Why do liberals want to ban so many things? (legal, weapons, abortion)
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.
The Conservatives want the government to enforce everything that is RIGHT and TRUE. The Liberals want to do the same. The irony is that the corporatists that actually own and operate the country couldn't care less so long as their rights to loot everyone are unchallenged by either politics or a free market. Big money keeps Conservatives and Liberals fighting while they laugh all the way to the banks they own.
Gee, Greg, I think that is about the only time I have ever agreed with you.
Corporations should not have "rights" (thus lobbying should be illegal), citizens should have rights. I am all for enhancing the power of the individual and the personal freedoms that accompany the right to rule over one's own destiny. The government and corporations will have incentives to reduce individual liberties for thier own benefit.
Gee, Greg, I think that is about the only time I have ever agreed with you.
Corporations should not have "rights" (thus lobbying should be illegal), citizens should have rights. I am all for enhancing the power of the individual and the personal freedoms that accompany the right to rule over one's own destiny. The government and corporations will have incentives to reduce individual liberties for thier own benefit.
Conservatives don't have much room to talk, but there is definite hypocrisy on the left. Liberals say they don't want to control people's bodies like conservatives do yet they are the ones wanting to ban tobacco and sugary drinks. Conservatives need to get out of people's bedrooms though before they start criticizing the left for eroding individual liberties. They need to re-read the First Amendment and come to an understanding that just because the Bible says something is sin doesn't mean they can ban it unless there is a viable, secular reason to have it banned.
While abortion is evil in the bible (in the ten commandment under thou shall not kill/murder) The case depends on where life begins. Is it at conception, at birth, somewhere in between? The issue I see is when you claim it is at birth yet the mother is murdered and you want to charge the (allgeded) murderer with two. IMO I am pro-life but I want to preface that I think the mother should not be subject to keep it for rape, inceast or if it endangers the mother.
Corporations are artificial legal entities created to reduce the risk of investing in a business for the individual investor and the management. The individual investor's risk is limited to losing only their investment. Their personal fortunes are exempt from bankruptcy claims. Managers only risk their future salaries and bonuses if the business the manage collapses.
IMHO - corporations are people in the same manner as legislatures are people. They are organized groups permitted by law and the people involved are protected by the law from complete responsibility for their actions. Because of this limited liability corporations cannot rationally be considered to be individuals and do not have the same rights as individuals because they do not have the same responsibilities. As they are created by government for the convenience of a few individuals they do not have ANY rights not delineated by the government that created the corporation.
Unfortunately our judges do not agree with my argument and have decided that corporations are composed of people the corporate entity should have the same rights as these people. I would agree with this if the people that own the corporation were responsible for the corporation's debts and illegal activates to the full extent of their personal fortune or freedom from criminal prosecution for corporate illegalities commissioned in their names.
Individual people can be citizens. Organizations created by people cannot.
Whether it's cigarettes, large sugary drinks, guns, or raw milk, liberals do not seem to be happy unless they're banning something. Whatever happened to the land of the free?
When did imposing your wishes on others become a badge of honor?
Liberals are all about regulation, power, and control.
They are not truly happy unless they are telling somebody how to live their lives and enforcing their will at gunpoint.
Liberals hate individual liberty, and hence, they also hate the U.S. Constitution.
and that explains the Patriot Act? The right is so ignorant all they know how to do is point fingers when they are as much the culprit. **** when you have no clue.
Whether it's cigarettes, large sugary drinks, guns, or raw milk, liberals do not seem to be happy unless they're banning something. Whatever happened to the land of the free?
When did imposing your wishes on others become a badge of honor?
When it comes to the type of people you describe I don't like using the word "liberal". I don't like it because not all liberals support those policies and because those policies are anything but liberal. I prefer the term "Progressive" because that is what many prefer to be called and the anti-smoking movement and the neo-Prohibitionist movement strongly resemble the Temperance Movement and other aspects of the original Progressives from the 1880s to 1930s. I also like the term "illiberal" because that describes what those policies are.
I think of Progressives as embryonic totalitarians. There is nothing they believe that should not be subject to government control. They believe that their "eduction" should penetrate every aspect of society from schools to popular entertainment to art. They believe that no matter how informed of the risks you are that you still are not informed enough. It is impossible to convince them you are aware of the risks. They do not tolerate dissent and many support banning opposing speech. Oh, they will not come right out and say it, so they try to find ways of undermining free speech by using more palatable phrases than censorship or silencing the opposition they more focus on commercial speech or "hate speech" or "fighting words" or bias and compare those who oppose them to "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater"*. And they want to push through their policies without regard to their popularity, legal grounds, or due process. The only difference between them and actual totalitarians in my opinion is that Progressives do not have sufficient control of the government to have a free hand.
If you take a look at many of the most prominent Progressives you see there is a definite authoritarian streak. They portray themselves as liberals, but that is merely an attempt to hide that they are wolves dressed as sheep. If you look at their actual positions and their attitudes they are authoritarian and elitist all the way and I believe in the long-term they are a threat to democracy itself. If you don't believe the average joe is even capable of making an informed decision on what to eat, what to drink, what to smoke, how much to exercise, what to watch, what to listen to, or own a firearm then how is he informed or intelligent enough to vote? I honestly believe that deep down that is what they believe and it would only be a matter of time before they actually start to proclaim such a position.
I think that we need to start opposing the Nanny State because I think it will eventual lead us down that road. Well, actually, I think that the Nanny State movement will implode as medical improvements make cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and even obesity a much less serious issue plus the fact that Progressives get crazier and more brazen and more sadistic every year that people wise up to them. But that doesn't mean they won't cause a lot of damage in the meantime and that "eventually" will probably be in a few decades.
*Progressive love to quote Oliver Wendell Holmes' quote about how not all speech is protected as some is the equivalent to "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater". They never mention the context to that quote. Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the opinion in a Supreme Court case where they upheld the conviction of a Jewish socialist activist who was sentenced to life imprisonment for handing out leaflets in protest of America's involvement in the First World War. Think about that for a second. That either implies they are ignorant about the what they quote would imply or they implicitly support that type of policy. I consider myself to be an ardent defender of property rights, but I sure as hell don't quote Roger Taney's opinion on the Dred Scott v. Sanford ruling in support of my position.
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.
