Should and Must

There is a game that Statists play. It’s called the change the meaning game… They will take a word and misuse it consistently in order to change the meaning in your mind.  (Liberal is a great example. Originally it meant something very, very different than what American Liberals have turned it into today.)
I was listening to our president speak in regard to raising taxes and he mentioned that Jesus said “the rich should pay more”.
I am not particularly religious. So if it was Jesus or Ronald McDonald makes little difference to my point. My anger is the insult being directed at all of us from the President of The United States.

He is either expecting us not to listen to what he is actually saying… or he thinks we’re all ignorant.

I believe he thinks we are unable to understand the difference between “should” and “must”.

He must also believe that if he uses “Should” in place of “Must” long enough we will assign the same meaning of “Must” to both words.
Let me be clear… it’s fine that you, me or anybody thinks someone “should” do something. I can think you should pay all my taxes. You can think I should join the circus, or I should punch myself in the face etc.

There is a distinct difference.

The line is drawn at “Must”.

“Must” requires Force.

This word is particularly important when being uttered by those folks in government. We have reserved the right of force to the government specifically.  So, they and only they can force us to do things.

Theoretically we have the U.S.Constitution and the Bill of Rights to protect us… but only if we demand they be followed; which we don’t.

This brings me to my issue with the president. When he states Jesus said “the rich should pay more” he means “must”. This is so common a tactic that it fails to register in our minds anymore. Too many of us just nod along in agreement with statements like these. We don’t take the time to ask first “who exactly are the rich” and “where did Christ state the rich needed to be forced (must) to pay more?” and finally “why don’t you just say must when that is what you mean”?
Educated people should take offense at such statements from our leaders in government. We must demand clarity in speech, otherwise the Left on both sides of the aisle will continue to play their games… successfully.

As an aside, Isn’t it interesting that Leftists approve of religion so long as they think it bolsters their agenda (Jesus says the rich must pay more taxes) yet howl when it is in opposition to it (Churches should be forced to supply birth control)?  I was unaware that the Bible, Koran or U.S. Constitution were open for picking and choosing the things you like while disregarding those you don’t.

And, if they are… then what good are they?

(032714)

Advertisements

About Mike

Background is in Media with a little History Major thrown in just to be annoying. View all posts by Mike

12 responses to “Should and Must

  • ernestwhile

    This is disingenuous in a number of ways, to the point of potentially being satire. You are correct that force is a right reserved to the government, but force is a far-off limited response at the end of a chain of proposal-negotiation-agreement-coercion. That’s a big leap to make from the quotation you offer.

    You take another leap in proposing that ‘must’ requires force. If I say to you “you must eat your peas” I needn’t be holding your head to the plate. I could simply be reminding you of the key to getting any dessert. This is a pretty basic human transaction, millions of which stop short of force every day.

    Next you demand clarity of speech, and in the same sentence describe “the Left on both sides of the aisle.” What does that even mean, when the “aisle” as referred to is the dividing line between Republicans and Democrats in Congress? And while I’m on the subject, how do you feel about the Right’s spin machine constantly repeating not just words, but entire false concepts over and over until they gain traction?

    Finally, I had to laugh out loud at your observation of how “the leftists” pick and choose Bible concepts, while leaving out the far, FAR more egregious examples of the opposing side doing exactly the same thing. And FYI, no one is proposing that “Churches should be forced to provide birth control”. No one is suggesting a bowl of condoms at the alter. For a post demanding ‘clarity of speech’, from someone with ‘a background in media’, this is preposterous.

    File this one under ‘humor’.

    Like

    • Mike

      Love this comment. I glad you’re able to laugh.
      Let me address a few of your points.
      1. Your chosen definition of Force is as it is used Diplomatically. Not how it is employed Domestically. You might want to read a Leftist Tome by Cass Sunstein called “Nudge” in order to better understand how Government uses Force to Social Engineer. But I suspect you already know you chose an inapplicable definition in order to attempt to make a point which would otherwise be weak at best.
      2. Your telling me I “must” eat my peas is to borrow one of your owns words “FAR” different from The Government telling me I “Must” eat my peas because You cannot Force me to do so. Your correct, the inability to understand meaning of simply stated concepts is funny.
      3. Liberal Progressivism AKA Socialist Ideology is found in Both Parties. “The Aisle” refers only to the separation of the Parties not the Difference in Ideologies. But I’m sure you also know this…
      4. Unless You clarify your assertion that putting condoms at the alter is the only way a Church can be Forced to supply Birth Control against it’s tenets then I’m not sure what wait any of us can lend to your assessment of my point being “preposterous”.

      Thank you for kind of reading. Please come back when you have more time to think about what is being offered. We’ll wait.

      Like

      • ernestwhile

        No, that’s okay. You’re completely Right. I can’t imagine what I was thinking.

        I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on actual examples of those times the government has applied force, actual force in domestic situations. Would you condone such force in enforcing laws debated by the legislature, voted into law by the legislature, signed by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court? Because that’s the only real force the government can employ, and that’s a far cry from the president offering an opinion and/or policy goal.

        Like

        • Mike

          Much better comment.

          We’re making progress… at least you acknowledge the Government can employ Force.

          But again, an attempt to confuse.

          We have reserved the use of Force to Government… which I think still includes both houses of Congress, The Presidency and the Judicial Branch. Unless you know something I don’t. I suspect you know a lot of things I don’t, so it’s possible.
          I also believe in you and your ability to search through DOJ records (open to the public right there on the same box your using to read this.) and find myriad examples of prosecutions resulting in convictions for failure to pay taxes… failure to meet EPA regulations, failure to meet OSHA violations etc.
          You may also find the Federal Government involved in areas it should not be… unless you disagree with the Constitution or find it outdated. If so, there may be no area you believe the Federal Government is prevented from administering Force… Domestically. Or may be just certain areas you have a personal investment in. (It’s common to see subjectivity in certain beliefs. Kind of a Situational Morality.)
          Saving my comment space, I have over 700 posts you’re welcome to read (slowly) in order to ascertain what my thoughts are. Or, not.
          I Champion the Freedom to Choose.

          Again, thank you for reading.

          Like

          • ernestwhile

            I promise I will read more of your work to understand your point of view, if I can.

            However, you haven’t really addressed how the president’s quote (even allowing for your substitution of ‘must’ for ‘should’) results in the rich being forced to pay higher taxes.

            I acknowledge that he can lobby Congress to lawfully amend the tax code to put more of a tax burden on the wealthy. But Congress, specifically the House (elected by popular vote), gets to decide about revenue, and must do so with an act of law.

            Presumably you have no difficulty with President Bush’s lobbying Congress to lower taxes? Do you allege the same level of force?

            My frustration is actually not with your worldview, though it probably differs from mine. My frustration is with your inconsistency and lack of precision in a post that makes much of clarity of thinking and speaking.

            Like

            • Mike

              While Bush finds no quarter here…

              I will never have a problem with any politician returning what is Mine so that I may do with it as I see fit. So regardless of who might be lobbying to lower taxes, or more importantly succeeding in doing so, will find favor with me if only on that point.
              I will clarify however that this is a specific example you chose and my definition of lowering taxes is lowering the Rate at which I’m taxed… not simply returning some of my money in the form of a rebate or new deduction which is easily discontinued by the entity providing it.
              If you read further you will find that I am first and foremost Anti-Socialist. Socialism fails every time it is tried. And those who continue to subscribe to it are left making excuses for it’s past failure by doing everything from renaming it to implying those imposing just weren’t as smart as those who wish to impose it today.
              Finally I’m not sure how to help you with your frustration. I believe the post to be clear. When a Socialist/Statist in Government employs the word “Should” they mean “Must”. If they were being honest they would say “I will seek a way to force you to do something through the use of Government.” But it is difficult to be honest and Promote Leftist Governing Theory. The people simply don’t like it when it’s stated out loud.
              Anyway, the post stands as it is.
              Seems clear to me, but my mind is drug and alcohol addled.
              If you choose to read other posts I welcome your challenges.
              It serves a greater purpose.
              Cheers.

              Like

  • twistnpout

    ohhh I definitely have to get back to this one…

    Like

  • david

    finally saw Bill Maher’s Religulous last night. eye opening when you take the ridiculous out of it’s usual context and expose it for how absurd it really is.

    that’s how i read this post. right on target and really scary at the same time.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: