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.
It wasn't forcibly removed from their paychecks. When asked if all money from social security should be paid back, and cease the program, an overwhelming 60% of Americans support the continuation of the program.
"Now that we've spent 50 years making you dependent upon the welfare state, do you want us to take everything away tomorrow?"
Gee, what a surprise they said no. We are in the midst of a welfare state now. You establish a welfare state and let it grow for half a century and then ask people if they want you want to just up and cancel it? That's absurd. None of the people you're asking have ever known anything but a welfare state. Most of the infrastructure that kept people from needing a welfare state has been gone for decades now. You might as well ask if we should make Portugese the national language.
As I said, on SS, feel free to start another thread, see how quickly people disagree with you. We the people, thats what it says, and the people decide what they want, and they want social security. Feel free to disagree, thats not the point, the point is people called it theft, and it is not theft.
It's not theft... because the majority agrees with it.
I neither want nor need universal health care. And yes, I do know what is in my own best interest.
Well you aren't the entire US population now are you. You have healthcare insurance but not every American does and that's the problem. We spend more on healthcare than any nation in the world and yet we mediocre compared to other countries that have universal healthcare but pay much much less and have much better coverage.
The federalists were the big, central government party of implied intent of the constitution.
Ever read Hamilton?
I have read all the Federalist Papers? Have you? In no reading of any of Hamilton's writings have I come across anything that would justify Social Security.
What people have to remember is Jefferson and Madison were the moderates when it came to giving power to the federal government. I suggest people also read the arguments of the anti-federalists, such as Patrick Henry.
Let me answer the question I posed to you. 60% of the population cannot ireinstitute chattel slavery unless they can convince five of the oligarchs in black to twist the wording of the Constitution.
Not this one. Do what you want but don't ask me to subsidize it with my taxes. I'm "that kind" of libertarian..fiscally conservative, socially liberal.
Nobody with a modicum of intelligence takes these morons seriously.
"Anarchist" is such an arcane term....We like to be called "Anti-Statists" And that's what many Libertarians are not actual "Anarchists"....Why would anyone be in the closet about it? lol
And if you have a full understanding of how states were created and what they always lead to....You might reevaluate your statement.
"Anarchist" is such an arcane term....We like to be called "Anti-Statists" And that's what many Libertarians are not actual "Anarchists"....Why would anyone be in the closet about it? lol
And if you have a full understanding of how states were created and what they always lead to....You might reevaluate your statement.
Perhaps because anarchists were responsible for the assassination of President McKinley and associated with the start of WW I, nobody wants to be known as an anarchist. Libertarians simply took a page from the Democrat playbook by calling themselves something they are not.
The Democrats are exactly the opposite of "liberal" and "progressive." Just like the Libertarian's idea of "liberty" is the complete absence of all government. Their official party platform even says as much.
Perhaps because anarchists were responsible for the assassination of President McKinley and associated with the start of WW I, nobody wants to be known as an anarchist. Libertarians simply took a page from the Democrat playbook by calling themselves something they are not.
The Democrats are exactly the opposite of "liberal" and "progressive." Just like the Libertarian's idea of "liberty" is the complete absence of all government. Their official party platform even says as much.
How is complete absence of government not totally consistent with the term "liberty" though?
The issue here is you feel the need to slap a label...
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.
And that's what many Libertarians are not actual "Anarchists"....Why would anyone be in the closet about it? lol
