Socialism and the purpose of government

[bripat9643]

What "this" are your referring to? Once again the so-called libertarian comes out in favor of subsidies and government regulation.

This is the government's actions to maintain a steady food supply at a steady price. This program does not interfere with my freedoms or impose restrictions upon me or anyone else.

But yeah, I do part with the libertarians on some issues, abortion being another one. I do not agree with any single view on every topic.

The only thing it insures is that a lot of farmers can line their pockets with huge amounts of swag taken from the taxpayers. Somehow we never starved before the government created these programs.

Of course it interferes with your freedom. I don't pay subsidies to well healed farmers voluntarily. There are also thousands of regulations that farmers have to follow.

The point of being a libertarian is that you do agree with them on a lot of topics, like the initiation of force against innocent people. If you disagree with that principle, then you aren't a libertarian.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

There ya go...Might makes right...The mindset of the mobocrat in full bloom.

what the hell did what I say have to do with "might makes right"? are you drunk?

"We the people voted for it"...You said that shit...That implies that the biggest mob makes the decision, whether right or wrong, and the rest of us can just suck it.

I had you pegged long ago as a poorly closeted totalitarian, and now you've given everyone who cares to see it the proof.

Actually in our country the biggest mob does not always win, as was shown in the past election.

 

[dblack]

The role of gov't is not merely to serve as a referee, it must also establish the rules of the game. In football, the referee is the cop & judge that enforces the rules that the NFL has established. The ref ensures that everyone plays by the same rules. In the business world, rules ensure products are safe and do what they claim and every business has an equal chance to compete.

Yeah. That's fine. But socialists want government to do a lot more. They want most major decisions in society and in the economy made by government.

Aside from healthcare what major decisions do socialists want gov't to make?

All of them, it would appear. How do you read it?: "Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically"

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The only thing it insures is that a lot of farmers can line their pockets huge amounts of swag take from the taxpayers. Somehow we never starved before the government created these programs.

We were never a country of 300 million people then. The country survived without electricity and roads and railroads yet I would not want to go back to those days.

Of course it interferes with your freedom. I don't pay subsidies to well healed farmers voluntarily. There are also thousands of regulations that farmers have to follow.

Well, yes you do pay them voluntarily every time you pay your taxes. you do not have to live here, you do not have to pay your taxes. You voluntarily choose to live in this country, nobody is making you. When you choose to be a part of a society and reap the benefits of being a member you voluntarily choose all that goes with that, even the parts you may not like.

The point of being a libertarian is that you do agree with them on a lot of topics, like the initiation of force against innocent people. If you disagree with that principle, then you aren't a libertarian.

I am against initiation of force against innocent people, I just do not think you and I agree on what that looks like or who is innocent.

 

[Oddball]

There ya go...Might makes right...The mindset of the mobocrat in full bloom.

what the hell did what I say have to do with "might makes right"? are you drunk?

"We the people voted for it"...You said that shit...That implies that the biggest mob makes the decision, whether right or wrong, and the rest of us can just suck it.

I had you pegged long ago as a poorly closeted totalitarian, and now you've given everyone who cares to see it the proof.

Actually in our country the biggest mob does not always win, as was shown in the past election.

Irrelevant to your attitude.....You're an authoritarian, not a libertarian....It's long pat time to quit fronting.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

They already had government. All they brought it with them. The Indians lived there for thousands of years with no formal government. They had no means of enforcing laws other than social pressure.

once again your knowledge of history is lacking, to put it nicely.

All of the Indian tribes had a system of governing with leaders and rules.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

There ya go...Might makes right...The mindset of the mobocrat in full bloom.

what the hell did what I say have to do with "might makes right"? are you drunk?

"We the people voted for it"...You said that shit...That implies that the biggest mob makes the decision, whether right or wrong, and the rest of us can just suck it.

I had you pegged long ago as a poorly closeted totalitarian, and now you've given everyone who cares to see it the proof.

Actually in our country the biggest mob does not always win, as was shown in the past election.

Irrelevant to your attitude.....You're an authoritarian, not a libertarian....It's long pat time to quit fronting.

you are so cute when you try so hard and fail so badly.

but hey, keep on trying!

Maybe you could email Trump and ask him what you should say

 

[Oddball]

I am against initiation of force against innocent people, I just do not think you and I agree on what that looks like or who is innocent.

Bullshit...You're in favor of taxation (initiation of coercion against innocent people) and redistribution (receipt of stolen property) as long as you get your cut.

Fucking thug.

 

[bripat9643]

I already answered this argument. The Gauls had no formal government when Julius Ceaser conquered them.

This is not true, the tribes each had a system with leaders, elders, some were large enough to have kings and others had chieftains. That is a system of government.

Wrong. They had leaders, not kings. Following the leader was purely voluntary. If you didn't like his decisions, you were free to go your own way. Government requires a means of compulsion. A monopoly on force is used to make you comply with the "rules."

This is a logical impossibility, the foreign invader had a government it got from somewhere and eventually it could not have come from a previous foreign invader.

Nope. In the beginning they were nomadic tribes, just like the Gauls. The first government was created when the nomads raid the lowland farmers and then settled in among them so they could mulct them for tribute on a steady basis.

There is no society in history that does not have some form of governing, none

According to your definition of government, a band of savages in the Amazon jungle has government. Of course, educated people understand that government is an organized monopoly on the use of force. Geronimo doesn't qualify.

 

[dblack]

The federal government uses food to affect geopolitics so it has to have some safeguards for farmers if it instituted a policy that causes the price to go below production costs.

So, what you are saying is that the Fed government exerts control over what is produced by our farmers and ranchers, and that is a good thing?

Yes. That's what he's saying. Trumpsters aren't libertarians. They adore authoritarian government.

Being intelligent enough to recognize that .GOV has a role to play in society does not equate to "adoring authoritarian government".
You megalomaniacs (Libertarians) refuse to wrap your head around the simplicity.

Libertarians are "megalomaniacs"???

BL brings the best BS.

Literally every single self proclaimed “Libertarian” I know is the smartest guy in the room, every room...just ask them. They are all way too smart for Christianity and way too smart for the political parties that actually play in the game and matter.

And how does that make them "megalomaniacs"? Do you need a dictionary?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Wrong. They had leaders, not kings. Following the leader was purely voluntary. If you didn't like his decisions, you free to go your own way. Government requires a means of compulsion. A monopoly on force is used to make you comply with the "rules."

That is not different here. If you do not like the rules and do not want to comply you are free to leave any time you want. Nobody is forcing you to stay.

Nope. In the beginning they were nomadic tribes, just like the Gauls. The first government was created when the nomads raid the lowland farmers and then settled in among them so they could mulct them for tribute on a steady basis.

Even nomadic tribes have leaders and rules, i.e. a government.

According to your definition of government, a band of savages in the Amazon jungle has government. Of course, educated people understand that government is an organized monopoly on the use of force. Geronimo doesn't qualify.

That is correct, it may not be a well established or as large as ours, but it is still a government.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"Economic Justice" is the commie tyrant's code term for "give me your fucking money or my henchman (government) will kill you"

The only justice that should be available regarding the economy is letting the earner keep his earnings.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I am against initiation of force against innocent people, I just do not think you and I agree on what that looks like or who is innocent.

Bullshit...You're in favor of taxation (initiation of coercion against innocent people) and redistribution (receipt of stolen property) as long as you get your cut.

Fucking thug.

What cut am I getting? I would be willing to bet I pay far more in taxes than you

 

[dblack]

What "this" are your referring to? Once again the so-called libertarian comes out in favor of subsidies and government regulation.

This is the government's actions to maintain a steady food supply at a steady price. This program does not interfere with my freedoms or impose restrictions upon me or anyone else.

Anytime someone takes your money, and spends it against your will, they're interfering with your freedom, and imposing restrictions on your. Would you consider it interfering with freedom if income tax was 100%?

 

[dblack]

There ya go...Might makes right...The mindset of the mobocrat in full bloom.

what the hell did what I say have to do with "might makes right"? are you drunk?

Might makes right is the operative principle behind the "we the people" excuse.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Anytime someone takes your money, and spends it against your will, they're interfering with your freedom, and imposing restrictions on your. Would you consider it interfering with freedom if income tax was 100%?

nobody is taking your money. Nobody forces you to pay taxes, nobody forces you to stay in a society that you do not wish to be a part of. We have a wide open border and you are free to leave anytime you wish.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

There ya go...Might makes right...The mindset of the mobocrat in full bloom.

what the hell did what I say have to do with "might makes right"? are you drunk?

Might makes right is the operative principle behind the "we the people" excuse.

We hold elections every 2 years to choose those to represent us...we get what we deserve.

 

[dblack]

The debate over whether we should have more, or less, socialism in US government is largely a debate over the purpose of government. Socialists "believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically". That might sound relatively innocuous. But it's a radical claim, one we should consider seriously before indulging a more socialistic government.

The libertarian roots of the United States contradict this belief. In the US, neither society, nor the economy, is run democratically. Each is run collaboratively, voluntarily, by the individuals who make up society. Government merely serves as a "referee". Socialists want government to be the "coach".

The Purpose of our Federal Government:

"in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

Limited socialism can be justified as a method of establishing economic Justice, and promoting the general welfare. It can also be justified as securing Liberty, since capitalism leads to defacto slavery.

Any other dumb questions?

Do you think that both the economy and society should be run democratically?

 

[dblack]

Anytime someone takes your money, and spends it against your will, they're interfering with your freedom, and imposing restrictions on your. Would you consider it interfering with freedom if income tax was 100%?

nobody is taking your money. Nobody forces you to pay taxes, nobody forces you to stay in a society that you do not wish to be a part of. We have a wide open border and you are free to leave anytime you wish.

Very 'libertarian' of you.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That is not different here. If you do not like the rules and do not want to comply you are free to leave any time you want. Nobody is forcing you to stay.

Except...there's nowhere to go...so they STILL have a monopoly on power.

Even nomadic tribes have leaders and rules, i.e. a government.

Yes, but those were natural relationships. They were familial. The commies want to force a familial relationship between strangers. It will NEVER work.

And, one was free to leave and had a place to go if he did. Now....there is no alternative.

That is correct, it may not be a well established or as large as ours, but it is still a government.

On this point, I agree. Which is why I believe that establishing anarchy is impossible. Releasing anarchy on a society is like releasing a highly reactive gas, like chlorine, into the atmosphere. Within seconds, the gas becomes something else. Within hours anarchy will devolve into some form of government or state.