Personal liberties versus socialism in America's future?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Damocles said:
The exercise of freedom is the willing assumption of responsibility, it is directly opposite to give such responsibility to another to exercise for you, such as government.

It is my opinion, and that of the founders, that when you cede liberty to the government there is almost always a price that is more than the price that you would pay had you taken the responsibility on yourself.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. It's blatantly and obviously untrue.
 
wanderingbear said:
As much as anyone does.
Click to expand...
No not anyone. As a conservative, I understand that with freedom comes responsibility. For example, if you want to drive a car, you must obey the traffic laws, maintain it, pay for gas and insurance, etc. If you don't accept all of these responsibilities than you lose the freedom that comes with car ownership.

Here we have the basic difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives understand that with freedom comes responsibility, while liberals want freedom from responsibility.

I worked my ass off in college, made careful decisions about my lifestyle, marriage, career and location, live within my means, pay my bills on time, all the while accepting the responsibilities of my career, while putting that second to my responsibilities as a husband and father. As a result I have a beautiful wife and family, two beautiful homes, an awesome credit rating, nice cars, and I ski every weened during the winter.

Liberals see how I live and see unequal outcomes. They think that part of my income should pay for folks who had the same opportunities that I did but didn't take personal responsibility.
 
1) Obama is not a socialist, if you continue to say so you are ignorant.
2) In some ways socialism leads to more freedom because those who would have been born into poverty have more oppertunity to be free from economic tyrany!
3) Less freedom for the privledged class and more freedom for the underclass.
 
Southern Man said:
No not anyone. As a conservative, I understand that with freedom comes responsibility. For example, if you want to drive a car, you must obey the traffic laws, maintain it, pay for gas and insurance, etc. If you don't accept all of these responsibilities than you lose the freedom that comes with car ownership.

Here we have the basic difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives understand that with freedom comes responsibility, while liberals want freedom from responsibility.

I worked my ass off in college, made careful decisions about my lifestyle, marriage, career and location, live within my means, pay my bills on time, all the while accepting the responsibilities of my career, while putting that second to my responsibilities as a husband and father. As a result I have a beautiful wife and family, two beautiful homes, an awesome credit rating, nice cars, and I ski every weened during the winter.

Liberals see how I live and see unequal outcomes. They think that part of my income should pay for folks who had the same opportunities that I did but didn't take personal responsibility.
Click to expand...

You believe that competition is a good thing. I dont. I beleave that the greedy competion over material wealth is a bad thing. Capitalism is a game of winners and loosers. No better then gambling with a persons life. The thing is that the winners are a circle of the few. Not everyone gets to be a winner. Matter of fact most people end up losing this game for one or more of many reasons. It is not fair that some people have while others dont. Sence capitolism is a game of life and death people do what they have to do what they need to to survive. Even if that survival means committing a crime.
If you could remove the life and death aspects of capitalism it would be just another game of monopoly. But sence you cant socialism is a much more human system.
 
Our country was very socialist when we went into the recession. The government decided the solution was to become even more socialist. Socialism is currently unsustainable because it requires America to borrow tones of money. Capitalism works and should be given another chance.
 
wanderingbear said:
You believe that competition is a good thing. I dont. I beleave that the greedy competion over material wealth is a bad thing. Capitalism is a game of winners and loosers. No better then gambling with a persons life. The thing is that the winners are a circle of the few. Not everyone gets to be a winner. Matter of fact most people end up losing this game for one or more of many reasons. It is not fair that some people have while others dont. Sence capitolism is a game of life and death people do what they have to do what they need to to survive. Even if that survival means committing a crime.
If you could remove the life and death aspects of capitalism it would be just another game of monopoly. But sence you cant socialism is a much more human system.
Click to expand...

And an un-American one.
 
without competition and free markets, the Dude knows we'd be living like Russians.

People who are uneducated and unmotivated gravitate to socialism because big brother will pay for them.
Not that the Dude is super motivated, we know that isn't true. But college is freaking easy compared to real work Bro's.
 
The Dude said:
without competition and free markets, the Dude knows we'd be living like Russians.

People who are uneducated and unmotivated gravitate to socialism because big brother will pay for them.
Not that the Dude is super motivated, we know that isn't true. But college is freaking easy compared to real work Bro's.
Click to expand...

The very meaning of free markets erodes inside the context of keynesian money creation.

Any society which allows fiat currency to separate the society from actual value is headed for insane fascism and irrational totalitarianism.
 
AssHatZombie said:
The very meaning of free markets erodes inside the context of keynesian money creation.

Any society which allows fiat currency to separate the society from actual value is headed for insane fascism and irrational totalitarianism.
Click to expand...

Iflation has kicked the dog fuck out of seniors for several generations, the Dude knows this fate will blast his stash fund to shit in retirement.
 
wanderingbear said:
You believe that competition is a good thing. I dont. I beleave that the greedy competion over material wealth is a bad thing. Capitalism is a game of winners and loosers. No better then gambling with a persons life. The thing is that the winners are a circle of the few. Not everyone gets to be a winner. Matter of fact most people end up losing this game for one or more of many reasons. It is not fair that some people have while others dont. Sence capitolism is a game of life and death people do what they have to do what they need to to survive. Even if that survival means committing a crime.
If you could remove the life and death aspects of capitalism it would be just another game of monopoly. But sence you cant socialism is a much more human system.
Click to expand...
Your post reinforces another aspect of the liberal mind that I have long held: it has no understanding of modern economics. Its like your were educated during medieval times when wealth was tied into precious metals. The Spaniards traveled the world seeking and pillaging gold and thus became wealthy at the expense of others. Since there was only so much gold in the world, only very few could be wealthy, and many were poor.

In modern times however (like the last 300 years or more) wealth is tied into many things, and precious metals are near the bottom of the wealth development scale. Agriculture trumps gold: the annual cotton crop of California is worth more than all the gold ever mined there. Intellectual property trumps it all: Bill Gates (Microsoft) is one of the wealthiest men in America and J. K. Rowling (Harry Potter Series) rose from poverty to have more money that the Queen of England. There is lots of unused farmland in the world, and basically no limit to the human imagination, therefore there is no practical limit to the production of wealth.

Liberals think that wealth production is a zero sum game, that if I make a dollar someone else loses one. The fact is that if I design, say, a wood structure its owner pays me. He then pays a contractor who pays a suppler who pays a manufacturer who pays a logger. The owner ends up with a house that's what he wanted and is worth exactly what he paid for it, and in fact is likely to be worth more in growing economy. So in this scenario wealth was created by my intellectual thought, the contractor's management skills, the suppliers capital investments, the manufacturer's skills, and the logger's labor. No one lost and everyone gained.

Perhaps you can cite an example to explain your theory of how capitalism is "live and death".
 
Southern Man said:
Your post reinforces another aspect of the liberal mind that I have long held: it has no understanding of modern economics. Its like your were educated during medieval times when wealth was tied into precious metals. The Spaniards traveled the world seeking and pillaging gold and thus became wealthy at the expense of others. Since there was only so much gold in the world, only very few could be wealthy, and many were poor.

In modern times however (like the last 300 years or more) wealth is tied into many things, and precious metals are near the bottom of the wealth development scale. Agriculture trumps gold: the annual cotton crop of California is worth more than all the gold ever mined there. Intellectual property trumps it all: Bill Gates (Microsoft) is one of the wealthiest men in America and J. K. Rowling (Harry Potter Series) rose from poverty to have more money that the Queen of England. There is lots of unused farmland in the world, and basically no limit to the human imagination, therefore there is no practical limit to the production of wealth.

Liberals think that wealth production is a zero sum game, that if I make a dollar someone else loses one. The fact is that if I design, say, a wood structure its owner pays me. He then pays a contractor who pays a suppler who pays a manufacturer who pays a logger. The owner ends up with a house that's what he wanted and is worth exactly what he paid for it, and in fact is likely to be worth more in growing economy. So in this scenario wealth was created by my intellectual thought, the contractor's management skills, the suppliers capital investments, the manufacturer's skills, and the logger's labor. No one lost and everyone gained.

Perhaps you can cite an example to explain your theory of how capitalism is "live and death".
Click to expand...

Our capitalism is highly flawed because some people create money out of thin air, while everyone else has to work for it. The cronyism around the fed becomes the most powerful oligarchy on earth. Cons need to learn to recognize this reality instead of just blaming the victims.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Our capitalism is highly flawed because some people create money out of thin air, while everyone else has to work for it. The cronyism around the fed becomes the most powerful oligarchy on earth. Cons need to learn to recognize this reality instead of just blaming the victims.
Click to expand...

It is indeed highly flawed, bubbles and bursting bubbles. But, that said it's 1,000 times better than the next best option. We have colleges that are redicoulusly easy and they lead to careers that pay twice the average guy's pay for 1/10 the effort a construction laborer or factory worker may indure.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Our capitalism is highly flawed because some people create money out of thin air, while everyone else has to work for it. The cronyism around the fed becomes the most powerful oligarchy on earth. Cons need to learn to recognize this reality instead of just blaming the victims.
Click to expand...
That is true to some extent due to our paper standard, and frankly I don't know if there is a solution. But that discussion is largely irrelevant to what I am trying to get across to Hippie Bear here.

Folks like George Soros do in fact play in the zero sum game where fortunes are made and lost and no wealth is produced. That guy has enough money to effect markets and manipulate them for his gain while others lose. He contributes to the Democrat Party to keep them in power and they keep him from regulation or prosecution.

Its ironic that the Democrat Party supports this type of economic rape while the liberals who vote for them decry it. But then the Democrat Party supported slavery which was also a zero sum gain economic system.
 
The Dude said:
It is indeed highly flawed, bubbles and bursting bubbles. But, that said it's 1,000 times better than the next best option. We have colleges that are redicoulusly easy and they lead to careers that pay twice the average guy's pay for 1/10 the effort a construction laborer or factory worker may indure.
Click to expand...

No. its' worse. We are forever separated from reality and true value.

this easy life style you point to defend fiat currency and keynesian totalitarianism is being yanked away as we type.

Our technology could be used to create a rational and non totalitarian society, ordered around family farms, personal responsibility, and a non politicized education system.

As it is now, the wrong kinds of people are the only people corrupt bankers give massive sums to order society with.

In a true economy, people must have actual faith in the visions of entrepeneurs, ensuring that entrepeneurs are actually good enough to be worthy of their position. As it is now, an illuminati member with a plan to inculcate dependency is given the power to realize his dastardly dream. This dictation of value is how keynesianism is totalitarianism.

You;ve been lulled with a few years of unwarranted extra credit, so you think the system is innately good. But they were just giving you a false impression.

you're a frog boiling slow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top