not reflect well on me. I'm paying for what I have chosen to say and what I'm earning is a deeper understanding - it is a purposeful transaction.

Mitch Baker; I'm implying that there is a fake Galt and a real Galt, real in the sense of persona and not person. Without becoming too long-winded, in an instance where John is short cutting logic with opinion or vetoing another's opinion with sweeping statements or classifications in place of factual justifications he is making a faux pas and is no longer coherent with the fictional John Galt character. I hope that clarifies the term.

[John Galt]

Nevertheless, John Green, your partial quote was completely out of context. It referred to someone who would use force to compel you to live for his purposes if he could.

I don't think my advocating for your freedom qualifies as such an imposition. Your hypocrisy assertion remains unsupported.