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.
Do people really prefer freedom over slavery, or do they prefer slavery over freedom?
Socialists / Communists / Progressives / Collectivists advocate compulsory charity and expropriation of property for the benefit of another. That's a fancy way of saying slavery and theft by government. Being compelled to work for the benefit of another or having property taken from one to be given to another is not freedom nor liberty.
Do people really dislike endowed natural rights to life and liberty and absolute ownership of private property? Based on the burgeoning population of protesters seeking "Free" [fill in the blank], it is apparent they want to enslave others for their own benefit.
Which do you prefer?
__ Mandatory duties to serve the collective State
-or-
__ Endowed rights secured by a servant government.
Last edited by Jeo123; 11-28-2016 at 11:43 AM..
Reason: No Polls in Great Debates
If the government offers to give you “free money” that is an IOU that they reneged on, but you underwrite, via FICA, pledging all your labor and property as collateral, aren’t you dumber than a bag of hammers?
If you sign up for “benefits” that you are liable to pay for, thus having them taxed back from you, aren’t you one taco short of a combination plate?
This may explain the widespread preference for national socialism and capitulation to the glorious and benevolent State.
People on the left prefer slavery, but not for themselves. They like to have other people as slaves. They would be horrified if they themselves were slaves, so therefore they usually exempt themselves from their own ideas.
This in no way qualifies as a great debate. Ignoring the fact that it's obviously a loaded question, it's promoting a false dichotomy. The division of freedom vs slavery is not one of left vs right. I think the best example of this is Adolf Hitler. Despite what many say, I wouldn't' actually describe him as being terribly far to the right or the left economically. He's somewhere in the center, and how you define the differences would determine which way he goes. On one end, industry was nationalized and production was overseen by the state. On the other, social classes were rigidly enforced and private property was still a given. Both communists and capitalists would take issue with aspects of Hitler's economy, so it's not right to say he was fully left or right economically. Yet, Nazi Germany was anything but free, so clearly economic policy is not the only factor. I could also point to Gandhi who certainly was economically a leftists but also highly anti-authoritarian; far from wanting anyone to be a slave to the state.
Hitler, like all fascists and totalitarians, is on the left. That's how the political spectrum works. Left is where government control lies.
Huh? No. Fascism and conservatism are on the right and communism and socialism are on the left. Fascism is considered right-wing because of its social conservatism and authoritarian means of opposing egalitarianism.
As others have noted, strong national governments and rigidly enforced social classes are not specific to either the right or left. Many of history's most despotic and repressive governments were right-wing fascist governments or monarchies.
The soundbite definition: In the republican form, people are born equal before the law - none higher, have Creator endowed rights that government was instituted to secure, and the government can only govern those who consent. Thus, the government is NOT the sovereign. By elimination, that means the people are sovereigns without subjects.
Where does that fit on the spectrum?
Neither left, nor right, nor moderate. As each individual is a sovereign, and sovereignty is the source of law, there is no anarchy. Nor are the sovereign people ruled / governed, unless they consent.
This may be a surprise to those who were indoctrinated in government approved institutions.
. . . .
“... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves. . .
“... In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns.”
- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793) https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...CR_0002_0419_Z
. . .
"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's CONSENT. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
- - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854) http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_lincoln
. . .
" PERSONAL LIBERTY, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property ... and is regarded as inalienable."
- - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum , Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.
- - -
In the republican form of government, the people are sovereigns (unless they consent otherwise) served by (not ruled by) servant government. Their rights and liberties existed before constitutional government (which is why the republican form is NOT a constitutional republic - nor can a constitutional government institute a republican form).
Were you led to believe that the Constitution is the "source" of the republican form?
REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. . . The fourth section of the fourth article of the constitution, directs that "the United States shall guaranty to every state in the Union a republican form of government." The form of government is to be guarantied, WHICH SUPPOSES A FORM ALREADY ESTABLISHED, and this is the republican form of government the United States have undertaken to protect.
- - - Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition, 1856
. . .
The republican form existed BEFORE the USCON, thus it cannot be a “constitutional republic.”
Can you now figure out the real origin of the republican form?
Re-read Lincoln's speech.
Americans are sovereigns, the social equal of every other monarch on the planet. Which explains why Americans do not bow nor kneel to any foreign monarch (or shouldn't !). And why Americans can marry foreign nobility (even Kings) when their local laws prohibit marriage to "commoners." The lowest American sovereign is superior to every other titled nobility or knight. That the propaganda ministry eradicated that knowledge so that Americans fawn over knights, dukes, and counts, is pitiful.
By the way, a citizen is a subject, by definition. American citizens have mandatory civic duties that abrogate endowed rights. Which means citizenship is voluntary - not imposed at birth. Another little fact omitted from our collective indoctrination.
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.
