"If you don't like it, leave"

I never found why the "If you don't like it, leave" argument ever gained popularity. From my experiences in political discourse, it originally come from Repubs speaking of defending freedoms with war. Now, I see it increasing with Dems about the ACA.

What I don't understand is how this statement gives any argument merit.

As an anarchist, I frequently hear this spouted, but first off, where do you suppose I go? Second, isn't this the "land of the free"? Finally, if government policy (from taxes to war) is so great, why am I unable to opt out? If I don't support a war, I don't believe I should pay taxes that just end up as subsidies for war contractors. If I don't buy health insurance, I don't believe I should be required to pay a fine if I don't.

See, the problem with democracy is, in fact, democracy itself. The left wing supposedly wants to support minorities (though in a democracy it's the majority that rule, isn't that backwards?), while the right claims to support free trade and individualism, but still supports the majority rule aspect of democracy, meaning the smallest minority, the individual (which they claim to stand for), is still subject to mob rule (again, backwards much?).

Comments?

 

That phrase completely defeats the purpose of political freedom or minority rights, because it basically says "Do what we want or (*)(*)(*)(*)".

 

The more obvious slogan, 'If you don't like it, stay and fight!' doesn't fit with the fantasy of general social agreement, I suppose. They don't say it much outside America, because people tend to move about over there.

 

We ought to ALL be saying, "If WE don't like it, then let's fix it!" - though one has to admit that there's a problem first, and that assumes that we're talking about folks that are mature enough to accept responsibility for their decisions and actions. Unfortunately, that plainly is NOT the case with the current brands of American political "leadership".

 

In response to me be told that just the other day.

 

Nobody wants anything fixed, if they actually did, there wouldn't be so many of them spouting talking points and voting for the lesser of two evils.

They want to get out of it anything they can whether they deserve it or not. If they are telling you to leave it is probably because they are getting more out of it than they deserve and want it too stay that way.

The government isn't supposed to a prize, so one side or the other can push an agenda on everybody else. If there is no ethical relationship between what is best for the nation as a whole, and the selfish needs of a selective minority, then something needs to be fixed, or neutered. Both parties are out for their own interests and could give two squats about the greater good, or what is best for the nation as a whole. That's why the two dominating parties were formed. Selfishness and greed, at everybody elses expense.

The parties are the problem. Oh and of course the idiots who keep them in power.

 

Here is the thing. You choose to live in this country and for good or bad we have a government that requires taxes that pays for things we both like and don't like. The answer is to change the government through the power of elections.

I think part of your problem is that we are not a democracy but a Constitutional Republic. A Constitution limits and defines the government's role. Interpretation of which has changed over time but there are still some solid freaking walls around the government. That same constitution provides for minority rights (be they ethnic minorities or minority thinkers) but we can't have a free for all. Someone mentioned you don't believe in freedom unless you think it is okay for someone to walk down the street naked smoking a bone etc.etc. etc. Even the founders understood the limits of freedom.

Creating civil laws and discourse is not mob rule. True libertarianism is not no government. Good lord.

 

George Washington, in his farewell address to the American people as he was leaving the presidency, spoke about the amending of the
Constitution:
If in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional power be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way in which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation [similar to today's Executive Orders that bypass Congress], for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.
It was about the same time that a British professor named Alexander Fraser Tyler wrote: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess (defined as a liberal gift) out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship." (Citation unknown but this is NOT my original work and I am not claiming it as mine)

 

You do not seem to understand that we are Republic and a Republic, while a form of Democratic government, is not a true Democracy where the majority rule in all things. So, maybe you should study up more on government or take a class or two before starting threads proving you do not know the subject well.

 

Well the mechanisms were put in place to keep those things from happening, unfortunately greed and unethical professional politicians have long ago deteriorated any sense of what constitutes the greater good, and even that is defined in radical irrational terms today.

Our people are ignorant and as a result powerless against the wealth and power that pulls the governments strings. The media is owned, bought and paid for by corporate interest, not a parties. The entire premise of news these days is to assure that the facts are constantly skewed. It's not like it was in Ben Franklin's day when newspapers just reported the news, without turning every story into an opinionated bias propaganda piece. Oh sure you got your opinion pieces, but they were based on reality, not marketed talking points and lies.

It's easy to just blame the people, except for the fact that they do not make the decisions that control the government. They have been programmed into believing there are only two sides to every issue, our side and theirs, and theirs is wrong. Both sides emotional and largely discriminatory views, are completely invalid when it comes to actually making decisions that only benefit a small minority of the nation.

It's such a great con, the poor and down trodden actually think that elitist democrats ( a group of rich (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s) are on their side, looking out for their best interests, and working stiffs believe republicans are conservative (which is an absolute joke in itself), and that these elitists bastards are actually interested in individual rights and the plight of the small business owner, when in reality, the way they talk and the way they act couldn't be more diametrically opposed to one another.

It is pathetically disturbing, anyone with half a brain is still falling for this (*)(*)(*)(*). But every election year people line up and toss their vote in the garbage by falling for this BS!

Are the people to blame? Absofukinloootly!

Is there anything that can be done about it? If the examples set on this board are valid, we are doomed. Republicans and democrats will continue to maintain power and control, and nothing will change, except the situation will continue to get worse and deteriorate for the overwhelming majority of the population.

 

The USA is not a democracy but a democratic republic. Where a minority has a voice.

 

Courteousy of big money special interest groups. It is quite the nice system the incumbents have put themselves into.

 

Well if the system worked correctly the checks and balances within the government would see to it rather effectively that these unethical scumbags would be identified and quickly reprimanded/prosecuted for their treasonous ways, unfortunately the unethical scumbags out number the ethical ones, by such a large percentage, any attempt to bring one down would result in their own personal destruction.

 

Actually, I probably know more than you. I've been all over the political spectrum since I was younger. Family was predominantly conservative whilst I was more so liberal. Soon, after finding an interest in early high school, I found myself more conservative leaning. Eventually, I found guys like Stossel, Friedman, and Rothbard with their libertarian arguments. Then, finally, I stumbled upon Lysander Spooner and Agorism, and ever since I've considered myself Voluntaryist, which is anarchist by fiat (no voluntary governments exist). So before you continue your condescending tea-bag sounding rant, I'm aware of the "Constitutional Republic" aspect of governance.

My problem with this is that all republics have fallen to the worst of tyrannies for the simple aspect that they are capable of being the most powerful of governments. Rome, The United States, and as small as the Weimar Republic. I'd like to compare governments to farms, as long as you give your animals a bit of freedom (free range) they become the most productive, thus, the USA quickly rose to power, and will quickly fall from it. Icarus' crime was to fly too high, and we're a shining parallel.

In short: Tyranny doesn't discriminate with government, it'll affect all. Direct Democracy, Representative Democracy, Monarchy, Parliamentary, or Despotism. Eventually, all the same.

 

Observe my response to Casper.

 

Observe my response to Casper.

 

All Democrats lie awake at night thinking of new and different ways of stealing money from the folks that still have some liquidity in order to buy enough votes to stay in office.
Obamacare is just another example of that never ending process.

 

1. Could you explain your name? You say you're an anarchist but your name is ALibertarianInALeftWorld.

2. The reason for this argument is because it's easier not to deal with a problem then have to defend your position.

 

This attitude is neither left nor right, Democrat or Republican. As a "peace activist" who sometimes hitchhiked around the country, I often heard "love it or leave it." or some such ignorant insult. So I left. as did thousands of Americans who came to Canada and helped make things better here.

But those insults came from good Republican cops as they kicked the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of you for exercising out freedom of assembly, and they came from fine, upstanding union goon hard hats, fresh from voting for George McGovern and were now lobbing bricks are your head.

The more insecure one is with their world view, the more they attack that which threatens them. Just like how the "Occupy" monsters did when they "liberated" the streets of North American cities, shouting slogans which basically captured the same sentiment: "agree with us or shut the (*)(*)(*)(*) up."

- - - Updated - - -

Every last one of them!

I can tell you've personally spoken to all 15 million of them.

 

I seriously doubt that, I have been involved and studying politics before you were probably even born. If you did you would not be asling why majority rule does not always apply in a Republic, you might want to read up on how they opperate vrs a true democracy, which is actually impossible beyond a small population.
Oh almost forgot, ask the Tea Party bunch here if I am one of them, when they stop laughing at you long enough they might reply with a joke of their own.

 

Observed and rejected. You seem very confused on the topic of governments and their actual methods of operation, maybe you should consider a government class or two and then get back to us.

 

Anarchism is libertarianism in its purest form. Also, I connect left with socialism and all governments operate in a socialist manner. I.E. the "opposing" political parties here in the States. Both extremely socialist, imperialist, and fascist. Interestingly, all at the same time.

 

Considering the fact that all governments have either failed or are failing, I believe it's you who is living in a fantasy world. Wake up.

 

Anyone that calls themself an Anarchist and a Libertarian at the same time is the one that is confused, majorly confused.

 

I don't see how anyone could think it a valid argument. If they were peasants in North Korea do they think they'd be persuaded by "love it or leave it"? It's their property, why should they have to leave. The state should leave!

Great post. Hopefully some of its users take note