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 didn't say "poor" I said "weak". Yes, they weak would die, and the strong would survive. Go tell the cripples and 90 yr olds to get a job,
Look, "the cripples and 90-year olds" aren't living in a world by themselves. They have parents, siblings, children, and friends.
I mean, the way you are naively painting the picture, would make it seem like all children would die without welfare since they can't get a job either.
The cripples and the 90-year olds would end up at the same churches, soup kitchens, and food pantries like everyone else. If the American people are actually so callous that they would let the cripples and the elderly starve to death, then they never would have voted for assistance to begin with.
Government cannot turn a wicked people good. A government can only be as good as her people.
If you actually believe that Americans would let people starve, then you believe Americans are wicked.
The question really isn't whether or not some people need help. It is really about the most effective method of helping them.
There are two assumptions about American society that I think you are making.
The first assumption is the idea that if anyone needs help, the government should be the ones helping them. To believe that requires at least one of two things, that you believe the government is the best method of helping people, and/or that people wouldn't be helping each other without government.
The second assumption is that America is a "collective society". Why is it a collective society? When did it become a collective society?
Do you really feel like you are part of a collective with me? I probably live hundreds, if not thousands of miles from you, and you will never meet me in your entire life. In fact, it is unlikely that you will ever meet anyone who has ever even met me, in your entire life. Why are you anymore in a collective with me, than you are in a collective with someone from Canada, or Mexico, or England?
Just because you can pass a law to force me to do something against my will, doesn't mean I am in a collective with you. It simply means you are forcing me to do something against my will.
In that regard, you(and society) have the same relationship to me as a foreign country who has conquered and subjugated me. Forcing me to do things which I am known to be opposed, by threatening me with violence, poverty, and/or imprisonment.
Keep in mind that this country was never the property of the United States to begin with. It was stolen away. And the people from which it was stolen were then forced into a nation that they despised. In relation to the Native-Americans, US presidents and the US government were the equivalent of Hitler and Nazi Germany. They never gave their consent to be ruled by Washington without the accompanying threat of death and destruction. And they never would have given that consent with that threat. And neither do I.
Please never tell me I am in a collective with you or anyone else. If you want something from me, you better learn how to ask.
i am sorry my C-D friend, but as a member of an orgnaized society you are weither you like it or not, part of that society.
you have advanced the argument of the anarchist. Anarchy does provide the greatest freedom to those involed... up to the point where it decends into violent chaos which in turn eliminates every concievable freedom.
Historically where men have sought to live in harmony with one another, they have been pulled between the opposing goals of collective success and individual freedom.
We today continue that struggle. We know that anarchy fails. Therefore your rejection of the collective reality is negated by the overwhelming majority in the American Civilization.
Now, it is utterly appropreate to discuss...even argue where lines should be drawn. What collective protections are necessary and where those protections infrenge on individual freedom.
I lean toward greater freedom, but there are real reasons why collective protections not only are healthy for society but also expand (not contract) individual freedom.
You are part of the collective. I dont need to be on a first name basis with you to belong to that collective. Nor does the word need to connoate a progressive/socialist/communist mindset.
Celebrate your freedom, but recognize that feedom was granted to you, and protected for you by many others whos names you will never know.
i am sorry my C-D friend, but as a member of an orgnaized society you are weither you like it or not, part of that society.
you have advanced the argument of the anarchist. Anarchy does provide the greatest freedom to those involed... up to the point where it decends into violent chaos which in turn eliminates every concievable freedom.
Historically where men have sought to live in harmony with one another, they have been pulled between the opposing goals of collective success and individual freedom.
We today continue that struggle. We know that anarchy fails. Therefore your rejection of the collective reality is negated by the overwhelming majority in the American Civilization.
Now, it is utterly appropreate to discuss...even argue where lines should be drawn. What collective protections are necessary and where those protections infrenge on individual freedom.
I lean toward greater freedom, but there are real reasons why collective protections not only are healthy for society but also expand (not contract) individual freedom.
You are part of the collective. I dont need to be on a first name basis with you to belong to that collective. Nor does the word need to connoate a progressive/socialist/communist mindset.
Celebrate your freedom, but recognize that feedom was granted to you, and protected for you by many others whos names you will never know.
Came in to check on this thread this morning, trying to think of a good way to frame the response.....and I see this.
There is no need for me to respond, ferd here put it to words far better then I could have. Thanks!
i am sorry my C-D friend, but as a member of an orgnaized society you are weither you like it or not, part of that society.
you have advanced the argument of the anarchist. Anarchy does provide the greatest freedom to those involed... up to the point where it decends into violent chaos which in turn eliminates every concievable freedom.
Historically where men have sought to live in harmony with one another, they have been pulled between the opposing goals of collective success and individual freedom.
We today continue that struggle. We know that anarchy fails. Therefore your rejection of the collective reality is negated by the overwhelming majority in the American Civilization.
Now, it is utterly appropreate to discuss...even argue where lines should be drawn. What collective protections are necessary and where those protections infrenge on individual freedom.
I lean toward greater freedom, but there are real reasons why collective protections not only are healthy for society but also expand (not contract) individual freedom.
You are part of the collective. I dont need to be on a first name basis with you to belong to that collective. Nor does the word need to connoate a progressive/socialist/communist mindset.
Celebrate your freedom, but recognize that feedom was granted to you, and protected for you by many others whos names you will never know.
It sounds shocking to someone unfamiliar with the concept (which is almost everyone), but we don't need government. "Anarchy" does not equal chaos...people are just in this mindset that we need a master or we'd all be eating each other and people would be dying on the streets. I see why people automatically think it's a foregone conclusion that we need a ruling class, because I did for awhile too, but I've spent the last few years researching and watching debates and its to the point where I can't believe anyone still believes in government anymore. It's actually impossible to be logically consistent and believe in legitimate government...you can't fully believe in individual liberty AND government, as you pointed out. It's either "anarchist" (I don't like using that term because it means different things to different people) or collectivist (varying degrees of it).
I've seen several friends turn from liberals to conservatives simply by receiving their first paycheck after college and seeing who pays for the "free" stuff.
Found this funny. Some here may, some won't. I have a ex wife (I know shocker right?) she is on SSDI, and her new BF is as well. combined they make in a month what I make in 3 days. That being said, they get by. They are both on my Facebook, and suddenly my ex wife starts posting the usual propaganda about how we cant afford Obamas liberal agenda etc etc. Turns out the new BF is a Republican.
OK this should be fun. The new BF and ex wife are both actually capable of working. They really are the moochers that many on the right talk about, and when I have listed the people I know who collect disability she has always been on the list of people that are undeserving. Sadly now I know two people who are on that list.
I replied with a link showing that the latest Republican move on not transferring money between social security and SSDI (a topic we've discussed here) could mean that SSDI will be cut by 20% if nothing is done. And pointed out that the "do nothing" congress and senate was named that for a reason.
Suddenly....not so Republican anymore, and crying about what will poor people do for jobs with automation replacing them.
I've a crazier one in my family, on SSDI. She drools all over Ted Cruz, and rides on the premise that she deserves SSDI, others don't... and she will be spared.
It sounds shocking to someone unfamiliar with the concept (which is almost everyone), but we don't need government. "Anarchy" does not equal chaos...people are just in this mindset that we need a master or we'd all be eating each other and people would be dying on the streets. I see why people automatically think it's a foregone conclusion that we need a ruling class, because I did for awhile too, but I've spent the last few years researching and watching debates and its to the point where I can't believe anyone still believes in government anymore. It's actually impossible to be logically consistent and believe in legitimate government...you can't fully believe in individual liberty AND government, as you pointed out. It's either "anarchist" (I don't like using that term because it means different things to different people) or collectivist (varying degrees of it).
1. I reject the notion that there should be a ruling class.
2. having government does not mean we have a ruling "class"
Further it is utterly impossible for any person to be utterly consistent. its not humanly possible. I dont even try to give lipservice to it. I do however believe it is utterly logical to believe that legitimate government serves a valuable purpose in society.
LACK of government where such a lack leads to a better society is a farce. it requires one simple statment to be truth that statement being "if everyone will". The reality is not everyone "will"
i am sorry my C-D friend, but as a member of an orgnaized society you are weither you like it or not, part of that society.
Look, just because you say it, and just because people believe it, doesn't make it true. Nor does it make it right.
Look at it like this. How did I become a member of this society? Did I give my consent to be in this society? Did my parents even give their consent to be in this society? What is the fundamental difference between me not giving my permission to be ruled by this government, and the Native-Americans who never gave their consent to be governed by the US government? Or for that matter, what about any of the people in any part of the world whose government only exists because of the remnants of colonialism?
I mean, if you look at Iraq. The country is being torn apart into Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish. Is Iraq a collective society? Do the Kurds or Sunnis have a right to leave Iraq and no longer be a part of that collective?
The Soviets conquered most of Eastern Europe and created very "collective" societies there. But for the last two decades, Eastern Europe has been falling apart. If we look at Ukraine, is Ukraine a collective society? Should Crimea have been allowed to leave the Ukraine? For that matter, should the areas of Donetsk and Luhansk be able to leave Ukraine?
If you look at Russia itself. There is a place called "Chechnya". Is Chechnya part of a "collective" with the rest of Russia? Should it be in a collective with Russia?
The point is, none of the nation-states in the entire world are truly collective societies(though some are close). The Nations of the world exist only through the threat of death and destruction. As I often say, if a country isn't willing to kill anyone who stands in its way, then it will cease to exist.
Russia is willing to kill every Chechen to keep it, and so Chechnya remains a part of Russia. As long as the United States is willing to kill anyone who tries to leave her, then we will remain Americans. But don't believe for a moment that we are truly a collective. We are not. A true collective would be a tribe, or an extended family. A true collective would be voluntary.
The collective you are talking about, is merely government force. It is a subtle form of slavery. And I want none of it. You are not my master.
As Thomas Jefferson said, "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
You have advanced the argument of the anarchist. Anarchy does provide the greatest freedom to those involed... up to the point where it decends into violent chaos which in turn eliminates every concievable freedom.
Historically where men have sought to live in harmony with one another, they have been pulled between the opposing goals of collective success and individual freedom.
We today continue that struggle. We know that anarchy fails. Therefore your rejection of the collective reality is negated by the overwhelming majority in the American Civilization.
Well, we don't know that "Anarchy fails". In fact, almost the entirety of human existence has been in a state of anarchy. Human "tribes" are a form of anarcho-socialism that goes back at least 200,000 years. And there are still tribes to this day. The Amish are a form of anarcho-socialism. In fact, even in Europe, many regions had remained in a kind of anarchy for significant periods of time over even the last couple thousand years. The dark ages themselves was a practical collapse of civilization into anarchy.
Up until 1787, you could have argued pretty convincingly that "Democracy fails". Since it had never been successful, and had been tried often.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that anarchy descends into "violent chaos". It is just an idea pushed forth by people like Thomas Hobbes. Who said this about "the state of nature"(IE anarchy).
"In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
He also declared that anarchy is a "war of all against all".
He wrote that in a book entitled "Leviathan". The Leviathan he was depicting, was supposed to be a power so strong that no one could resist it. He was effectively arguing for either an absolute monarch that would effectively rule the entire world. Or at the very least, an entity with absolute power, that could prevent any war or conflict.
Effectively, people like yourself and Thomas Hobbes are arguing for a one-world government with an all-powerful government. That is the only logical outcome of your position.
Furthermore, Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan has been torn apart by social philosophers for hundreds of years. The only reason why Hobbes, and his ideas, are still relevant. Is that they are useful for those who seek to rule. Those people who make us perpetually fearful of the boogeyman who wants to kill us or enslave us if it wasn't for our wonderful omnipotent and omnibenevolent rulers who are there to save us.
Just listen to what the government says. All they do all day every day is tell you who to be afraid of. As soon as someone talks about not wanting to be a part of their government; They then turn up the rhetoric even more. Telling us all that without them, we would be living in poverty and misery, and would be invaded by foreign countries who would enslave us all.
I really wish you would read Social contract theory, and what the "State of nature" really is. Rather than be force-fed fear and lies from those who want to rule you.
Celebrate your freedom, but recognize that feedom was granted to you, and protected for you by many others whos names you will never know.
It is a shame for you to be so delusional. How does that government kool-aid taste?
There's a joke in anarchism that goes. What is the difference between a Libertarian and an anarchist?
About six or seven years if you're paying attention.
Another one is. What is the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?
About $20,000 a year.
Look, just because you say it, and just because people believe it, doesn't make it true. Nor does it make it right.
it isnt just that i say it.... or that I believe it... but that the vast vast vast majority of the people living in the 50 states known as the United States believe it, live it and have settled on the kind of government they want to make "it" happen.
its reality regardless of how many words you put in your posts....
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.
....if there should be income tax, it should be very low and a cap.
it isnt just that i say it.... or that I believe it... but that the vast vast vast majority of the people living in the 50 states known as the United States believe it, live it and have settled on the kind of government they want to make "it" happen.
