Your viewpoint is stupid and historically uninformed and should be grounds for deportation. This country was founded on the concept of individual liberty because it did not exist anywhere else on earth and yet it is the natural state of man. The US ought to remain the one place on earth where the individual is essentially left free to pursue happiness without being immolated by the greedy selfish mob surrounding him.
It always makes me sad when I see these comments about US freedoms. Coming from a country which has such strict laws on alcohol and drugs and has something like the Patriot Act in action, it kind of sounds hollow.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Tyrian For This Useful Post:
Actually, if you state everyone on the island has the right to be happy, it would be the obligation of that one person to make himself happy.
The point is that, such rights should be formulated, when society as a whole would become better off.
And I think this is where Liberals and Conservatives clash. A society is made up of interdependent individuals, so there will always be a clash between individualists and collectivists. The end goals are of course, ultimately two sides of the same coin, but the world view and means in which the ends are reached leaves much room for conflict.
Conservatives believe in voluntary charity while Liberals believe in a democratic government run centralization of efforts. Each has its upside and downside. This is why I believe cooperation in the key element. Neither side can afford to live along side their neighbor with an all-or-nothing attitude and/or refusal to understand the good intentions on the other side of the fence.
What I find most troubling in this entire conversation is that so many people do not think there should be limitations placed upon a society's ability to constrain and exploit the individuals living in that society. It's absolutely foreign to me that people argue passionately in favor of increased government burden on and regulation of everyday life. It's alarming in the extreme that so many people want to expand the size and scope of a gigantic and largely unaccountable faceless entity to the point that it literally holds the power of life and death over every meek and powerless individual.
I am not a wealthy man by any stretch of the imagination (I ride a CBR250R after all) so I am not arguing from the point of view of the so-called "one percent". I'm not even in the top 20%. However I am appalled at the outright contempt for the basic human rights being displayed by people in this forum and their eager willingness to devour their fellow citizens in order to advance their narrow selfish interests. Once upon a time in America, it was accepted that the way to get yourself ahead was to...get yourself ahead. Now, getting ahead means grabbing onto the other guy, dragging him to the ground, beating him senseless, and taking everything he has.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to HMenke For This Useful Post:
And I think this is where Liberals and Conservatives clash. A society is made up of interdependent individuals, so there will always be a clash between individualists and collectivists. The end goals are of course, ultimately two sides of the same coin, but the world view and means in which the ends are reached leaves much room for conflict.
Conservatives believe in voluntary charity while Liberals believe in a democratic government run centralization of efforts. Each has its upside and downside. This is why I believe cooperation in the key element. Neither side can afford to live along side their neighbor with an all-or-nothing attitude and/or refusal to understand the good intentions on the other side of the fence.
Well, I think that's a bit too easily stated. Perhaps in a polarized society like the US that is the case. The popularity of Ayn Rand in the Republican Party is, in my opinion, something to worry about. Is it really desireable to have a society of the successful living in gated communities with a large number of poor people barely scraping their lives together? Success should be rewarded, yes. But should having a poor descent be punished?
I've already stated I'm for a more mixed form. I think it would be better if there still remain some centrally organized forms of charity or other attempts to solve some of the collective action problems. Apart from that, I'm all in favor for more solutions that focus far more around the community solving problems - the government should just help and stimulate to organize it. Rand's nihilistic view, far too prominent among conservatives these days, will mean the end of society and the end of a sustainable republic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMenke
What I find most troubling in this entire conversation is that so many people do not think there should be limitations placed upon a society's ability to constrain and exploit the individuals living in that society. It's absolutely foreign to me that people argue passionately in favor of increased government burden on and regulation of everyday life. It's alarming in the extreme that so many people want to expand the size and scope of a gigantic and largely unaccountable faceless entity to the point that it literally holds the power of life and death over every meek and powerless individual.
I am not a wealthy man by any stretch of the imagination (I ride a CBR250R after all) so I am not arguing from the point of view of the so-called "one percent". I'm not even in the top 20%. However I am appalled at the outright contempt for the basic human rights being displayed by people in this forum and their eager willingness to devour their fellow citizens in order to advance their narrow selfish interests. Once upon a time in America, it was accepted that the way to get yourself ahead was to...get yourself ahead. Now, getting ahead means grabbing onto the other guy, dragging him to the ground, beating him senseless, and taking everything he has.
You distill wrong conclusions out of what I say. In my own country, I'd like to see less government. I think there should be a balance. You talk about exploiting by government. I don't really see it this way. I don't see what's wrong with organizing something which is a humanitarian question by government, because it would else have inhuman results. Obamacare is basically extending medicare to the whole of the populace. Are you against Medicare? Do you feel less free because of Medicare?
Last edited by Tyrian; 11-20-2012 at 12:53 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Tyrian For This Useful Post:
What I find most troubling in this entire conversation is that so many people do not think there should be limitations placed upon a society's ability to constrain and exploit the individuals living in that society. It's absolutely foreign to me that people argue passionately in favor of increased government burden on and regulation of everyday life. It's alarming in the extreme that so many people want to expand the size and scope of a gigantic and largely unaccountable faceless entity to the point that it literally holds the power of life and death over every meek and powerless individual.
I am not a wealthy man by any stretch of the imagination (I ride a CBR250R after all) so I am not arguing from the point of view of the so-called "one percent". I'm not even in the top 20%. However I am appalled at the outright contempt for the basic human rights being displayed by people in this forum and their eager willingness to devour their fellow citizens in order to advance their narrow selfish interests. Once upon a time in America, it was accepted that the way to get yourself ahead was to...get yourself ahead. Now, getting ahead means grabbing onto the other guy, dragging him to the ground, beating him senseless, and taking everything he has.
I sympathize with your frustration. The only advice I can give is to try and understand that it's all people have known growing up, so there's the assumption that it's "just how things are". Change will come. Though small, the Libertarian party is the fastest growing in the US. It was too hard to watch Ron Paul and not say to yourself "It just makes so much ******************** sense!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrian
Well, I think that's a bit too easily stated. Perhaps in a polarized society like the US that is the case. The popularity of Ayn Rand in the Republican Party is, in my opinion, something to worry about. Is it really desireable to have a society of the successful living in gated communities with a large number of poor people barely scraping their lives together? Success should be rewarded, yes. But should having a poor descent be punished?
I've already stated I'm for a more mixed form. I think it would be better if there still remain some centrally organized forms of charity or other attempts to solve some of the collective action problems. Apart from that, I'm all in favor for more solutions that focus far more around the community solving problems - the government should just help and stimulate to organize it. Rand's nihilistic view, far too prominent among conservatives these days, will mean the end of society and the end of a sustainable republic.
In defense of Ayn Rand (as unpopular as such a notion is) there's something to be said for a populous that allows said tyranny to occur, be in the form of government or business. I'm not a reactionary conservative that makes counter arguments on behalf of big business. If a business is strangling a community, boycott it, by all means. Market control should be up to the resolve of the consumer, not regulation, IMO. I'd go as far as to say there wouldn't be monopolies if it weren't for regulation. The problem is when people ask the government to save them from themselves. They're not your parents; you have to do that on your own.
As for the second paragraph you typed, I agree with all of it. I wish there were more people like you in the US.
__________________
C'mon, sko sko sko!
Last edited by Rusty Shackleford; 11-20-2012 at 01:17 PM.
Its a right afforded to you by being a part of the group/clan/community/country that you live in.
you can always exercise your right to leave.
Not sure you're going to find many countries around the world that don't tax their citizens... not any that you'd want to live in anyhow.
Side note,
you say that socialism has failed in the US,
Didn't a capitalist country rack up the national debt?
maybe it really is time for the UK to revoke the US's independence...
You do NOT have a right to whatever would make you happy. You DO have a right to pursue happiness. You have a right to what's yours, and I have a right to what's mine. What is so hard about that to understand?
I want a CBR500R; I don't have the right to take one, but I do have the right to pursue one, and purchase it with my own money.
The US economy was gutted by two things; corporatism, and monetary policy.
I don't see what's wrong with organizing something which is a humanitarian question by government, because it would else have inhuman results. Obamacare is basically extending medicare to the whole of the populace. Are you against Medicare? Do you feel less free because of Medicare?
Yes, absolutely I feel less free because of Medicare. Had I been able to invest the payroll deduction (my employee portion and the portion paid by my employer as a cost of hiring me) throughout my working life, I would have saved more than enough money to provide for my own medical insurance needs in the future. With Medicare, however, my medical security during retirement is largely out of my hands. Like everyone else who is not sufficiently wealthy to be self-insured, I am at the mercy of the increasingly fragile federal budget - which is chronically in deficit. And, I'm on the wrong side of political demographics...when push comes to shove (and it will), the numerous young will politically abandon the needs of the less numerous old. "Here's a pain pill, old man. And if you don't like that, here's a machine to help you commit suicide." Medicare creates a level of coverage risk that I am not at all happy about. And now with Obamacare, we will introduce the same level of coverage risk before I can even reach retirement.
Here's the essential difference between you and me: you feel safer and more secure knowing that - should you find yourself with a personal need that you are unable to satisfy (food, housing, medical care, contraception, abortion, child care, cell phone, education, transportation, retirement income, etc.) - you and your friends can just go down to your wealthy neighbor's house as a group, kick his door in, and help yourself to as much of his property as you feel like taking. I realize that such looting feels good when "everybody's doing it" and you have convinced yourself that A) you deserve it and B) the guy who it actually belongs to is an evil, "selfish" jerk who ought to be punched in the face for his arrogance.
I, on the other hand, feel profoundly insecure living in such a society. First of all, I'm afraid that one day it could be my door that you come knocking on. Beyond that, I am absolutely appalled by the moral poverty of humanity that would think and act this way. Even if I found myself in profound need, I would not feel justified in so brazenly and forcefully taking property from my fellow humans. I would much prefer to appeal to their sense of charity and simply ask them for their voluntary assistance. And when I am not in need, I am repulsed by the sight of people joyously breaking into my neighbors' homes and ruthlessly stealing their hard-earned property from them as they spit upon their faces upon entering and leaving. It's a level of social barbarism that I can never accept.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to HMenke For This Useful Post:
HMenke is exactly right; though his analogy is graphic, it is accurate. The extra income people are taxed, would allow them to look after themselves.
Government in any industry will always force prices up, because government is not a rational participant in the marketplace; it has no interest in conserving funds, it can always tax more, or borrow against future taxes. If all else fails, it can debase the currency and inflate its problems away.
Let me play out a scenario for you. If the government wanted to distribute bread, you can bet that each loaf would be costing the government many multiples of its worth. As the government buys more and more bread, it begins to price rational actors (private interests) out of the market entirely, until at last it has a monopoly on the distribution of bread.
The government would, naturally, assume a partnership with large corporations for the delivery of the governments bread. Whatever the government buys, it tends to regulate. Usually the big corporations in bed with the government co-write the regulations, and aim them squarely at their smaller competition. Small bakeries would go out of business because they cannot comply with the new regulations, and the price of ingredients would become too high to bear; small bakeries wouldn't be receiving ultra lucrative government contracts, and would have to compete for ingredients with corporations that were.
This entails expense to the people through taxes to pay for the bread, as well as damage to the economy. It would also bring huge profits for whatever interests there are in bread.
The government would then turn around and sell its bread at well below the original market value, or simply give it away, in which case bread would become over consumed, and there would be a shortage of bread. Of course, the government could price the bread at cost, but then rational actors (you and I) would buy something else.
This is corporatism, the merger of government and corporate power, and it's a good deal of what is destroying the economy. Can progressives now see why when government takes charge of something, the costs go up, and the availability goes down?
For those of you who are essentially new to the topic of free market economics, you could do a lot worse than to become familiar with the writings and statements of Milton Friedman. The wiki article is actually a pretty decent introduction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milton Friedman
The proper role of government is to prevent other people from harming an individual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milton Friedman
A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.
