• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Challenge to the "lesser of two evils" crowd

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
News flash!!!

What's wrong with trying to enhance the standard of living/provide an easier life for everyone/everyone's offspring? Equality is only a bad thing if we are equally destitute. Sure, if everyone is middle-class or above, people like you won't get to feel superior to all the peasants, but is that really a drawback? And for f**k's sake, you won't be poor, don't complain. If your ultimate goal is to be better off than your ancestors and to ensure that your descendants will be better off than you, what difference does it make if your countrymen are equally well-to-do? That only matters if you actually want to be a modern day aristocrat--in which case, just become a CEO.

For the record, I don't really care either way as long as my rights and the rights of my friends and family are left alone. Social democracy; laissez-faire capitalism; a free market regulated to prevent trusts, monopolies and corporatism with a social welfare system to provide for the needy; or some new system entirely, I'll work with it. I see no reason to be like others on this forum and in life that vehemently attack differing schools of economic thought--those aren't the problem, folks, it's the state. Once government is under control, then if you find a legitimate reason to argue the merits and ills of various economic systems, have at it. It's mostly only philosophically relevant though, any economic system done right will work.

Oh, still on ignore btw, just felt like replying this time.

WE ARE NOT ALL "EQUAL".
According to the intent of the founders were are created equal, after that your life is in your hands. Just a little bit of independent thinking leads most rational people to the conclusion that we deserve equal treatment under the law, not equal outcomes in life. Some people are lazy, some happy with a minimal effort humble existence, some people (ahem) are idiots simply because they refuse to think, some are just born that way, some are criminally inclined and some just want to stay wasted.

Some people work hard and pursue enhance standards, some people are innovative, some virtueous and some people go out of their way to assist their peers. This psuedointellectual pipe dream of marxism stifles the efforts of people who do more than others thus holding all of humanity back. Who the hell is going to put forth an extra effort or try and create something extraordinary if all of their efforts go towards a collective that equally rewards the slothful, ignorant, or drug addled parasites?

Why is this simple concept so hard for these people to grasp? No child left behind huh? More like no child gets ahead.

That's not to say we shouldn't assist people who through no fault of their own cannot sustain modest standards of living, and if not for the oxygen thieves (ahem), there would be more resources for those people.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
Equal was never inteded to refer to how much one owns or earns but to the law. Equal was about social status; when nobles and royals had a different much better set of rules to follow along with privileges and immunities.
 

Animus

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
127
Location
Cookeville, TN
Oh, so unless it was intended by the Founders, it isn't valid? Then I guess women need to stop voting, and all the black people need to get back in the cotton fields.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
That's not true. Neither social democracy nor socialist anarchy are accomplished by force, but by volition. You're thinking of communism.

And how are you going to make people participate in those systems?

Social anarchism aims for "free association of people living together and cooperating in free communities.
(From Wikipedia), Sounds like a free market to me and people choosing to associate or not associate doesn't go against my point.

Social democracy argues that all citizens should be legally entitled to certain social rights. These are made up of universal access to public services such as: education, health care, workers' compensation, and other services including child care and care for the elderly
(From Wikipedia) And this can only be accomplished by force. Not everybody wants to pay for your kids education or take care of your old parents, or your health care. There is tyranny in democracy too.

Socialism and Communism was used synonymously until the Bolshevik Revolution.

The only true way to respect all rights is a free market.
 

Animus

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
127
Location
Cookeville, TN
It's simple--you don't have to live there if you don't want to participate. Neither system requires any force because at all times, anyone is allowed to leave. You aren't being held against your will. So, those that want to participate in the system will stay, those that don't may leave, and everyone's happy.
 

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
Oh, so unless it was intended by the Founders, it isn't valid? Then I guess women need to stop voting, and all the black people need to get back in the cotton fields.

You "argue" like politicians: with no rhyme or reason. Let's review what actually happened here:

Equal was never inteded to refer to how much one owns or earns but to the law. Equal was about social status; when nobles and royals had a different much better set of rules to follow along with privileges and immunities.

As well as equal opportunities, which apparently PrayingForWar isn't in favor of.

See, you chimed in in direct response (I'm sure you'll now try to pretend you were responding to something else, but of course that's ridiculous, because there's nothing else that could have been responding to that would make any cognitive sense) to Daylen's assertion about the [contextually- and semantically-implied] Founders' original meaning of "equal", asserting that "equal" also includes "equal opportunities". This is incontrovertible. I am now asking you to provide a definition for "equal opportunities" that is unambiguous, and justify your claim that such definition was included in the Founders' intent.

That you are trying to change the subject to distract from your utter lack of justification for your claims is not remotely surprising. In fact, I predict that you're about to repeat that effort in 3... 2... 1...
 

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
It's simple--you don't have to live there if you don't want to participate. Neither system requires any force because at all times, anyone is allowed to leave. You aren't being held against your will. So, those that want to participate in the system will stay, those that don't may leave, and everyone's happy.

So if I don't want to participate in the tax system, I can just opt out? And I won't suffer any repercussions, because the system doesn't use force or coercion to implement itself? Well hot damn. I'm glad you cleared that up!
 

Animus

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
127
Location
Cookeville, TN
You "argue" like politicians: with no rhyme or reason. Let's review what actually happened here:





See, you chimed in in direct response (I'm sure you'll now try to pretend you were responding to something else, but of course that's ridiculous, because there's nothing else that could have been responding to that would make any cognitive sense) to Daylen's assertion about the [contextually- and semantically-implied] Founders' original meaning of "equal", asserting that "equal" also includes "equal opportunities". This is incontrovertible. I am now asking you to provide a definition for "equal opportunities" that is unambiguous, and justify your claim that such definition was included in the Founders' intent.

That you are trying to change the subject to distract from your utter lack of justification for your claims is not remotely surprising. In fact, I predict that you're about to repeat that effort in 3... 2... 1...

What the Founders wanted is irrelevant, f**k them. Equal opportunities should exist regardless of the original intentions.
 

Animus

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
127
Location
Cookeville, TN
So if I don't want to participate in the tax system, I can just opt out? And I won't suffer any repercussions, because the system doesn't use force or coercion to implement itself? Well hot damn. I'm glad you cleared that up!

By living here, you are consenting to be taxed. You can always emigrate to an uninhabited island if you don't like it.
 

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
What the Founders wanted is irrelevant, f**k them. Equal opportunities should exist regardless of the original intentions.

In a forum such as this, there tends to be automatic weight granted to those who present arguments which reasonably originate from Founders' views. Departing from those views in no way invalidates any argument you might make, but it does essentially start you back at zero, in terms of argumentative merit. Some hold the Founders in such esteem that dismissing and cursing them as vehemently as you have done actually puts you in negative territory. However, I'm only interested in logic and reason.

So you're starting from zero. You still haven't provided any definition for "equal opportunities", let alone an unambiguous one. Furthermore, you claim, emphatically, "should", which necessarily is an assertion of moral requirement, yet provide no basis, whatsoever, for this assertion. Would you care to provide an unambiguous definition and basis for assertion, or are you simply espousing irrational feelings?

("Irrational" does not mean "wrong" or "invalid", it simply means "not based on logic and reason". Thus, irrational feelings may be perfectly fine, but they have no argumentative merit, whatsoever.)
 

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
By living here, you are consenting to be taxed.

Absolutely wrong. You clearly have no grasp of contract law, which throughout the history of Western common law mandates that parties to a valid contract must explicitly enter the contract with 1) full understanding of the requirements and implications of the contract, and 2) absolutely no coercion. Quite literally, there can be no valid automatic contract involved in citizenship. At minimum, no one can enter into any contract until they reach legal majority, and as there is no mechanism in the United States for a Natural Born Citizen explicitly to enter a citizenship contract at their majority, there is no contract.

See here, particularly here.
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
As well as equal opportunities, which apparently PrayingForWar isn't in favor of.

Perhaps someone who isn't a marxist troll can enlighten me as to where I even ambiguously stated opposition to eqaulity of "opportunity". I thought I was quite clear that the founders believed all men had the same rights to pursue prosperity, or starve to death if they're oxygen thieves. Naturally the same tired knee jerk regurgitation about slavery was spewed out like clockwork. As if the founders were entirely (or even slightly) responsible for the institution of slavery. Which not only still exists today, but existed in ancient times. Yet since these men existed during that time, and some of them even (gasp) owned slaves as most wealthy land owners did in those times, it completely corrupts the entire foundation of the only country on earth that ever existed with the freedoms we have, let alone had until libtards screwed it up.

I cannot adequately articulate the depth of contempt I have for "people" like these raving moonbat leftist douchebags.
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
The rights of your friends and family is included in economic structure of a country. The only way those rights would be protected is to let a truly free market alone. I am anti corporitism, when they can influence the government, but if you look at the history of "trust" laws in this country many were founded for protection of those in the industry. The only way any form of economic system other than free market, ( I like the idea of anarcho-capitalism myself) is done is by force and taking away rights.

The governments really needs to have little involvement.

Read, Hazlits, "Economics in One Lesson". A better book for this subject is Ludwig Von Mises's "Omnipotent Government".

Thanks to a public education I had thought "anti-trust" laws protected the "little guy" by preventing a single business owner from completely dominating an entire industry and then being able to raise prices to confiscatory levels after all competition was erased. Turns out it was easier to do so by force of government.

I've seen people regard our present ****ed up system as "fascism". That is not correct. In a true fascist system businesses are allowed to make "profits", but they're regulated. Output is regulated, and wages are regulated all for the benefit of the collective state. I would much prefer "anarcho-capitalism" myself, but a lot of people living today would likely starve to death.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
In a true fascist system businesses are allowed to make "profits", but they're regulated. Output is regulated, and wages are regulated all for the benefit of the collective state.

You do realize that this is what happens today, don't you? Businesses are allowed to make profits, but those businesses are highly regulated when viewed in historical perspective. Government subsidies, incentives, and other manipulations regulate economic output, and the minimum wage regulates pay rates.

I would much prefer "anarcho-capitalism" myself, but a lot of people living today would likely starve to death.

Yes, because no one ever donates to charity, and wouldn't have even more to donate if the bloodsucking government wasn't taxing them to death. Also, everyone knows that America had a huge problem with people starving to death before the advent of the the welfare/warfare state. :rolleyes:

ETA: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
^Whenever you hear any politician promote "public-private partnerships," your threat radar should be blowing up.
 
Last edited:

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
Wowwy,,,I really mean WOWWYYYY!!!!!!!

What the Founders wanted is irrelevant, f**k them. Equal opportunities should exist regardless of the original intentions.

What the Founding Fathers Wanted,,, CREATED A NEW AND ENDURING NATION!!!
The most FREE on Earth,, since the beginning of all time.
The constitution of the United States has been the best guide of free men, longer than any other,,, ever!

I have known from your first post, that you were a communist, no matter what you want want to call it...

You should not ever say...FJUCK YOU, to OUR Founding FATHERS...
Dont You Ever Say FJUCK YOU to ME!!!


Also from ANIMUS;;; By living here, you are consenting to be taxed.
You can always emigrate to an uninhabited island if you don't like it.

Sooo,,, If I want to live there/here,,, but dont want to pay your TAX?
Will you KILL me?
Do I have have unailable Right to KILL you back?
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Says who? YOU? I was never given a choice, genius, so I could never have given "consent." Contracts and all that. Seriously, where is your logic?

Isn't that fallacy argument amusing, if you do't like be robbed by the government and by a "democratic" mob leave. How can someone spout they want rights to be respected but then think positivism is a good thing?



Rosa Parks if you don't like sitting in the back of the bus don't ride the bus. :rolleyes:
 

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
Isn't that fallacy argument amusing, if you do't like be robbed by the government and by a "democratic" mob leave. How can someone spout they want rights to be respected but then think positivism is a good thing?



Rosa Parks if you don't like sitting in the back of the bus don't ride the bus. :rolleyes:

Damn, that's good. I'm gonna have to remember that one!
 
Top