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 no one is asking is whether the government should be able to aggressively force individuals to comply with whatever the government decides are ideal societal conditions? Or even if any group of people should be permitted to attack others for their own benefit? Imposing these "ideals" through aggressive force, whether they are defined by a dictator or a majority, upon an individual who has no liability whatsoever fail any definition of "justice" in a rational mind.
Megalomaniacs are always able to "justify" their oppression of the masses because they "know" they are superior to every one else. What the "enlightened" always fail to acknowledge is that they are no better than any other person. When they impose their fantasies upon others through force they need to appoint themselves to the level of a God. All of the brutal dictators, psychopaths, criminally insane, possess a unique quality that the "common man" does not in their minds. This "superiority" leaves them perplexed as to why their lowly fellow man does not bend to his will. This is why the "intellectual elite" are the most brutal of all and also why they actually posess the least intellect of all mankind.
"Justice" in their mind only occurs when the entire world complies to their own personal fantasy. They cannot comprehend that all men are equally free to see themselves as the supreme rulers of their lives. All of the qualities that they claim to possess are at the same time absent from everyone else. They believe only the foolish behave differently than they would have them behave. Only they deserve the freedom to live as they see fit. Everyone else in the world is something to be manipulated to fit their visions. This is the strange scary quality that we see in most politicians that is often elusive to place our finger upon. Anyone who lives their lives trying to manipulate others through force are somewhat delusional.
Sure they usually attempt to appear noble and profess to be trying to help the masses. In their sickness they actually believe this to be true. The reality however is that they are playing out their little mental role of gods over man. Politicians are not alone in this illness though. Really, any person who endorses or supports collectivism, both Republicans and Democrats, are as mentally ill as any totalitarian or brutal murderer. It is their unwavering faith that they are justified in ruling over others, actually punishing others, for not serving their own personal interests.
Nothing exists in the world except their glorious vision of how other humans can be manipulated to serve their interests and beliefs. Not one of them believes in freedom or the inherent right of people to exist peacefully if they don't conform to their private fantasies. So FDR is no worse that Lincoln or Wilson, or any other "leader". He was no worse than the people who vote for Dems or Repubs in their desire to wield government power against their neighbors. He was simply doing and saying what comes naturally for delusional megalomaniacs of all stripes.
These people don't believe that rights are naturally inherent of man, nor do they believe that they are created by government for that matter. They actually, whether they admit to it or even realize it, believe that the rights of others are something that they themselves bestow upon others when they personally approve of those particular rights. This is the problem with both "right", "left", and "center" people. They all assume that they are rightful rulers of others.
Look at the vast number of posts on this forum to confirm the mass mental illness of all of the totalitarians here. Nearly everyone is trying to impose their will upon others as if they have a right to do so. Government to these people is simply the weapon of choice for their immoral aggression upon their fellow man. In politics their really is only two schools of thought among all people.
One position is taken by the mentally ill dictators among us who always use government force to impose their personal will on others. This is done by both the "left" and "right", and everyone in between, varying only in who the particular vicitims and beneficiaries of their personal decrees will be.
The second position is taken by the consistent and humble people who only seek to ensure the maximum possible freedom for all. These people do not see themselves as superior to others or claim the right to run other people's lives by their personal whim. They do not seek to act aggressively to force others to comply with their personal interests. They simply seek to live and let live. They seek only the protection against the aggression of others. They hold that the government, any group of people, or individual, is immoral when using force against another for any other reason than defensive force. That government, groups, and individuals are never just in using force other than to defend the freedom of the individual.
If that is beyond a person's reason, than that person is a delusional megalomaniac and closet totalitarian. C'mon people, take the meds, get on the freedom bandwagon! We are all equal humans and should easily be able to get along fine with one another if we put down the evil weapon of government and the silly notion that we are superior to our fellow man.
Now back to the regularly scheduled program of the "Battle of the Dictators"...
What no one is asking is whether the government should be able to aggressively force individuals to comply with whatever the government decides are ideal societal conditions...
You long winded recitation aside ignores one fundamental point, government doesn't decide what constitutes the ideal social conditions, the people do. Not one single piece of social legislation in the country has ever been passed without a long and often time violent gestation period which has forced, cajoled or persuaded government to take those actions which the body politic, not government, deems both prudent and necessary.
What no one is asking is whether the government should be able to aggressively force individuals to comply with whatever the government decides are ideal societal conditions? Or even if any group of people should be permitted to attack others for their own benefit? Imposing these "ideals" through aggressive force, whether they are defined by a dictator or a majority, upon an individual who has no liability whatsoever fail any definition of "justice" in a rational mind.
Megalomaniacs are always able to "justify" their oppression of the masses because they "know" they are superior to every one else. What the "enlightened" always fail to acknowledge is that they are no better than any other person. When they impose their fantasies upon others through force they need to appoint themselves to the level of a God. All of the brutal dictators, psychopaths, criminally insane, possess a unique quality that the "common man" does not in their minds. This "superiority" leaves them perplexed as to why their lowly fellow man does not bend to his will. This is why the "intellectual elite" are the most brutal of all and also why they actually posess the least intellect of all mankind.
"Justice" in their mind only occurs when the entire world complies to their own personal fantasy. They cannot comprehend that all men are equally free to see themselves as the supreme rulers of their lives. All of the qualities that they claim to possess are at the same time absent from everyone else. They believe only the foolish behave differently than they would have them behave. Only they deserve the freedom to live as they see fit. Everyone else in the world is something to be manipulated to fit their visions. This is the strange scary quality that we see in most politicians that is often elusive to place our finger upon. Anyone who lives their lives trying to manipulate others through force are somewhat delusional.
Sure they usually attempt to appear noble and profess to be trying to help the masses. In their sickness they actually believe this to be true. The reality however is that they are playing out their little mental role of gods over man. Politicians are not alone in this illness though. Really, any person who endorses or supports collectivism, both Republicans and Democrats, are as mentally ill as any totalitarian or brutal murderer. It is their unwavering faith that they are justified in ruling over others, actually punishing others, for not serving their own personal interests.
Nothing exists in the world except their glorious vision of how other humans can be manipulated to serve their interests and beliefs. Not one of them believes in freedom or the inherent right of people to exist peacefully if they don't conform to their private fantasies. So FDR is no worse that Lincoln or Wilson, or any other "leader". He was no worse than the people who vote for Dems or Repubs in their desire to wield government power against their neighbors. He was simply doing and saying what comes naturally for delusional megalomaniacs of all stripes.
These people don't believe that rights are naturally inherent of man, nor do they believe that they are created by government for that matter. They actually, whether they admit to it or even realize it, believe that the rights of others are something that they themselves bestow upon others when they personally approve of those particular rights. This is the problem with both "right", "left", and "center" people. They all assume that they are rightful rulers of others.
Look at the vast number of posts on this forum to confirm the mass mental illness of all of the totalitarians here. Nearly everyone is trying to impose their will upon others as if they have a right to do so. Government to these people is simply the weapon of choice for their immoral aggression upon their fellow man. In politics their really is only two schools of thought among all people.
One position is taken by the mentally ill dictators among us who always use government force to impose their personal will on others. This is done by both the "left" and "right", and everyone in between, varying only in who the particular vicitims and beneficiaries of their personal decrees will be.
The second position is taken by the consistent and humble people who only seek to ensure the maximum possible freedom for all. These people do not see themselves as superior to others or claim the right to run other people's lives by their personal whim. They do not seek to act aggressively to force others to comply with their personal interests. They simply seek to live and let live. They seek only the protection against the aggression of others. They hold that the government, any group of people, or individual, is immoral when using force against another for any other reason than defensive force. That government, groups, and individuals are never just in using force other than to defend the freedom of the individual.
If that is beyond a person's reason, than that person is a delusional megalomaniac and closet totalitarian. C'mon people, take the meds, get on the freedom bandwagon! We are all equal humans and should easily be able to get along fine with one another if we put down the evil weapon of government and the silly notion that we are superior to our fellow man.
Now back to the regularly scheduled program of the "Battle of the Dictators"...
I do not believe that irspow wants any law but the one protecting himself from violent aggression while arguing against any law that would protect him (anti monopoly laws or being out bid for an equal education for instance) from nearly equally damaging non-violent aggression. As desirable as all of us peacefully getting along without violent or non violent aggression it will never happen. In any society the group decides that some kind of behavior is unacceptable and punishes the miscreants.
FDR’s Bill of Rights is a list of conditions that are desirable in a civilized society. Creating economic security is a primary function of society acting through the government. Without economic and in our day, health, security an individual cannot put at risk the income being used to support himself and his family in order to try for economic advancement. The old adage of “don’t bet the farm” applies to these less fortunate people. FDR’s economic Bill of Rights lets everybody play instead of limiting access to the field to the people that already own it.
You long winded recitation aside ignores one fundamental point, government doesn't decide what constitutes the ideal social conditions, the people do. Not one single piece of social legislation in the country has ever been passed without a long and often time violent gestation period which has forced, cajoled or persuaded government to take those actions which the body politic, not government, deems both prudent and necessary.
Do you speak of the "righteous" majority that oppresses the minority? Totalitarians, whether individuals or groups, does not make them any less evil to human freedom. If you actually read the entire long-winded recitation you would have noticed that I was talking about the evil and unjust nature of anyone imposing their will forcefully upon the individual for purposes other than to protect individual freedom, as in defense. Initiating, or supporting, an initial aggression upon innocent people is never just. Some people will just always believe that they are superior to their fellow man
Do you speak of the "righteous" majority that oppresses the minority
Can you point to the word "majority" righteous or otherwise in the quotation that you cited?
Here it is again so that you don't have to go looking for it.
You long winded recitation aside ignores one fundamental point, government doesn't decide what constitutes the ideal social conditions, the people do. Not one single piece of social legislation in the country has ever been passed without a long and often time violent gestation period which has forced, cajoled or persuaded government to take those actions which the body politic, not government, deems both prudent and necessary
.
Quote:
Totalitarians, whether individuals or groups, does not make them any less evil to human freedom. If you actually read the entire long-winded recitation you would have noticed that I was talking about the evil and unjust nature of anyone imposing their will forcefully upon the individual for purposes other than to protect individual freedom, as in defense. Initiating, or supporting, an initial aggression upon innocent people is never just. Some people will just always believe that they are superior to their fellow man
The problem that I have with your polemic is that it lack specificity and context with regards to the on-going conversation. For example, the much lauded Ron Paul makes the same argument with regards to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As he argues and as your argument could be construed to conclude that government imposition of non-discriminatory rights against a group of citizens is a tyrannical imposition upon the individual rights of citizens, in short the rights of one set of individuals trumps the lack of right of another. Unfortunately, by purpose of omission, your post is silent on the issue, despite its length and wordiness.
I do not believe that irspow wants any law but the one protecting himself from violent aggression while arguing against any law that would protect him (anti monopoly laws or being out bid for an equal education for instance) from nearly equally damaging non-violent aggression. As desirable as all of us peacefully getting along without violent or non violent aggression it will never happen. In any society the group decides that some kind of behavior is unacceptable and punishes the miscreants.
FDR’s Bill of Rights is a list of conditions that are desirable in a civilized society. Creating economic security is a primary function of society acting through the government. Without economic and in our day, health, security an individual cannot put at risk the income being used to support himself and his family in order to try for economic advancement. The old adage of “don’t bet the farm†applies to these less fortunate people. FDR’s economic Bill of Rights lets everybody play instead of limiting access to the field to the people that already own it.
I never said that I don't want any laws. What I was implying was that there should be no laws which do not specifically protect individual freedoms. Of course society will decide which freedoms should be protected collectively when forming its government.
What the totalitarians and megalomaniacs want however is the right to strip some people of their rights and provide additional rights to others in order to create outcomes which come closer to their personal interests.
By the way, violence is not necessary for aggression to occur. Aggression can be any act with the intent to cause harm. It does not matter whether you use government force, coersion, fraud, or threat. It is simply an immoral act to manipulate free persons to act against their own interest. More precisely, I am referring to any action by a government, group, or individual intended to harm another who is innocent of any wrongdoing. So all laws which prohibit murder, theft, and the like are perfectly fine in my opinion. The collectivists simply legitimize these "crimes" against their fellow man by employing government force.
If people can get out of their arrogant delusions of grandeur they will see that true "justice" will occur through voluntary actions of free people. It is arrogance which leads to crime in the first place. Once we use arrogance and irrational thought and force to hurt our fellow man, whether "legal" or not, we are simply being evil and immoral.
You long winded recitation aside ignores one fundamental point, government doesn't decide what constitutes the ideal social conditions, the people do. Not one single piece of social legislation in the country has ever been passed without a long and often time violent gestation period which has forced, cajoled or persuaded government to take those actions which the body politic, not government, deems both prudent and necessary
I reject the notion that any group, individual, or government should have the ability to oppress some at the expense of others. What group of people, or "body politic", has the right to strip or "create" certain freedoms for specific people? What group of people, or "body politic", has the right to force certain people to comply with their particular ideals?
Obviously we need to decide that there are rights which all people should have and protect them vigorously. These rights are universal for all members of society. And that is just. The moment that we start creating or limiting rights for specific people instead of the whole of the people equally we are indulging in totalitarianism. If you disagree with that it is fine. This is simply a chosen belief. Either we believe that people should be equal and free or we believe that certain groups get to be superior to others. Whatever. I stand on the side of equal freedom for all instead of being ruled by the megalomaniacs among us. I also stand now and forever that no law is just unless it specifically defends individual freedom equally for all people simultaneously. Furthermore, every human has the natural right to exercise every conceivable freedom that does not directly harm another through force, threat, or fraud.
The problem that I have with your polemic is that it lack specificity and context with regards to the on-going conversation.
The context in which I entered this thread is that FDR, and his fantasies, is just an example of the vast majority of people and their twisted ideas that dominate our society. There is virtually infinite subject matter to show that most people in this country are wanna-be dictators with no moral standing whatsoever. I would simply point to the redistribution of wealth ideas that defined nearly everything that FDR, and Stalin, stood for.
This type of thinking by idiotic megalomaniacs and their supporters requires a sense of superiority to their fellow man. They know what is best for all people and believe that all people must conform to their wishes and fantasies, or more kindly, special interests. They feel that is it justifiable to use any level of force to strip freedom from those who disagree or will not comply voluntarily. They conclude in their own mind that there are some people who are worthy of some right while others are not entitled to the same level of freedom. This level of self imposed superiority is what makes them evil and immoral.
To end this particular long-winded recitation, aggression is never justified to benefit one group over another group. It is not noble or enlightened to rob one person to hand the loot over to another. We lose any ability to claim righteousness while initiating and committing crime no matter who stands to benefit from our immoral behavior.
The context in which I entered this thread is that FDR, and his fantasies, is just an example of the vast majority of people and their twisted ideas that dominate our society.
Good now that we have blown away the rhetorical fog, perhaps we can get down to what you consider fantasy and what you consider to be tyrannical oppression.
So, to start over which of these rights to you find objectionable.
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.
Done of these are a right. You do have the right to do these things your self . It's not the govt. job to do them for you.
Okay, please tell me how I can personally break up the Insurance Companies' monopoly and I'll get started on it right away.
Quote:
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
Quote:
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
Last edited by sickofnyc; 10-19-2009 at 11:55 AM..
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.
