Classical liberalism

[Wry Catcher]

Yeah, I had the same reaction. If anyone has ever posted a more blatant admission of the naked desire for big mommy government, I can't recall it.

What is the purpose of government? Why do people band together to form communities? Why did the wagon trains in the 19th Century hire a guide and work together on a common goal (why didn't most take their family and go it alone)?

Ok, this is interesting, and I think worth discussing in its own right: Do you see these questions as the same? Or at least pointing to the same answer?

I think this is significant point of misunderstanding between liberals and libertarians. You seem to see government and community as synonymous, and therefore any criticism of government as a criticism of community. And libertarians don't see it that way. You can have a community without any state government at all. It might not be optimal, but it can work that way.

We see government as a supporting tool to make community possible, but not a means of 'running' community. See the difference?

Not entirely. 'Community' can be many things, but it cannot act to effect the entire population of a political subdivision. Yes, a community might have rules, but under what authority will it enforce them on those who are not members?

A civic community, vis a vis, a religious organization or a fraternal one (Lions, Rotary, etc.) are different in kind as well as in function. Local government agencies have advisory boards of citizens who advise public officials on problems, policy and act as a watchdog making sure the elected and appointed public servants act within the law and the limits imposed by the hiring authority.

They are advisory and have no power beyond issuing reports and making recommendations, in this sense they are no different than many other communities (homeowners, little league, PTA's, Religious and Fraternal).

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There Wry goes interconnecting community with government. How shocking, right?

 

[kaz]

So that means we need to revamp the entire government in order to combat something we experienced since the inception of the country?

Um...yeah, obviously I meant that since I think that the military should be powerful enough to protect Americans on the ocean I support a liberal, authoritarian socialist regime. Do you actually read any posts or just write them? This is just inane to write to me.

The point is, that impressment ended after the war of 1812. It didn't take a complete governmental overhall to make that happen. And I wrote that because you pointed to it as a "big deal". When it really wasn't, and wasn't a new 'threat' of the time either. That's all.

No need to get your knickers all bunched, fella.

I addressed your point that there was no crisis. I disagreed and pointed it out. Go ahead and believe that anyone disagreeing with you on any point means they are upset, but that's the sort of nonsense I generally expect from the people you debate instead of from you. If I want to talk about my feelings at some future point, I'll get back to you though since apparently that's something you're interested in. Don't hold your breath.

But if I can get you to focus on the point, forced conscription was a big deal. The war of 1812 was decades after the Constitutional Convention. And forced Conscription was a clear reason that the Articles of Confederation were an issue. States can't on their own fight the British Navy, and the national government had no resources to do it and no ability to raise money to fund it.

Which is a big part of why we went to the Constitution, which gives the Federal government authority to raise an army and protect it's citizens. It does not give the central government authority in an ongoing basis to do much more than that. I am for the Constitution as it was actually written. My choices are not just the articles of confederation and what we have today, which is what you were suggesting that I'm supporting.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Which is why we went to the Constitution, which gives the Federal government authority to raise an army and protect it's citizens. It does not give the central government authority in an ongoing basis to do much more than that.

And yet, ever so shockingly (sarcasm alert) that's EXACTLY what it has done ever since. Consolidated and ever growing central authority. Coincidence? Hell no.

 

[Clementine]

Today's lefty is almost a pure Socialist.

They differ from Marx only in that they don't think they need violent revolution, and why should they--they have control of the White House. And also, they claim they don't want to Nationalize private property.

But, as soon as they get 51% on the Government Tit, reliably on the Tit, where they are sure Democratic voters, their idea of "redistribution" will look pretty much like Nationalization.

It is truly amazing that they are so committed to a Socialist policy with the examples of the U.S.S.R and Detroit so fresh...but most are motivated by jealousy and even hate...which are powerful and dangerous emotions. (See rdean & Franco on this board.)

I am scared for my children with such Loons in control.

Obama, Pelosi, Reid, that Pocahontas from Massachusetts, that dick Schumer--with hate-filled acolytes like Lois Lerner. Lord help us.

And they are slowly reaching that 51% by spoonfeeding propaganda to the underclass. Too many people rely on government and somehow have come to trust them.

No country ever became socialist overnight. The tried and true method is by taking many baby steps, all in the name of the greater good, until people wake up in hell and wonder what happened. By then, it's too late. If the poor think that government intends to bring about a better life by continuing on this course, they will be disappointed. The government cannot elevate people, they can only bring people down with oppressive laws that kill the private sector. That is what they are doing. Right now, some rather uninspired and lazy people on the bottom think they will someday live the way the middle class and wealthy people do, though they can't explain why they believe this. They intend to do nothing towards that end, but think government will redistribute enough wealth that their standard of living will increase. Little do they realize that the plan is for the rest of us to meet them at the bottom and live in equal misery, like every other socialist/communist country. Communism is the next stop after socialism. Only the leaders continue to live with wealth, freedom and all the liberty in the world. The rest are expected to obey or else.

I wish people would enlighten themselves about what the real effects of socialist polices mean for our standard of living. I would rather be in a free country and be dirt poor than to promised a decent living in a socialist country. At least in a free country, I can elevate myself. In a socialist/communist country, you can only go as far as the government allows and that means no farther than the next guy, regardless of the effort you put forth.

Do Obama and the Dems believe that the current producers will continue as they have knowing that they will not provide security and retirement for their families? They will be slaves providing for others and will never have anything to show for their own work. It's always a matter of time before the workers give up. After that, the only choice is for government to assign people jobs and force them to be slaves under threats of prison.

Of course, the liberals will dismiss this as nonsense. They haven't done much reading on history and are apparently unaware of what has happened to countless countries in the past and present. Because socialism is being introduced slowly, the supporters pat themselves on the back for being so caring and they are foolish enough to believe that this time the leaders will get it right and we won't implode like every other country.

 

[Erand7899]

Trickle down is a myth......they only trickle down the bare minimum I can get away with

It is labor that trickles up and labor that creates wealth

Trickle down is a myth......they only trickle down the bare minimum I can get away with

Is it?
Labor at its most basic component is ALWAYS time for dollars.
That is it.

It is labor that trickles up and labor that creates wealth

Time for dollars kid.
Labor/Business is symbiotic at best rw......ALWAYS.

ANYTIME labor costs EXCEED market value labor loses because NOBODY is in bidness to LOSE money.

Labor creates wealth

Then they wait for trickle down to return some of that wealth to those who create it

Labor, by itself, creates little wealth. Wealth is created by a combination of capital, material, intelligence, and labor. Each element receives compensation in direct relationship to the time, risk input of that element. Wealth is created by adding value to a product. The rest of the economy is simply moving that wealth around.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Judicial Review is not in Article III, gay boy.

So if the Supreme Court didn't have the power of judicial review, how could a law such as a state or local ban on handgun ownership,

be struck down as unconstitutional?

Objection your honor, asked and answered.

I already told you this. Marbury v. Madison. The Supreme Court gave itself the power of Judicial review.

Seriously, what is wrong with you? Why do you need the same question answered multiple times?

Nice flip flop.

 

[bripat9643]

There Wry goes interconnecting community with government. How shocking, right?

Libturds like Wry are unable to make a distinction between the two. Wry should explain how communities existed for thousands of years before the first states came into existence in Sumer, Egypt and China. Farming villages first appeared on the scene about 10,000 years ago. Do you suppose they had "advisory boards" who wasted their time flapping their gums before government lackeys who promptly ignored everything they said?

 

[Stephanie]

Today's lefty is almost a pure Socialist.

They differ from Marx only in that they don't think they need violent revolution, and why should they--they have control of the White House. And also, they claim they don't want to Nationalize private property.

But, as soon as they get 51% on the Government Tit, reliably on the Tit, where they are sure Democratic voters, their idea of "redistribution" will look pretty much like Nationalization.

It is truly amazing that they are so committed to a Socialist policy with the examples of the U.S.S.R and Detroit so fresh...but most are motivated by jealousy and even hate...which are powerful and dangerous emotions. (See rdean & Franco on this board.)

I am scared for my children with such Loons in control.

Obama, Pelosi, Reid, that Pocahontas from Massachusetts, that dick Schumer--with hate-filled acolytes like Lois Lerner. Lord help us.

And they are slowly reaching that 51% by spoonfeeding propaganda to the underclass. Too many people rely on government and somehow have come to trust them.

No country ever became socialist overnight. The tried and true method is by taking many baby steps, all in the name of the greater good, until people wake up in hell and wonder what happened. By then, it's too late. If the poor think that government intends to bring about a better life by continuing on this course, they will be disappointed. The government cannot elevate people, they can only bring people down with oppressive laws that kill the private sector. That is what they are doing. Right now, some rather uninspired and lazy people on the bottom think they will someday live the way the middle class and wealthy people do, though they can't explain why they believe this. They intend to do nothing towards that end, but think government will redistribute enough wealth that their standard of living will increase. Little do they realize that the plan is for the rest of us to meet them at the bottom and live in equal misery, like every other socialist/communist country. Communism is the next stop after socialism. Only the leaders continue to live with wealth, freedom and all the liberty in the world. The rest are expected to obey or else.

I wish people would enlighten themselves about what the real effects of socialist polices mean for our standard of living. I would rather be in a free country and be dirt poor than to promised a decent living in a socialist country. At least in a free country, I can elevate myself. In a socialist/communist country, you can only go as far as the government allows and that means no farther than the next guy, regardless of the effort you put forth.

Does Obama and the Dems believe that the current producers will continue as they have knowing that they will not provide security and retirement for their families? They will be slaves providing for others and will never have anything to show for their own work. It's always a matter of time before the workers give up. After that, the only choice is for government to assign people jobs and force them to be slaves under threats of prison.

Of course, the liberals will dismiss this as nonsense. They haven't done much reading on history and are apparently unaware of what has happened to countless countries in the past and present. Because socialism is being introduced slowly, the supporters pat themselves on the back for being so caring and they are foolish enough to believe that this time the leaders will get it right and we won't implode like every other country.

Excellent post
but my opinion seeing the people today and they can re-elect a man like Obama who had 7.5% unemployment under his first term, or actually elect someone like him at all, who had no experience in ANYTHING but give loving I care only for you speech's to his followers and laced with hate for everyone else...we are doomed as a free country...just now waiting for that to happen fully

 

[Wry Catcher]

There Wry goes interconnecting community with government. How shocking, right?

Nope, your wrong. But keep digging, one day that hole will be named after you: The pit of ignorance.

Stating there is no connection between community and government is actually stupid, but I'll be nice and simply suggest you're misinformed and willfully ignorant.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There Wry goes interconnecting community with government. How shocking, right?

Nope, your wrong. But keep digging, one day that hole will be named after you: The pit of ignorance.

Stating there is no connection between community and government is actually stupid, but I'll be nice and simply suggest you're misinformed and willfully ignorant.

I didn't state there was "no connection", Poindexter. but by all means, make shit up and run with it. Congratulations on the coherent post too.

 

[bripat9643]

I see you're too embarrassed to answer a simple question, I ask again, what career path did you follow?

As to your dumb comment in re Science Friday, here's a link. Of Course being one of the dumbest of the dumb it's nothing you would find interesting.

About Science Friday -- ScienceFriday.com

Ah, so "Science Friday" is a government sponsored propaganda program.

Since you asked, I'm a consultant and I work for the 2nd largest software company in the world. Our clients are all private corporations. We have to provide something of value. Otherwise no corporation would pay us. That's the exact opposite of what happens with government "services."

You're a "Consultant"? A piece worker with no benefits whose job MQ's stipulate an obsequious personality? Explains why you need to play asshole on this message board.

If what you posted is true then you would have the characteristics of someone interested in science: Curiosity and a brain open to new ideas. Nothing you've ever posted suggests you are curious or open to new ideas, especially those which challenge the dogma you profess.

Stating "Science Friday is a government sponsored propaganda program" is nothing more than a ridiculous lie posted by an ignoramus.

That was pathetic attempt to make me feel bad about my job. I'm on a salary. I don't get paid by the hour. I have health benefits and everything.

As for being "obsequies," I think customers appreciate polite and helpful service providers. Do you enjoy being rude and belligerent to taxpayers, the people who pay your salary? Is that one of the perks of your job?

As for being interested in new ideas: what new ideas have any of you libturds ever posted in this forum? Socialism and servility are as old as civilization.

 

[Erand7899]

Our founding fathers had no preference for "limited government"

That may be the dumbest fucking thing you've yet written on this board...and that's saying something.

There were no "large governments" in the 18th century

Nope, THAT'S the dumbest thing you've ever written on this board.

This is easy........name a country in the eighteenth century that would qualify as a "large government"

Large is a comparative word. However, the correct answer would be France, Spain, The British Empire, China and Russia. Government is also a rather vague term. A straw boss governs his work crew during work hours. A teacher governs her class. A politician could run a wide range of governance from a small community to a nation.

 

[rightwinger]

That may be the dumbest fucking thing you've yet written on this board...and that's saying something.



Nope, THAT'S the dumbest thing you've ever written on this board.

This is easy........name a country in the eighteenth century that would qualify as a "large government"

Large is a comparative word. However, the correct answer would be France, Spain, The British Empire, China and Russia. Government is also a rather vague term. A straw boss governs his work crew during work hours. A teacher governs her class. A politician could run a wide range of governance from a small community to a nation.

Large in being able to direct the wealth of the nation to the privileged few but not the large governments trying to improve the life of the people that libertarians despise
Most of the nations you named saw revolutions as the people rose up against a government that failed them

 

[dblack]

What is the purpose of government? Why do people band together to form communities? Why did the wagon trains in the 19th Century hire a guide and work together on a common goal (why didn't most take their family and go it alone)?

Ok, this is interesting, and I think worth discussing in its own right: Do you see these questions as the same? Or at least pointing to the same answer?

I think this is significant point of misunderstanding between liberals and libertarians. You seem to see government and community as synonymous, and therefore any criticism of government as a criticism of community. And libertarians don't see it that way. You can have a community without any state government at all. It might not be optimal, but it can work that way.

We see government as a supporting tool to make community possible, but not a means of 'running' community. See the difference?

Not entirely. 'Community' can be many things, but it cannot act to effect the entire population of a political subdivision. Yes, a community might have rules, but under what authority will it enforce them on those who are not members?

A civic community, vis a vis, a religious organization or a fraternal one (Lions, Rotary, etc.) are different in kind as well as in function. Local government agencies have advisory boards of citizens who advise public officials on problems, policy and act as a watchdog making sure the elected and appointed public servants act within the law and the limits imposed by the hiring authority.

They are advisory and have no power beyond issuing reports and making recommendations, in this sense they are no different than many other communities (homeowners, little league, PTA's, Religious and Fraternal).

More like not at all. What in the world are you going on about?

 

[Redfish]

This is easy........name a country in the eighteenth century that would qualify as a "large government"

Large is a comparative word. However, the correct answer would be France, Spain, The British Empire, China and Russia. Government is also a rather vague term. A straw boss governs his work crew during work hours. A teacher governs her class. A politician could run a wide range of governance from a small community to a nation.

Large in being able to direct the wealth of the nation to the privileged few but not the large governments trying to improve the life of the people that libertarians despise
Most of the nations you named saw revolutions as the people rose up against a government that failed them

Those failed governments (that the people rose up against) were exactly the kind of govt you claim to want in the USA. Governments which give themselve total power over the daliy lives of the citizens, govts that punish citizens who dare to disagree with the govt propaganda, govts which are controlled by a very small group of super elites and everyone else is EQUALLY miserable.

Are you actually so ignorant that you think the citzens have any rights in a socialistic dictatorship?

the red highlighted phrase just shows how totally ignorant you are--------is obamacare improving the lives of the people? Hell no, its screwing up lives as we speak and damaging our economy as we speak.

 

[rightwinger]

Large is a comparative word. However, the correct answer would be France, Spain, The British Empire, China and Russia. Government is also a rather vague term. A straw boss governs his work crew during work hours. A teacher governs her class. A politician could run a wide range of governance from a small community to a nation.

Large in being able to direct the wealth of the nation to the privileged few but not the large governments trying to improve the life of the people that libertarians despise
Most of the nations you named saw revolutions as the people rose up against a government that failed them

Those failed governments (that the people rose up against) were exactly the kind of govt you claim to want in the USA. Governments which give themselve total power over the daliy lives of the citizens, govts that punish citizens who dare to disagree with the govt propaganda, govts which are controlled by a very small group of super elites and everyone else is EQUALLY miserable.

Are you actually so ignorant that you think the citzens have any rights in a socialistic dictatorship?

the red highlighted phrase just shows how totally ignorant you are--------is obamacare improving the lives of the people? Hell no, its screwing up lives as we speak and damaging our economy as we speak.

Let them eat cake.......

A common denominator

 

[Redfish]

Large in being able to direct the wealth of the nation to the privileged few but not the large governments trying to improve the life of the people that libertarians despise
Most of the nations you named saw revolutions as the people rose up against a government that failed them

Those failed governments (that the people rose up against) were exactly the kind of govt you claim to want in the USA. Governments which give themselve total power over the daliy lives of the citizens, govts that punish citizens who dare to disagree with the govt propaganda, govts which are controlled by a very small group of super elites and everyone else is EQUALLY miserable.

Are you actually so ignorant that you think the citzens have any rights in a socialistic dictatorship?

the red highlighted phrase just shows how totally ignorant you are--------is obamacare improving the lives of the people? Hell no, its screwing up lives as we speak and damaging our economy as we speak.

Let them eat cake.......

A common denominator

exactly my point, the French government when Marie Antoniette said "let them eat cake" was exactly the kind of govt that you claim to want here.

Ruled by the elites who "claimed" that they cared about the common people while they ate cavier and lived in castles.

How would king obama be any different from Queen Marie?

Current example----people refused medical care because the govt can't find that they paid for their oibamacare policy.

 

[bripat9643]

This is easy........name a country in the eighteenth century that would qualify as a "large government"

Large is a comparative word. However, the correct answer would be France, Spain, The British Empire, China and Russia. Government is also a rather vague term. A straw boss governs his work crew during work hours. A teacher governs her class. A politician could run a wide range of governance from a small community to a nation.

Large in being able to direct the wealth of the nation to the privileged few but not the large governments trying to improve the life of the people that libertarians despise
Most of the nations you named saw revolutions as the people rose up against a government that failed them

Directing wealth to the privileged few is what our government does.

Britain and Spain never overthrew their monarchies. Russia was already a Democracy when the commies took over. Commie revolutions occurred because demagogues like you were pumping people full of bullshit. Many of the people who believed it paid for it with their lives.

 

[bripat9643]

Ok, this is interesting, and I think worth discussing in its own right: Do you see these questions as the same? Or at least pointing to the same answer?

I think this is significant point of misunderstanding between liberals and libertarians. You seem to see government and community as synonymous, and therefore any criticism of government as a criticism of community. And libertarians don't see it that way. You can have a community without any state government at all. It might not be optimal, but it can work that way.

We see government as a supporting tool to make community possible, but not a means of 'running' community. See the difference?

Not entirely. 'Community' can be many things, but it cannot act to effect the entire population of a political subdivision. Yes, a community might have rules, but under what authority will it enforce them on those who are not members?

A civic community, vis a vis, a religious organization or a fraternal one (Lions, Rotary, etc.) are different in kind as well as in function. Local government agencies have advisory boards of citizens who advise public officials on problems, policy and act as a watchdog making sure the elected and appointed public servants act within the law and the limits imposed by the hiring authority.

They are advisory and have no power beyond issuing reports and making recommendations, in this sense they are no different than many other communities (homeowners, little league, PTA's, Religious and Fraternal).

More like not at all. What in the world are you going on about?

He thinks he's proving that government and community are the same thing, only not.