What you stated, was stated as a definitive, not simply as an opinion.The very concept of something being "out of control" is inherently an opinion. So I have no idea what you are talking about.
I have already answered your question....And how much do you believe is enough to "project our power?" Is giving a number really that difficult for you to do?
Yeah, it most definitely is.That has nothing to do with that part of the discussion.
:lamoRanting about your ideology is exactly what you are doing. You have a lot of cajones to criticize someone else for promoting their own ideology (isn't that the point of Debate Politics, anyways?)
Let's suppose that slavery was legal in Saudi Arabia. And let's suppose King Abdullah purchased slaves in Saudi Arabia, came to live in the United States, and brought his slaves with him. In the United States, King Abdullah cannot claim those persons to be his property, because the 13th amendment says that slavery does not exist in the United States.
Dishonest argument. Not even comparable.
Which isn't true , and why your ideology is stupid.
Yeah, it is.
You haven't proven it isn't. :lamo
You haven't proven your claims at all. All you have done is provide bs opinions.
Yes it is counter to ownership. That stands regardless of your beliefs.
It isn't common wealth. That is your fault for identifying it as such.
Really?I'm sorry you cannot see how it destroys your argument that ownership is always a moral good.
iLOLYou are debating like a ten year old.
No you didn't.No, it isn't. I proved it with a link in the other thread.
:lamo :doh :lamoI have given a clear example of why it is bad. If you want more examples then here you go.
No, you provided bs opinion.I provide links and studies. You have provided nothing but an overabundance of emoticons
Nough said.It runs counter to PRIVATE ownership.
I do not care what they made up. They are irrelevant as the ideology is idiotic.Common wealth or common property has been identified by economists/political thinkers including Adam Smith, Roderick T Long, JS Mill, etc. It is not something I made up.
Really?
You sectioned it off to reply to it separately when you know damn well is was stated again in with what was said above.
It applies to that.
There is no theft.
Your comparison was :doh
So again, as already stated.
They are profiting. That is a good thing. They also risk losing and do lose.
That should not be discouraged.
Way not to recognize it in context of what was said.
What you stated, was stated as a definitive, not simply as an opinion.
Example: Initial statement.
As I stated in reply; No it doesn't."When you spend more on defense than the next ten nations COMBINED then something needs to change."
I have already answered your question.
It like you do not realize that the amount is constantly in flux. Duh!
The way it is is not my ideology.
And you were wrong then as you are now.I have responded to the bolded portion. I am not going to repeat myself.
Au contraire. You are wrong because you are wrong.Give me a break. :roll: Anyone could tell you that was a statement of opinion. You do the same exact thing with your, "NO YOUR WRONG! BS! ETC."
Yes do move on. My reply was sufficient.Lol, I never said that dollar amount has to be fixed. But I can see you aren't going to give me a ballpark figure so I'm going to move on.
You really have no clue. Anyone can tell you how it is. Defending the status quo IS your ideology.
i am going to use your example and show why you are wrong.
the 13th amendment to the constitution has 2 clauses, the 1st making a general statement, stating that slavery shall not exist in the u.s.....this statement has no power to do anything.....its mute.
it is clause 2 that has the power..."Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
if the king were to come to america with slaves, and the congress or a state has NOT enacted a law against slavery, you cannot touch the king and his property......because no law has been created, to make slavery illegal, it takes criminal law to make slavery a crime.
the 13th amendment with its 1st clause has no power to do anything to a person, it takes legislation from the 2nd clause.....to back up the 1st clause....
which is why the 13th amendment does not apply to people.....it is federal law which is authorized by the 2nd clause that applies to people........."federal criminal law".
The point is that they are not his property in the United States. Property ownership involves demonstrating proof of ownership to the local sovereign. And that's not possible in the United States because the 13th amendment has made an absolute declaration that slavery does not exist. As a result, the King cannot claim that slaves to be his property in the United States and he can be prosecuted for violations of criminal statutes such as forced labor.
you just stated prosecuted under criminal statutes......that is what the 2nd clause of the 13th authorizes congress to create on the issue of slavery........federal laws....IE. federal statutes
so a person does not adhere to constitutional law.....they adhere to federal law........prosecuted by federal statutes.
the 13th does not apply to citizens, federal law applies to citizens, you cannot use constitutional law to arrest and try people in court.
You missed the part about not being able to claim slaves as property. That is a direct result of the 13th amendment.
without federal law......no one can take action.
The action of the 13th amendment is that as soon as someone sets foot on US territory, they cannot claim that another human being is their property.
you cannot do anything to anyone, unless it is by federal law, constitutional law does not give government authority to arrest and try a citizen, it must be federal law.
constitutional law does not apply to citizens.
You may want anything you wish. You are a statist if you demand that politicians coerce your company into firing you over your idiotic belief that you are worth 3% more. And statists tend to be Marxists no matter how much they try to hide it.I think his writings are a product of his time. The exploitation is still there. Today your are labeled a communist for wanting a 3% performance raise. The labor laws are better now in the UK and USA though.
Spoken like a true statist.Spoken like a true SS blood hound.
...
Regulation is our friend. We need more regulation, not less.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with capitalism.When I was young I was brainwashed to believe that what Marx put forward was the most evil thing on the planet. I was very surprised when I got older and started to learn about it a bit more. I find that the Marxist take on capitalism is for the most part accurate.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with capitalism.
Crony capitalism is not capitalism. It is statism.
Massive regulations that damage our souls is not capitalism. It is statism.
If you are younger than 50 you might not have ever seen capitalism.
Again, the application of the 13th ammendment to citizens is that it immediately takes away their ability to claim that someone else is their slave on American soil.
without a federal statute created by clause 2, you cannot take action against a citizen using clause 1
the constitution grants congress the power to punish counterfeiting, however if congress creates NO federal statue for counterfeiting the government can do nothing.
Let the revolution come.While the US economy isn't doing so well, many third world economies are doing great, so capitalism as a concept is still validated from what I can tell.
However, I do foresee the next big crisis in capitalism is how to keep the population employed and their minds off revolution. Folks who are out competed don't simply go away and I think we are going to increasingly find that we need to find something for them to do. Our current solution, dubbed as welfare, doesn't really do all that great in preserving the dignity and pride in those who are being helped and because it underminds their spirits, its harm long term viability for short term gain. I think we are going to have to find a new method which doesn't leave people to starve or too desperate yet strikes a balance with the needs of a greater society. If we can't, we will consume ourselves as a country.
I am not exactly sure social democracy is the answer or at least some aspects of need to be rethought given the lessons in human nature we have learned over the last fourty years.
That was amazing. Can you also pull a rabbit out of your hat?Here a link to the Madison citation:
The Federalist No. 10
These are the sections relevant to this discussion, all numerals and emphasis added:
(1) Here it is obvious that by "democracy" Madison means what in modern parlance is termed "oligarchy".
(2) Here Madison discredits universal suffrage. This and slavery were where he and the rest of the early US leadership fell most short of modern democratic practice and ideals.
(3ABC) Here it is obvious that Madison used the term "republic" to mean what in modern parlance is termed "democracy".
Ergo Madison might be termed hostile to what we term democracy on the basis of his views on suffrage, but not on the basis of his views on the core democratic principle of elective representation. Madison supported democratic government.
This simply shows the weakness of the liberal mind.No one has seen capitalism. It is only an abstraction.
There is nothing amazing about accurate reading comprehension and accurate critical thinking. Try them sometime.That was amazing. Can you also pull a rabbit out of your hat?
Democracy bad. Representative republic good.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?