[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="kraychik"] No, you don't get to redefine terms such as liberty. Either an individual is free to conduct himself as he or she wishes with others or he isn't. Either an individual is free to engage in transactions with others without government intervention or not. You cannot tell us that government regulations and taxation represent economic liberty. You can make the argument that reduced liberty is ideal policy for one reason or another, which is certainly true in some circumstances, but you cannot redefine a tax or regulation as anything other than what it is: reduced economic liberty. Again, you're a communist, so we know where you're coming from. It's predictable and boring. Perhaps you fancy yourself some sort of deep thinker as a contrarian, where you flip everything upside down on its head: freedom is tyranny, equality is oppression, wealth is poverty, culture is depravity, etc.kraychik
"Either an individual is free to conduct himself as he or she wishes with others or he isn't" More white noise.To say that I'm "redefining" these terms not only completely misses the point of what I just said but implies that these terms already have an agreed definition in the first place - to one person freedom means one thing, whereas to another freedom means something completely different. I reference Orwell again when I say that words such as "freedom" and "liberty" have no meaning other than to signify something as "desirable." When words like these are used nothing substantial is being said, and you yourself have mastered the art of typing out lengthy posts without actually saying anything at all. Your use of language is looser than a well-aged prostitute.
So you think because fringe communists want to redefine words that there is some lack of consensus that justifies an open debate as to the meaning of various words? What communists like you need to understand is that just because you want to redefine things doesn't mean that various terms become entirely subjective and devoid of meaning. It's like suggesting that their is a lack of consensus regarding whether or not Nazism is a good and moral ideology. Since Nazis still exist and think it's a good idea, I guess there is sufficient disagreement over this question to call into question the objectivity of defining Nazism as evil. After all, evil means different things to different (evil) people. Again, you are completely missing the point of what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting that there just been an open debate on the meaning of these words - quite the opposite. I'm suggesting that these words should be retired from political discourse all together.You brought up Nazism, and incorrectly stated that there is a lack of consensus regarding whether or not it is a "good and moral ideology." That's just not true. Sure, there are some skinheads that are proud self-described Nazis, but in mainstream political discourse no one sees the label of "Nazi" as a compliment. But that's where the consensus ends. Beyond that, everyone has their own private definition of what the wickedness of Nazism entails. Today, the word is nothing more than an emotive grunt to signify that which is undesirable. The meaning of the word today is long divorced from the 25 point plan and the National Socialists of the Third Reich.
Barry Obama? 
Log in to comment