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.
You would think, but then all you have to do is look at all of their policies and notice how many people must be violently forced to comply. They are no better or noble than any dictator or tyrant. By today's standards in America, Stalin and Roosevelt are "liberal". Clearly, neither believed in any form of human freedom or independence from the Almighty Holy State...
Dude....
I am clearly referring to the modern, political definition of a "liberal" in America today....
All this crazy crap about violent compliance and dictators, Stalin, ect, ect....
I am clearly referring to the modern, political definition of a "liberal" in America today....
All this crazy crap about violent compliance and dictators, Stalin, ect, ect....
I'm out bro....
We are clearly not on the same page.
This post reminded me of the time I very matter-of-factly explained how the purpose of government is to control people using violence, and they told me I had a very disturbing view of the world and they were going to block me. Still makes me laugh, and that was a year ago.
Anyway, what irspow is getting at (I believe) is that you have individualism and collectivism - Individualists believe in the self-ownership of every human and the rights that go along with that, whereas collectivists want to sacrifice the rights of certain individuals if they believe the ends are noble, or that it serves "the greater good".
They accomplish this by using the guns of the state to enforce their will - that's where the violence comes in. Every law, every regulation, every tax...it's all threats of violence against those who would disobey the mandate.
Individualists don't believe that they have any right to threaten people into following their orders, even if they believe their idea is best for everyone.
I am clearly referring to the modern, political definition of a "liberal" in America today....
All this crazy crap about violent compliance and dictators, Stalin, ect, ect....
I'm out bro....
We are clearly not on the same page.
Okay, well liberals in modern political terms are only liberal in the amount of violence and coercion that they use to impose their will upon others immorally. Is that sane enough for you?
No person, group, or government ever has a right to initiate force upon any person, group, or government for any reason.
Live and let live...
If you condone or support initiations of force upon your fellow man you are a thug and a tyrant, more animal than human.
Okay, well liberals in modern political terms are only liberal in the amount of violence and coercion that they use to impose their will upon others immorally. Is that sane enough for you?
No person, group, or government ever has a right to initiate force upon any person, group, or government for any reason.
Live and let live...
If you condone or support initiations of force upon your fellow man you are a thug and a tyrant, more animal than human.
You should try using that whole "live and let live" thing when you post.
You should try using that whole "live and let live" thing when you post.
I do not resort to violence to impose my will, that is the only resort that "progressives" and "liberals" have. Humans can interact voluntarily for mutual benefit without using coercion. Animals always use violence...
I do live and let live...I practice what I preach. Unlike the "righteous" "left" who always resort to evil means to accomplish their desires...
I do not resort to violence to impose my will, that is the only resort that "progressives" and "liberals" have. Humans can interact voluntarily for mutual benefit without using coercion. Animals always use violence...
I do live and let live...I practice what I preach. Unlike the "righteous" "left" who always resort to evil means to accomplish their desires...
The ends DO NOT justify the means!
Are "conservatives" also evil in the fantasy world you seem to live in?
Are "conservatives" also evil in the fantasy world you seem to live in?
I don't see conservatives threatening anyone. Nor do they bus people into communities to march and cause riots and destroy ('burn the town down') -- all to gain their goal or make a point. Mindlessly, they will destroy their own communities' black businesses, as animals on a rampage.
Conservatives respect the individual and have a far more realistic (and healthy) grasp on reality.
Liberals are basically 'good-hearted' people, to their own detriment, as they will let their hearts and ideals lead instead of using their brains and critical thinking skills.
I have more income than I have obligations so I need to invest the excess. Part of that investment is going to be where I can get a good return, and sub prime lending is where you get a good return even after a high default rate. But if you limit top end income with a high tax rate then you get more investment in productive enterprises, your income goes into someone else's wages.
You are making my point for me. if you limit top end growth then the growth happens in the bottom end!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
And then they need WIC, CHIP, Food Stamps, Section 8 Housing, Medicaid, etc., etc. ... for life.
The US spends nearly $1 trillion/year on all the public assistance means-tested welfare programs for the poorThe fact that this is NOT sustainable is a mathematical certainty.
We do need a redo on welfare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Really? All those welfare handout recipients are going to somehow magically transform into self-supporting earners/contributors? Please.
Put the growth in the economy on the bottom end and that is what should happen.
Are "conservatives" also evil in the fantasy world you seem to live in?
Why yes they are. Anyone who advocates, condones, or participates in initiating force to impose their will is by definition evil and immoral. So yes, "conservatives" who use and condone the criminal thug organization that we call "government" to use aggression towards their fellow man are no better than the authoritarian "liberals". They are both evil and vile authoritarians with no justification or morality for anything that they do.
Voluntary, non-aggressive, cooperation and interaction is the only form that a real "society" or "civilization" can ever be composed of. Our system that operates only with forms of aggression, extortion, and violence is completely void of any justification or morality. Unless you consider a system of predatory violence and unjust aggression a "society".
So it is our entire system, not "conservatives" or "liberals" alone, that is evil and immoral. The parties are just two sides of the same evil authoritarian coin. "Conservatives" lean toward being social tyrants and "Liberals" lean toward being economic tyrants. However, freedom for human beings requires both social and economic freedom. You cannot be half free, you either are or you are not. In other words having social freedom without economic freedom is as useless as having economic freedom without social freedom. You are still left a slave-subject of the State either way. Our entire system is designed to DESTROY and ELIMINATE human freedom, NOT protect it.
And by freedom, to be clear, I mean any and all actions which are not an act of aggression, an initiation of force, against another. Any human action which is not an initiation of force upon another is a natural right and should be available and protected for every individual. In fact the ONLY right that a human being does NOT have, is to initiate force upon another.
Now look at "your" government. What does it do that is NOT an initiation of force upon the individual? In its entirety, it is an evil institution of aggression upon the individual. The ONLY JUST role of government is to protect freedom, or more specifically, to act as a retaliatory force against aggressors. It has no right to initiate force upon any individual for any reason. Government is a fictional creation of man and it has no right that a man does not. Why would anyone give a fictional entity an omnipotent power above man?
Here, we have been brainwashed to believe in a fictional good of the fictional collective (of course designed by the ruling elites to enslave us) superceding the good of the individual. So we not only place the interests of the ruling elite above our own, but we give them an exclusive "right" to use violence against us. How brainwashed do a people have to be to tolerate a "government" doing to them what they would never tolerate a neighbor doing to them? How brainwashed do a people have to be to call a crime committed by government justified and moral, what the would rightly condemn as evil if a person did the same thing? That is what we see with the Americans who walk through the cattle chutes erected by the Rothschilds, Morgans, Rockerfellers, etc daily. They lord over us with violence and illegal scams while we accept it all as "moral" and "legal" because we see the boot of government as "justfified".
So I guess now you might ask who are proposing anything that is pro-human or pro-freedom in these very dark day for humanity. Alas, there are very, very few. A few philosophically pure libertarians (Not the "Libertarian Party"), agorists, and anarchists (the intellectual ones, not the "bomb-throwers" )
I have more income than I have obligations so I need to invest the excess. Part of that investment is going to be where I can get a good return, and sub prime lending is where you get a good return even after a high default rate. But if you limit top end income with a high tax rate then you get more investment in productive enterprises, your income goes into someone else's wages.
That makes no sense. ANY investment goes into someone else's wages.
Quote:
Stop buying sub prime debt paper. That is what incentivizes financial irresponsibility is the availability of credit.
I'm not. The Federal Reserve has. To the tune of over $1.75 trillion at this point. And that was all QE, money artificially pumped into the economy so the tens of thousands of borrowers who haven't made their mortgage payments in 5 or more years could keep their homes, free and clear of ever having to pay another dime in mortgage payments.
You are making my point for me. if you limit top end growth then the growth happens in the bottom end!!!!!
Nope. If you limit top end growth you get domino effect poverty, as those who would spend or invest that money (which produces jobs) won't do so.
Quote:
We do need a redo on welfare.
Yes, we do.
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.
)
