Definition of A Liberal

Beth

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• No

[wrjamescom]

@oRReOP

ROTFLMAO! You quote Trotsky? Actually, he was party right on that point. A nation cannot become infected with the disease of socialism without a movement among an ignorant population. Make the people hungry and ignorant and they will vote away their freedom. Democracy is no friend of liberty, the tyranny of the majority is the worst kind of tyranny. And one cannot have small government and liberty in any socialist system.

[wrjamescom]

@oRReOP

That's why cities "incorporate". If a group of neighbors want to join together and build common facilities of all sorts, and make rules for their area, and share the costs, that's one thing. But a free nation cannot exist where those who don't want to participate are forced to. The federal government should stick to it's constitutional limits. Of course socialists cannot allow any to opt out, lest their programs collapse. They hate freedom.

[wrjamescom]

Trash cans have lids for a good reason. If you feed vermin, you just get a lot more vermin.

[wrjamescom]

The more socialist they are, the worse trouble they are in. In a few cases it's not directly apparent. China, for example, is a pretty good example of a socialist state that seems to function at the moment. The slaves are growing in wealth (at least some of them) and the masters are making a fortune. But the looming problems are quite obvious to the educated and to the chinese slave masters.

[wrjamescom]

You apparently never grew up. Taxes are for legitimate expenses of government, the minimum necessary to operate and run the legitimate functions of government. Feeding bums isn't legitimate, it's theft. Social security is a failed Ponzi scam that government has no business being involved with. We'd have far fewer bums is handouts weren't stolen from workers, taken by force, literal robbery, to give to them and encourage them to breed more bums.

[wrjamescom]

No one "has to starve" and no one is "taking everything". Wealth is created, it's not a zero sum game. Rich people aren't rich because others are poor. It's not a static amount of wealth. You think like a three year old. In a free system, anyone who wants to better himself is allowed to do so without punishment for succeeding.

[wrjamescom]

Well, when you grow up you'll learn that you can't have two things that are mutually exclusive. You cannot have freedom and equality. You can have equal rights, but never equality. You cannot have a society where everyone has the same wealth or lifestyle or even opportunities because you can't program everyone to have identical desires and work ethics and drives and make identical choices. Free people make wise and foolish choices and everything between.

[wrjamescom]

Funding the military is legitimate. It's a constitutional expense. There is no constitutional authority for government to take from anyone to give to bums. It's done, that's true. But it should be stopped and I vote accordingly. Government is not qualified to run charity. The Social Security Ponzi scam is similar and should be eliminated.

[wrjamescom]

In a free system (capitalist) EVERYONE owns their labor and can trade it to others or use it themselves and trade the product. Most choose to trade it by the hour to others because it's less work and less risky. In a socialist system, the state owns everyone's labor. It requires a slave state unless every individual in the society is like a mindless ant sharing all the same goals and abilities and desires, which is impossible.

[wrjamescom]

Alright, let's try an illustrative example. Suppose you have your way and we enact your socialist utopia. I decide I want to work twice as much, spend half as much, save and eventually I start trading $1 an hour for other's labor which I use to make something lots of people want, and I get very rich. Am I free in your utopia or am I not? Will your system disallow me the right to trade such things or punish me for trading?Can I opt out of your programs? Am I free?