Conservativism in practice 2

[justaoldslave]

Thanks Naomi, The rich feel that the pollution isn't in thier neighborhood. The poor are too stupid to count as human beings. The poor and working cast members are only to being used as profitably a possible.

[szatmar666]

I wonder what are they going to do with us when they don't need us anymore since everything will be automatized. CITI came up with a paper a few years ago stating that the largest opportunities are in luxury goods and average consumer goods don't matter anymore.

[seventy18]

For her opening comments I would like to say "he who lives by the bible dies by the bible" we reap what we sew! most of the world is religious therefore we are all gonna die some apocoliptic doom foisted upon us from some religious muslim/christian/jewish nut.

[InReasonWeTrust]

Personal responsibility is critical for people who live in the paths of wildfires. Shake shingle roofs? Eucalyptus? Dead end suburban streets? Building on steep slopes?

If we as a society refuse to accept environmentally sound zoning, risk taking individuals should pay sky high insurance rates. If the public is to bale them out, the public should be able to say, get the hell off this risky site. It will make a great nature preserve. Stop sprawl! Ride your bike to work.

[szatmar666]

I don't buy this conservative BS about personal responsibility. Not because I don't believe in the concept, but because I hear it too often as an excuse for corporate crimes. Go to scholar . google . com and search for "Global Warming" on site:sciencemag . org or site:nature . com because as long as oil companies are allowed to wreck the planet w impunity I want to hear no "personal responsibility" BS or about zoning regulations against ordinary people. I want oil CO CEOs in courtrooms 1st!!!

[Dogmeat7]

blah blah blah.. Libs talk.

[houliebeforethefall]

dont leave stupid comments you fucking loser.

[Dogmeat7]

stupid comments? lol. this comng from someones profile that says there 106 an from canada lol. then she picks on Blackwater lol. Lib women talk talk talk. no brian then again who the hell watches the program lol. also the Democracy now thing is wrong to. U.S isn't a Democracy but a Rebuplic with Democratic Values. :)

[EasyEs]

I don't understand why it is bad that people spend their money on a luxury of getting saved in a disaster. Oh no what an horror, it will start for the rich and become cheaper as time goes on like everything the market touches.. No you liberals can't have that everything even voluntary purchases need to be equitable from the start or not at all! Also climate change isn't projected to raise sea levels at any appreciable rate in the next century let alone these rich peoples lives.. what an idoit

[sam0fisher666]

Milton Friedman is dead, this libertarian nonsense is also dead. Americans are waking up. Perhaps too late but they are. Read normal economists, like Michael Hudson, Joe Stiglitz or James K. Galbraith. that's where the world is headed the next decade under democrats. reaganomics is officially dead its coffin nail is called "mortgage backed securities": perfect illustration of why the shredding of Glass Steagall was the worst idea since the 1920s deregulation frenzy.

[freedomman121]

"Libertarian nonsense"?

You wouldn't know Libertarianism if it hit you in the face.

Our founding fathers held Libertarian ideals, and they are what our republic's government were based on. In modern times, most Americans score as Libertarians when tested, but have been taught to scoff at the Libertarian concept. We have been forced into this "left vs right" false paradigm for so long that we don't even know who we are or what we think.

[eirefrance]

Our founding fathers didn't hold libertarian philosophies. They weren't economists. The notion of individual liberty was the one connection, but, as this posting shows, the application of libertarian values in the last 40 years have been economics focused, not freedom focused. I agree we have been forced into a 'left vs. right' paradigm, but the answer is some of both, not all of one.

[freedomman121]

I'm sorry, but that is simply incorrect. The Founders philosophy of individual liberty is what libertarianism is all about. It's what our Constitution and bill of rights is all about. And, they were very much into economics and monetary policy. You seem to be very confused when you say that libertarian views seem to have been focused on economics. That's also incorrect. but it is true that the individual's freedom to do what he wants with his own money is part of the individual's freedom.

[freedomman121]

eirefrance, you seem confused on several areas here regarding our Founders, and Libertarianism. I suggest you go back and do some studying on the topics. Ron Paul's new #1 bestseller 'Revolution: A Manifesto' may help you as well.

Cheers.

[eirefrance]

I'm reading the Federalist Papers and 1776 right now, hoping to understand more about their reasoning. Maybe I'll find something that will persuade me. Anyway, its nice to know that two citizens can still have intelligent debate without calling each other idiots. Cheers to you, sir.

[freedomman121]

Right on Brother. No harm can come from reading, learning, and intelligent debate. It only makes us stronger.

I'll bet you can find some sites with quotes from the Founders. You may be surprised at how mush they spoke and wrote on economics, monetary policy and how it relates to free individuals. But it all ties together. Your freedom to earn and do what you want with your money is the same as freedom of speech and freedom of religion etc.

[freedomman121]

I'm serious when I say to get Ron Paul's new book. Amazon is out of stock, but says they will have more soon.

[eirefrance]

I understand the connection between libertarianism as a philosophy of individual freedom and the founding fathers. But its important to distinguish between a group of people who were influenced by Thomas Paine's Rights of Man, which was responding to monarchy's abuse of citizens for the personal enjoyment of the monarch, and Friedman, who was responding to the controlled economies of the 1st half of the 20th century. They were responding to different stimuli.

[freedomman121]

Understood.

[luc2posse]

It's highly recommended. I'd say it's corporatism in practice, not conservatism, though.

A small government that didn't have the power to steal money from the people wouldn't be able to hand it out to its preferred contractors to go out and destroy, rebuild, repeat. This is certainly a horrible perversion of a free market.

Naomi's book is extremely important, though. One of a very few paradigm-shifters in understanding the world.

[madashelldude]

We the people are the government. We can't steal from we now can we? I'd say corporate cleptocrats stole American gov and that's the real issue here. People have no representation in the gov, rich oligarchs do. On the other hand contrary to conservative ideas big gov works. It worked while the middle class was created after the Great Depression and it works today in some other countries. Look at Sweden, Japan or Canada.

[madashelldude]

actually, let me rephrase: ONLY big gov works. With small gov large private interests will stampede on the interests of the majority and eventually capitalism self destructs via consolidation of power and misallocation of resources into unproductive luxury goods and idle stockmarket speculation. No long term innovation and infrastructure investments are possible with the corporate horizon of quarterly reports.

[vwlf]

Yes, you're right; we should have a government so big it includes everyone! No small elite oligarchy, but local, participatory democracy and equally distributed land with the basics of living guaranteed for everyone.

[TreeLuvBurdpu]

So the government should stampede on your interests before "private" interests? Or it's OK as long as it's the government doing it? The government is nobeler than private interest becaues it's run by liberals who only want what is good for you and are very well educated. Like the guys who decided to use our food for gasoline, not because it was cheaper or better for the atmosphere, but because... wait why did they do that again? Becaues it's the government and they don't have to bother w/qtrrpts

[EasyEs]

Look man Canada thrives because we are next the USA and we abandoned socialism I live here and there are no Government business anymore.. Japan experienced years of stagnet growth because of regulation and corruption. Also are you implying that the government can't steal from you? Good lord