That guy over there doesn't have as much as you.
Posted on 11/09/2012 6:38:06 AM PST by ksen
If it involved taking money by force from some people in order to give it to others than it is socialism.
You've just made the argument that military, police, fire and rescue wages are socialism.
That guy over there doesn't have as much as you.
Better question. Do you burn copies of the Constitution?Is Milton Friedman scum too?
Yes.
Non-sequitur.
Ever hear of charity. Only democrats and freeloaders want forced government charity at the point of a government “gun”
“Cool story bro. Us white guys have had it real rough. “
You bet we did. .. and continue to suffer and be discriminated against, from popular media and movies, to academia and the work-place. We are the ONLY demographic that can be insulted, patronized, mocked and insulted. . .without sanction. Affirmative action, ‘bro,’ ever hear of it?
“You're so deluded that you're really going to call a program advocated by libertarian hero Hayek as socialist? “
Calling you a socialist fits, as you FEEL (not THINK) that socialism works just great. . .based on one small, single example, somewhere, and paid for by makers, not takers.
“Hahaha unbelievable . . . wait, it's actually not.”
And you prove my point. Thanks.
Now, here's the situation. Further exchanges are moot. You said what you feel and I said what I think. People can make up their own mid about the subject (unless, of course, you are for forced re-education).
So, your choice is to a) act as a child, to “get the last word,” or b) you can simply let thinking people decide who's argument they back.
I'm betting “a” is your choice. And I will laugh when proven right.
Maine Mariner says (post 13) we should give $60,000 per person to the poor (A Milton Friedman idea.)
ksen is all over this thread touting Friedman and anti-conservative Socialist ideas in support of a guaranteed minimum income. "A Basic Income leads to more liberty and more happiness for society."
You've just made the argument that military, police, fire and rescue wages are socialism.
No, these people are willing to pay us back - with their lives.
Now ask a scrounging welfare freeloader what they're doing to serve those who feed them. You won't get an answer. There isn't one. They ll just try to pick your pocket.
Maine Mariner says (post 13) we should give $60,000 per person to the poor (A Milton Friedman idea.)
ksen is all over this thread touting Friedman and anti-conservative Socialist ideas in support of a guaranteed minimum income. “A Basic Income leads to more liberty and more happiness for society.”
Maine Mariner said no such thing. Go read it again.
And has FR gone so far around the bend that talking about ideas touted by Friedman and Hayek are bannable now?
Financial "independence" = getting a guaranteed income from the government? Um, doesn't that mean making people financially DEPENDENT on the government?
Fail.
And you just made the argument that the military, police, fire and rescue responders are no better than welfare cheats freeloading off the the taxpayer. In other words you can't see a difference between a Maker and a Taker.
Let me give you thanks for one thing though. I HATE Libertarians. (See tagline). They are liberals who support open borders, pro-dope laws, pro-abortion ideals and all sorts of other liberalistic crap. But until now, I never realized the full extent of how you Libertarians and your Libertarian heroes (Hayek and Friedman) are in full support of the Welfare State.
Classic Libertarianism (such as Hayek and Friedman) or modern day Libertarianism such as Ron Paul and Gary Johnson is just bat-bleep crazy. Unbelievably Insane!
You don't even have to go that nuts.
Everyone seems to forget American history. When the Pilgrims first landed on the Massachusetts coastline, their first societal experiment was a communal one. No private property. Block houses where everyone lives. Crops were planted, tended, and doled out communally. Basically, it was a collectivist's wet dream, and you cannot get a more homogenized community, perhaps, than the first sect of dissenters who first left England for Holland and then Holland for the New World so they could practice their particular form of religion.
The result? Epic failure. Because of collectivism, in the harsh environment of the New World, they almost starved to death.
Maine Mariner said no such thing. Go read it again.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I read it again. (post 13) Maybe MM better reconfirm his support of or denouncement of the BS Socialist/Welfare State ideals. $60,000 per person is on the table here. Who supports that and why? Is there links to that thread he spoke of?
You again. One question: who was guaranteeing the income for these people?
Oh, and one more: why are you on this site?
Military, police, firefighters, courts of justice and select other types of government work and workers are needed to maintain a civil society by protecting it from external threats and enforcing contracts between parties without vigilantism and vendetta. These all used to be functions of volunteers (and in the case of firefighters, much of this country still is dependent on volunteers.) However, like so much else, technological and legal complexity, and public expectations of service have forced these to become professions rather than yeomanry.
These are among the LIMITED legitimate functions of government. These have been abused, to be sure, and their powers and responsibilities need to be significantly dialed back. However few will argue that they are unnecessary. Purists here will argue that a social safety net is un-Constitutional and should not be provided. I do not subscribe to this view. I think we should provide for the care of truly feeble, the profoundly disabled, and temporarily for victims of disease and disaster.
What I do not and never will subscribe to, however, is the notion I should subsidize a lifetime of bad choices, of engaging in criminal activity, of substance abuse, of a lack of a work ethic, or of a selfish and narcissitic juvenile insistence of following ones dream to become a street poet to the exclusion of goods and services productive employment.
Sir, I said no such thing.
We spend $60,000 on each person in poverty on various programs-most of which trickles down to the low income people. Most of that $60,000 is spent on administrative expenses. Friedman argued that we would save a tremendous amount of money if we eliminated all welfare programs and paid everyone directly. He certainly never advocated paying anyone $60,000 (in today’s dollars) back in 1962. He looked at it as a way to save money. He wanted one program not hundreds to help people in poverty.
To suggest that I don’t belong on FR is absurd. I have been a loyal supporter of this site with time and contributions.
Thank you for clarifying. Sorry to have missed your point the first go round.
Understandable. Milton Friedman was no bleeding heart liberal. He wanted small government as I think most of us here do. That is why he wanted school vouchers for low income people. Eliminate or greatly reduce the public school system-give vouchers to low income people and let them choose their children’s school-and eliminate the huge educational
bureaucracy that has grown because of state and federal
funding.
I’m not a libertarian.
Everyone seems to forget American history. When the Pilgrims first landed on the Massachusetts coastline, their first societal experiment was a communal one. No private property. Block houses where everyone lives. Crops were planted, tended, and doled out communally. Basically, it was a collectivist’s wet dream, and you cannot get a more homogenized community, perhaps, than the first sect of dissenters who first left England for Holland and then Holland for the New World so they could practice their particular form of religion.
No, I remember the story about what the Pilgrims first did. But that has nothing to do with the Dauphin experiment. It wasn’t an experiment in communalism it was an experiment in basic income support.
"Basic income support" is communism. Where the hell do you think the money comes from to provide that basic income support UNLESS you take from those who "have" and give to those in "need"? In your world, does money grow on trees?
"Basic income support" is anathema to those who hold anything but progressive political principles. And I'm saying that as a libertarian . . . someone who somebody like Responsibility2nd detests.
Honestly, dude, that dog don't hunt. Don't try to pass it off here as an idea worthy of consideration.
And that is probably the way it should be. Perhaps that issue could be overcome by expecting something from them, some kind of community service that would make all concerned feel better.
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.