Posted on 10/17/2012 9:20:50 AM PDT by GraceG
Who “loves” this law?
“There are no “socialists” in the GOP.”
Demonstrably false. Snowe, McCain, Romney... Each have espoused core principles that are the very definition of Socialism.
“I know more about American History than you ever will.”
No. You don’t or you wouldn’t mouthing the inanities that you are...
My screen name is an IQ test. You failed. Look up the etymology of the word “corpse”. Particularly the proper usage of the Latin root form.
Logic? Logic wouldn’t kiss you after a six pack much less on the first date...
You passed the IQ test. Literally one in thousands gets that.
“Welfarism is not socialism.”
Actually, yes it is. Marxist Socialism to be exact. “From each according to their ability. To each according to their need.”
Maybe we should switch your screen name to something more apt; ignorantsob.
Libertarianism isn't really an East Coast thing.
If they'd had this debate in Denver, where the first one was held, there might have been some libertarian questions.
Dr. Friedman's books would also be a great introduction to libertarian thinking. See also the publications of the Ludwig von Mises Institute
I disagree with the premise that someone has to be a libertarian rather than a conservative, many people are both. And many of the best expositions of libertarian ideas have been written by economists, von Mises being one example.
I have read portions of The Theory of Money and Credit, and would read the rest if I had more time to pore over the details in it. It is a great book, and available online at The Library of Economics and Liberty
Total baloney.
Those who throw the term “socialist” around use it just to say they don’t like someone. It has no meaning when used by these people.
Hilarious stuff.
Socialism “ A social and economic system in which the means of production are collectively owned and equality is given a high priority.” Penguin Dictionary of Economics
I would posit anyone who thinks stripping Constitutionally guaranteed rights from someone for life.
(Either they should be fully free, or still imprisoned, or dead; the creation and maintenance of this secondary class of citizen cannot bring good fruit: for it is [born of] evil.)
Thank you.
Though I'm curious about which part was the 'pass': looking up and referencing the definition, or the Theological connection?
Neither Sowell nor Friedman were members of the Austrian School which seems to be a hallmark for Libertarianism.
However, the failure of both of those theories seems to be the tendency to ignore the political realities posed by democratic institutions.
We have a gigantic government because that is what the People thought they wanted and they had the votes to create it. Democracy will overrule proper policy on many occasions.
I have no need of an IQ test particularly one that you believe is so.
Arguments D.C. can’t handle = inanities
You “posit” wrong.
I am a strong advocate of capital punishment but I am also a realist and realize that in reality we are not going to get that as long as women have the vote or the media exists as presently constituted.
It is doubtful that the felons stripped of certain rights as a price of their crimes would rather be either dead or in the joint. I’m sure the Second Best solution is preferred aren’t you?
Given the assumptions of the overly regulatory government, especially a "democracy", how is this functionally different from socialism?
The theory of the Welfare state is let the economy operate and drain it like a parasite versus dictate everything about it from what to produce to the prices and wages paid. There is a lot more freedom in the first instance therefore it is more “Libertarian”.
No. Precisely because that way leads to injustice; particularly insidious is the [philosophical] assumptions that normalization of the practice forces one to accept [albeit unconsciously].
This secondary class of citizen is particularly abominable because otherwise Constitutionally guaranteed rights now become dependent upon the government. Or, to put it into another light, was it right for the Branch Davidians to be denied their rights [1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 6th]? -- Especially after the Waco incident, as there were constant justification of the federal response via allegation of pedophilia/polygamy, i.e. "the seriousness of the charge" apparently makes the need for one to be informed of the nature of the accusation, or a trial, or their lives & liberty being taken w/o trial, or the ability to petition the government for redress in the actually presented charges (making full-auto firearms, particularly WRT tax-law)?
The two are really the same thing in their natures.
So then you agree that we're more a democracy than anything else?
Given that admission, and the fact that failure to pay taxes [particularly property] results in the government taking property (and therefore is not really your property, but 'on loan' from the government) -- Would it be utterly inaccurate to say the current state is also socialist in nature?
With the removal of Senatorial appointment by the states we took a big step towards democracy, same is true with the continual expansion of the electorate. Should the Electoral College be removed or effectively circumvented we would be pretty much a democracy.
Government has always taxed property and always will, that has nothing to do with socialism in which you would have NO private property at all. Even without government you hold property only conditionally. In fact, you hold it more tenuously without government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.