A second issue is the word "libertarian", which was the pool from which Orphans emerged long ago. To those who want zero restrictions on their behaviour, e.g. the Hamas and Climate activists, those throwing paint st old portraits in galleries etc., a classical liberal would say that that's not liberty, that's licentiousness. Care nothing for anyone but me-me-me.
Classical liberalism says maximum freedom to live life to the best of our capacity, in an atmosphere of encouragement for initiative. That WEF clown who said it's the end of "rugged individualism" and now is the time for diverse, all in this together compliance in finding a new world of peace, harmony blah blah blah was quoting from the marxist playbook ... a classical liberal will be dead against that guff.
But a WEFer would counter ... do you classical liberals not agree there must be constraints on human behaviour, e.g. the loud neighbour at night, those blocking roads etc? The answer is ... it depends what is being restricted. Murdering full term babies in the womb? Mutilated men in women's sport? Who decides what is "for our good"? The lovable WEF and EU politburos? Aunty Von Leyen? Aunty BBC?
You do see the issue. And the porn and other perversions taught in schools? That's ok, is it?
Lastly, there are two screenshots here ready to go ... one is Massie, Boebert, Luna, speaking of the names they saw on the "Epstein list" ... plus one lady writing of the NHS cancelled appointments. I used neither, mainly as I've run out of column space here now. That was an editing decision by me, Julia decides hers too.
Are we wicked censors? I mean, where is that middling position where clearly some things are vile, some things we have no time to do today? The potential for political confluct, even over this, is high.
No comments:
Post a Comment
A reminder, dear reader, that you're welcome to comment as Anon but if so, please invent a moniker to appear somewhere in your text ... it tells Watchers nothing, it does help the readers.