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 original Americans were able to leave their kids an occupation or a farm or ship or some form of livelihood to help their kids after they died. Part of the reason I strive to improve my wherewithal is so that I can give/leave my kids something to advance themselves. You want to take that away from people
You should be able to pass on a farm, a ship, an occupation, a business -- you shoudln't be able to pass on millions (billions, trillions) of liquid assets. I know it's natural to want to give your child every advantage. I'm a dad. I get it. I just think it's destructive in the long run for capital to be passed down.
Are your political views substantially different now than they were when you were younger? Did you go from being a socialist to a libertarian? A Republican to a Democrat? How have your views evolved over time? And what signficant life experiences and insights drove that evolution? I'd like to hear your stories.
Absolutely. From Republican to Libertarian. From social conservative to social liberal.
Just maturity and the realization that nobody wins when government tries to tell us how to live our lives.
Are your political views substantially different now than they were when you were younger? Did you go from being a socialist to a libertarian? A Republican to a Democrat? How have your views evolved over time? And what signficant life experiences and insights drove that evolution? I'd like to hear your stories.
I've gone to a very solid liberal with some libertarian leanings to a very solid libertarian with a few liberal leanings.
Basically, I ended up becoming a libertarian after debating enough of them. Granted, I found some of them somewhat childish and some of them were a bit unrealistic, I moved far more to their side. I did this because I found they were generally more imaginative than either liberals or conservatives. While liberals and conservatives tended to resort to "If ______ is bad now, just imagine if government programs aimed against ______ were removed" libertarians had more intelligent and imaginative rebuttals (and often a better sense of humor as well). Libertarianism and libertarians eventually began to grow on me, especially since I was started to come across more and more "liberals" that believed in the nanny state. I also started to see that a lot of liberals who preach tolerance were anything, but tolerant to those they disagree with.
You should be able to pass on a farm, a ship, an occupation, a business -- you shoudln't be able to pass on millions (billions, trillions) of liquid assets. I know it's natural to want to give your child every advantage. I'm a dad. I get it. I just think it's destructive in the long run for capital to be passed down.
It's not something I necessarily disagree with, but I fail to see how it is the government's right to that property or assets.
The more I see of the government, the more it reminds me of a mafia family that collects from everyone in its territory for the pleasure of being allowed to do business.
I've gone to a very solid liberal with some libertarian leanings to a very solid libertarian with a few liberal leanings.
Basically, I ended up becoming a libertarian after debating enough of them. Granted, I found some of them somewhat childish and some of them were a bit unrealistic, I moved far more to their side. I did this because I found they were generally more imaginative than either liberals or conservatives. While liberals and conservatives tended to resort to "If ______ is bad now, just imagine if government programs aimed against ______ were removed" libertarians had more intelligent and imaginative rebuttals (and often a better sense of humor as well). Libertarianism and libertarians eventually began to grow on me, especially since I was started to come across more and more "liberals" that believed in the nanny state. I also started to see that a lot of liberals who preach tolerance were anything, but tolerant to those they disagree with.
This is really good response, Frank. It's hard for me to identify myself as a "libertarian", but I share many of your observations. Liberals can often be extremely intolerant, and they are often worse than Jerry Falwell when it comes to dreaming up ways for the collective to tell individuals how to live.
This is really good response, Frank. It's hard for me to identify myself as a "libertarian", but I share many of your observations. Liberals can often be extremely intolerant, and they are often worse than Jerry Falwell when it comes to dreaming up ways for the collective to tell individuals how to live.
I could never understand the control thing from either side. In fact the reason my state even exists is because after the pilgrims got here ( lets remember they left England because they didnt want to be controlled) they started in with their control again. People who didnt like split up. Some heading south forming Rhode Island , others north to what is now NH.
Are your political views substantially different now than they were when you were younger? Did you go from being a socialist to a libertarian? A Republican to a Democrat? How have your views evolved over time? And what signficant life experiences and insights drove that evolution? I'd like to hear your stories.
Someone tell me what I am. I've been a union person for 25 years and have always voted Democrat.
I believe in a woman's right to choose but I am pro life personally.
I am for gay civil unions and equal rights for them as married hetro couples.
I am against government health insurance even though I am for more regulation on the health insurance industry.
I guess I'm mostly Democrat but not completely. I cannot stand people who take one side and live the entire program.
The only Republican President I have had any respect for was G H W Bush (1988-1992) even though he was director of the CIA and had close ties with the Bin Laden family and probably left Saddam Hussien in power due to his own personal business dealings after Gulf War I.
It's not something I necessarily disagree with, but I fail to see how it is the government's right to that property or assets.
The more I see of the government, the more it reminds me of a mafia family that collects from everyone in its territory for the pleasure of being allowed to do business.
I see your point, and I don't have a solution on hand to the problem you pose. I still am firmly against large fortunes being passed down. I see it as ridiculous as passing down an inherited title or position. Wealth is power, and power should be wielded by the competent, not "idiot princes" who had competent fathers.
The problem is who determines who gets it? You can't "elect" people to have fortunes -- (the way our forefathers solved the inheritance problem when it came to political power).
You could put a limit on how much wealth someone is able to bequeath to any one person -- so that forces individuals to spread their fortunes far and wide and not concentrate them in a few hands. The individual gets to make the choice on who it goes to though (to some extent). But what moral right does the government have to limit how much any single individual gets? I don't know. I could come up with one, but it would be a reach.
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.
