LGP Political Discussion Thread

[doublem]

The tribalistic narcissism and depraved refusal to accept responsibility for the consequences of one's actions on vivid display here is hardly unique to Brooks. The very same people who express such moral outrage and self-righteous horror over events like the Fort Hood shootings themselves have immense amounts of innocent human blood on their hands, but they simply avert their eyes from what they have caused or believe that they are too inherently Good to be responsible, let alone culpable, for what they unleash.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... /10/brooks" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[doublem]

Who cares what you call it? The point is the person was free to make the choice. I don't consider making a choice that has adverse results a virtue, either. But I don't proclaim to know better for someone else to either make a decision for them or to protect them from the consequences of it. (Some of the best learning experiences of my life have been the result of what you would call stupidity. I'm a better, more intelligent person as a result.) Again - who are you to say what people should do with their freedom?

There are better choices than others. I'm not going to try to enforce it by law, but I don't value choice or respect it just becasue someone made it, reasons have to be attached to it. A 5 year old can make choices all day long, but they are not on the same level that an adult is going to make one. Are you really less free when/ if someone takes your car keys when you are drunk? Someone watching TV and curing cancer, both choices but, one is a lot better than the other, it's just a relativist argument. I could care less about about what someone does, how I think doesn't impact one persons actions or not, it doesn't matter at all. It seems like this is about judgment, if someone is judging your choices to be right or wrong, etc Everyone judges what others do, who cares? You can grow by your choices or not, but lets no say that all choices have the same freedom.

Soviet style control is not over.

Are you comparing texting laws or taxes to Soviet imprisonment? Who around the world besides a few countries( in the middle east and LA) is comparable to the Soviet Union?

[Guinness]

Who cares what you call it? The point is the person was free to make the choice. I don't consider making a choice that has adverse results a virtue, either. But I don't proclaim to know better for someone else to either make a decision for them or to protect them from the consequences of it. (Some of the best learning experiences of my life have been the result of what you would call stupidity. I'm a better, more intelligent person as a result.) Again - who are you to say what people should do with their freedom?

There are better choices than others. I'm not going to try to enforce it by law, but I don't value choice or respect it just becasue someone made it, reasons have to be attached to it. A 5 year old can make choices all day long, but they are not on the same level that an adult is going to make one. Are you really less free when/ if someone takes your car keys when you are drunk? Someone watching TV and curing cancer, both choices but, one is a lot better than the other, it's just a relativist argument. I could care less about about what someone does, how I think doesn't impact one persons actions or not, it doesn't matter at all. It seems like this is about judgment, if someone is judging your choices to be right or wrong, etc Everyone judges what others do, who cares? You can grow by your choices or not, but lets no say that all choices have the same freedom.

May I AGAIN refer you to the above bolded?

As well as:

"Using governmental force to impose a vision on others is intellectual sloth, and typically results in unintended, perverse consequences."

I don't think that one person attempting to help another person is denying them of their freedom. I think that using government force to deny a person the liberty to make a choice, obviously, is.

Soviet style control is not over.

Are you comparing texting laws or taxes to Soviet imprisonment? Who around the world besides a few countries( in the middle east and LA) is comparable to the Soviet Union?[/quote]

What did Louisiana ever do to you?

Soviet style control lays dormant. It's government's greatest glory.

[shafnutz05]

http://www.boston.com/business/articles ... iew_finds/

Now the Boston Globe (HARDLY a bastion of conservatism) is reporting that the positive effects of the stimulus in Massachusetts were "wildly exaggerated". We are seeing reports of how ineffective the stimulus was all over the place...at the same time, the White House is telling us that the effects of the bill have just about run out. That's right...........a TRILLION dollars flushed down the toilet with this bill, and we saw no real benefit. As a matter of fact, Pelosi even had the gall to suggest it was just a matter of needing a SECOND stimulus. Are you kidding me?

I feel like you have to completely suspend disbelief and rationality to actually support the passage of any kind of nationalized healthcare bill coming out of this Congress. Obama has been a miserable failure since he took office...and regardless of how much he tries to blame Bush, that was HIS stimulus. How can anyone here actually TRUST the Democrats in Congress to pass a healthcare bill that will be beneficial for us?

Then, you have the president talking to Jake Tapper yesterday about the need for strict and harsh penalties for not buying the mandatory health insurance they will be shoving down our throat. He made the ridiculously fallacious statement comparing car insurance and health insurance. This tired argument is asinine....you buy car insurance as a financial protection against damage you do to other people/their property. I find it ironic that his argument was that he doesn't want "freeloaders" to be receiving free healthcare while others pay, while in his next breath supports massive entitlements to people that aren't working.

Make no mistake about it....do you think for one second Pelosi or Reid care if they lose both houses of Congress to get this bill passed? Not for a second. This bill is the ultimate, crowning achievement for the Democratic Party. By passing this bill, they will create a majority of people in this country that are ultimately dependent on government assistance to maintain their way of life. People will not vote against the hand that feeds them....essentially giving Democrats unstoppable power in perpetuity.

All you have to do is look at how ugly this bill is to realize that this was never about healthcare, or quality of care. This is about making more Americans slaves of their federal government, thus forcing us to vote to keep the same people in power for a long time because we rely on them for our well being. It's a very, very dangerous situation.

[Gaucho]

By passing this bill, they will create a majority of people in this country that are ultimately dependent on government assistance to maintain their way of life. People will not vote against the hand that feeds them....essentially giving Democrats unstoppable power in perpetuity.

All you have to do is look at how ugly this bill is to realize that this was never about healthcare, or quality of care. This is about making more Americans slaves of their federal government, thus forcing us to vote to keep the same people in power for a long time because we rely on them for our well being. It's a very, very dangerous situation.

[shafnutz05]

lol you can laugh all you want but that's ultimately what is going to happen. It's common sense. This bill will move millions of Americans who aren't currently on the public dole into the government entitlement system. After a while, they will become accustomed to receiving the government-mandated health insurance, and will naturally want to keep it that way. Why do you think inner cities and other people receiving the benefits of entitlement programs vote overwhelmingly Democrat?

The reason why Democrats want to keep people on entitlement programs is that it forces them to rely heavily on the federal gov't....and thus the Dems. You call it a paranoid conspiracy theory, I call it common sense. The worst thing that can happen for a Democrat is for a welfare recipient to find a job, save money, and eventually start their own business or become successful as an employee. When you are not paying a dime in taxes and receiving endless benefits from the actual taxpayers, why would you have any reason to extend yourself?

Same goes for the amnesty bill. Why do you think so many Democrats favor offering amnesty to the millions of illegals here? VOTERS!! Most of these illegals will immediately apply for federal entitlement programs, thus joining the millions of Americans suckling at the Democratic teat.

[Gaucho]

That's assuming that people like to be in any way dependent on the government. Most do not like that at all. Stating that "the worst thing that can happen for a Democrat is for a welfare recipient to find a job" is cynical to say the least.

[shafnutz05]

That's assuming that people like to be in any way dependent on the government. Most do not like that at all. Stating that "the worst thing that can happen for a Democrat is for a welfare recipient to find a job" is cynical to say the least.

Cynical? Sure. But is it not true? I am a recruiter for a staffing firm. I cannot tell you how many times I offer people full-time jobs, and I hear something to the effect of "well, what if I don't like the position, and want to quit? That will totally mess up my unemployment!".

Most people might not "like" being dependent on the government....but the problem is, they fall into a cycle where they become complacent with the status quo and decide that living off the entitlement system is easier than working 40 hours a week. Like I said...the same reason Democrats want amnesty for illegals is the same reason why they want a majority of Americans to be dependent on the government....votes.

And don't forget...once the federal government controls our healthcare system, they then have the power to control a lot of other decisions in our life. What we can eat; if, when, and where we can smoke; where we can travel; how much we can weigh; what restaurants are allowed to serve. It sounds crazy...and it is. But what worries me more about this healthcare bill then any other entitlement program to date is that we are REQUIRED to take part in it. And because we are required, we are compelled to do what we are told. By controlling our healthcare, the government can extend its tentacles to almost every facet of our daily lives, and tangentially link it with our "health". The public option is not an option at all.

[Guinness]

I'm not sure I understand. I think it is correct to say that no one can force you to be a slave, so long as you value freedom over life. Practically, we make judgment calls about things like this all the time.

Yes this is what I am getting at. So you are free under any social system to do as you please anyways. It's just the consequences of your actions will be different. So while I agree that freedom of your person is inherent, I sometimes have a hard times seeing property rights the same way. Now I like property rights and believe in them but I just don't see them as an inherent right.

I view income taxation as unconstitutional and immoral

- This is your view, but it is the correct view? This is what I am getting at. I think that the unconstitutional part is correct but the immoral part is what I am interested in. Is it only immoral in the way you define terms or is it inherently immoral?

But I have no say in how my labor is translated into charity. My labor goes to fund two immoral and illegal wars... (I'm getting off track here) it's worse than that - I am funding the killing of other human beings. Government has put me in a position where I must choose between my morals and providing for my family. You know, that's not an exaggeration - the Federal government, for all intents and purposes, has a gun to my head, and asks me to choose. That's only the tip of the iceberg, really.

I agree 100% with all of this. When I look at the federal government anymore, i just see a ticking time bomb. 500 billion here, a trillion there, all debt financed, added into the mix more wars and new entitlements, a huge trade deficit, etc. Our economic future is grim. Ending income taxation and the federal reserve would reduce the government to essential services and force them to live within a small budget. Of course it would also make the dollar highly inelastic and I really don't know what effect that would have. I imagine credit would be quite hard to come by then.

bh, do you read LRC? Check out this book review there - I think it addresses some of the questions you brought up about private property and freedom. I'm thinking about picking up the book - it sounds like it will do a good job of fleshing out the reasons why personal liberty and economic liberty are one in the same and indivisible.

And, of course - END THE FED.

[doublem]

lol you can laugh all you want but that's ultimately what is going to happen. It's common sense. This bill will move millions of Americans who aren't currently on the public dole into the government entitlement system. After a while, they will become accustomed to receiving the government-mandated health insurance, and will naturally want to keep it that way.

Just out of curiosity , but why hasn't this happened in Europe yet?

[doublem]

but the problem is, they fall into a cycle where they become complacent with the status quo and decide that living off the entitlement system is easier than working 40 hours a week. Like I said...the same reason Democrats want amnesty for illegals is the same reason why they want a majority of Americans to be dependent on the government....votes.

Hmm, it seems to be that the other party in this country people that they are going to be rich one day. Same thing. People should vote in there tax bracket.

[shafnutz05]

Hmm, it seems to be that the other party in this country people that they are going to be rich one day. Same thing. People should vote in there tax bracket.

I think you might have missed a couple words in that post, but I see your gist. Every time I see a relatively well-off (i.e., salary over $100k) person vote for a liberal Democrat, I just want to punch them in the face. Why vote for a candidate that is going to forcefully take money from you and decide where it goes? I would rather keep my money and give it to the charity of my choice.

[doublem]

Why vote for a candidate that is going to forcefully take money from you and decide where it goes? I would rather keep my money and give it to the charity of my choice.

I don't know, maybe they view taxes not as some charity, but as a necessity. I don't think you have a lot of charities that build schools or roads.

[PensFanInDC]

Why vote for a candidate that is going to forcefully take money from you and decide where it goes? I would rather keep my money and give it to the charity of my choice.

I don't know, maybe they view taxes not as some charity, but as a necessity. I don't think you have a lot of charities that build schools or roads.

Not in this country because those are government controlled projects. Independant groups can't build those things.

In other countries (say, 3rd world nations) charities build schools and roads all the time.

[Guinness]

Private entities build schools and roads here in the US all the time.

[Guinness]

Thank garsh we've got enough money to fund all of these great idears! What's a trill here or there when you can...



See, Ben? Money really does grow on trees!

[doublem]

In other countries (say, 3rd world nations) charities build schools and roads all the time.

Yea, I would say that would be a problem on many levels.

[Guinness]

In other countries (say, 3rd world nations) charities build schools and roads all the time.

Yea, I would say that would be a problem on many levels.

We do a pretty nice job of it here, though.

[doublem]

Private entities build schools and roads here in the US all the time.

I wasn't saying they didn't. I was saying that charity isn't going to sustain social projects.

[doublem]

In other countries (say, 3rd world nations) charities build schools and roads all the time.

Yea, I would say that would be a problem on many levels.

We do a pretty nice job of it here, though.

Did what here? Become a third world nation?

[Guinness]

We do a pretty nice job of it here, though.

Did what here? Become a third world nation?

We build pretty nice private roads and private schools.

[rasbatch]

Hmm, it seems to be that the other party in this country people that they are going to be rich one day. Same thing. People should vote in there tax bracket.

I think you might have missed a couple words in that post, but I see your gist. Every time I see a relatively well-off (i.e., salary over $100k) person vote for a liberal Democrat, I just want to punch them in the face. Why vote for a candidate that is going to forcefully take money from you and decide where it goes? I would rather keep my money and give it to the charity of my choice.

Well maybe they're a one issue voter, for instance staunchly pro-choice and could never vote for a anti-abortion
candidate. What I find disturbing is that you think violence would a way to sway these voters. I disagree with my
conservative friends all the time on all sorts of issues, but never once did I think a strong right hand to the kisser would
be a way to change their minds.

[shafnutz05]

lol rasbatch...I would never punch them in the face....or use violence. What do I look like....some type of Obama-supporting SEIU union thug?!

[doublem]

We do a pretty nice job of it here, though.

Did what here? Become a third world nation?

We build pretty nice private roads and private schools.

Yea, we do, but we are talking about all private schools and how charity would have to fund them all. We don't do so good in the private prisons though.

[Guinness]

We build pretty nice private roads and private schools.

Yea, we do, but we are talking about all private schools and how charity would have to fund them all. We don't do so good in the private prisons though.

No reason all schools couldn't be built and maintained privately. None.