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 is weird that you call yourself a libertarian, but you still support big government. You need to look further into the principles of liberty. A real libertarian would never say "the middle ground between socialism and capitalism seems acceptable.".
I don't necessarily support big or small government. I feel the goverment should be involved when there is a need. If there is no need, the government should stay out. They can even just get involved for a while, then get out.
As to what determines a need... well, that's a complicated issue. Big business want government out, but the employees of said business might feel that they aren't getting paid enough. Now, if this can be settled without the government, I'm all for that. If it can't, the government should just step in, do what needs to be done, then watch from afar.
Bottom line, government should be involved in things as more of a last resort. Maybe I didn't make that very clear earlier, but that's really how I feel.
And when I say middle ground of socialism and capitalism, I would lean more capitalism. I don't think the government should have absolute control of the market. I do think that poverty resistant programs and various programs along those lines are good; those are socialist ideals. I don't believe it's fair to live in a society where the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. Pure capitalism does this (or allows this). Certain restrictions that allow everyone a decent pay seems reasonable and programs to help feed those who are less fortunate doesn't seem like a waste of money.
That is very well said, and there is little I can disagree with, but just a reminder that Maher is still a comedian, and his platform is to entertain to those who watch his show, and conservatives are not going to like his humor.
And, they provide a target rich environment for all comedians. So his observations are not geared towards inclusiveness, they are geared towards getting laughs. And he is wickedly good at doing this, but not good enough I'm shelling out $17.99 a month to hear it.
Agreed, they can't argue the actual points so they simply make fun of the people putting them forth.
I don't necessarily support big or small government. I feel the goverment should be involved when there is a need. If there is no need, the government should stay out. They can even just get involved for a while, then get out.
As to what determines a need... well, that's a complicated issue. Big business want government out, but the employees of said business might feel that they aren't getting paid enough. Now, if this can be settled without the government, I'm all for that. If it can't, the government should just step in, do what needs to be done, then watch from afar.
Bottom line, government should be involved in things as more of a last resort. Maybe I didn't make that very clear earlier, but that's really how I feel.
And when I say middle ground of socialism and capitalism, I would lean more capitalism. I don't think the government should have absolute control of the market. I do think that poverty resistant programs and various programs along those lines are good; those are socialist ideals. I don't believe it's fair to live in a society where the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. Pure capitalism does this (or allows this). Certain restrictions that allow everyone a decent pay seems reasonable and programs to help feed those who are less fortunate doesn't seem like a waste of money.
Pretty much all Libertarians agree that government exists at most to protect people's rights, and should neither provide for people nor punish them for activities that interfere with no one else.
This immediately gets rid of government healthcare and such. I am not blasting you for not being libertarian enough or anything, just don't quite think you fit the typical description of a libertarian.
populous with illegals.
really? look at areas where liberals have ruled for over 50+ years and tell how wonderful those places are.
Detroit, philadelphia, camden nj etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
Again, California is by far the most populous state in America. It has the nation's largest economy and many of the largest corporations.
Sadly, when one looks at the region where the conservatism dominates, there tends to be a lot of poverty in those states. I wish that weren't true, but it is true.
Maher and California are only two of many leading America into the toilet. I'm sorry to see the middle class fading out. Some of them were my best friends.
As a native Californian (and I say this with great shame) I agree 100%. Just go post something negative about illegal aliens on any California thread and watch how fast you get attacked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityLover9
Also, CA, with the Monterrey shale oil formation, is estimated to have about 1/3 of all the shale oil in the USA. The Monterrey shale oil is by far the single biggest reserve that we have in the country that is known to us at this time. If CA gets its act together on the shale oil too, then really watch out.
Good luck waiting for California to do anything about this. The tree huggers would get involved and shut it down with numerous lawsuits. There was a water shortage in Southern California because the pipeline or something related to the pipeline would kill the stupid Delta Smelt. So, in typical California fashion, let's create a water shortage to save a few small fish. Lawsuits are now the law of the land.
If the tree huggers don't stop it,the NIMBY people will. You can't widen freeways because that would displace people. But hey! Want to displace people building a high speed train to nowhere (aka the "Browndoggle")? No problem. Welcome to California, where the legislators work more for the illegal aliens than the citizens.
I don't hope California fails, but it is headed in that direction.
I really don't buy this. Socialism isn't tyrannical, or at least it doesn't have to be. Many of the biggest socialist states we think of here in the US (USSR being the most prominent) were tyrannical, but that wasn't the fault of socialism/communism.
Socialism isn't tyrannical? It isn't Socialism / Communism's fault for USSR being tyrannical?
Do you even know what you are talking about? Do you even know the definitions of Socialism, Tyranny, Proletariat's Dictatorship, etc?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
Most liberals today want to redistribute wealth more evenly. Very few are actually 100% for socialism.
I assure you, I am not democrat or republican. Neither party is fit to lead anymore, if you ask me. I would say I do identify with libertarian more than anything else.
Don't kid yourself; you ain't no libertarian. You are about as left-wing as they come. You are even further left than that. Many people like yourself, including many clueless and delusional Californians would do California a favor by knowing what they're wanting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
Socialism and communism are fair systems. They grant everyone a good life. The problem is that they're ideal.
Let's leave out Communism, since we don't know how it would work. Socialism is grossly unfair. Socialism grants everyone, except the ideological elite, the party-leaders, Politburo, not a good life, but a misery. Socialism is the opposite of ideal. It impoverishes the very people it purports to represent, it persecutes dissenters, often cardinally, often at the expense of the family members. It confiscates in the name of the cooperative. It chokes human creativity with coercion for political correctness. It mandates any and every aspect of human life. It punishes non-conformance ruthlessly. It fosters a regimented, conforming, mediocre society, who collectively punishes distinction. It violates human rights for a fair trial, and due process. It discriminates on the basis of religion, speech, and association. It kills without trial.
It also nourishes, encourages, and rewards some of the worst traits of human spirit, such as theft, disloyalty, back-stabbing, deceit, lying, misleading, dis-informing, spying on fellow-man, revenge, massive and disproportional bodily, spiritual, and familial damage.
It's theoretical foundation is class warfare, antagonism, and the means of achieving socialism is with a violent revolution, and bloody overthrow of capitalism.
Socialism is in fact one of the most cruel and tyrannical systems every devised and embellished by man. Please learn about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
I do think that poverty resistant programs and various programs along those lines are good; those are socialist ideals.
Poverty breeds socialism, and socialism breeds poverty. They go hand-in-hand. Socialist's ideals are mass poverty, because it thrives on it, and rules it with an iron-fist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
No government regulation leads to poor wages, trashing the environment, and a general mess of problems. We've already seen this happen. I don't want to live in a society where the rich get richer and have the power, and the poor will suffer, and pure capitalism does this. Pure socialism doesn't...
It's the opposite -- socialism leads to poor wages, trashing the environment, and a general mess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
And when I say middle ground of socialism and capitalism..
The hybrid model is relatively new, last 50-60 years, which is really nothing in terms of world history. Most countries that are playing with the hybrid system also are experiencing major structural economic problems, anemic growth, high unemployment, persistent poverty rates. Their long term balance sheets are disastrous. Many of them are dying demographically.
Yet, they have two major distinctions from us -- they have a multi-party, proportional legislative branch, and 2- weaker executive. At no accident mind-you, since these countries have much more experience dealing with tyrannies than we do. For us, the field is wide-open for a tyrannical grab. It has already started.
That's another story altogether.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
Another example is the right to wealth. If someone works and does a good job, they should be payed. The issue I have with how things currently works is this lovely example: The CEO of Apple (Tim Cook) get paid far too much. It would take 6,000 some Apple employees to reach his salary, and I highly doubt the work he does would require 6000 people. Why should he get paid this much? Point is, people should be paid reasonably. A CEO need not make that much more than his employees. Do I think the government should be breathing down business owners necks? No. But something should be done about the people who have important jobs but aren't getting paid nearly enough. A fine example of this is a janitor. They do not make much at all, and I fail to see their job an unimportant. It's not glamorous, but without them, imagine what your office bathroom will look like. Point is, everyone deserves a good pay. I'm not saying everyone should get paid the same, but there's a point where you have to ask 'why is Tim Cook making that much more than his employees; what does he do to get that?'
The right to wealth? Where did we get this right from? If indeed wealth is a right, how do we protect it? Are you serious? You aren't just flirting with Marxism, you are one.
Funny is subjective. Maher's job in this piece was to thumb his nose at conservatives...to get under their skin and zing them.
The reactions in the postings to his rant proves he hit the mark. That is the funny part. Seeing people go apolectic is hilarious.
I don't think he zings anyone. He's too much of a liberal toady to do any zinging. He's so much in favor of big powerful government but really what is he? Why would anyone care about his opinion? He's paid to promote the liberal propaganda is all.
Funny is subjective. Maher's job in this piece was to thumb his nose at conservatives...to get under their skin and zing them.
The reactions in the postings to his rant proves he hit the mark. That is the funny part. Seeing people go apolectic is hilarious.
I didn't realize you were a Rush Limbaugh fan.
1/2 dozen of one, 6 of another.
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.
