The Paradox of Liberalism...... (A bit long, but worth it)

[PubliusInfinitum]

hey Pubicintherectium, just wanted you to know the banks have opened and need to do something that cannot be done online. So now when you talk to yourself there will be no monitor.

have at IT.


you're free. free as a bird... a dodo bird. yahooooooo!

"That boy sure is a runnin' fool..."

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

... Problem with your post is that Wall Street, Medicine companies, etc have shown us that they need regulation. Otherwise they will rob us blind/kill us slowly with whatever they are feeding us.

LOL... No one has advanced ANY idea wherein our common law does not harshly punish those that infringe upon and or usurp the means to exercise our inalienable rights... as you're suggesting. Where we differ is in the accountability to that law is eclipsed by government. FOR INSTANCE:

Regulation is needed in some form, that is what the Bush Administration failed to realize.

Where exactly did the Bush administration fail to sufficiently regulate the respective business interests behind the financial meltdown? Was it manifested in the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddy MAC and the mortgage industry which was encouraged to feed that regulatory failure? Your answer, to be coherent with your above point MUST BE: yes.

The problem is that the Buish administration REPEATEDLY CALLED FOR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASES IN THE OVERSIGHT OF THESE LEFTIST ORGANS... oversight WHICH THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT REJECTED, TIME AND TIME AGAIN... incontestably illustrated in the reaction by Bawney Fwank, Maxine waters, John Conyers, etc... LEFTISTS ALL... who demanded that Bush's attempt to bring these leftist organs into compliance with reason was a witch hunt; an attempt by Bush to keep the poor from owning their own homes and to protect the interests of that most vile of all creatures... "THE RICH!"

The $800 billion bailout was a horrible idea. Why?

Because it is rooted in the absence of reason; it rejects the essential accountability founded in nature and as such, is illustrative of left-think; thus stands antithetical to the common good of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY and the inherent responsibilities on which our inalienable rights rest.

Not only because these companies needed bailouts. But because this $800 billion bailout was unregulated, the companies that got this money were still unregulated, etc. It's like trying to fill a never ending hole. You can toss in as much as you like, but nothing will be solved unless the hole is not never ending.

WRONG... You're merely advocating FOR the bailout; FOR the unprincipled rejection of accountability and on the basis that 'the bailout is fine, if the money goes to those who really need it...' Such a position mirrors the reasoning of those who sponsored the bailout... those who you hope to protect from being responsible for such, by projecting the responsibility for the bailout onto GW Bush, who regrettably signed it, bt did so on the advise of Keynesian left-thinkers who demanded that if the natural order of accountability were allowed to come to fruition, the pain would be too great and all would be lost. Bush is a Republican; you want to thus attribute his bailout policy as being Republican Policy, thus CONSERVATIVE POLICY and it is most decidedly NOT. The bailout is LEFTIST POLICY, through and through and this will always be the case without regard to HOW MANY people you convince otherwise.

In fact, no Regulation was a huge reason why these companies ended up needing bailouts.

False... Policy foisted upon those companies by leftists in the Federal legislature; policy which ran counter to the immutable principles of nature; policy which PROMISED THOSE COMPANIES THAT THE GOVERMENT WOULD GUARRANTEE THEIR LOSSES... is what required the bailout; a bailout which was made CERTAIN the INSTANT THE GOVERNMENT GUARRANTEED THAT ANY LOSSES WOULD BE REFUNDED.

You see sis, the free market operates upon RISK! Mortgages are a vehicle wherein the inherent RISKS are managed through actuarial processes and calculations the are designed to accurately REFLECT, thus PREDICT the exposure to RISK which the lender is exposed... The LEFTISTS IN GOVERNMENT IN EFFECT SAID: 'MAKE THESE LOANS WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE SEEMS RISKY AND WE PROMISE TO PAY YOU BACK FOR ANY LOSSES YOU SUSTAIN AS A RESULT OF MAKING THEM.'

Well guess what Skippy... the bailout in effect is the government paying off on that guarantee... A guarantee which was FOOLISH BEYOND MEASURE AS IT WAS A GUARANTEE AGAINST LOSSESS WHICH WERE AN ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY!

MORONS!

 

[Diuretic]

What our founding fathers established in the late 18th century was considered very liberal — giving people freedom to determine and pursue their own goals, uninhibited and unaided by the government.

From their own experience, they knew that the more the people demanded from government, the more the government would have to control the people. They learned from monarchies and feudal systems that kept people in poverty in order to make those people rely on the pittance that the kingdom supplied just to keep them alive and working for the monarchy.

The so-called “liberal” ideas our founding fathers proposed — ideas like unrestricted free trade, small government, and political and economic freedom for its citizens — are the foundation on which the U.S. was created. Those ideas are the very reasons the U.S. has gone from fledgling country to dominant world power in 200 short years.

The Freedom Factory | Archive | Ideas

Make up your minds, people. There is no in-between.

This is the last line in the article. This sums up the article. This is why the article fails to convince.

 

[WillowTree]

 

[Diuretic]

Animal vivisection sucks!

 

[Diuretic]

The economic dominance of the United States

The vast natural resources possessed by the US may have been a comparative competitive advantage. Having slave labour was beneficial as well. So, abundant resources plus slavery gave the young nation's economy a flying start.

Risk

No society if it is to be worthy of the name, will seek to increase the risk to its citizens simply to fulfil an ideology.

The US quickly formed a standing army and a navy and began developing law enforcement and peacekeeping agencies to ensure national security and domestic harmony. Nothing wrong with that of course, but the objective of both is to minimise the risk of harm to the nation and its people. Within that security cocoon people can live with a better sense of personal security than if those agencies didn't exist.


Socialist states

Even in the USSR no-one was guaranteed a job. I have no idea what the tax rates in the former USSR and its satellites was, the writer doesn't give any proof of his claim.

Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production. It encourages the same levels of personal responsibility as can be found in western mixed economies.

The paradox

Freedom from government control over social issues. To me that's a good thing. The less influence government has over an individual the better. The question is just how much influence is acceptable.

The paradox redux


Free health care isn't free and everyone knows it. It's how it's paid for that's the issue.
A minimum wage should be a living wage, a wage which means there are no working poor. And salary caps for the rich? That's a new one on me. But looking at some of the massive payouts given to failed corporate chiefs I have to wonder at the stupidity of shareholders who put up with it.

The very wealthy don't need to worry about social security. Those who need social security are typically those who have had low paying or minimum wage jobs all their working lives and who have had less discretionary income which they could save for retirement. Why shouldn't the taxpayer set up a scheme for them to be able to live at least in a dignified retirement? People on well paid jobs should have superannuation schemes they can pay into and have their employer pay into as part of their preparation for retirement. Rent control is simply reasonable, it should be based on a fair profit to the landlord and a fair rent to be paid by the tenant. Of course the poor should get welfare safety nets, what are the alternatives? Forcing them to riot? Better public education? Is that a bad thing? And a green society? Again, is that a bad thing?

Cradle to grave care

In this field of strawmen this stands out. Who is asking for cradle to grave care?

Asking from the government

France, before the Revolution, was the sort of state the writer appears to desire. And we know what happened there.

True liberalism

Can Americans go to Cuba without asking the government?

The Democratic Party as extremist

They're promoters and defenders of capitalism. There are no collectivist views in the Democratic Party, no socialists, not even any real leftists.

Socialism as an academic issue

It ended in 1909? It did? Strangely enough the theory of market socialism was kicking off about then.

Cake - how to have it and how to eat it

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either you want more government (regulation, interference, control) or less government (freedom, privatization, risk).

Make up your minds, people. There is no in-between.

If I can beat HDL to this – the fallacy of the excluded middle.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The economic dominance of the United States

The vast natural resources possessed by the US may have been a comparative competitive advantage. Having slave labour was beneficial as well. So, abundant resources plus slavery gave the young nation's economy a flying start.

Slave labor was a function of the agrarian south... The suggestion that the US industrial advantage was a function of slave labor is absurd and a function of unbridle ignorance.

Risk

No society if it is to be worthy of the name, will seek to increase the risk to its citizens simply to fulfil an ideology.

What this means is known only to you... perhaps you're confusing the will to defend our ideas as an increase in a culture risk to it's citizens... if so, guess again.

Socialist states

Even in the USSR no-one was guaranteed a job. I have no idea what the tax rates in the former USSR and its satellites was, the writer doesn't give any proof of his claim.

ROFLMNAO...

See your own position BELOW:

Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production. It encourages the same levels of personal responsibility as can be found in western mixed economies.

So, if the collective owns the means of production Einstein, how does ownership NOT gaurantee a job?

The paradox

Freedom from government control over social issues. To me that's a good thing. The less influence government has over an individual the better. The question is just how much influence is acceptable.

There is no cultural history on earth, wherein less social freedom is realized than in leftist nations... which goes hand in hand with political and every other variety of freedom...

The paradox redux


Free health care isn't free and everyone knows it. It's how it's paid for that's the issue.
A minimum wage should be a living wage, a wage which means there are no working poor. And salary caps for the rich? That's a new one on me. But looking at some of the massive payouts given to failed corporate chiefs I have to wonder at the stupidity of shareholders who put up with it.

Healthcare is NOT free... and it gets less free as government policy interferes with the free market in which health and every other form of care exists... where the government induces regulatory expenses and interferes with systems that rely upn actuarial probability, it forces the system to sustain the CERTAINTY OF LOSS... all government can do is to guarantee against loss, which immeidately and unavoidably DRIVES UP THE PROBABILITY OF LOSSES DUE TO HAVING FAILED TO AVOID THAT WHICH CAN ONLY LEAD TO LOSS... which in case ya missed it, DRIVES UP THE COST OF HEALTHCARE.

That's a function of nature Diur and no one is ever going to change that... all you'll ever manage to do is to bankrupt one system after another by implementing that same failed strategies to try and fund the same empty promises of socialism.

The very wealthy don't need to worry about social security. Those who need social security are typically those who have had low paying or minimum wage jobs all their working lives and who have had less discretionary income which they could save for retirement. Why shouldn't the taxpayer set up a scheme for them to be able to live at least in a dignified retirement? People on well paid jobs should have superannuation schemes they can pay into and have their employer pay into as part of their preparation for retirement. Rent control is simply reasonable, it should be based on a fair profit to the landlord and a fair rent to be paid by the tenant. Of course the poor should get welfare safety nets, what are the alternatives? Forcing them to riot? Better public education? Is that a bad thing? And a green society? Again, is that a bad thing?

Social Security is a ponsi-scheme which is methematically untenable... and what's more, if YOU set up the SAME system at a company which YOU OWNED as that which the US left has established... you'd be prosecuted for theft... There is not a scintillas difference between Social Security and the scam executed by Madof; except that Madof was unabel to print his own currency...

The left always cries that 'Social Security has helped millions; this while they lament the losses incurred by those who 'invested' with Madof, NEVER once celebrating the "HELP" that Madof investors recieved during the periods prior to the run on his scheme... demanding instead that those who LOST are ALL THAT MATTERS... the simple fact is they simply aren't bright enough to realize that they have YET to see the Hundreds of millions which SS will SCREW!

Cradle to grave care

In this field of strawmen this stands out. Who is asking for cradle to grave care?

The whole of the ideological left... of which 'cradle to grave' is the pure essence therein. But that you'd try to deny it, is precious.

Asking from the government

France, before the Revolution, was the sort of state the writer appears to desire. And we know what happened there.

Which France... there have been 6 French Republics since the US Revolution... the first of which was born shortly thereafter... France is a textbook of failure... but then that's leftism for ya...

True liberalism

Can Americans go to Cuba without asking the government?

Yes... They simply can't go there by TELLING the US Government.

The Democratic Party as extremist

They're promoters and defenders of capitalism. There are no collectivist views in the Democratic Party, no socialists, not even any real leftists.

ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD that's precious... and spot on, dead center: DELUSIONAL.

Socialism as an academic issue

It ended in 1909? It did? Strangely enough the theory of market socialism was kicking off about then.

Technically, the hope of international "One world" Socialism died with the onset of WW1...

 

[Diuretic]

Slave labor was a function of the agrarian south... The suggestion that the US industrial advantage was a function of slave labor is absurd and a function of unbridle ignorance.

Slavery is a form of economy. It underpinned the economies of the city-states of ancient Greece, among others. It underpinned the economy of the southern states of the US. It's a phase. But it existed.

So, if the collective owns the means of production Einstein, how does ownership NOT gaurantee a job?

You'd have to know something about Soviet society to understand how unemployment was dealt with.

There is no cultural history on earth, wherein less social freedom is realized than in leftist nations... which goes hand in hand with political and every other variety of freedom...

That doesn't make any sense. Would you like to give it another try?

Healthcare is NOT free... and it gets less free as government policy interferes with the free market in which health and every other form of care exists... where the government induces regulatory expenses and interferes with systems that rely upn actuarial probability, it forces the system to sustain the CERTAINTY OF LOSS... all government can do is to guarantee against loss, which immeidately and unavoidably DRIVES UP THE PROBABILITY OF LOSSES DUE TO HAVING FAILED TO AVOID THAT WHICH CAN ONLY LEAD TO LOSS... which in case ya missed it, DRIVES UP THE COST OF HEALTHCARE.

That's a function of nature Diur and no one is ever going to change that... all you'll ever manage to do is to bankrupt one system after another by implementing that same failed strategies to try and fund the same empty promises of socialism.


Of course health care isn't free, I said that. Free health care isn't free and everyone knows it. And then I wrote It's how it's paid for that's the issue. The US health care system is a bloody mess, your problem though. There are plenty of models to examine to see how to create an effective and efficient health care system. Up to now your government hasn't bothered to look. That may change. But as I said, it's up to you.

Social Security is a ponsi-scheme which is methematically untenable... and what's more, if YOU set up the SAME system at a company which YOU OWNED as that which the US left has established... you'd be prosecuted for theft... There is not a scintillas difference between Social Security and the scam executed by Madof; except that Madof was unabel to print his own currency...

The left always cries that 'Social Security has helped millions; this while they lament the losses incurred by those who 'invested' with Madof, NEVER once celebrating the "HELP" that Madof investors recieved during the periods prior to the run on his scheme... demanding instead that those who LOST are ALL THAT MATTERS... the simple fact is they simply aren't bright enough to realize that they have YET to see the Hundreds of millions which SS will SCREW!

It's not a Ponzi scheme at all, it fails to meet the definition.

The whole of the ideological left... of which 'cradle to grave' is the pure essence therein. But that you'd try to deny it, is precious.

I'll deny it indeed.

Which France... there have been 6 French Republics since the US Revolution... the first of which was born shortly thereafter... France is a textbook of failure... but then that's leftism for ya...

The France of absolute monarchy is the France to which I referred.

Yes... They simply can't go there by TELLING the US Government.

So Americans can go to Cuba? But if the government finds out are they in strife? It's okay, you can get away with it, they don't stamp your passport, just give you a card you have to fill out.

The orignal article is in tatters.

 

[midcan5]

ROFLMNAO... There is just no scale which can meansure the hilarity wherein a leftist declares the principles on which the US Constitution rests to be DEAD! and cites the words of GW in support of that erroneous conjecture; this is analogous to declaring gravity to be dead and citing Darwins relevant observations regarding the falling apple as evidence.

Dead? No, not dead - changed - what a magical word, huh. And did you consider the slaves free while ignoring history and pretending to support a word your own party's policies constantly contradict. Sorry conservatives but you lost, not only lost but pretty much flucked things up, and it is time again for change in the direction of freedom. Something you'd love removed for many Americans.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Slave labor was a function of the agrarian south... The suggestion that the US industrial advantage was a function of slave labor is absurd and a function of unbridle ignorance.

Slavery is a form of economy. It underpinned the economies of the city-states of ancient Greece, among others. It underpinned the economy of the southern states of the US. It's a phase. But it existed.

I see... so you just want to sidestep the fact that the US economy was internationally insignificant during the period where the south employed slavery; becoming the unparalleled leader of international production absent a single slave, despite your assertions to the contrary... But I will say that IF you had not made this erroneous error in reasoning, you'd have a great point here. Sure the US employed slavery, it just did not produce anywhere near the advantage that you claim it did and where one considers the losses to the US economy, such as the US Civil war, caused in part by the cultural rift induced by slavery; slavery would be more accurately recognized as an impediment to the US economy, not an asset.

So, if the collective owns the means of production Einstein, how does ownership NOT gaurantee a job?

You'd have to know something about Soviet society to understand how unemployment was dealt with.

Well gee... You don't feel that the Soviet Constitution was a function of Soviet society? I can't see how you'd get there; and given that the Soviet Constitution stated unambiguously that the people of the Soviet Union owned the means of production; and given that YOU STATED that communism provides that the people own the means of production... two sources which I doubt you're likely to contest, it's hard to imagine how the owners would be anything LESS than ENTITLED TO A JOB...

But you feel free to break it down for us...

There is no cultural history on earth, wherein less social freedom is realized than in leftist nations... That doesn't make any sense. Would you like to give it another try?

[/quote]

What would be the point? Despite the statement lacking ambiguity, it clearly stands beyond your means to comprehend... collective rights usurp individual rights, thus usurping freedom; there's nothing complex about it...

Healthcare is NOT free... and it gets less free as government policy interferes with the free market in which health and every other form of care exists... where the government induces regulatory expenses and interferes with systems that rely upn actuarial probability, it forces the system to sustain the CERTAINTY OF LOSS... all government can do is to guarantee against loss, which immeidately and unavoidably DRIVES UP THE PROBABILITY OF LOSSES DUE TO HAVING FAILED TO AVOID THAT WHICH CAN ONLY LEAD TO LOSS... which in case ya missed it, DRIVES UP THE COST OF HEALTHCARE.

That's a function of nature Diur and no one is ever going to change that... all you'll ever manage to do is to bankrupt one system after another by implementing that same failed strategies to try and fund the same empty promises of socialism.

Of course health care isn't free, I said that. Free health care isn't free and everyone knows it. And then I wrote It's how it's paid for that's the issue. The US health care system is a bloody mess, your problem though. There are plenty of models to examine to see how to create an effective and efficient health care system. Up to now your government hasn't bothered to look. That may change. But as I said, it's up to you.

ROFL, Diur you're constitutionally incapabel of addressing the argument, aren't ya sport?

There is no problem in the US healthcare system that would not be solved by stripping it of government interference... Interference which FORCES the liability of those engaged in practicing medicine off the scale... but even WITH that the US healthcare system is superior to any other in the world; and this is without regard and flatly rejecting the UN 'reports' which seek to prop up the socialist failures that would otherwise like to be able to compete with it...

Social Security is a ponsi-scheme which is methematically untenable... and what's more, if YOU set up the SAME system at a company which YOU OWNED as that which the US left has established... you'd be prosecuted for theft... There is not a scintillas difference between Social Security and the scam executed by Madof; except that Madof was unabel to print his own currency...

The left always cries that 'Social Security has helped millions; this while they lament the losses incurred by those who 'invested' with Madof, NEVER once celebrating the "HELP" that Madof investors recieved during the periods prior to the run on his scheme... demanding instead that those who LOST are ALL THAT MATTERS... the simple fact is they simply aren't bright enough to realize that they have YET to see the Hundreds of millions which SS will SCREW!

It's not a Ponzi scheme at all, it fails to meet the definition.

No? That's odd...

Pon·zi scheme [pónzee skm]
(plural Pon·zi schemes)
n
a pyramid investment swindle in which supposed profits are paid to early investors from money actually invested by later participants

Now can ya show us the distinction which SS enjoys from that of the Ponzi Scheme, defined above?

The whole of the ideological left... of which 'cradle to grave' is the pure essence therein. But that you'd try to deny it, is precious.

I'll deny it indeed.

MAN! What a great argument that would be, if 'you denying it' was actually some discernable form of argument...

Which France... there have been 6 French Republics since the US Revolution... the first of which was born shortly thereafter... France is a textbook of failure... but then that's leftism for ya...

The France of absolute monarchy is the France to which I referred.

Oh Ok... so you're referring to the France which resulted in the failure... like the other 6 'Frances' since... LOL... suit yourself.

Yes... They simply can't go there by TELLING the US Government.

So Americans can go to Cuba?

Yes... They simply can't go there by TELLING the US Government.

The orignal article is in tatters.

Now Diur, can you explain how any of this advanced your position? the fact is that the ideological left exists to give the stupid, a political voice... the paradox spoken to by the OP is accurate; the left is an exercise in multifacted contradictions and it should be pointed out that at this point that if you were to advance your argument 1000% beyond where it presently rests, it could only hope to at some point rise to the level of 'tattered'...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

ROFLMNAO... There is just no scale which can meansure the hilarity wherein a leftist declares the principles on which the US Constitution rests to be DEAD! and cites the words of GW in support of that erroneous conjecture; this is analogous to declaring gravity to be dead and citing Darwins relevant observations regarding the falling apple as evidence.

Dead? No, not dead - changed - what a magical word, huh. And did you consider the slaves free while ignoring history and pretending to support a word your own party's policies constantly contradict. Sorry conservatives but you lost, not only lost but pretty much flucked things up, and it is time again for change in the direction of freedom. Something you'd love removed for many Americans.

ROFLMNAO.. Oh GOD! Now that is precious... So you feel that the loss of an election changes the bed-rock principles of Conservatism, yet ya can't seem to find a way to show how that is even possible, let alone a fact... It's just WILD how consistant that particular intellectual failure is with you people...

Explain for the record Midcan just how the Hussein Regime and it's stated policy goals will advance INDIVIDUAL 'freedom'...

And please... be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.

Now a note to the board: This idiot will not return to provide an explanation for how the socialist policies of President Hussein (the current US president, not the former Iraqi president which America just removed by force of arms, to liberate those THAT President Hussein tyrannized...) could potentially advance the cause of INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM... she may respond, but her response will in NO WAY even a SINGLE potentially valid means by which the tyrannical advocacy of the collective can result in greater freedom for the individual. This of course based upon the absolute impossibility for such, given the contradicting goals and the tyrannical means by which those ends are pursued...