In a recent reply post someone attempted to make an argument against the idea of a rules based society with the following statement:
Does insurance pay anything if I leave my car open with the keys in? It's a me problem not a them problem...
Now, the individual might try to say that an argument against a rules based society was not their point, but this exactly what that line of reasoning
leads to. I heartily thanked the individual for their generous gift of exposing the folly of bleedin' heart, leftitst thought. Let's take that line of
reasoning to where it must and can only lead.
If in this case the
theft of the car (and though
theft is surely a right-wing extremist, white supremacist, colonialist, racist word,
I'll use it anyway) is deemed to be the fault of the car owner who left the key in the ignition (the
me element of the thesis instead of the
them element).
So, the first question is: Was the theft of the car against the rules? (Again, to employ a right-wing extremist, white supremacist, colonialist,
racist word: Was it a
crime?) That is to say: Wast the theft of the car a crime, or wasn't it?
If the theft of the car was not a crime, then we have a society where there is essentially no such thing as crime, which means there are no societal
standards by which one must conduct one's self. If there is no law - with attached, resulting penalties that ultimately make the breech of order
unprofitable - saying that that should not be done, then we will have no order in society. It will be a free for all and nobody and nothing will be
secure in their person or possessions. Total chaos, disorder and, ultimately, total insecurity and violence would be the end result.
So, let's assume for a moment that it would not be desirable or pleasant to live in such a society. Here, then, is the next conundrum extrapolating
from the first mentioned line of reasoning: Say you forget your keys in your car and somebody steals it. Is that a
you problem or a
them
problem? Now, if the society in which you live has prescribed rules (there's that nasty right-wing extremist, white supremacist, colonialist, racist
word,
laws, again) that say that it is wrong to take another person's property (let's call that
stealing for the sake of convenience,
though that is surely another loaded, right-wing extremist, white supremacist, colonialist, racist word), that is to say someone
steals your
car because you left the keys in the ignition and stealing is against the
laws (
sorry), then the
law must a prescribe penalty for
the offence, else the law has no teeth, and a law without teeth is just a suggestion, which brings us back to the chaotic situation that I described
previously.
So, if it's a
you problem and not a
them problem, and there is a prescribed penalty for the
crime of
stealing, who should
suffer the penalty for the crime that has been committed? (Again, a law without teeth, without a penalty is just a suggestion and will not achieve its
purpose of helping to maintain order in society.) Because that is where this line of reasoning leads. If the theft of the car is a
you problem
and not a
them problem, then it would be necessary that
you must suffer the penalty (prison) for the theft of your car. You go to jail
because somebody else stole your car because it was a
you problem and not a
them problem; that is to say, it was
your fault that
they sold your car, and not
their fault.
This is the unavoidable, inevitable and final conclusion of the bleedin' heart, leftist, progressive/liberal line of thought.
The progressive's lack of logic, understanding, foresight and ability to reason is astounding, but this clearly represents the greatest part of the
left wing progressive/liberal movement and their way of thinking. Indeed, it is largely the root of what got us into the state of cultural and
societal
dysfunction in which we find ourselves now.
CONT'D NEXT POST...
:
edit on 2024 9 4 by AwakeNotWoke because: continued ...