Ayn Rand is right. There is no higher state than

[bripat9643]

Social contracts would lead one to believe that two people entered into an agreement. I never agreed for the government to take my money and give it to someone else who did not earn it.

Sure you did..and still do.

Nothing stopping you from leaving the country.

You're enunciating the ethics of a criminal gang.

Of course, that's all the Democrat party is.

 

[Truthmatters]

Rand should have never driven on a road.

But she made the maps

 

[Truthmatters]

Social contracts would lead one to believe that two people entered into an agreement. I never agreed for the government to take my money and give it to someone else who did not earn it.

Sure you did..and still do.

Nothing stopping you from leaving the country.

You're enunciating the ethics of a criminal gang.

Of course, that's all the Democrat party is.

Do you understand how democracy works?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The issue is one of statism
Socialism, communism, fascism, crony capitalism are all forms of some level of CPE's
and share little with a true free market system. Fascism depends on and thrives on a large and intrusive gov't or "big gov't", not small.

Indeed
Peter Drucker

"the complete collapse of the belief in the attainability of freedom and equality through Marxism has forced Russia to travel the same road
toward a totalitarian society of un-freedom and inequality which Germany has been following. Not that communism and fascism are essentially the same.
Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion, and it has proved as much an illusion in Russia as in pre-Hitler Germany."​

Hayek defined Fascism :

"It is simply collectivism freed from all traces of an individualist tradition which might hamper its realization"
which is one of the potential problems with CPEs and the onset of statism
​

Too often many call for ends with no appreciation
of the means to get there

All governments are "collectivism" in one form or another.

Conservatives wholeheartly support propping up a small elite group of wealthy people.

And it they constantly point to divine mandates to do so.

I don't see any of you two fisted conservative types making your way out to the wild areas of the planet and starting up your own homesteads.

And there are plenty of places to go.

Considering that both political parties use corporations to support their power and goals,
makes you argument disingenuous, at best.

We only need to look at Papa Obama's deals with Big Pharma to protect their profit
margins in exchange for support for his faux legacy of PapaObama Care, to see that
it is not the case of just "conservatives"

Whoops!!!!

You forgot any (actual) details....and, proof....again.

 

[grunt11b]

So it's extreme to profit off of ones own labor and to choose not to allow another man to take what you have rightfully earned for yourself?

No, it’s extreme to presume that the above can occur in a vacuum. Indeed, no man is an island – all success is predicated on the contributions of others, such as the public education one receives to become a successful individual. Or the clean water, roads, and other components of public infrastructure that contribute to one’s success, to contribute back to the things which facilitated one’s success is appropriate in the context of the social contract.

Americans became successful on their own long before social programs became implemented in this country. It was called initiative and self reliance back then, Take your oil and steel tycoons for example, they created their own wealth, and hired people to work for them. Life in America has only gotten worse under social programs, not better.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Truth is hard for the Left
In fact, it is their worst enemy

 

[Sallow]

So it's extreme to profit off of ones own labor and to choose not to allow another man to take what you have rightfully earned for yourself?

No, it’s extreme to presume that the above can occur in a vacuum. Indeed, no man is an island – all success is predicated on the contributions of others, such as the public education one receives to become a successful individual. Or the clean water, roads, and other components of public infrastructure that contribute to one’s success, to contribute back to the things which facilitated one’s success is appropriate in the context of the social contract.

Your parents payed the taxes that paid for public schools, roads and other "public infrastructure." Furthermore, the actual cost of these items is a small fraction of what we pay in taxes. We all know the bulk of taxes go to tics sucking on the government tit. Building a few roads does not entitle government to financially rape people who work harder than the tics who vote in the politicians.

Now American citizens are "tics".

You do know a good deal of homeless were veterans of one war or another, right?

"Tics".

 

[grunt11b]

Rand was a reactionary hack.

The dogma of ‘Objectivism’ is predicated on the bizarre perception of a society without structure, a utopian fantasy that naively fails to take into consideration the need of social contracts, legal doctrine, and the inevitable manifestation of institutions.

Modernity rendered ‘Objectivism’ irrelevant before its inception.

Social contracts would lead one to believe that two people entered into an agreement. I never agreed for the government to take my money and give it to someone else who did not earn it.

Sure you did..and still do.

Nothing stopping you from leaving the country.

Nor you, you leftists seem to be the only people who have issues with America, maybe you are the ones who should find another country more suitable to your ideology, not us.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Social contracts would lead one to believe that two people entered into an agreement. I never agreed for the government to take my money and give it to someone else who did not earn it.

Sure you did..and still do.

Nothing stopping you from leaving the country.

Nor you, you leftists seem to be the only people who have issues with America, maybe you are the ones who should find another country more suitable to your ideology, not us.

It is tough now that the Soviet Union fell apart

 

[Sallow]

So it's extreme to profit off of ones own labor and to choose not to allow another man to take what you have rightfully earned for yourself?

No, it’s extreme to presume that the above can occur in a vacuum. Indeed, no man is an island – all success is predicated on the contributions of others, such as the public education one receives to become a successful individual. Or the clean water, roads, and other components of public infrastructure that contribute to one’s success, to contribute back to the things which facilitated one’s success is appropriate in the context of the social contract.

Americans became successful on their own long before social programs became implemented in this country. It was called initiative and self reliance back then, Take your oil and steel tycoons for example, they created their own wealth, and hired people to work for them. Life in America has only gotten worse under social programs, not better.

What bullshit.

Steel and oil tycoons got tax money for their product. Never heard of "War" profiteers have ya? There's a very good reason this country is at war almost all the time.

Unbelievable.

And most of the big "Robber" barons had that name for a reason. While they may not have been breaking any laws, yet, they were most certainly unethical in the way they were accruing wealth. Some of them outright murdered their competitors.

And it seems you skipped history as well. The founders were as cautious about accumulation of wealth as they were about big intrusive government.

They never wanted to much power or money concentrated into a small group.

 

[grunt11b]

Fascism or Corporatism is essentially theft of wealth by the rich from the poor.

The issue is one of statism
Socialism, communism, fascism, crony capitalism are all forms of some level of CPE's
and share little with a true free market system. Fascism depends on and thrives on a large and intrusive gov't or "big gov't", not small.

Indeed
Peter Drucker

"the complete collapse of the belief in the attainability of freedom and equality through Marxism has forced Russia to travel the same road
toward a totalitarian society of un-freedom and inequality which Germany has been following. Not that communism and fascism are essentially the same.
Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion, and it has proved as much an illusion in Russia as in pre-Hitler Germany."​

Hayek defined Fascism :

"It is simply collectivism freed from all traces of an individualist tradition which might hamper its realization"
which is one of the potential problems with CPEs and the onset of statism
​

Too often many call for ends with no appreciation
of the means to get there

All governments are "collectivism" in one form or another.

That does not mean we have to settle for one here.

Conservatives wholeheartly support propping up a small elite group of wealthy people.

That's because conservatives know who creates jobs in this country, and it's not the welfare recipients.

And it they constantly point to divine mandates to do so.

Sounds like Obama yes?

I don't see any of you two fisted conservative types making your way out to the wild areas of the planet and starting up your own homesteads.

The Democrat party makes it harder and herder each year to do so. Democrats only know how to confiscate wealth, you dont see many of them going out and creating jobs now do you?

 

[Sallow]

Social contracts would lead one to believe that two people entered into an agreement. I never agreed for the government to take my money and give it to someone else who did not earn it.

Sure you did..and still do.

Nothing stopping you from leaving the country.

Nor you, you leftists seem to be the only people who have issues with America, maybe you are the ones who should find another country more suitable to your ideology, not us.

I don't have as many issues with America as you do, pal. I ain't wanting to destroy the government. Your hero Grover Norquist, does..

And I ain't going around telling other Americans, they ain't American.

 

[Bfgrn]

People who call themselves conservatives today are not looking for common sense or common decency solutions for this nation. Solutions that would benefit their families and their community. They are ideologues who want to dismantle any shred of COMMunity and replace it with SELF interest?

That is not 'conservatism', that is narcissism.


A TRUE liberal...

"Privilege is here, and with privilege goes responsibility. And I think, as your president said, that it must be a source of satisfaction to you that this school's graduates have recognized it. I hope that the students who are here now will also recognize it in the future.

There is inherited wealth in this country and also inherited poverty. And unless the graduates of this college and other colleges like it who are given a running start in life--unless they are willing to put back into our society, those talents, the broad sympathy, the understanding, the compassion--unless they are willing to put those qualities back into the service of the Great Republic, then obviously the presuppositions upon which our democracy are based are bound to be fallible."

President John F. Kennedy
Remarks at Amherst College
October 26, 1963

But that's just it, if JFK where on the Democrat ballot today he would not be electable. The Democrat party has shifted so far left these days Kennedy would be too conservative to be electable today.
Ask yourself this, would you vote JFK today? I know I would.

That is a complete fallacy. The 'center' has been pulled to the right by 40 years of a conservative era. The Democratic Party has shifted to the right. The Republican is SO FAR right that they can only nominate a candidate who appeals to the far right base, the Teapublicans.

Jack Kennedy was a liberal. If you believe different, I offer up his brother Ted. Ted worshiped Jack and Bobby; he dedicated his public life to carry on THEIR agendas. If Jack and Bobby were 'conservative', then so was Ted...

I was alive when JFK was President. One of my Senators in Washington was Jacob Javits, a liberal Republican...

Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"? If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But, if by a "Liberal," they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties - someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." [Applause.]

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word, "Liberal," to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my views - I hope for all time - 2 nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take this opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, and the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, this faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith, for liberalism is not so much a party creed or a set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of Justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves. [Applause.]

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a super state. I see no magic to tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale Federal bureaucracies in this administration, as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and its full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by an announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons, that liberalism is our best and our only hope in the world today. [Applause.] For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 presidential campaign is whether our Government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility. [Applause.]

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city and only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

John F. Kennedy Library

 

[Sallow]

The issue is one of statism
Socialism, communism, fascism, crony capitalism are all forms of some level of CPE's
and share little with a true free market system. Fascism depends on and thrives on a large and intrusive gov't or "big gov't", not small.

Indeed
Peter Drucker

"the complete collapse of the belief in the attainability of freedom and equality through Marxism has forced Russia to travel the same road
toward a totalitarian society of un-freedom and inequality which Germany has been following. Not that communism and fascism are essentially the same.
Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion, and it has proved as much an illusion in Russia as in pre-Hitler Germany."​

Hayek defined Fascism :

"It is simply collectivism freed from all traces of an individualist tradition which might hamper its realization"
which is one of the potential problems with CPEs and the onset of statism
​

Too often many call for ends with no appreciation
of the means to get there

That does not mean we have to settle for one here.

That's because conservatives know who creates jobs in this country, and it's not the welfare recipients.

Sounds like Obama yes?

I don't see any of you two fisted conservative types making your way out to the wild areas of the planet and starting up your own homesteads.

The Democrat party makes it harder and herder each year to do so. Democrats only know how to confiscate wealth, you dont see many of them going out and creating jobs now do you?

Read the fucking Constitution once in a while..

And no government is the only government that isn't collectivism.

I ain't a fan of Anarchy..chief.

No matter how much you want it here..I will fight against that.

 

[Neotrotsky]

The Left fully understands the consequences of the state's actions

Why else would Papa Obama be reigning in EPA regulations
The last thing he needs is more strangulation of the economy by useless regulations to
hurt his reelections chances even more

 

[grunt11b]

What a load of crap. Fascists/Conservatives feel that they should be able to use tax payer funds to enrich people at the top with government contracts, grants, loans and tax loop holes. Add in turn over government developed products to private industry that tax payer money paid for..like UNIX. The whole internet was built by the government..who makes money on it?

The Iraqi war represented a huge fleecing of the American tax payer. And private industry benefitted. Look at the contractors. Security contractors hired people trained by the government at tax payer expense, for more then triple what it costs to pay them if they were still in the military.

Fascism or Corporatism is essentially theft of wealth by the rich from the poor.

Something conservatives/fascists wholeheartly support.

That sounds alot like what Obama is doing right now, doesn't it?

Like every single other American President before him.

NOW you have a problem with it?

What's changed, exactly?

So you guys only scream bloody murder when it's a Republican in there doing it, but when it's a Democrat all we hear are crickets.

 

[Neotrotsky]

That does not mean we have to settle for one here.

That's because conservatives know who creates jobs in this country, and it's not the welfare recipients.

Sounds like Obama yes?

The Democrat party makes it harder and herder each year to do so. Democrats only know how to confiscate wealth, you dont see many of them going out and creating jobs now do you?

Read the fucking Constitution once in a while..

And no government is the only government that isn't collectivism.

I ain't a fan of Anarchy..chief.

No matter how much you want it here..I will fight against that.

No one is calling for anarchy

The social contract with gov't should be limited and always watched

 

[grunt11b]

No, it’s extreme to presume that the above can occur in a vacuum. Indeed, no man is an island – all success is predicated on the contributions of others, such as the public education one receives to become a successful individual. Or the clean water, roads, and other components of public infrastructure that contribute to one’s success, to contribute back to the things which facilitated one’s success is appropriate in the context of the social contract.

Your parents payed the taxes that paid for public schools, roads and other "public infrastructure." Furthermore, the actual cost of these items is a small fraction of what we pay in taxes. We all know the bulk of taxes go to tics sucking on the government tit. Building a few roads does not entitle government to financially rape people who work harder than the tics who vote in the politicians.

Now American citizens are "tics".

You do know a good deal of homeless were veterans of one war or another, right?

"Tics".

I think what he meant was the unproductive citizens who chose to be unproductive because the Gubment did it for them. Not the Veterans who have actually earned their keep. I like how you invoked veterans on this one though, it's typical leftist class warfare and is not much different than someone saying "Think of the children!". How convenient it is to invoke such a thing when it is convenient for your cause, but the left have not done shit for veterans and openly denounce them at every chance they get. The left realizes the one thing standing in their way of total control in this country are the veterans serving right now, and those of us who have in the past. Damn that sworn oath!

 

[bripat9643]

Sure you did..and still do.

Nothing stopping you from leaving the country.

You're enunciating the ethics of a criminal gang.

Of course, that's all the Democrat party is.

Do you understand how democracy works?

Yes I do. Think of two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

 

[grunt11b]

Sure you did..and still do.

Nothing stopping you from leaving the country.

Nor you, you leftists seem to be the only people who have issues with America, maybe you are the ones who should find another country more suitable to your ideology, not us.

I don't have as many issues with America as you do, pal. I ain't wanting to destroy the government. You're hero Grover Norquist, does..

And I ain't going around telling other Americans, they ain't American.

I did not say anyone else is not an American, unless you are talking about illegals here. Where the hell did that come from?