To the Democrats Out There
- Thread starter mountainclmbr
- Start date
- Status
Mark Tyson
Member
MARXIST!?!?
What, you mean the libertarians and poverty article? Why don't you read it and tell me why it's wrong instead.
Of course if you'd rather not have your views challenged . . .
What, you mean the libertarians and poverty article? Why don't you read it and tell me why it's wrong instead.
Of course if you'd rather not have your views challenged . . .
I'm not going to touch that tangled web of strawmen, hierarchy inversions and unsupported assertions on this thread.
I mean, I can say: "Tyson and Stalin are against people owning their own labor - ergo Tyson is a murderer" but that isn't being helpful.
It's hard to address a: "If we don't stop taking their money, this will happen". Of course, in such articles, what is never mentioned is "if we keep stealing people's s**t maybe they'll stop trying to acquire it and just become Democrats".
I could say, for instance, "If I don't get Tyson's house and all his stuff the moon will crash into the Earth". What is your response - that it's not true? Who has the burden of proof?
We could use "individual rights" to resolve who gets to sleep in your house tonight; but why bring morality into a shouting match on all the good vs. bad "social benefits" that come from stealing people's stuff. That article rejects morality pretty damned early.
I mean, I can say: "Tyson and Stalin are against people owning their own labor - ergo Tyson is a murderer" but that isn't being helpful.
It's hard to address a: "If we don't stop taking their money, this will happen". Of course, in such articles, what is never mentioned is "if we keep stealing people's s**t maybe they'll stop trying to acquire it and just become Democrats".
I could say, for instance, "If I don't get Tyson's house and all his stuff the moon will crash into the Earth". What is your response - that it's not true? Who has the burden of proof?
We could use "individual rights" to resolve who gets to sleep in your house tonight; but why bring morality into a shouting match on all the good vs. bad "social benefits" that come from stealing people's stuff. That article rejects morality pretty damned early.
mountainclmbr
Member
I read Mark Tyson's link to "Libertarians and Poverty". Although I am a registered Libertarian, I also find that some of the party positions won't work and are simple minded. But, I think the "Poverty" article is also simple minded, using the example of Chile. It seems that the conclusion is that free markets will let corporations exploit people and that the government should be in control. But, what are corporations and governments? They are just people. If either has total control they will exploit it and harm people for their own benefit.
To counter the free market example of Chile (Run under a dictator, Pinochet) , I offer the government control examples of Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin and Castro.
But even if a benovelant government could be found, and all wealth redistributed evenly, is that fair? It punishes hard work and rewards laziness. And, until human nature can be legislated, what gets rewarded is what gets done. And doesn't it make you wonder why the Democrats are always trying to ban guns? If guns are inherently bad, why does the government have them?
I think that the founding fathers had it right, the role of government should be limited and individuals have inalienable rights that no just government can violate. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have positions that bother me. The Democrats love affair with government power bother me the most.
To counter the free market example of Chile (Run under a dictator, Pinochet) , I offer the government control examples of Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin and Castro.
But even if a benovelant government could be found, and all wealth redistributed evenly, is that fair? It punishes hard work and rewards laziness. And, until human nature can be legislated, what gets rewarded is what gets done. And doesn't it make you wonder why the Democrats are always trying to ban guns? If guns are inherently bad, why does the government have them?
I think that the founding fathers had it right, the role of government should be limited and individuals have inalienable rights that no just government can violate. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have positions that bother me. The Democrats love affair with government power bother me the most.
Also, both sides using examples can ignore business cycles and confidence - doesn't matter what happens when a credit bubble bursts, life is gonna suck.
Also, another factor is stability - France may have worse taxes than some Latin American countries; but in France you can bet with greater confidence that some idiot isn't going to confiscate your factory inside of 5 years. Once bitten twice shy, and all of that.
Just the credible THREAT of government repression is enough to inhibit development, as many enterprises have long time frames to yield rewards.
Also, these analyses of places like Chile ignore other ways the government steals money, like printing more of it, or confiscating businesses.
Also, another factor is stability - France may have worse taxes than some Latin American countries; but in France you can bet with greater confidence that some idiot isn't going to confiscate your factory inside of 5 years. Once bitten twice shy, and all of that.
Just the credible THREAT of government repression is enough to inhibit development, as many enterprises have long time frames to yield rewards.
Also, these analyses of places like Chile ignore other ways the government steals money, like printing more of it, or confiscating businesses.
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
What was the original question? Oh yeah. How can a gun owner support the Democrat party when thay are a bunch of gun grabbers? Then we went to wealth redistribution (also evil), totalitarianism, an IQ piddling contest, back to totalitarianism, then a frontal assault on Mr. Woo.
I agree with it all. Some very eloquent arguments.
The Woo thing is wrong on many levels as explained previously. There will always be poverty. In China, where all wealth is distributed according to Marx, there is poverty and hunger. We have spent $5 trillion since the Great Society on social programs to end poverty. The percentage has not changed in 40 years. So, if we can agree that we have failed after 40 years of government programs, then can we try something different? Libertarian ideas do work. Clinton already started with "welfare reform." And you know what happened? They (slugs) had to work to live. I do not see the death toll predicted from the leftists after welfare reform.
Wherever there is a handout, there is laziness. No matter the intention, the people in need will be joined by the people that want a free ride.
So, if you understand that social welfare taxes the productive to support the unproductive or "down on their luck," and that there does exist a group in any population that will be in "poverty" for perpetuity, then you realize that the best government makes policies which encourages business with low taxes, low regulation, sane legal environment (in short, self-reliance and independence) to make paying jobs for all. If you get that far, that the government can never be the benevolent equalizer for all ills, then maturity is upon you and you can escape the gravitrational pull of the Democrat party.
mountainclmbr
Member
I firmly believe that success in business is best achieved with a combination of hard work, great ideas and a sense of morality. I was in Santiago, Chile and other smaller towns in Chile seven years ago. I can tell you that even though the country is heavily Catholic, if you leave anything unwatched for an instant, it will probably be stolen. Government is just as bad. Just because Pinochet tried some little experiment will not change the climate of corruption and uncertainty that permeates society there. Business is corrupt because it is accepted in government and everywhere else.
The "Progressive wing" of the Democratic party, Pelosi and Daschle, have led the party far to the left. If there were more honerable Democrats than just Zell Miller and Joe Liberman then I would consider having some respect for them. But, it isn't so.
The "Progressive wing" of the Democratic party, Pelosi and Daschle, have led the party far to the left. If there were more honerable Democrats than just Zell Miller and Joe Liberman then I would consider having some respect for them. But, it isn't so.
longrifleman
Member
Just finished the article on Lib and Poverty also. The example kinda reminds me of that Kellerman fella and the way he cherry picked the data he used to prove GUNS BAD!!!!
Chile was a dictatorship and by defination couldn't be a libertarian society. There is more to it than a few aspects of the economic system.
But, I also think that a pure libertarian society would be impossible for another reason that isn't discussed even by most detractors and that is there are some people that are just too stupid to make it without help. Not trying to insult anybody but we've all dealt with these people. I'm not talking about willful ignorance but below avg. IQ. In the old days these people could support themselves and a family on the farm or as laborers but that is getting almost impossible today.
Even with the problems with libertariansim I haven't seen a good explanation from the Liberals/Dems/big government whatever types to justify the use of force to re-distribute wealth the way it is done today.
No matter how just the system starts out it won't be long(about five minutes!) before the people in power will use it to reward or punish the people and the entire system will degenerate into a cesspool of corruption.
That is where we are today with the politicians using our own money to buy our votes.
Sorry guys but that is pretty much the entire election strategy of the Democrat party(the Republicans are trying reeeal hard to catch up).
Chile was a dictatorship and by defination couldn't be a libertarian society. There is more to it than a few aspects of the economic system.
But, I also think that a pure libertarian society would be impossible for another reason that isn't discussed even by most detractors and that is there are some people that are just too stupid to make it without help. Not trying to insult anybody but we've all dealt with these people. I'm not talking about willful ignorance but below avg. IQ. In the old days these people could support themselves and a family on the farm or as laborers but that is getting almost impossible today.
Even with the problems with libertariansim I haven't seen a good explanation from the Liberals/Dems/big government whatever types to justify the use of force to re-distribute wealth the way it is done today.
No matter how just the system starts out it won't be long(about five minutes!) before the people in power will use it to reward or punish the people and the entire system will degenerate into a cesspool of corruption.
That is where we are today with the politicians using our own money to buy our votes.
Sorry guys but that is pretty much the entire election strategy of the Democrat party(the Republicans are trying reeeal hard to catch up).
Above 140, 2 languages, never took SAT's, but that means nothing. It's common sense that matters.
Look a the German people, it would be hard to argue that for the whole last century their country was full of barely functional retards, in fact it would be much easier to argue that they were some of the brightest, most intelligent people on the planet, their country was filled to the brim with exceptional thinkers, yet they had NO COMMON SENSE, WWI was stupid, but the setup to WWII, the rights they gave away, the evil that they let permeate their country, the murders committed because they were told that it was all the Jews fault, and that they had a Divine right to conquer Europe.
Your High I.Q. doesn't mean poop, the fact that you would vote for a Democrat shows that you have NO COMMON SENSE.
Last edited:
mountainclmbr
Member
I suppose Microbalrog would prefer the Nazis, they were the National Socialist Party after all. Are they especially bad because they played the class warfare game against the Jews instead of against the working class?
As far as IQ, I worked with a professor in a college research lab who got his PHD in Quantum Physics at the age of 21. He was brilliant in engineering and physics, but he couldn't drive (couldn't remember which traffic light color was supposed to mean what) and couldn't find his way home. His wife delivered him where he needed to be and picked him up. No common sense. I was not as brilliant in quantum physics as he was, but I wouldn't trade places for the world.
As far as Microbalrog and his socialist views..arming the left...etc, I don't understand. I just want to be able to save enough to retire before I die. I don't want to force him to do anything at gunpoint like the way my salary is stolen from me at gunpoint. I have no place better to go to meet my ideals. MB has plenty of repressive, totalitarian, socialist places he could move to meet his ideals. Why does the left want to destroy my freedom? I just don't understand.
As far as IQ, I worked with a professor in a college research lab who got his PHD in Quantum Physics at the age of 21. He was brilliant in engineering and physics, but he couldn't drive (couldn't remember which traffic light color was supposed to mean what) and couldn't find his way home. His wife delivered him where he needed to be and picked him up. No common sense. I was not as brilliant in quantum physics as he was, but I wouldn't trade places for the world.
As far as Microbalrog and his socialist views..arming the left...etc, I don't understand. I just want to be able to save enough to retire before I die. I don't want to force him to do anything at gunpoint like the way my salary is stolen from me at gunpoint. I have no place better to go to meet my ideals. MB has plenty of repressive, totalitarian, socialist places he could move to meet his ideals. Why does the left want to destroy my freedom? I just don't understand.
ksnecktieman
Member
My sister will enter the polling booth, and pull the lever marked Democrat, and walk out. She is convinced that republicans will reduce her standard of living. I think I have some agreement there. ( not with the vote, with the standard of living.) The Democrats have been paying for everything with a credit card. The credit card is near it's limit. The interest is mind boggling.
The republicans try to slow the crash, and the economy suffers. The middle income people feel it the most. To her, anything else is secondary.
When a politician stands in front of us and says he is going to give away more money, and reduce our taxes, he should be shot on the spot. We all know it can NOT happen, but he gets elected anyway. How???? Easy, he convinces everyone that they will be the ones getting benefits, and the other guy will be the one paying more.
I vote one issue. I vote for gun freedom.
I think politicians should be forced to make good on their campaign promises. The courts have decided they do not have to.
There is ONE issue that I consider more important. I would vote for a politician that would convince me he would stop welfare. I do not mean the single mother or the family that we support. I mean the nations that get BILLIONS in foreign aid. I mean the corporations (chrysler, the farmers, and the airlines come to mind,) that we save with federal handouts. If they are not solvent, let them crash.
Shut down foreign aid. Bring all of our soldiers home (they can patrol our borders to keep busy). They can spend our tax dollars we paid them with in our country. We can no longer afford to be the police force and the money supplier for the world.
The republicans try to slow the crash, and the economy suffers. The middle income people feel it the most. To her, anything else is secondary.
When a politician stands in front of us and says he is going to give away more money, and reduce our taxes, he should be shot on the spot. We all know it can NOT happen, but he gets elected anyway. How???? Easy, he convinces everyone that they will be the ones getting benefits, and the other guy will be the one paying more.
I vote one issue. I vote for gun freedom.
I think politicians should be forced to make good on their campaign promises. The courts have decided they do not have to.
There is ONE issue that I consider more important. I would vote for a politician that would convince me he would stop welfare. I do not mean the single mother or the family that we support. I mean the nations that get BILLIONS in foreign aid. I mean the corporations (chrysler, the farmers, and the airlines come to mind,) that we save with federal handouts. If they are not solvent, let them crash.
Shut down foreign aid. Bring all of our soldiers home (they can patrol our borders to keep busy). They can spend our tax dollars we paid them with in our country. We can no longer afford to be the police force and the money supplier for the world.
Mark Tyson
Member
Of course Chile is not a libertarian society - such a society does not exist, that I know of. Chile was used because it is often cited as an example of the economic success of pure free market economic policies(New Zealand is often used as well). The "Chicago boys" heavily influenced Pinochet's economic policies, and they advocated widespread deregulation. I cannot think of a state in which deregulation happened more rapidly.
The point is not to make everyone equal, but to give those on the bottom at least the opportunity to improve their lot. Welfare reform is fine - the system can be made more efficient. However, I think the elimination of the entire social safety net would have an unacceptably adverse affect on the poor. The burden of proof is on the libertarians to show that massive deregulation can produce such prosperity that it will drastically reduce the need for welfare, to the point that private charities can handle most of the burden. They want to do away with all welfare(at least that's what the LP platform says). The libertarian idea is to reduce the taxes that support these programs, which will generate economic growth and jobs.
Given the number of people who depend on some kind of welfare be it housing assistance, food stamps or what have you, I am not convinced that it is possible to generate enough jobs through tax reduction to compensate. Many will have to take multiple jobs, and with few marketable skills, competition for these menial jobs will be fierce. A lot of people who depend on these programs will end up searching for housing, child care, or will have to sacrifice the quality of their food or health care. Child care in particular will suffer in situations where both parents are forced to work (I know, I know - "for the children"). I do not think that wages will rise enough to cover the loss that these families are going to suffer from the elimination of social services. And even for those who manage to find these types of jobs there is little chance of advancement.
Of course there's the other libertarian argument - that it is fundamentally immoral to use taxes to support welfare programs no matter how beneficial they might be.
The point is not to make everyone equal, but to give those on the bottom at least the opportunity to improve their lot. Welfare reform is fine - the system can be made more efficient. However, I think the elimination of the entire social safety net would have an unacceptably adverse affect on the poor. The burden of proof is on the libertarians to show that massive deregulation can produce such prosperity that it will drastically reduce the need for welfare, to the point that private charities can handle most of the burden. They want to do away with all welfare(at least that's what the LP platform says). The libertarian idea is to reduce the taxes that support these programs, which will generate economic growth and jobs.
Given the number of people who depend on some kind of welfare be it housing assistance, food stamps or what have you, I am not convinced that it is possible to generate enough jobs through tax reduction to compensate. Many will have to take multiple jobs, and with few marketable skills, competition for these menial jobs will be fierce. A lot of people who depend on these programs will end up searching for housing, child care, or will have to sacrifice the quality of their food or health care. Child care in particular will suffer in situations where both parents are forced to work (I know, I know - "for the children"). I do not think that wages will rise enough to cover the loss that these families are going to suffer from the elimination of social services. And even for those who manage to find these types of jobs there is little chance of advancement.
Of course there's the other libertarian argument - that it is fundamentally immoral to use taxes to support welfare programs no matter how beneficial they might be.
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
Mark
First, I believe that your concern for the poor is heartfelt and sincere. You are a true humanitarian in that respect. I refuse to call it misguided and I will not judge. This is your life and I do not want to impose my value system on others.
Second, with respect to the safety net. Yes, the LP platform does abolish welfare. I admit that it is for the greater good that some very targeted safety net is necessary. We have indigents, mental patients, the retarded, and the unemployable (definition issue here
). We may also have people in transient unemployment. These are the "human side" of the libertarian question. What is to become of the "truly" needy? I admit that MY concern is not for the "truly needy" but for the protection of people and property.
I guess it depends on whether you believe your duty is to help poor people or whether you believe that some entity must force most people to help the poor. I believe that Americans will donate to charities and other private concerns which will fill the void. Government involvement may be necessary to wean the masses, but it must be turned over to a private concern at some point for accountability. Our current political system rewards the raiders and punishes the good.
First, I believe that your concern for the poor is heartfelt and sincere. You are a true humanitarian in that respect. I refuse to call it misguided and I will not judge. This is your life and I do not want to impose my value system on others.
Second, with respect to the safety net. Yes, the LP platform does abolish welfare. I admit that it is for the greater good that some very targeted safety net is necessary. We have indigents, mental patients, the retarded, and the unemployable (definition issue here
). We may also have people in transient unemployment. These are the "human side" of the libertarian question. What is to become of the "truly" needy? I admit that MY concern is not for the "truly needy" but for the protection of people and property. I guess it depends on whether you believe your duty is to help poor people or whether you believe that some entity must force most people to help the poor. I believe that Americans will donate to charities and other private concerns which will fill the void. Government involvement may be necessary to wean the masses, but it must be turned over to a private concern at some point for accountability. Our current political system rewards the raiders and punishes the good.
What I love about lefty's and Chile is that they can't make up their mind! Some argue that it is a failure because of free markets, others argue that it is a success because it isn't as free a market as Libertarians claim. Make up your minds... There was a recent piece in the Washington Post by a Lefty who argued that Chile was succesful because they had slapped on more regulations than surrounding nations. Sheesh!
The problem with Mr. Loo is that he is either lying about, or tragically ignorant of the situation in Chile. On suspects a little ax-grinding no?
There was a recent piece in the Washington Post by a Lefty who argued that Chile was succesful because they had slapped on more regulations than surrounding nations. Sheesh!The problem with Mr. Loo is that he is either lying about, or tragically ignorant of the situation in Chile. On suspects a little ax-grinding no?
GoRon
Member
A very good friend of mine has a higher IQ than that, but little character.
You could say that he is an idiot, he doesn't have the character to stick with a job and provide for his family.
I have another acquaintance who has a real high IQ but treats everyone around him with contempt. He is an idiot.
mountainclmbr
Member
When I was in high school, a friend's father ran an orange grove service business. He would hire the labor to pick the fruit and to do maintenance during the off season. I was told that almost none of the workers gave their proper name or their correct SSN. The reason???? They were also collecting unemployment and food stamps. They would be ineligible if they were found to be working. Some also were being investigated because they were also collecting disability for a contrived injury (four sources of income and driving better cars than my parents who both have masters degrees).
The Democrats do not attempt to stop the fraud. They are buying votes to overcome the votes of people who work and who would not pee on a Democrat if they were on fire.
The Democrats are the party of trial lawyers and defense attorneys so their emotional stories are predictable.
If any Democrats are disappointed with Bush...contact me. I will provide health care for you and drug benefits and anything else you want. I promise to provide $.25 on every dollar you pay. More than you get now. I will provide protection for you so that you don't hurt someone with a self-protection gun. I just won't be held liable if I don't show up. I will charge you a lot of money and give you little back. I will be your Democrat authoritarian government. Vote for mountainclmbr for commandant of the 1/2 of society that wants to be controlled. Crack, crack!!! I have the whip ready!
Microbalrog!!! Give me 50 pushups or you get no food!!!
So guys...how's that for an authoritarian Democrat attitude???
I got the Demo'tude!! Cross me and get squashed under my boot!!!
The Democrats do not attempt to stop the fraud. They are buying votes to overcome the votes of people who work and who would not pee on a Democrat if they were on fire.
The Democrats are the party of trial lawyers and defense attorneys so their emotional stories are predictable.
If any Democrats are disappointed with Bush...contact me. I will provide health care for you and drug benefits and anything else you want. I promise to provide $.25 on every dollar you pay. More than you get now. I will provide protection for you so that you don't hurt someone with a self-protection gun. I just won't be held liable if I don't show up. I will charge you a lot of money and give you little back. I will be your Democrat authoritarian government. Vote for mountainclmbr for commandant of the 1/2 of society that wants to be controlled. Crack, crack!!! I have the whip ready!
Microbalrog!!! Give me 50 pushups or you get no food!!!
So guys...how's that for an authoritarian Democrat attitude???
I got the Demo'tude!! Cross me and get squashed under my boot!!!
HBK
member
That sounds about like a good Democrat. Those are their true colors.
To address Tyson's sig:
Libertarians and Poverty, by Dennis Loo
It basically boils down to 2 things.
1. Takes things that socialism does, and reveals that in a capitalist government these things would not be done (wealth redistribution).
2. Speculates on catastrophic breakdown if wealth were not redistributed, and if people could form free associations.
From point 2, points out that failure to redistribute wealth makes a "system" bad.
There is much repetition of this, which is generally sufficient to establish "fact" in the mind of the non-critical reader.
From point 1, article points out that Capitalism, with its failure to coercively confiscate wealth, is not socialism. Ergo, capitalism is bad. This is the crux of the argument.
Libertarians and Poverty, by Dennis Loo
It basically boils down to 2 things.
1. Takes things that socialism does, and reveals that in a capitalist government these things would not be done (wealth redistribution).
2. Speculates on catastrophic breakdown if wealth were not redistributed, and if people could form free associations.
From point 2, points out that failure to redistribute wealth makes a "system" bad.
There is much repetition of this, which is generally sufficient to establish "fact" in the mind of the non-critical reader.
From point 1, article points out that Capitalism, with its failure to coercively confiscate wealth, is not socialism. Ergo, capitalism is bad. This is the crux of the argument.
Funny that out of all places to write social commentary, it’s on a gun forum …but here goes anyways...
Redistribution of wealth is nothing short of communism. Helping people in poverty should be the work of charities and should be voluntary, not mandatory. America is based on equal opportunity, not equal outcome. By saying that the rich need to help the poor is nothing more than an attempt to equalize earnings via government redistribution. The same principle applied to income taxes translates to the richer losing a greater percentage than the poor. How does this make sense? Why should someone be penalized because they are making more money? Why should one man’s dollar be worth less than another mans’? Usually higher income is correlated with higher education (I said most of the time, not always), so then those who stuck with school, got higher degrees and even advanced degrees should be penalized and be forced to support those who did not? The argument that the poor would suffer if true Libertarian principles were put into place is one of emotion, and government should be void of emotion. (Not void of morals, mind you, but emotion in the sense that they should take pity or sympathy on the poor, etc) Those who are poor are usually that way because they decided that school wasn’t for them, that they would rather get their GEDs or drop out of high school completely and go into a labor-intensive low skill job. They CHOSE that path for themselves, no one held them at gun-point and made them do it. Now, as the years go by and they find that their particular job has little room for advancement, and that they need more income to support whatever it is they do, they go to the government, and being the sympathetic and benevolent institution that they are, they give them aid….out of OUR pockets. That is LUNACY! People are not complaining about out-sourcing, or that it’s the government’s job to create more jobs when in fact it should be, or have been, the individual’s responsibility to have secured a future for themselves. America doesn’t need people sewing buttons onto shirts for minimum wage. Send that over to Mexico or India and let them do it for lower costs reaping us, the consumers, the benefits of lower costs for our goods. Sure, more and more “white-collared†jobs are being outsourced as well, but remember that the economy is in the upswing and jobs are the last thing to come back. Then the Dem’s make the argument about the poor families who are not able to subsist on minimum wage…HELLO?! That is due to poor family planning! As responsible people, they should have thought things through, and realized that with their earnings, they cannot support children, and so they should not have any. Deciding to have children anyways because they are something you “want†and expecting government aid is like me “wanting†a new car and expecting the government to help out with that too! My take on Libertarian party views is that everyone is ultimately responsible for themselves. DO NOT expect anyone to give you a hand out. If YOU want things in life, YOU take the initiative, YOU put in the hard work, and YOU ultimately make it happen. Now, I am fortunate enough to have parents who do everything in their power to make sure my brother and I are comfortable, and they will support us as long as they can (At least until we finish out undergraduate work). They came to this country some 30 yrs ago penniless, with high-school equivalent education, and within 10yrs or so owned their own business, had a house, and started a family. They made it happen through hard work, saving, and smart decision making. Even with nearly a 6-figure income between the 4 of us there have been some rough times, but we managed. Now, how can a couple who each earn minimum wage EVER hope to support children, let alone several of them? It is not the government’s responsibility to clean up after your mistakes. I know this sounds like social Darwinism, and to be honest, it somewhat is. I mean, it’s nothing more than a meritocracy, where everyone has the chance at upward mobility, but not everyone is guaranteed it. And why should you? If you aren’t willing to sacrifice, then you should not be entitled to any reward...plain and simple.
Ok, enough ranting…now back to our regularly scheduled programming....
…but here goes anyways...Redistribution of wealth is nothing short of communism. Helping people in poverty should be the work of charities and should be voluntary, not mandatory. America is based on equal opportunity, not equal outcome. By saying that the rich need to help the poor is nothing more than an attempt to equalize earnings via government redistribution. The same principle applied to income taxes translates to the richer losing a greater percentage than the poor. How does this make sense? Why should someone be penalized because they are making more money? Why should one man’s dollar be worth less than another mans’? Usually higher income is correlated with higher education (I said most of the time, not always), so then those who stuck with school, got higher degrees and even advanced degrees should be penalized and be forced to support those who did not? The argument that the poor would suffer if true Libertarian principles were put into place is one of emotion, and government should be void of emotion. (Not void of morals, mind you, but emotion in the sense that they should take pity or sympathy on the poor, etc) Those who are poor are usually that way because they decided that school wasn’t for them, that they would rather get their GEDs or drop out of high school completely and go into a labor-intensive low skill job. They CHOSE that path for themselves, no one held them at gun-point and made them do it. Now, as the years go by and they find that their particular job has little room for advancement, and that they need more income to support whatever it is they do, they go to the government, and being the sympathetic and benevolent institution that they are, they give them aid….out of OUR pockets. That is LUNACY! People are not complaining about out-sourcing, or that it’s the government’s job to create more jobs when in fact it should be, or have been, the individual’s responsibility to have secured a future for themselves. America doesn’t need people sewing buttons onto shirts for minimum wage. Send that over to Mexico or India and let them do it for lower costs reaping us, the consumers, the benefits of lower costs for our goods. Sure, more and more “white-collared†jobs are being outsourced as well, but remember that the economy is in the upswing and jobs are the last thing to come back. Then the Dem’s make the argument about the poor families who are not able to subsist on minimum wage…HELLO?! That is due to poor family planning! As responsible people, they should have thought things through, and realized that with their earnings, they cannot support children, and so they should not have any. Deciding to have children anyways because they are something you “want†and expecting government aid is like me “wanting†a new car and expecting the government to help out with that too! My take on Libertarian party views is that everyone is ultimately responsible for themselves. DO NOT expect anyone to give you a hand out. If YOU want things in life, YOU take the initiative, YOU put in the hard work, and YOU ultimately make it happen. Now, I am fortunate enough to have parents who do everything in their power to make sure my brother and I are comfortable, and they will support us as long as they can (At least until we finish out undergraduate work). They came to this country some 30 yrs ago penniless, with high-school equivalent education, and within 10yrs or so owned their own business, had a house, and started a family. They made it happen through hard work, saving, and smart decision making. Even with nearly a 6-figure income between the 4 of us there have been some rough times, but we managed. Now, how can a couple who each earn minimum wage EVER hope to support children, let alone several of them? It is not the government’s responsibility to clean up after your mistakes. I know this sounds like social Darwinism, and to be honest, it somewhat is. I mean, it’s nothing more than a meritocracy, where everyone has the chance at upward mobility, but not everyone is guaranteed it. And why should you? If you aren’t willing to sacrifice, then you should not be entitled to any reward...plain and simple.
Ok, enough ranting…now back to our regularly scheduled programming....
Black Snowman
Member
Like that madman Clinton. More military deployments under him than any other President in history. His medling where we didn't belong got a lot of good soldiers killed and lot of foreigners angry. Bush has done more to make the world safe for Americans and stabilize global politics than any other President since Vietnam.
Here's a good article on the subject: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200403050842.asp
And the thread I found it in: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=69658
StrDog
Member
On Intelignece
my grandmother said it best:
Education cures ignorance, not stupidity!"
She had a Harvard PHD son-in-law.
my grandmother said it best:
Education cures ignorance, not stupidity!"
She had a Harvard PHD son-in-law.
Mark Tyson,
<offers olive branch>
Chile did not have a free market economy. It had an oligarchy in which those who took wealth by violence kept it by violence. A Ferris wheel is not an octopus no matter the few cosmetic similarities.
Both our positions are based in moral indignation -- mine at someone taking property by force and yours at the plight of the poor. Thus our earlier clash. <offers second olive branch>
The Libertarian position need not violate either moral principle. It is possible to help the poor without taking money by force.
The Democratic position of wealth redistribution requires violating another moral principle.
Will you admit that?
Will you explain to me how a moral principle can be … well … moral if it requires its followers to violate other moral principles?
<offers olive branch>
Chile did not have a free market economy. It had an oligarchy in which those who took wealth by violence kept it by violence. A Ferris wheel is not an octopus no matter the few cosmetic similarities.
Both our positions are based in moral indignation -- mine at someone taking property by force and yours at the plight of the poor. Thus our earlier clash. <offers second olive branch>
The Libertarian position need not violate either moral principle. It is possible to help the poor without taking money by force.
The Democratic position of wealth redistribution requires violating another moral principle.
Will you admit that?
Will you explain to me how a moral principle can be … well … moral if it requires its followers to violate other moral principles?
- Status
