Are There any Middle Class Black Neighborhoods in Charleston? (sales, condos)
Charleston areaCharleston - North Charleston - Mt. Pleasant - Summerville - Goose Creek
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Originally Posted by OleTomCat The government has no money of it's own it can only confiscate it from the populace at large, therefore it can not create wealth, it has to take wealth from someone else who has earned and give it to another person.
This was stated most clearly stated in the slip up when the President said he wanted to spread the wealth. Confiscating it from the haves and giving it to the have nots.
Fifth paragraph under Statement of Principles. I have no interest in making your party's platform sound more radical and fringe than it already is. I don't need to make anything up because the the truth about their beliefs is antithetical to the principles of a democratic society, which is why they're so marginalized everywhere in the world.
Wealth and money are not the same thing. You've had problem with terminology this whole thread.
Again, what you say is a statement of ideology. Governments historically have used many means to acquire wealth, such as through the exploitation of natural resources- seizing of land and stripping whatever resides on it. This was the motivation for colonizing the "new world" if you remember. Our government opts not to do that- when we find a vein of gold on government-owned land, a private contractor is allowed to come in and mine it for their own profit, with the government taking a negotiated chunk of the value extracted (traditionally this has been pretty minimal). This organization is a direct reaction to feudal structures of power, where the state just stockpiled resources from newly-colonized lands. The government now acts as landlord. It is this way with the radio spectrum as well. If it's owned by the public, its use should benefit the public. This is why the federal parks don't look like Disney World, complete with $100 admission fee. The government could do this, turn the parks into profit-generating mechanisms, but that would go against democratic principles. It is within their power as it is currently constructed, and other democratic governments engage in similar behavior.
Now, if like a good Libertarian you believe in the right to free contract, you're free to go somewhere else if this arrangement doesn't suit you. You may think the government, as a proxy for the people, has no right to ownership. But then you've gotten dangerously close to anarchy; the government would be so small that it cannot function effectively, and no authority exists to enforce common standards, to protect citizens from each other and from outsiders, to build infrastructure, to protect private enterprise from itself,. It would look a lot like the US in the 19th C. Like it or not, we live in a democracy, and in this democracy we have decided what we're willing to pay for the protections and rights that the government ensures.
It seems like your knowledge of history and economics starts and ends with the US in the second half of the 20th century, with no awareness of how other governments and periods have struggled with the issues we face today.
Heritage Foundation is ideologically biased. They're pretty open about it. Many questions, one answer- lower taxes. Look at who funds them. It's a very nice way to convince working class people such as yourself to support a political agenda that further consolidates wealth in the hands of the few. I'm not going to go through everything they've gotten wrong in the past here. If you want objective economic analysis, that's not the place to turn. There's a reason why no researcher with any scruples will go to work for them. They've done a nice job convincing you to live in their bubble; they pay people with my training very well to figure out what makes people like you tick.
Last edited by automated; 10-12-2009 at 08:12 AM..
Ok, first you took it out of context, I did see it, not on the front page but down the page I posted and I missed it, here is the full statement:
Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.
This all pertains to personal and individual rights, if you read down further it give more details on business trade.
I started out as a Republican and I found the Libertarian party because they represented what I think not that they tell me what to think, I was directed there by a very good friend of mine, who happens to be a big Liberal. I don't live in their bubble I have chosen to bring them into mine.
My knowledge of History and economics is very extensive.
Thomas Jefferson: "I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt."
"The principle of spending money to be paid by future generations, under the name of funding,
is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting
the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
Many of the founding fathers had this mindset that the government should not take from the producers and give to the nonproducers.
Also if you wish to go back even further:
- Alexander Fraser Tyler,'The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic'.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from 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 a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship.
ah you wish to call me a birther as if you think that is an insult
I guess you libs fail to realize that that was a name your party created in hopes of making those of us that believe in the US Constitution look like some kind of an extremist, news flash: the majority of this country believes in the constitution so trying to turn that into some kind of "fault" will only backfire on your own agenda
to all of us true Americans that love this country and understand that it only exist because of the constitution we are supposed to continue to live by, being caller a "birther" is quite a compliment
so we all thank you very much for acknowledging the fact that we value the frame work of our country!
birther isn't an insult dude... it's the reality that even the POTUS should be following OUR United States Constitution, who for now has somehow gotten away without doing so... this too will change
Tom, that quote means that the government can't restrict the labor market- no working week, no working age, no safety requirements. It means that when you get hurt on the job, you have no recourse against your employer. It literally takes us back to 19th century working conditions, which, if you have knowledge of that history, you know were absolutely terrible. These are not basic human rights for Libertarians. Libertarians have very thin notions of what human rights are- they believe in negative liberty. Again, we live in a democracy and we have through democratic process decided to develop the notion of right different from the one that existed in the late 18th century. And this is consistent with other western democracies the American example inspired. If you remember right, the FF also had almost a full estate tax to eliminate the possibility of landed gentry/new de facto aristocracy to avoid this very centralization of wealth (parents would be the producers, children would be the non-producers, according to the language you used in your mangled interpretation of Jefferson). And they thought that people who didn't own property shouldn't vote. And they were cool with slavery. Dealing with the FFs inevitably involves some cherry-picking, and is best done by considering the context of ideas they were writing against.
As to your knowledge of history and economics- Tom, it just seems like you don't have a sense of how our current system came to be and how it compares to the ones that came before it and others that exist in comparable nations. Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like you take the US in the second half of the 20th C as a starting point rather than a point on a continuum of global social and economic history. You start and end with the idea that you shouldn't have to pay for people who don't work, with no understanding of the dynamics of poverty either at present or in the past. Our system could not tolerate full employment. To be healthy, it depends on a certain percentage of the population being unemployed. So poverty, as a social problem, is systemic, and we've dealt with it by trying to provide basic human dignity to the poor, such as education, shelter, and food (positive freedoms), rather than leave them to starve in the streets. We haven't done a great job handling poverty, but we're doing better than 100-150 years ago, during the height of Liberalism.
Barbara, a birther is someone who contests the legitimacy of Obama's authority on the grounds that he wasn't really born in the United States. They claim evidence of his birth is part of a liberal conspiracy. The media was covering them for about a month this summer until they got off their asses and checked the facts. Some birthers are still screaming about this, but they're being ignored b/c their position is bat$hit crazy. I've actually never met one before, either virtually or IRL...so meks is somewhat of an anthropological curiosity...
You quote the Huffington Post after telling me that The Heritage Foundation is not a valid point because they are backed by the right?
How does our economy depend on a certain percentage of the population being unemployed?
I thought this was the height of Liberalism?
As for my knowledge, that is not part of this discussion, so please stop putting me down and stick to the conversation.....
Here is the blurb that pertains to business:
2.0 Economic Liberty A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.
Show me in the Democratic Platforms 59 pages where it specifically protects child labor or anything else that you say the Libertarian platform does not.
I linked to the Huffington post b/c they have the Jon Stewart video up. I did not claim this was serious commentary (that's why I posted the Factcheck.org link). I didn't link urbandictionary.com as serious political commentary either.
Tom, this is where you sound historically illiterate (maybe you have a far better knowledge of it than comes off in this discussion)- the 19th century was dominated by Classical Liberalism (basically laissez faire economics), what is akin to contemporary Libertarianism, but with some major differences. You can read Wikipedia on it; if you want more scholarly sources, I'd be happy to provide them. Any encyclopedia of political theory will give you a nice overview.
Our economy depends on unemployment to keep wages in check and stem inflation. The unemployment rate was remarkably stable (between 4 to 7%, with some periodic spikes and dips- not the best chart but a good summary) in this country until the current recession, which is one of the major reasons our currency has remained so stable. With the current rate of unemployment, we're seeing wages drop. This isn't radical stuff; you could learn it from reading the Wall Street Journal or from an Economics 101 textbook.
The Democratic party does not need to advance protections for child labor b/c they already fought for them; labor rights (OSHA and workplace safety) are still a big part the Democratic party. And their political philosophy does not imply their repeal. Libertarian philosophy basically says- labor is a free contract between employer and employee. The government shall not impose restrictions on this contract. This is an absolutist stance based on the presumption of one's right to dispose of one's life and labor as one wishes. Workplace safety regulations are government impositions on the way that employers run their workplaces. The Libertarian philosophy says- workers are free to contract with employers who have safer workplaces, and a smart employer will provide a safe workplace to attract better workers. The government should have no role in this process. I've hung with some really dedicated Libertarians and this is not an uncommon position.
The blurb you listed from the Libertarian party did not specify that they are for putting children to work so why would you say that they are for exploiting children?
The blurb I provided showed that it is the governments roll to enforce certain laws. Once again: The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected.
Or if you prefer: 2.7 Labor Markets We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.
As for you calling me illiterate, again, please keep the discussion on tract and not make it personal....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
