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.
I could care less about your hard earned money. It is all yours. Why don't you want to pony up like everyone else to provide for the services you use and benefit from?
Newsflash! I already pay taxes! Now that we've put that to rest... you and the rest of progressives along with your dear leader are forcing Americans to pay for something that nobody wants such as Obamacare. Not to mention you want to continue your wasteful spending in continuing to give bennies to illegals as well as continue to enable those who don't want to get off of their a** and make an honest living! And no we're not talking about the elderly, the disabled, and those with illnesses who cannot work, or even the working poor who are trying like hell to make ends meet, so again, we'll put that to rest.
Can't pony up willingly...I have no problem taking it. You sound like the dude that always has to be reminded to kick into the pot for something. Beer, Pizza, of poker pot...yet are always the first to reach in.
It's good to know that you support stealing! Furthermore, beer, pizza, and the poker pot is apples and oranges compared to taking hard working Americans money and giving it to those who don't want to work, or to illegals who have no intention of becoming legal citizens, but only want handouts! But to put to rest another one of your baseless ASSumptions, in regards to any social event, I never come empty handed.
I can't stand those guys.
I can't stand people who expect others who feel entitled to other people's hard earned money, when they haven't done a damn thing to earn it themselves. Why do you feel that the government should provide for you from cradle to grave?
You evidently don't know what the word "repudiate" means. Let me know when you're willing to accept that your preferences are unacceptable to most people, that only a few people really truly agree with your preferences.
I just want to say that you are the most hateful, disrespectful, and belligerent person I have ever encountered in my time on this forum. And that is saying something.
Your entire post is nothing but name-calling, with the above statement probably the most egregious example of not only your hatefulness, but also how you are wrong. Repudiate means "to say or show that (something) is not true." You said "I'm disagreeing with your claims and repudiating the perspectives you're putting forward." And I replied that "Look, you haven't repudiated anything whatsoever."
I wish for once you would actually contribute an actual thought to the conversation, rather than simply calling everyone else names.
The reason we can't agree is that you can't separate good intentions from good results. No one is arguing that liberals don't have good intentions. What we are arguing, is that they have not produced good results.
Even if you want to argue that life is better today than it was 200 years ago. That doesn't mean the government produced that result. The largest "leap forward" was made during a time in which the government played basically no role whatsoever. And there is no reason to believe that things would be much different now had the government stayed small. It reminds me of how unions pat themselves on the back for building some skyscraper. As if to believe that had the union not existed, that the skyscraper wouldn't have been built.
What libertarians argue isn't that the government doesn't want to do good things. What libertarians tend to believe, is that the government almost always fails in everything that it does. What was the last thing the government succeeded in doing? War on drugs? War on poverty? War on anything?
The government is a failure, and that isn't something to even be upset about. Milton Friedman used to say "Thank god the government does everything poorly. If the government did everything as well as the market, we would all be slaves."
What he means is, if the government could do things as well as the market. The government would run everything and anything. You would be left with absolutely no choices. And the world would look more like an ant colony, where no one really had free will. Rather than the vibrant and diverse place that it is.
The problem I have with liberals is both the reason I became a liberal, and also, the reason why I am not a liberal anymore. Liberals want whats best for the world, they want to create effectively a "perfect world". Many would say that liberals are "Utopian dreamers". And I remember I thought it was strange back when I was a liberal how anyone would think that was a bad thing.
The reason why it is a bad thing. Is because Utopia is something which cannot actually exist. It is impossible. Because perfection cannot exist where there isn't perfection. People are not perfect, and cannot be perfect. Nor is perfection necessarily even desirable. Even the word Utopia is a Greek word which literally means "No place".
The problem with liberalism, is that it effectively expects perfection. It believes it can recreate people to do things which go against their very nature. It refuses to see people for what they actually are. And since liberals expect perfection, and because perfection cannot exist, then liberals can never be happy. There is always more work to be done, always something that needs to be fixed. The problem is that, trying to fix something that is unfixable necessarily means failure.
The reason why I switched from being a liberal to a libertarian. Is that I gave up on Utopia. More importantly, I decided to focus on what is actually possible and good. Rather than trying to use force to create something which is impossible.
In my mind libertarianism is best described as cynicism. It is the realization that the government cannot solve all our problems, and almost always makes the problems worse instead of better. A lot of people associate cynicism with getting older. But the strange thing these days, is that the most common age group for cynical people today, is the young. And that is why the young have turned so sharply towards libertarianism. And I believe that trend is going to continue.
With that said. I think cynicism and thus libertarianism sort of runs hand-in-hand with knowledge. It is much easier to be optimistic when you are ignorant and don't know any better. It reminds me of the saying "ignorance is bliss"(sometimes I wish I could be more blissfully ignorant). Which is why traditionally you tended to get more cynical as you get older. But these days with the abundance of knowledge at your fingertips because of things like the internet. People are becoming more and more cynical, earlier and earlier in life. And I don't believe that that is a solvable problem. I don't think it can be rolled back. And I don't even think its a bad thing.
Cynicism doesn't necessarily mean that people don't care. It doesn't mean that they don't have goals. Its more that they don't trust others to make decisions for them, or for themselves. It reminds me of the saying "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
The point is that, I'm cynical, but I still want to help people. I just don't believe me handing you money is a way of helping you. And for that matter, I don't believe handing the government money, and then having the government hand you money, is a good way of helping either.
I want to see where the money goes, and I want to know for sure that it is actually helping. That is why I said in my previous post, there are always people living with me. When people live with me, I can watch over them, and encourage them to do better for themselves. And I don't think doing well for yourself means that you need to be rich. I don't expect much from people. All I expect of you is to add more than you take away, and that doesn't need to be money.
I have lived in public housing much of my life. I have friends who live in public housing. I am poor right now. The house I live in cost me $8,000 to buy. I am not someone disconnected from the realities of life. I have never really paid an income tax in my life. And I am part native-American, so I get free healthcare. And I have been effectively receiving food stamps practically consistently since around February of 2010. I am about as unlikely a person to advocate libertarianism as there could ever be.
The truth is, I hate money. I have always hated money. I don't believe that having money means anything at all. You will never get respect from me because you have money. You will not get respect from me because you pay a large amount of taxes. No, you will get my respect if you earn my respect. You will get my respect if I think you are a genuinely good person. And there are very very few people in this entire world that I truly admire. And none of them are rich. I don't even know if any of them would on their own income, be net income-tax payers(after deductions/credits).
On the other hand, my uncle ran a company and was makings hundreds of thousands a year. Paying huge amounts of taxes to the government. But if I had a perfect world, my uncle would not be in it. While many many people working minimum wage, but who are truly good people, would be there.
The problem I have with the government, is that I think it plays a role in actually making people worse people. For instance, I'm part native-American, and its nice that the Cherokees get free money from the government in one way. But do I believe that the Cherokees are morally better-off because they get free stuff? The answer is absolutely not. I think they would actually be much much much better off if they had to work for everything they had. Because they would learn to rely on each other, rather than relying on the government.
Even worse, one of the major revenue-producing activities these days for native-american tribes, is from casinos. Do I think Casinos have truly helped the Native-Americans? Not at all. I think Casinos have actually made conditions for Native-Americans worse instead of better. What do you expect when you bring into your community the biggest scumbags on the planet(gamblers)? And for what? Money?
The irony of socialism. Is that socialism is the most wasteful, immoral, unethical, materialistic system ever created. On one hand it tries to fight against greed and consumerism. But on the other hand, it can only exist through greed and consumerism, and taxing the profits from it. It discourages true compassion, it discourages volunteerism, it discourages even an independent human spirit. Because those things can't be taxed. And replaces all of that with a bureaucratic system which strips away all responsibility of the people, and effectively encourages them to be greedy and wasteful.
It discourages everything good about humanity, in the name of doing good for humanity. And even worse, it is the most exclusive, anti-human system ever devised. It necessarily creates walls between humans. Because the reaches of the government only reach to political borders. So it effectively says, everyone who isn't an American can go to hell. At least the Catholic church helps people all over the world. Yet religion is reviled and socialism is praised?
In my view, everything good about humanity can only be encouraged and preserved by letting people make their own decisions about what they find important. And also giving people the power, and ultimately the responsibility to do what is right and good.
I know it seems counter-intuitive, but I believe libertarianism actually rewards virtue far more than any other system of government. I think power corrupts. And what is more powerful than government?
As for myself. I'm perfectly capable of doing great things. I just see no point in contributing to a system which does harm. I think contributing to this government would actually be evil, because I would be enabling evil. Paying taxes will inevitably go to our military, which is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people every year. No, I believe the best thing I could ever do in this life. Is work for myself, acquire real assets, minimize my spending/consumption, and then bankrupt the system. And I advise everyone else to do the same.
I refuse to even vote. Democracy is a system where everyone votes for the government to give them special privileges at the cost of everyone else. Thus, people are only content with government, as long as they think they are getting a better deal than everyone else.
Are there actual compassionate people out there? Absolutely. But they aren't the ones pushing for these things most of the time. The ones who are pushing, are the ones who would benefit. Do you really think the American Medical Association wrote the affordable care act to screw themselves out of money? Don't be so naive.
Do you think the bankers created the Federal Reserve act because it was just the right thing to do? Get real man. Do you think the banks and the auto companies asked for bailouts because they really give a crap about the American people? Oh grow up.
I refuse to be a part of any of it. So you cannot blame me. You only have yourselves to blame. You are the ones who continue to play this game.
You ignore the fact that, practically everyone can have what they want in libertarianism. You just have to be happy with only getting what you want on a small-scale.
As long as the government can confiscate your property. You are not free. And it is always to the advantage of the rich.
Go read again about Shay's rebellion. Its a shame he lost.
I just want to say that you are the most hateful, disrespectful, and belligerent person I have ever encountered in my time on this forum. And that is saying something.
Your entire post is nothing but name-calling, with the above statement probably the most egregious example of not only your hatefulness, but also how you are wrong. Repudiate means "to say or show that (something) is not true." You said "I'm disagreeing with your claims and repudiating the perspectives you're putting forward." And I replied that "Look, you haven't repudiated anything whatsoever."
I wish for once you would actually contribute an actual thought to the conversation, rather than simply calling everyone else names.
The reason we can't agree is that you can't separate good intentions from good results. No one is arguing that liberals don't have good intentions. What we are arguing, is that they have not produced good results.
Even if you want to argue that life is better today than it was 200 years ago. That doesn't mean the government produced that result. The largest "leap forward" was made during a time in which the government played basically no role whatsoever. And there is no reason to believe that things would be much different now had the government stayed small. It reminds me of how unions pat themselves on the back for building some skyscraper. As if to believe that had the union not existed, that the skyscraper wouldn't have been built.
What libertarians argue isn't that the government doesn't want to do good things. What libertarians tend to believe, is that the government almost always fails in everything that it does. What was the last thing the government succeeded in doing? War on drugs? War on poverty? War on anything?
The government is a failure, and that isn't something to even be upset about. Milton Friedman used to say "Thank god the government does everything poorly. If the government did everything as well as the market, we would all be slaves."
What he means is, if the government could do things as well as the market. The government would run everything and anything. You would be left with absolutely no choices. And the world would look more like an ant colony, where no one really had free will. Rather than the vibrant and diverse place that it is.
The problem I have with liberals is both the reason I became a liberal, and also, the reason why I am not a liberal anymore. Liberals want whats best for the world, they want to create effectively a "perfect world". Many would say that liberals are "Utopian dreamers". And I remember I thought it was strange back when I was a liberal how anyone would think that was a bad thing.
The reason why it is a bad thing. Is because Utopia is something which cannot actually exist. It is impossible. Because perfection cannot exist where there isn't perfection. People are not perfect, and cannot be perfect. Nor is perfection necessarily even desirable. Even the word Utopia is a Greek word which literally means "No place".
The problem with liberalism, is that it effectively expects perfection. It believes it can recreate people to do things which go against their very nature. It refuses to see people for what they actually are. And since liberals expect perfection, and because perfection cannot exist, then liberals can never be happy. There is always more work to be done, always something that needs to be fixed. The problem is that, trying to fix something that is unfixable necessarily means failure.
The reason why I switched from being a liberal to a libertarian. Is that I gave up on Utopia. More importantly, I decided to focus on what is actually possible and good. Rather than trying to use force to create something which is impossible.
In my mind libertarianism is best described as cynicism. It is the realization that the government cannot solve all our problems, and almost always makes the problems worse instead of better. A lot of people associate cynicism with getting older. But the strange thing these days, is that the most common age group for cynical people today, is the young. And that is why the young have turned so sharply towards libertarianism. And I believe that trend is going to continue.
With that said. I think cynicism and thus libertarianism sort of runs hand-in-hand with knowledge. It is much easier to be optimistic when you are ignorant and don't know any better. It reminds me of the saying "ignorance is bliss"(sometimes I wish I could be more blissfully ignorant). Which is why traditionally you tended to get more cynical as you get older. But these days with the abundance of knowledge at your fingertips because of things like the internet. People are becoming more and more cynical, earlier and earlier in life. And I don't believe that that is a solvable problem. I don't think it can be rolled back. And I don't even think its a bad thing.
Cynicism doesn't necessarily mean that people don't care. It doesn't mean that they don't have goals. Its more that they don't trust others to make decisions for them, or for themselves. It reminds me of the saying "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
The point is that, I'm cynical, but I still want to help people. I just don't believe me handing you money is a way of helping you. And for that matter, I don't believe handing the government money, and then having the government hand you money, is a good way of helping either.
I want to see where the money goes, and I want to know for sure that it is actually helping. That is why I said in my previous post, there are always people living with me. When people live with me, I can watch over them, and encourage them to do better for themselves. And I don't think doing well for yourself means that you need to be rich. I don't expect much from people. All I expect of you is to add more than you take away, and that doesn't need to be money.
I have lived in public housing much of my life. I have friends who live in public housing. I am poor right now. The house I live in cost me $8,000 to buy. I am not someone disconnected from the realities of life. I have never really paid an income tax in my life. And I am part native-American, so I get free healthcare. And I have been effectively receiving food stamps practically consistently since around February of 2010. I am about as unlikely a person to advocate libertarianism as there could ever be.
The truth is, I hate money. I have always hated money. I don't believe that having money means anything at all. You will never get respect from me because you have money. You will not get respect from me because you pay a large amount of taxes. No, you will get my respect if you earn my respect. You will get my respect if I think you are a genuinely good person. And there are very very few people in this entire world that I truly admire. And none of them are rich. I don't even know if any of them would on their own income, be net income-tax payers(after deductions/credits).
On the other hand, my uncle ran a company and was makings hundreds of thousands a year. Paying huge amounts of taxes to the government. But if I had a perfect world, my uncle would not be in it. While many many people working minimum wage, but who are truly good people, would be there.
The problem I have with the government, is that I think it plays a role in actually making people worse people. For instance, I'm part native-American, and its nice that the Cherokees get free money from the government in one way. But do I believe that the Cherokees are morally better-off because they get free stuff? The answer is absolutely not. I think they would actually be much much much better off if they had to work for everything they had. Because they would learn to rely on each other, rather than relying on the government.
Even worse, one of the major revenue-producing activities these days for native-american tribes, is from casinos. Do I think Casinos have truly helped the Native-Americans? Not at all. I think Casinos have actually made conditions for Native-Americans worse instead of better. What do you expect when you bring into your community the biggest scumbags on the planet(gamblers)? And for what? Money?
The irony of socialism. Is that socialism is the most wasteful, immoral, unethical, materialistic system ever created. On one hand it tries to fight against greed and consumerism. But on the other hand, it can only exist through greed and consumerism, and taxing the profits from it. It discourages true compassion, it discourages volunteerism, it discourages even an independent human spirit. Because those things can't be taxed. And replaces all of that with a bureaucratic system which strips away all responsibility of the people, and effectively encourages them to be greedy and wasteful.
It discourages everything good about humanity, in the name of doing good for humanity. And even worse, it is the most exclusive, anti-human system ever devised. It necessarily creates walls between humans. Because the reaches of the government only reach to political borders. So it effectively says, everyone who isn't an American can go to hell. At least the Catholic church helps people all over the world. Yet religion is reviled and socialism is praised?
In my view, everything good about humanity can only be encouraged and preserved by letting people make their own decisions about what they find important. And also giving people the power, and ultimately the responsibility to do what is right and good.
I know it seems counter-intuitive, but I believe libertarianism actually rewards virtue far more than any other system of government. I think power corrupts. And what is more powerful than government?
As for myself. I'm perfectly capable of doing great things. I just see no point in contributing to a system which does harm. I think contributing to this government would actually be evil, because I would be enabling evil. Paying taxes will inevitably go to our military, which is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people every year. No, I believe the best thing I could ever do in this life. Is work for myself, acquire real assets, minimize my spending/consumption, and then bankrupt the system. And I advise everyone else to do the same.
I refuse to even vote. Democracy is a system where everyone votes for the government to give them special privileges at the cost of everyone else. Thus, people are only content with government, as long as they think they are getting a better deal than everyone else.
Are there actual compassionate people out there? Absolutely. But they aren't the ones pushing for these things most of the time. The ones who are pushing, are the ones who would benefit. Do you really think the American Medical Association wrote the affordable care act to screw themselves out of money? Don't be so naive.
Do you think the bankers created the Federal Reserve act because it was just the right thing to do? Get real man. Do you think the banks and the auto companies asked for bailouts because they really give a crap about the American people? Oh grow up.
I refuse to be a part of any of it. So you cannot blame me. You only have yourselves to blame. You are the ones who continue to play this game.
You ignore the fact that, practically everyone can have what they want in libertarianism. You just have to be happy with only getting what you want on a small-scale.
As long as the government can confiscate your property. You are not free. And it is always to the advantage of the rich.
Go read again about Shay's rebellion. Its a shame he lost.
Redshadowz has pretty much won this thread and brownsfan too. Linda_d. chumelo and last but not least bUU can't stand up to reality and facts. They probably live in fear too.
No one is duped by your attempt to feign ignorance that "progressives" don't confiscate anything in this context, and your attempt to dodge the point I made which you were replying to, that people's earnings is their net income.
It's not a matter of being thankful, and the government isn't some feudal lord that uses the money on prostitutes and liquor.
Most of the money goes to defend our country and keep poor people from "dying in the streets".
You want to have a rationalization for your patently antisocial perspective. Tough. You're not going to get it. Antisocial perspective is going to carry its negative connotations no matter how much deception you attempt to use to disguised its egoistic underpinnings.
$15,000,000,000,000 wasted on a war on poverty their is now 15% poverty in this nation, after $15,000,000,000,000 and the better part of 50 years..3% more poverty....
Redshadowz has pretty much won this thread and brownsfan too. Linda_d. chumelo and last but not least bUU can't stand up to reality and facts. They probably live in fear too.
Hey. I'm a pretty compassionate person, and having no problem with a hand up. A hand out, eh... not so much. Not to mention, relying on the government from cradle to grave always has strings attached.
I just want to say that you are the most hateful, disrespectful, and belligerent person I have ever encountered in my time on this forum. And that is saying something.
Your entire post is nothing but name-calling, with the above statement probably the most egregious example of not only your hatefulness, but also how you are wrong. Repudiate means "to say or show that (something) is not true." You said "I'm disagreeing with your claims and repudiating the perspectives you're putting forward." And I replied that "Look, you haven't repudiated anything whatsoever."
I wish for once you would actually contribute an actual thought to the conversation, rather than simply calling everyone else names.
The reason we can't agree is that you can't separate good intentions from good results. No one is arguing that liberals don't have good intentions. What we are arguing, is that they have not produced good results.
Even if you want to argue that life is better today than it was 200 years ago. That doesn't mean the government produced that result. The largest "leap forward" was made during a time in which the government played basically no role whatsoever. And there is no reason to believe that things would be much different now had the government stayed small. It reminds me of how unions pat themselves on the back for building some skyscraper. As if to believe that had the union not existed, that the skyscraper wouldn't have been built.
What libertarians argue isn't that the government doesn't want to do good things. What libertarians tend to believe, is that the government almost always fails in everything that it does. What was the last thing the government succeeded in doing? War on drugs? War on poverty? War on anything?
The government is a failure, and that isn't something to even be upset about. Milton Friedman used to say "Thank god the government does everything poorly. If the government did everything as well as the market, we would all be slaves."
What he means is, if the government could do things as well as the market. The government would run everything and anything. You would be left with absolutely no choices. And the world would look more like an ant colony, where no one really had free will. Rather than the vibrant and diverse place that it is.
The problem I have with liberals is both the reason I became a liberal, and also, the reason why I am not a liberal anymore. Liberals want whats best for the world, they want to create effectively a "perfect world". Many would say that liberals are "Utopian dreamers". And I remember I thought it was strange back when I was a liberal how anyone would think that was a bad thing.
The reason why it is a bad thing. Is because Utopia is something which cannot actually exist. It is impossible. Because perfection cannot exist where there isn't perfection. People are not perfect, and cannot be perfect. Nor is perfection necessarily even desirable. Even the word Utopia is a Greek word which literally means "No place".
The problem with liberalism, is that it effectively expects perfection. It believes it can recreate people to do things which go against their very nature. It refuses to see people for what they actually are. And since liberals expect perfection, and because perfection cannot exist, then liberals can never be happy. There is always more work to be done, always something that needs to be fixed. The problem is that, trying to fix something that is unfixable necessarily means failure.
The reason why I switched from being a liberal to a libertarian. Is that I gave up on Utopia. More importantly, I decided to focus on what is actually possible and good. Rather than trying to use force to create something which is impossible.
In my mind libertarianism is best described as cynicism. It is the realization that the government cannot solve all our problems, and almost always makes the problems worse instead of better. A lot of people associate cynicism with getting older. But the strange thing these days, is that the most common age group for cynical people today, is the young. And that is why the young have turned so sharply towards libertarianism. And I believe that trend is going to continue.
With that said. I think cynicism and thus libertarianism sort of runs hand-in-hand with knowledge. It is much easier to be optimistic when you are ignorant and don't know any better. It reminds me of the saying "ignorance is bliss"(sometimes I wish I could be more blissfully ignorant). Which is why traditionally you tended to get more cynical as you get older. But these days with the abundance of knowledge at your fingertips because of things like the internet. People are becoming more and more cynical, earlier and earlier in life. And I don't believe that that is a solvable problem. I don't think it can be rolled back. And I don't even think its a bad thing.
Cynicism doesn't necessarily mean that people don't care. It doesn't mean that they don't have goals. Its more that they don't trust others to make decisions for them, or for themselves. It reminds me of the saying "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
The point is that, I'm cynical, but I still want to help people. I just don't believe me handing you money is a way of helping you. And for that matter, I don't believe handing the government money, and then having the government hand you money, is a good way of helping either.
I want to see where the money goes, and I want to know for sure that it is actually helping. That is why I said in my previous post, there are always people living with me. When people live with me, I can watch over them, and encourage them to do better for themselves. And I don't think doing well for yourself means that you need to be rich. I don't expect much from people. All I expect of you is to add more than you take away, and that doesn't need to be money.
I have lived in public housing much of my life. I have friends who live in public housing. I am poor right now. The house I live in cost me $8,000 to buy. I am not someone disconnected from the realities of life. I have never really paid an income tax in my life. And I am part native-American, so I get free healthcare. And I have been effectively receiving food stamps practically consistently since around February of 2010. I am about as unlikely a person to advocate libertarianism as there could ever be.
The truth is, I hate money. I have always hated money. I don't believe that having money means anything at all. You will never get respect from me because you have money. You will not get respect from me because you pay a large amount of taxes. No, you will get my respect if you earn my respect. You will get my respect if I think you are a genuinely good person. And there are very very few people in this entire world that I truly admire. And none of them are rich. I don't even know if any of them would on their own income, be net income-tax payers(after deductions/credits).
On the other hand, my uncle ran a company and was makings hundreds of thousands a year. Paying huge amounts of taxes to the government. But if I had a perfect world, my uncle would not be in it. While many many people working minimum wage, but who are truly good people, would be there.
The problem I have with the government, is that I think it plays a role in actually making people worse people. For instance, I'm part native-American, and its nice that the Cherokees get free money from the government in one way. But do I believe that the Cherokees are morally better-off because they get free stuff? The answer is absolutely not. I think they would actually be much much much better off if they had to work for everything they had. Because they would learn to rely on each other, rather than relying on the government.
Even worse, one of the major revenue-producing activities these days for native-american tribes, is from casinos. Do I think Casinos have truly helped the Native-Americans? Not at all. I think Casinos have actually made conditions for Native-Americans worse instead of better. What do you expect when you bring into your community the biggest scumbags on the planet(gamblers)? And for what? Money?
The irony of socialism. Is that socialism is the most wasteful, immoral, unethical, materialistic system ever created. On one hand it tries to fight against greed and consumerism. But on the other hand, it can only exist through greed and consumerism, and taxing the profits from it. It discourages true compassion, it discourages volunteerism, it discourages even an independent human spirit. Because those things can't be taxed. And replaces all of that with a bureaucratic system which strips away all responsibility of the people, and effectively encourages them to be greedy and wasteful.
It discourages everything good about humanity, in the name of doing good for humanity. And even worse, it is the most exclusive, anti-human system ever devised. It necessarily creates walls between humans. Because the reaches of the government only reach to political borders. So it effectively says, everyone who isn't an American can go to hell. At least the Catholic church helps people all over the world. Yet religion is reviled and socialism is praised?
In my view, everything good about humanity can only be encouraged and preserved by letting people make their own decisions about what they find important. And also giving people the power, and ultimately the responsibility to do what is right and good.
I know it seems counter-intuitive, but I believe libertarianism actually rewards virtue far more than any other system of government. I think power corrupts. And what is more powerful than government?
As for myself. I'm perfectly capable of doing great things. I just see no point in contributing to a system which does harm. I think contributing to this government would actually be evil, because I would be enabling evil. Paying taxes will inevitably go to our military, which is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people every year. No, I believe the best thing I could ever do in this life. Is work for myself, acquire real assets, minimize my spending/consumption, and then bankrupt the system. And I advise everyone else to do the same.
I refuse to even vote. Democracy is a system where everyone votes for the government to give them special privileges at the cost of everyone else. Thus, people are only content with government, as long as they think they are getting a better deal than everyone else.
Are there actual compassionate people out there? Absolutely. But they aren't the ones pushing for these things most of the time. The ones who are pushing, are the ones who would benefit. Do you really think the American Medical Association wrote the affordable care act to screw themselves out of money? Don't be so naive.
Do you think the bankers created the Federal Reserve act because it was just the right thing to do? Get real man. Do you think the banks and the auto companies asked for bailouts because they really give a crap about the American people? Oh grow up.
I refuse to be a part of any of it. So you cannot blame me. You only have yourselves to blame. You are the ones who continue to play this game.
You ignore the fact that, practically everyone can have what they want in libertarianism. You just have to be happy with only getting what you want on a small-scale.
As long as the government can confiscate your property. You are not free. And it is always to the advantage of the rich.
Go read again about Shay's rebellion. Its a shame he lost.
Redshadowz, please run for office, we need more people like you...Not matter your goals and dreams never give up being a defender of freedom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e30is
Redshadowz has pretty much won this thread and brownsfan too. Linda_d. chumelo and last but not least bUU can't stand up to reality and facts. They probably live in fear too.
No they can not, they and people like them have waste $15,000,000,000,000 on the failed war on poverty...countless laws against their basic rights of privacy, and self defense, childern that are sent to failing schools to appease teacher unions and produces class after class of uneducated children who will be dependent on the state.
The progressive playbook in full force here ladies and gentlemen! Move the goal posts, deflect, because oh noes those evil libertarians want poor people dying in the streets (which is BS and you know it)...then name call when you disagree with their flawed ideology!
In other words, you had no legitimate response to the comments I made so you thought it might be useful to spew such nonsense to try to distract attention away from the points you didn't enjoy reading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
I just want to say that you are the most hateful, disrespectful, and belligerent person I have ever encountered in my time on this forum. And that is saying something.
When in reality, all I am is the most honest, forthright, and direct poster you've ever encountered, aiming to present a very clear vision of that which we disagree about in the clearest terms possible. Given that we disagree, and the disagreement is on moral grounds regarding society, and you want to feel like your way is moral, even though your preferences are built upon what's best for yourself instead of what's best for society as a whole, it isn't surprising that you'd choose to perceive the comments I've made as "hateful, disrespectful, belligerent."
What's really interesting is that my comments have been deliberately general, aimed at concepts and perspectives, while you chose to strike back with personal attacks - comments about me personally rather than about my perspectives or really anything related to the topic of this thread. I think that says as much about your ranting here as needs to be said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
I wish for once you would actually contribute an actual thought to the conversation, rather than simply calling everyone else names.
I've actually outlined a comprehensive condemnation of the perspective that you seem to support. You simply have chosen not to perceive it in that manner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
The reason we can't agree is that you can't separate good intentions from good results. No one is arguing that liberals don't have good intentions. What we are arguing, is that they have not produced good results.
The reason we can't agree is that you cannot separate liberal initiatives from the results of liberal initiatives in the context of disruption and obstruction by libertarian-afflicted neocon and other reactionary opposition. We all own the results together. ("Together". That's another concept that libertarian-afflicted neocons especially have trouble integrating into their perception of the reality.)
Regardless, libertarian-afflicted neocons and reactionaries have had a number of opportunities during my lifetime to bring about their version of societal uplift, and failed far more miserably than liberals ever have. So while you fixate on the results of liberal efforts you ignore how much worse the results of libertarian-afflicted neocon efforts have been. Not on your own personal fortune of course... you don't ignore that I'm sure. But do your best trying to excuse the divergence between worker wages and profit-generating productivity, starting with the inflection point in the graph in the mid-70s. I know you've seen the graph. You'll have no problem finding it on the web somewhere. (They don't let us deep link anymore, here.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Even if you want to argue that life is better today than it was 200 years ago. That doesn't mean the government produced that result.
Government made the difference between making some people better off and making society better off. It is patently obvious to anyone not afflicted by today's libertarian groupthink that if left to their own devices those with financial power would exploit whatever they can for their own personal benefit. Government has, at times, paved the path so that their own personal benefit benefited society overall as much as it benefited them personally. For the last generation government has been serving its proper role in that regard less than it should.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
What libertarians argue isn't that the government doesn't want to do good things. What libertarians tend to believe, is that the government almost always fails in everything that it does.
Fails based on libertarian's own metrics, devoid of comparison to the alternative. How convenient. It's so easy to create black-and-white scenarios, criteria for success and failure for which nothing can ever perform highly. It is even easier to create criteria that are biased toward the situation one wants to find themselves in with utter disregard for other people. But it is meaningless. Gandhi (and others have) said, "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." Until libertarians change their criteria to measure the impact of their own perspectives on society's weakest members, its poor, then libertarians will simply have to endure having their perspective labeled as immoral.
Even if it makes them rant about how "hateful, disrespectful, belligerent" such appraisals are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e30is
Redshadowz has pretty much won this thread and brownsfan too.
Coming from you, that means.... nothing.
Spewing pages of corrupt, self-serving claptrap doesn't actually result in a "win". Even though it evidently makes you very upset, perspectives that exhibit compassionate regard for the most vulnerable in society trumps the egoistic avarice of libertarianism.
You are in error in your statements that we as a society does not take care of its poor. I am not sure if you are failing to understand this or are choosing to ignore it, BUU, but you can take every single dime away from the wealthy and give it to the poor, and because of the standards and systems established by those from whom you take the money, they will figure out a way to get it back. Now you won't take the money away from people like George Soros, your mentor, just the middle class and above who are just hard working people. Your problem is not the generosity of American citizens to give to those who are truly poor (not those who are just takers and non-doers).
Tried and true progressives want to regulate that self-established standard out of American citizens under the guise of taking care of the poor, who have not established certain standards for themselves, and as such, your messages so reflect. I am not speaking of the truly poor here. There will always be the poor among us, and for some reason you are choosing to ignore the fact that Americans do take care of the truly poor. But you do know that don't you.
The standards set by American citizens for themselves are the problems for you.
All political parties are seen by true progressives as their enemies, aren't they BUU. I am sure your response will be to tell me I am crazy, possibly will be attacking in nature even though you feign otherwise. You will respond and say that what I am saying is nonsense.
The real purpose of this message is to let my listmates know that you have an agenda, and there is no reason to be upset with you. We just have to stop your agenda because it will topple America, your ultimate goal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
Literally.
In other words, you had no legitimate response to the comments I made so you thought it might be useful to spew such nonsense to try to distract attention away from the points you didn't enjoy reading.
When in reality, all I am is the most honest, forthright, and direct poster you've ever encountered, aiming to present a very clear vision of that which we disagree about in the clearest terms possible. Given that we disagree, and the disagreement is on moral grounds regarding society, and you want to feel like your way is moral, even though your preferences are built upon what's best for yourself instead of what's best for society as a whole, it isn't surprising that you'd choose to perceive the comments I've made as "hateful, disrespectful, belligerent."
What's really interesting is that my comments have been deliberately general, aimed at concepts and perspectives, while you chose to strike back with personal attacks - comments about me personally rather than about my perspectives or really anything related to the topic of this thread. I think that says as much about your ranting here as needs to be said.
I've actually outlined a comprehensive condemnation of the perspective that you seem to support. You simply have chosen not to perceive it in that manner.
The reason we can't agree is that you cannot separate liberal initiatives from the results of liberal initiatives in the context of disruption and obstruction by libertarian-afflicted neocon and other reactionary opposition. We all own the results together. ("Together". That's another concept that libertarian-afflicted neocons especially have trouble integrating into their perception of the reality.)
Regardless, libertarian-afflicted neocons and reactionaries have had a number of opportunities during my lifetime to bring about their version of societal uplift, and failed far more miserably than liberals ever have. So while you fixate on the results of liberal efforts you ignore how much worse the results of libertarian-afflicted neocon efforts have been. Not on your own personal fortune of course... you don't ignore that I'm sure. But do your best trying to excuse the divergence between worker wages and profit-generating productivity, starting with the inflection point in the graph in the mid-70s. I know you've seen the graph. You'll have no problem finding it on the web somewhere. (They don't let us deep link anymore, here.)
Government made the difference between making some people better off and making society better off. It is patently obvious to anyone not afflicted by today's libertarian groupthink that if left to their own devices those with financial power would exploit whatever they can for their own personal benefit. Government has, at times, paved the path so that their own personal benefit benefited society overall as much as it benefited them personally. For the last generation government has been serving its proper role in that regard less than it should.
Fails based on libertarian's own metrics, devoid of comparison to the alternative. How convenient. It's so easy to create black-and-white scenarios, criteria for success and failure for which nothing can ever perform highly. It is even easier to create criteria that are biased toward the situation one wants to find themselves in with utter disregard for other people. But it is meaningless. Gandhi (and others have) said, "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." Until libertarians change their criteria to measure the impact of their own perspectives on society's weakest members, its poor, then libertarians will simply have to endure having their perspective labeled as immoral.
Even if it makes them rant about how "hateful, disrespectful, belligerent" such appraisals are.
Coming from you, that means.... nothing.
Spewing pages of corrupt, self-serving claptrap doesn't actually result in a "win". Even though it evidently makes you very upset, perspectives that exhibit compassionate regard for the most vulnerable in society trumps the egoistic avarice of libertarianism.
I can't stand people who expect others who feel entitled to other people's hard earned money, when they haven't done a damn thing to earn it themselves. Why do you feel that the government should provide for you from cradle to grave?
Just pony up. Don't like it that is your problem. You barely pay in taxes what you suck of the teet. You have the delusion that your tax dollars pays for every benefit offered. If you did we would not be in debt.
If you actually paid for the services you use, your tax rate would be far higher. Someone is paying your share. I wonder how those folks feel?
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.
!!!
(which is BS and you know it)...then name call when you disagree with their flawed ideology!
