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.
Anyone that doesn't understand property rights and private property has no clue what it means to be an American and vastly misunderstands the entire premise of freedom and liberty upon which our country was founded. Private property is the last vestige of freedom and the last roadblock to government tyranny. The entire point of government was to protect private property. Adam Smith and John Locke the founding visionaries of capitalism envisioned a society in which capitalists only took what they needed and would use and the equal opportunity for everyone to become a capitalist was nurtured and embraced. We have NOTHING close to propserous capitalism in the USA. We have a government that is tyrannical and opposes a free market by supporting subsidies, corporate bailouts, the casino that is wallstreet. The entire premise of banking is anti-capitalist. Our monetary system is anti-capitalist. For capitalism to function you have to have a fair playing field and sound monetary supply. It's government's job to maintain both. And both they have failed miserably at doing.
Just got back in from a dove hunt (didn't do all that good), so after unloading the guns and cracking open a beer, can rejoin a bit...
I am not sure what a "right of center" means! Not being sarcastic...but it is just I have never heard THAT one before. I mean, right of center, or left of center, but not right of left! LOL
Anyway, as somebody else alluded to (as I read it) what, exactly, does a "well regulated" free market mean?
Sorry, but sounds a lot like the weasel words the left is fond of. "Well regulated" to what extent? Such velvet is only the cozy cover those who advance a socialistic agenda cover themselves. Because they are "smart" enough to know not to outright label themselves what they really are, they camoflague with terms which superficially appeal...such as "well-regulated."
In micrososm, it is similar to how the Brady Bunch -- finally realizing how their anti-gun policies were not being bought (and outright failed) re-packaged it under the name of "reasonable" gun control. In macrocosm, it is why liberals are now calling themselves "progressives." Nothing has changed as to the ideology nor ultimate goal (which is to socialize the country), but it has just been re-shorn under a new name.
"Well regulated" can mean outright government control (which it does, pretty much)...
Of course you won't call it redistribution of wealth, because such a terminology is too blunt and harsh and true! Take the income tax example. Personally, I have no problem with those making X amount paying no taxes. I DO have a problem with the same getting back the tax money others have paid.
Sharing the fruits of modern civilized society? What kind of fruit salad crap is that? Why should those who made/make and create the wealth and earn the wealth share it UNLESS it is on a voluntary basis? Anything otherwise is not freedom, but legalized theft.
The "people" should decide? Who the hell are the "people"? People are not, and never will be, unless controlled by tyrants, be articulated into a collective capable of "deciding" anything in goose-step. Not in a truly free society. To say it directly? Screw the "people" if the "people" become a majority to the point "they" can vote themselves the treasury. I am sure you recognize that quote referencing the demise of a democratic republic.
What the hell are you talking about...?
That's great! And, if true, is admirable. At the very least, it puts you far ahead of your allies on the liberal end who, as a rule, give much less of their own funds to charity that do self-identified conservatives.
So good on you, my friend, in that regard. Meanwhile? Let others feel "guilty" in our own way and give to those who we see deserving of it. Fair?
Ok...you talk some good sense toward the end. So the natural question is WHY would you support a candidate whose premise is to take your money and re-distribute it? Far as I am concerned, Congress and the president can spend money ONLY to the extent the Constitution of the United States specifically allows them to do so.
No, what is "fundamentally wrong" is the pretty little pink (pun intended) that attempts to present "Property Rights" as the antithesis of "Human Rights." Good try, but no cee-gar.
In a truly free society -- ala' that envisioned by our Founding Fathers --"property rights" are inseperable from "human rights." The very essence of classical notions of freedom depend upon private property rights. The right to ones own wages and property, and freedoms of association and businesss arrangements. This is why the Constitution gives such an emphasis -- in the Bill of Rights -- on private property rights. Human freedom depends on it.
Bottom line is, seperating them (or attempting to) is just, at best, a sound-byte. At worst, the voice of behind the old "Iron Curtain." Or, Big Brother of 1984...
Hello, Reb. I haven't seen any posts from you in a good while....have you been away? Either way, your posts are always a worthwhile read - agree or disagree.
Too often this debate loses focus and becomes just another tired old liberal vs conservative thing - and leads to nowhere with nothing resolved. So I think it is helpful to re-focus on the specific points that have brought us to the point we find ourselves in.
People who understand today's battle between rich and poor in America know that it is not a partisan conflict. It is not the traditional liberal vs conservative or Democrat vs Republican thing at all. Rather it is about the fundamental fairness of the game....it is about morality itself.
A huge percentage of Americans made up of liberals, conservatives, Rs and Ds alike are fed up - on three fundamental points of contention.
Overseas outsourcing of jobs that American workers cannot possibly compete with. We spent a hundred years building a great middle class and great quality of life in this country - with workplace safety standards and living wages. And we passed laws preventing slave labor worker exploitation by employers. For many decades it worked and worked well, with Americans competing fairly against other Americans for job opportunities. Today, that's all out the window with "globalization". Employers back to unfair and outrageous exploitation at will with overseas outsourcing AND domestic exploitation of Mexican illegals by the millions. It isn't right. You know it, I know it, everyone with a heart and soul knows it.
Grossly irresponsible and exploitative practices by financial institutions that brought our economy to its knees, making soulless scoundrels obscenely rich with the taxpayer left holding the bag to prevent the complete collapse their recklessness precipitated.
Corporations now finance and thereby control our government. The people don't matter anymore and effectively have no voice. Our government is by and for the interests of large corporations.
The reason the occupy movement has grown as it has and has gathered so much support along the way is that average Americans are as united as we ever get on these three points. They want them addressed and they want real change....principled change....in the spirit of the great country that America once was.
Would accomplishing this mean re-distribution of wealth? And re-distribution of political power?
Damn right it would - back to its rightful owners.
Just got back in from a dove hunt (didn't do all that good), so after unloading the guns and cracking open a beer, can rejoin a bit...
I am not sure what a "right of center" means! Not being sarcastic...but it is just I have never heard THAT one before. I mean, right of center, or left of center, but not right of left! LOL
Anyway, as somebody else alluded to (as I read it) what, exactly, does a "well regulated" free market mean?
Sorry, but sounds a lot like the weasel words the left is fond of. "Well regulated" to what extent? Such velvet is only the cozy cover those who advance a socialistic agenda cover themselves. Because they are "smart" enough to know not to outright label themselves what they really are, they camoflague with terms which superficially appeal...such as "well-regulated."
In micrososm, it is similar to how the Brady Bunch -- finally realizing how their anti-gun policies were not being bought (and outright failed) re-packaged it under the name of "reasonable" gun control. In macrocosm, it is why liberals are now calling themselves "progressives." Nothing has changed as to the ideology nor ultimate goal (which is to socialize the country), but it has just been re-shorn under a new name.
"Well regulated" can mean outright government control (which it does, pretty much)...
Of course you won't call it redistribution of wealth, because such a terminology is too blunt and harsh and true! Take the income tax example. Personally, I have no problem with those making X amount paying no taxes. I DO have a problem with the same getting back the tax money others have paid.
Sharing the fruits of modern civilized society? What kind of fruit salad crap is that? Why should those who made/make and create the wealth and earn the wealth share it UNLESS it is on a voluntary basis? Anything otherwise is not freedom, but legalized theft.
The "people" should decide? Who the hell are the "people"? People are not, and never will be, unless controlled by tyrants, be articulated into a collective capable of "deciding" anything in goose-step. Not in a truly free society. To say it directly? Screw the "people" if the "people" become a majority to the point "they" can vote themselves the treasury. I am sure you recognize that quote referencing the demise of a democratic republic.
What the hell are you talking about...?
That's great! And, if true, is admirable. At the very least, it puts you far ahead of your allies on the liberal end who, as a rule, give much less of their own funds to charity that do self-identified conservatives.
So good on you, my friend, in that regard. Meanwhile? Let others feel "guilty" in our own way and give to those who we see deserving of it. Fair?
Ok...you talk some good sense toward the end. So the natural question is WHY would you support a candidate whose premise is to take your money and re-distribute it? Far as I am concerned, Congress and the president can spend money ONLY to the extent the Constitution of the United States specifically allows them to do so.
No, what is "fundamentally wrong" is the pretty little pink (pun intended) that attempts to present "Property Rights" as the antithesis of "Human Rights." Good try, but no cee-gar.
In a truly free society -- ala' that envisioned by our Founding Fathers --"property rights" are inseperable from "human rights." The very essence of classical notions of freedom depend upon private property rights. The right to ones own wages and property, and freedoms of association and businesss arrangements. This is why the Constitution gives such an emphasis -- in the Bill of Rights -- on private property rights. Human freedom depends on it.
Bottom line is, seperating them (or attempting to) is just, at best, a sound-byte. At worst, the voice of behind the old "Iron Curtain." Or, Big Brother of 1984...
Don't dare talk about what your founders thought about human rights VS property rights. They created a new country where huge numbers of the people WERE property.
Well regulated means nothing more than the interests of the people are guarded from anything that would be hurt them in order to benefit someone else. Something like the FDA and other such things.
Your diatrab on the term "Well regulated is wierd seeing it was a term used in your "holy constitution" by your never wrong founders.
Paul Krugman has a PH D in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology which commonly ranks top 5 in the world.
I am sure he knows more about the world economy than some media brainwashed TEA-bagger.
Paul Krugman is a committed socialist. So why should his opinion matter unless one wants backing for a the socialist vision? Sorry, but I prefer Thomas Sowell.
Karl Marx had a pretty good education in the realm of economics as well. How many millions of real live human beings died because of his brilliance..?
Paul Krugman is a committed socialist. So why should his opinion matter unless one wants backing for a the socialist vision? Sorry, but I prefer Thomas Sowell.
Karl Marx had a pretty good education in the realm of economics as well. How many millions of real live human beings died because of his brilliance..?
Sowell seems to me to be a bit better informed than good old socialist,Paul Krugman. Most left leaners here don't like Sowell because he doesn't think like Krugman does. He is a Ph d and teaches college students. I am sure glad Krugman doesn't do that.
Don't dare talk about what your founders thought about human rights VS property rights. They created a new country where huge numbers of the people WERE property.
Well regulated means nothing more than the interests of the people are guarded from anything that would be hurt them in order to benefit someone else. Something like the FDA and other such things.
Your diatrab on the term "Well regulated is wierd seeing it was a term used in your "holy constitution" by your never wrong founders.
LMAO Not sure whether to *yawn* or chuckle a little. You are starting to rant and rave...
Wassamatter? Peeved because your pat little socialistic speel got called like a bluffed hand at a poker table? Oh well....tough sh*t!
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.
What the hell are you talking about...?
