what type of conservative are you?

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Oh WHAT? Raising taxes will kill the economy? That is based on the assumption that your typical business owner doesn't know a ****ing thing about economics!!!
Raising taxes will not kill the economy, issuing so much debt that it becomes nearly impossible to finance a company due to interest rates will kill the ****ing economy. Or did you forget that the United States issues debt on the exact same ****ing market that businesses issue debt? Hmmm?

Where do you think money comes from? Do you think Bush has tapped into some magic money fairy who gives him a ****ing blank check every year? REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT HE TAXES FOR IT, HE'S STILL SPENDING OUR MONEY!

Now it is true, in certain circumstances deficit spending is good, since it can have the trickle down effect that you for some reason assume works all the ******* time, but once we reach the point when we're borrowing well over half of the money up to be borrowed in the ****ing world we've got a PROBLEM!
You know where the idea of unlimited deficit spending comes from? John Meynard Keynes, the flaming sissy ****** liberal economist that also led to the creation of such economic turds as the Philip's curve. If you were a conservative AT ALL you would understand that high taxes is a problem, but not NEARLY as big of a problem as unrestrained spending!

The debt will need to be paid off at some point, and thus at some point we will need a budget surplus, and it is plain and simple ****ing ridiculous that in the last election we had two dipshits arguing over who could cut the deficit in half in five years!! And the fact that you think that raising TAXES will kill business? NO, BUSH'S SPENDING will kill business. The weakness of the dollar and the decreasing amounts of faith in US Treasury Bonds will kill business.

I thought conservatives were about fiscal responsibility, but hell, I guess I'm not a conservative then.

Did I ever say that the deficit was a good thing? No, what I said was is that it's necessary to pay for the war effort, the only other way to pay for it is to increase taxes which will, if not kill the economy, kill growth in the economy, and how the **** am I supposed to ****ing understand a ****ing ******* **** eating mother ****ing word that you're ****ing saying when you have these ****ing **** ******* **** things all over the place, **** ****.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Sorry if I'm a bit late.

There's that ambiguous equivocation again. "People" will decide things under your economic system, not the "government." They are one and the same in this context! How the hell will "people" decide ANYTHING if there's no forum to vote, with clearly defined rules?

As I said before, common-planning.

That's not how economics works. If Acme Technological Progress has 1,000 workers, then it's benefitting society a certain amount. Now if *I* join Acme Technological Progress too, the benefit to society (and therefore myself) will be only 0.1% greater. This doesn't even come close to the benefit to myself of having much more free time every day.

As said before "From each according to his abilties, to each according to his needs." Your benifit will not equal .1% because of how many people there are, but on what you need.

You assume that someone will do everything just because it "needs" to be done.

If it needs to be done, then it should be planned to do so practically. Not someone do everything, ALL do everything.

Why would anyone clean **** out of the sewers

Because it needs to be done.

Then you're talking about government. You can avoid that word all you want, but "devised locally, but also for larger areas if needed" shows EXACTLY what you're talking about.

The state in its CURRENT form disappears, such as military. Plans do equal authority, but as said it will be devised by the people, adhering to the needs of the local area. Also authority doesn't equal govt.

Right, because "the people" (but not government) will decide whether or not someone is working hard enough

Not working hard enough, this isn't capitalism where a worker is expected to work as hard as he can. In communism all must do what is needed if you've done your part, more shouldn't be expected from you.

Will there be some kind of rule to figure this out (but not a "law," of course) or will you have to assemble every single person in the community to vote on whether or not each person has contributed enough?

That is quite possible, but adhering to what is needed, if one has filled his/her obligations to what is needed, no action is needed, if one does some but not all, some benifits will have been dropped, contribute less to society, and society will take less care of you. If one works not at all, everything will be virtually cut, but I personally would still have it be minimal needs, as in some food, water, clothing, housing to survive, but not necissarily a lot or good condition.

Compare Hong Kong to China proper.

I would say Hong Kong in general is doing better than the rest of China.

So you're pro-free-trade? Certainly odd for a communist.

I think you misunderstood, the US is the wealthiest country, also if you don't trade with it your economy has a habit of not being better off, but ther economy worsened with their largest trading partner having their country collapse(USSR). I consider myself anti-Free Trade, as it has a habit of taking large amount of goods out of poorer countries and only recieves minimal benifits.

Yes, everyone is about equally poor.

Yes, but if all are almost as equally poor, that means the wealth in the country is distributed more evenly, and will in general be wealthier than a poor citizen in another country, but that depends on how much wealth is in the country.

You're joking right? Cuba is hands-down the most repressive government in the Western Hemisphere. Period.

I could name a few that were more repressive. Pinochet was noted to be quite repressive as a few more right and left winged dictatorships. But some are even worser in other parts of the world.

Irrelevant.

Not entirly, the reason the US blockaded Cuba was because of some USSR missiles there, that the USSR forced upon Cuba.

Compare the standard of living in capitalist Western Europe with the standard of living in communist Eastern Europe. This should be a strong indication of which system produced more poverty.

well, you should remember that W. Europe was already richer than E. Europe before the Iron Curtain so there is already a lagging behind, but it also depeds on how you look at it. The USSR wages were generally lower, but actually not a lot, than the US and W. Europe. But the state there was pumping out more benifits, as in medical care, the amount of time to work to buy needs were also lower, but luxuries were far higher, as the USSR decided prices and always had needs, as in food, water, housing, etc. were lower than that in the US. During the USSR's most high-time economy, I believe the figures was that an ave. airplane ticket from Vladivostok to Kiev was $15, an ave. apartment rent in Moscow was $5 and that includes 6-month free heating.

Now fast forward twenty years. Eastern Europe is among the most free-market-oriented regions of the world, and its economy is booming.

Poverty has increaed, mortality rates have increased, crime has increased, the KGB transformed into the mafia, ave. lifespan has dropped around 20 yrs. for males. Emigration increased,(of course there was little to speak of before, but I mean emigration is booming). All wealth is centered around Moscow. Must have missed the part where the economy was doing great.

No. I'd stop being a victim, not blame the government, and find another job.

You're assuming there's a job to find.

Then I'd get some income.

Its not so easy, many employers wouldn't employ you, so you would have to beg. You live you're life doing that very little to look forward to, not knowing if you'll live the next few days, etc. etc.

And it took thousands of years for technology to invent just those things. Compare that with capitalist countries today, where there are millions of things invented every year.

With more people, there are more curious minds, and therefore more thing sto be invented, though I do admit capitalism can be attributed to some things.

Actually it was.

Explain.

Literally the only thing invented by communists in their entire history...and even here, much of the know-how was stolen from capitalist countries.

It is debatable whether it was invented in a country run by communists. But also if most of the technology was solen by capitalist countries, why did they not beat the USSR? But some of it was. Also there was more things invented by the USSR, space station(Salyut), first man and woman(Yuri Gagarin and Valentina Tereshkova, 20 yrs. before first American woman).

Under capitalism, that's a very strong possibility. Under communism, it's almost impossible.

Explain.

No. One person doesn't own everything in the United States.

I never wrote that, though however private property is concentrated into a few percentages.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

What kind of conservative am I?

I think my views are very similiar to those of our first Secretary of Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, and the old Federalist Party. I favor capitalism, free enterprise, gun rights, military interventionalism, and personal responsibility. But unlike some conservatives and libertarians, I believe in having a socialist system to help the poor and the needy. I also believe in having federal funding of the arts and other things, to a certain extent.

You can't believe in both capitalism, ie free people making free choices in a free market of goods and services, and believe in socialism.

You have to learn about the two and make a clear choice, else you're just fooling yourself and no one else.

Why should a man earning $20K a year pay to support a philharmonic orchestra only people with Ted Kennedy's money can afford to hear?

There's no better reason for the government to not pay for "art" than the argument that it can't survive in open competition on the free market with other art. If the general public doesn't think it's worth paying for, then they shouldn't be having their pocket picked to finance it via taxes.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

lol, ****ing **** **** **** touche on that point!

I understand you're a lowly poli-sci major, and thus the economics they teach you is just about completely worthless, so I'll let it slide, but if we're gonna pay for this war we're gonna have to raise taxes. Issuing this much debt hurts the economy AT LEAST as much as raising taxes would. And plus, once the people start figuring out how much of their ACTUAL income Bush is spending (not just in the obvious tax dollars) the economy will collapse. Now if we just raise the taxes enough so the deception won't be so damn obvious, we could get out of this just fine.

But just a hint: Just because Tom Delay supports it doesn't make it conservative. The economics you're promoting is nearing Comrade Brian's as far as leftiness is concerned.

This all started because of the whole claim that Bush alone is soully responsible for the $8 trillion national debt and that Clinton had a surplus which he didn't he had a $6 trillion national debt the surplus was just the money that the Feds didn't spend out of their $3 trillion annual operating budget (taxpayer money) for that year and while Bush has increased the national debt by $2 trillion he does have two wars that have to be payed for and I don't see any of the Democrats voting against the Defense appropriations bill especially now since McCain got that suicidal amendment 1977 tacked onto it (anti-torture bill incase you're wondering.)

If you increase taxes now to pay for the war it's going to put a damper in the economy which is finally just starting to feel the impacts of the tax cuts, of course the debt is going to have to be payed for but the debt existed before Bush entered office and if history is the judge it's going to be there well after he leaves, it's not that I like the debt it's that people can't pin this one squarly on the shoulders of Bush and when they claim that Clinton's surplus of something like $120 billion even put a dent into the $6 trillion national debt they're full of ****, and the last time I checked it's congress not the president who votes on spending so the $120 billion surplus can't even be contributed to Clinton or the Democrats in the first place it was a Republican congress that gets the credit for that one and it's really not that big of an accomplishment anyways.

 

[Comrade Brian]

galen.........You and Trojan have a good cussing game going on. Why don't you swear more and see who has the most idiotic posts filled with hot gas?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

bull crap, all of the good that will come from the tax cuts has already come.
The reason tax cuts are effective is not because you have more money, it's just because for the time being you think you have more money. Eventually people figure out that they don't actually have as much money as they think they do, and if we're not being honest at the time, we're looking at the 70's all over again (the last time we had a republican using liberal economic policies!)

I've noticed that you're arguing against several things I never said. Clinton had to sign the spending bills, just as Bush has. Thus they are the gate keepers, and thus responsible for letting good and bad economic policies in. We should've gone with similar economic policies to Clinton's, and payed down the debt BEFORE the war, so thus it would be harder to build up the defecit (because we wouldn't be bogged down by interest payments), and thus this stuff you're talking about might've had a chance in hell.

But there have been benefits to the tax cuts, but now you guys are just getting greedy.

How do you figure that if you were to increase the taxes that it wouldn't hurt economic growth it's not just the taxes on the average citizen that I'm talking about it's the taxes on businesses that will kill growth, and like I said it wasn't Clinton's economic policies that created the surplus but it was his overtaxation and the Republicans refusal to let him redistribute the wealth. And if we increased taxes BEFORE the war then all that would have done is lengthen the recession inherted from Clinton which combined with 9-11 would have probably sent us into an actual depression as in a bad bad thing.

 

[Comrade Brian]

I think we both know that I'd win.

And just so you know, it's not really funny to poke fun at something that people have already been self-depreciating in the name of humor at. We had both already mocked that point, and thus you mocking it isn't funny.

I was moreover poking fun at Trojan, I've never seen him like this.

 

[George_Washington]

You can't believe in both capitalism, ie free people making free choices in a free market of goods and services, and believe in socialism.

You have to learn about the two and make a clear choice, else you're just fooling yourself and no one else.

Why should a man earning $20K a year pay to support a philharmonic orchestra only people with Ted Kennedy's money can afford to hear?

There's no better reason for the government to not pay for "art" than the argument that it can't survive in open competition on the free market with other art. If the general public doesn't think it's worth paying for, then they shouldn't be having their pocket picked to finance it via taxes.

Why can't I be for capitalism but yet still see the benefits of having at least a limited socialist state in our society? How am I fooling myself? There are just certain things that I believe should be done, such as the government helping the poor. I don't think it's realistic just to rely on private charities and Churches to help them. I especially think we need public assistance for the disabled. You don't? I agree that we shouldn't fund art that the majority of people don't support. But I think we need to have museums and some public support of culture in our society.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Why can't I be for capitalism but yet still see the benefits of having at least a limited socialist state in our society?

Because if your for both black and white, you wind up with dingy grey underwear.

How am I fooling myself?

Because "capitalism" is the free exchange of goods and services between indviduals and privately held companies. Socialism is the elimation of private ownership and private choice. The two are not compatible.

We currently live in a socialist country because of this basic incompatibility.

There are just certain things that I believe should be done, such as the government helping the poor. I don't think it's realistic just to rely on private charities and Churches to help them. I especially think we need public assistance for the disabled. You don't?

You're part of the public. You go ahead and pay all you think you can afford to help the helpless. I'll do the same thing. That's called "freedom".

Having some gangster decide how much I should spend to that purpose destroys my freedom. That's more important than anything else. Why do you think it's acceptable to use goons to take money from me and others to finance your visions of public paradise?

I agree that we shouldn't fund art that the majority of people don't support. But I think we need to have museums and some public support of culture in our society.

Why is welfare for bad artists different than welfare for bad workers?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

We should've postponed the war, plain and simply. Now we're at the point where we can either continue to cut taxes and spend more and more on deficit, which will stifle business due to taking away businesses' ability to issue debt affordably, plus run the risk of this economic deception being found out by the masses (which ALWAYS happens eventually), leading to a complete economic collapse, OR we can raise taxes, stifle growth a tad (which will happen anyways, due to the spending, not the taxation), and pay for what the government is buying.

Actually, if we raised taxes enough to cover current expenditures, we'd stifle the economy completely. What needs to happen is constitutional spending (which means the war is still in, all the freebies to the no-loads is out), and pay off the national debt via sales of public assets, mostly land. Camp Pendleton alone is worth billions of dollars. God knows what the Presidio in San Francisco is worth. There's a three acre swamp in my town that would be worth tens of millions as commercial property if it wasn't a federally protected "wetland".

How much would a collector pay for the first Wright Flyer? Whistler's Mother? The Trinity bomb crater is a tourist site, why not privatize it? Monica's blue dress...wait, that's private property. You get the drift.

However...neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have proven themselves capable of restraining spending. Quite the opposite. Since only Democans and Republicrats will be elected in the foreseeable future, nothing will be done about spending, so we're all screwed.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

We should've postponed the war, plain and simply. Now we're at the point where we can either continue to cut taxes and spend more and more on deficit, which will stifle business due to taking away businesses' ability to issue debt affordably, plus run the risk of this economic deception being found out by the masses (which ALWAYS happens eventually), leading to a complete economic collapse, OR we can raise taxes, stifle growth a tad (which will happen anyways, due to the spending, not the taxation), and pay for what the government is buying.

Which war should we have postponed we're fighting on a 360 degree front right now and you realize this b.s. about not finding wmd in Iraq is bullshit they found 500 tons of yellow cake uranium on the initial push into Iraq for Christs's sakes,

Clinton's policy of taxing to pay down the debt led to the worst recession in over twenty years and it was only because of Bush's tax cuts that we managed to get out of it even with 9-11,

The debt was there before Bush took office and if history is the judge it will be there well after he leaves.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I get the point, but as you know in business we keep these things to generate revenue, so if we sell them now, that means we won't be able to sell them again when we're in a worse economic situation.

Government shouldn't be owning "assets". It's not supposed to be a business.

I'm not saying to cut out all defecit spending, but we're in war, we need to raise taxes.

No. We're fighting a war, we need to adjust spending to compensate, first, then if necessary we look at raising taxes. We could eliminate two dollars of unnecessary unconsitutional spending for every dollar this war is costing us. That being the case, why should taxes be raised?

Business is already being as stifled as it's gonna get by the amount of debt we are issuing, raising taxes won't change that (since although they'll have less capital, they can issue debt at a lower cost, which in the end will save them money).

You raise my taxes as a business, and if I can't compensate by raising prices, I lose money. And I can only raise prices so much before demand for my product drops off. So, no, raising taxes isn't a magic cash cow that lets the government magically create money.

Right now we've got a bull market going, and barring raising corporate tax to like 70% that's not gonna change. Most investors don't make enough money to get anything from the current tax cuts anyways, at least anything of note.

A real roaring bull market we got. Not that it goes anywhere, it just roars steadily up and down in a range less than it's pre-crash peak.

I'm all about privatizing this stuff, but I think we should keep it around until a time when we need the money more than now, because once it's gone it's gone.

No. If we sell Camp Pendleton, the government can always raise taxes and buy it back later. It's not going anywhere. After all, tax hikes are the only way to finance government. Spending cuts are never an option.

 

[George_Washington]

Because if your for both black and white, you wind up with dingy grey underwear.

Maybe I just see that there are valuable aspects of both economic systems.

We currently live in a socialist country because of this basic incompatibility.

That's debatable. Just because we have entitlements doesn't mean we are completely socialist. There are no countries who are completely one way. I've heard this libertarian propaganda before. I don't think we need to go to the extreme and dismantle everything. I think history proves that a system like that wouldn't work. Look at the problems we had in the south. The states tried to argue it was their right to own slaves and later on, they tried to argue that it was their right to segregate people.

You're part of the public. You go ahead and pay all you think you can afford to help the helpless. I'll do the same thing. That's called "freedom".

Having some gangster decide how much I should spend to that purpose destroys my freedom. That's more important than anything else. Why do you think it's acceptable to use goons to take money from me and others to finance your visions of public paradise?

What you fail to understand is that everyone has a boss. In order to have civilization, not just complete anarchy where people just rip each other off and chaos goes on, taxes and government are a neccessary aspect of life. The government, "goons" you speak of would turn into private goons if left to your ideal. Freedom is good but an economic and government system should still be tempered with wisdom. A state of unrestricted, "individuals" just doing whatever they wanted would be determental to the rights of law abiding citizens.

Why is welfare for bad artists different than welfare for bad workers?

Well, when I mentioned the arts I was mostly referring to public funding of museums and such. I wouldn't be for special welfare for artists that the rest of us don't get. I'm not saying we should hand out welfare to bad workers as in people who are just lazy. I mean we should help people that are legitimately made poor. Such as, you know, people who have serious medical injuries who can't afford to pay their bills, the physical and mentally disabled, etc. I think if you're in a wheel chair, for example, the government should provide assistance to you. How can we realistically rely on private charities for this?

 

[Deegan]

Neo-Con, and proud of it, much like Alexander was in his day, save the homosexual tendencies.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Maybe I just see that there are valuable aspects of both economic systems.

There to aspects to consider. One recognizes the individual's ownership of his own life, the other assumes the individual's life is owed to others.

The two are not compatible and one is not moral.

That's debatable. Just because we have entitlements doesn't mean we are completely socialist.

You either are a virgin, or you ain't. But you can still catch HIV via oral ingestion.

There are no countries who are completely one way.

No. There are no countries that are completely capitalist. True freedom has never been tried in the history of mankind. Always always the busy-body do-gooder and the tyrant work hand in hand to bother, annoy, harass, and enslave the man that want's to be left alone to tend his own business and live his own life.

This fact in no way justifies the actions of the do-body busy-gooder.

I've heard this libertarian propaganda before. I don't think we need to go to the extreme and dismantle everything. I think history proves that a system like that wouldn't work. Look at the problems we had in the south. The states tried to argue it was their right to own slaves and later on, they tried to argue that it was their right to segregate people.

Right. The southern states were arguing for slavery and/or jim crow against people seeking a libertarian solution. And now you're using that same argument...against a libertarian solution. What've you got against leaving people alone?

What you fail to understand is that everyone has a boss.

What you fail to understand is that no one is property. I understand the concept of "boss" from both ends. I was neither owned by my employer, nor did I own my employees. I never dictated how they should spend their money, nor have I ever obeyed employers telling me how I should spend mine.

In order to have civilization, not just complete anarchy where people just rip each other off and chaos goes on, taxes and government are a neccessary aspect of life. The government, "goons" you speak of would turn into private goons if left to your ideal. Freedom is good but an economic and government system should still be tempered with wisdom. A state of unrestricted, "individuals" just doing whatever they wanted would be determental to the rights of law abiding citizens.

Here we go yet once again with the anarchy BS. Why don't you go away and learn something about libertarianism before you foul public boards with your ignorance? Libertarians do not argue "anarchy". They argue "limited government".

Well, when I mentioned the arts I was mostly referring to public funding of museums and such.

Oh, like the museums that sponsored Serrano's (sp?) "**** Christ" or that thing in New York about Mary made out of elephant turds? Besides, art is a commodity and there's absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be traded on the open market like shoes, shirts, or Snoop Doggy Dog.

I wouldn't be for special welfare for artists that the rest of us don't get. I'm not saying we should hand out welfare to bad workers as in people who are just lazy. I mean we should help people that are legitimately made poor. Such as, you know, people who have serious medical injuries who can't afford to pay their bills, the physical and mentally disabled, etc. I think if you're in a wheel chair, for example, the government should provide assistance to you. How can we realistically rely on private charities for this?

Because that's the American way. Voluntary charity, not coerced confiscation and re-distribution to politically favored recipients.

I'll post the famous Horace Munn later.

NOTE: I didn't know the board software drank pee. I'll have to remember that when posting.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Neo-Con, and proud of it, much like Alexander was in his day, save the homosexual tendencies.

Alexander Hamilton? I believe your misinformed as to his free trade policy:

Alexander Hamilton had this to say on free trade: 'Not only the wealth, but the independence and security of a country, appear to be materially connected with the prosperity of manufactures. Every nation...ought to endeavor to posses within itself all the essentials of a national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitation, clothing and defense.

Basically what Hamilton was saying is that the U.S. should be independent and self sustaining which is in direct contradiction to the neo-liberalist policies and creations of organizations such as NAFTA and CAFTA.

 

[George_Washington]

There to aspects to consider. One recognizes the individual's ownership of his own life, the other assumes the individual's life is owed to others.

The two are not compatible and one is not moral.

I agree that people should own their own lives. But how exactly is having a welfare system depriving people of their own lives? Don't we all have a natural and moral duty to help each other? If you don't think so, please explain why. Please explain why, if you saw someone lying on the street bleeding to death, you would not help him.

You either are a virgin, or you ain't. But you can still catch HIV via oral ingestion.

Uhhh I fail to see how this example really relates but it was kind of funny though.

No. There are no countries that are completely capitalist. True freedom has never been tried in the history of mankind. Always always the busy-body do-gooder and the tyrant work hand in hand to bother, annoy, harass, and enslave the man that want's to be left alone to tend his own business and live his own life.

This fact in no way justifies the actions of the do-body busy-gooder.

Ok, suppose we were strictly capitalist as you suggest. What would we do if a company imbezzled money, put out faulty products that kill people, or polluted the enviroment and killed millions of species? If there are not laws in place, what would we do in the case of Enron? Just like corporations get away with destroying people's lives? I fail to see the logic in that.

Right. The southern states were arguing for slavery and/or jim crow against people seeking a libertarian solution. And now you're using that same argument...against a libertarian solution. What've you got against leaving people alone?

Ok, so you think people have a right to own slaves. Is that what you're saying?

What you fail to understand is that no one is property. I understand the concept of "boss" from both ends. I was neither owned by my employer, nor did I own my employees. I never dictated how they should spend their money, nor have I ever obeyed employers telling me how I should spend mine.

But in order to preserve the state, taxes are inevitable. We need police, we need a military, etc. There are just some things an individual has to give up for the greater good. This world will never perfect. Because this world will never be perfect, it is silly of us to try to pretend that it will be if we just allow individuals to do whatever they want.

Here we go yet once again with the anarchy BS. Why don't you go away and learn something about libertarianism before you foul public boards with your ignorance? Libertarians do not argue "anarchy". They argue "limited government".

Relax, dude. I'm trying to learn. That's the point of my coming on this forum. I agree that limited government is something that we need but just not to the extent that you're arguing. But explain to me again just how limited you think the government should be. Do you think we need any kind of public transportation?

Oh, like the museums that sponsored Serrano's (sp?) "**** Christ" or that thing in New York about Mary made out of elephant turds? Besides, art is a commodity and there's absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be traded on the open market like shoes, shirts, or Snoop Doggy Dog.

Yeah that might be true. But it's just then we risk it being destroyed, damaged, or otherwise unaccessible to the general public. Do you think the original copies of the Consitution or the Declaration of Independence should be sold or do you think they should be put on display for the entire public to view?

NOTE: I didn't know the board software drank pee. I'll have to remember that when posting.

lol Um, I'm not sure what you mean by this...but ok.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Have I ever stated opposition to spending cuts?
Nice little strawman.

Hmmmm...wasn't intended as a strawman. I find those to be a waste of time. It wasn't directed at you so much as it was a comment on the politicians with power.

Since the problem is spending, the solution should be spending cuts. History has proven conclusively that politicians with other people's money spend it. Raising taxes to balance out of control spending is like curing obesity with pizza.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I agree that people should own their own lives. But how exactly is having a welfare system depriving people of their own lives?

It takes money from them they do not wish to spend, money they worked for to have for purposes of their own. That stolen money represents time spent in involuntary servitude to others.

Don't we all have a natural and moral duty to help each other? If you don't think so, please explain why. Please explain why, if you saw someone lying on the street bleeding to death, you would not help him.

Ah, the tired old bleeding in the street after falling from an airplane onto railroad trestle and getting knocked in the river where he's bitten by a shark and run over by a speedboat that snags him with a fender and tosses him into the path of a rushing political campaign sound truck scenario.

I't my choice to help him. Am I the one that ran him over for trying to assault my wife? Did he commit a crime against me in the past? Is there a reward for his capture? Why do people think ridiculous extraordinary extreme exigent situations somehow miraculously invalidate arguments supporting individual choice and personal freedom?

Yes, people have a responsibility as adults to identify a morality that permits them to exist in harmony with others and to recognize the humanity of others and to acknowledge the existence of possible circumstances that may require them to voluntarily exert themselves in behalf of others.

Oh sh!t! I used that V word again. I'm so sorry. I said "voluntarily". Well, that's a lie, I'm not sorry at all. The moral person voluntarily helps others. The immoral person plays Robin Hood. You can't legislate morality, you can only provide thieves with a revenue stream.

Uhhh I fail to see how this example really relates but it was kind of funny though.

So-called mixed economies are not free economies.

Ok, suppose we were strictly capitalist as you suggest. What would we do if a company imbezzled money, put out faulty products that kill people, or polluted the enviroment and killed millions of species? If there are not laws in place, what would we do in the case of Enron? Just like corporations get away with destroying people's lives? I fail to see the logic in that.

Embezzling is theft, and you can't have freedom where theft isn't a crime. Therefore, embezzling would always be a crime. Knowingly selling unsafe products or operating businesses and machinery in a hazardous manner would be subject to criminal negligence charges, civil liability, and businesses with rotten reputations have a bad habit of closing.

Remember, a free society has enough government to protect freedom, and no more.

Ok, so you think people have a right to own slaves. Is that what you're saying?

No, that's what you think. You think people should work for the benefit of others without recompense. What is that if not slavery?

But in order to preserve the state, taxes are inevitable. We need police, we need a military, etc. There are just some things an individual has to give up for the greater good.

Yes, there are a LIMITED number of functions of government that require taxes on the populace to finance. Libertarians know this. The entitlement system isn't one of them.

This world will never perfect. Because this world will never be perfect, it is silly of us to try to pretend that it will be if we just allow individuals to do whatever they want.

Read what I say more carefully, you're skipping over the important parts.

Relax, dude. I'm trying to learn. That's the point of my coming on this forum. I agree that limited government is something that we need but just not to the extent that you're arguing. But explain to me again just how limited you think the government should be. Do you think we need any kind of public transportation?

No. Running buses and trains and airplanes is something private industry should do. Amtrak is a waste of my tax dollars. People that ride on the train should bear the cost of operations and maintenance. And no, I'm not responsible for getting other people to their jobs. Last time I checked no oe's mailed me a check for gas money.

Yeah that might be true. But it's just then we risk it being destroyed, damaged, or otherwise unaccessible to the general public. Do you think the original copies of the Consitution or the Declaration of Independence should be sold or do you think they should be put on display for the entire public to view?

The Wright Brother's airplane is a relic. Heck, the Wright Brothers refused for twenty years to give it to the Smithsonian because those fools hung Langley's failed attempt and claimed it to be the first powered airplane. (Irrelevant, I know, but perhaps interesting). But it's a thing crafted by a private party, its not something the public paid for.

As for the Constitution, that's a relic of great importance to the history of this nation. I bet it would bring in a fortune. We do have copies of it, don't we?

lol Um, I'm not sure what you mean by this...but ok.

Oh. That was because the forum censoring routine decided that the work of art in question was **** Christ, not "euphemism for urine" Christ.

 

[Deegan]

Alexander Hamilton? I believe your misinformed as to his free trade policy:

Alexander Hamilton had this to say on free trade: 'Not only the wealth, but the independence and security of a country, appear to be materially connected with the prosperity of manufactures. Every nation...ought to endeavor to posses within itself all the essentials of a national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitation, clothing and defense.

Basically what Hamilton was saying is that the U.S. should be independent and self sustaining which is in direct contradiction to the neo-liberalist policies and creations of organizations such as NAFTA and CAFTA.

No, Alexander the Great.

It was his goal to free men from their chains, and once he had conquered these nations, his wish was to turn them over to the people.