The Destructive Effects of Government

[PoliticalChic]

Sounds like those areas will have demand for the delivery of goods and services, which someone else will be able to fill.

Perhaps Michelle O can collect all of those terrible school lunches that she mandated kids eat....and, instead, threw them in the garbage, ....and she can distribute them to the 400 now-out-of-work former Walmart employees

And the folks who can no longer work at that the Walmarts that Democrats helped to put out of business.

Maybe all Democrat pols should have to read the story of the goose that laid golden eggs, before they legislate.

 

[JoeB131]

I noticed the Mail Order Bride From Hell still hasn't addressed the fact most of the Wal-Marts being closed are in the deep south, where they have right to work and no minimum wage.

 

[Centinel]

So unless it's a case of illegal slavery, the agreement between an employer and an employee is none of the government's business. To think otherwise is to think like a fascist.

To think that is to think like a child, with no understanding of capitalism.

To violate the liberty of two people to enter into a mutually agreeable contract is to think like a fascist.

It's the 'liberty' of the People in a government of the People to make labor laws as they see fit.

That isn't liberty. That's the tyranny of the majority.

How about the tyranny of someone more powerful then you mistreating you/? or say your neighbor??? You act like government is the only thing that can ever mistreat you...Well, in most cases that simply isn't so.

Most would argue that if we are going to have a government, then its legitimate function is to protect life, liberty, and property. Protecting you from a stronger neighbor would fall under this mandate. Robbing you to distribute your money to others would not.

 

[Mac1958]

Yet another binary topic, government is all bad/government is all good.

I do realize that nuance requires more intellectual elasticity, more effort with critical thinking, but yet again:

The relationship between public and private, like virtually everything else, exists on a continuum. The key is identifying, executing and maintaining a proper equilibrium between the two, an equilibrium that (a) provides dependable and foundational benefits and protections for a society that ultimately benefit us all (even, indirectly, those at the "top"), (b) consciously and carefully avoiding, to the best of our ability, an environment of dependence that would otherwise significantly retard personal/societal growth, all without (c) creating too many restrictions and detriments to the dynamic nature of "free" markets, regulated capitalism and its fruits.

Of course, the term "too many restrictions and detriments" is subjective and can only be determined through mature, humble, honest and reasoned negotiation, cooperation and agreement among intelligent adults over a period of time. It must also be dynamic and adaptable.

I dunno, wouldn't that be a more interesting, nuanced, stimulating discussion?

Anyone? Bueller?
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

To think that is to think like a child, with no understanding of capitalism.

To violate the liberty of two people to enter into a mutually agreeable contract is to think like a fascist.

It's the 'liberty' of the People in a government of the People to make labor laws as they see fit.

That isn't liberty. That's the tyranny of the majority.

How about the tyranny of someone more powerful then you mistreating you/? or say your neighbor??? You act like government is the only thing that can ever mistreat you...Well, in most cases that simply isn't so.

Most would argue that if we are going to have a government, then its legitimate function is to protect life, liberty, and property. Protecting you from a stronger neighbor would fall under this mandate. Robbing you to distribute your money to others would not.

But what if the majority, legislatively, legally, and constitutionally wants to 'rob' you, say,

in the form of taxing those with higher incomes to pay for education and healthcare for lower incomes?

Are you advocating a return to some sort of oligarchical structure where a few people - who agree with you - can reign over the People's voice?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I noticed the Mail Order Bride From Hell still hasn't addressed the fact most of the Wal-Marts being closed are in the deep south, where they have right to work and no minimum wage.

Her stunned silence on certain rebuttals is her tell that she has lost that argument. She doesn't have the moral courage to admit when she's wrong.

 

[Centinel]

To violate the liberty of two people to enter into a mutually agreeable contract is to think like a fascist.

It's the 'liberty' of the People in a government of the People to make labor laws as they see fit.

That isn't liberty. That's the tyranny of the majority.

How about the tyranny of someone more powerful then you mistreating you/? or say your neighbor??? You act like government is the only thing that can ever mistreat you...Well, in most cases that simply isn't so.

Most would argue that if we are going to have a government, then its legitimate function is to protect life, liberty, and property. Protecting you from a stronger neighbor would fall under this mandate. Robbing you to distribute your money to others would not.

But what if the majority, legislatively, legally, and constitutionally wants to 'rob' you, say,

in the form of taxing those with higher incomes to pay for education and healthcare for lower incomes?

Are you advocating a return to some sort of oligarchical structure where a few people - who agree with you - can reign over the People's voice?

Nope. I'm not advocating for that. I'm saying that if the people do that then they are violating life, liberty, and property. And I don't think people ought to violate the life, liberty, or property of others.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's the 'liberty' of the People in a government of the People to make labor laws as they see fit.

That isn't liberty. That's the tyranny of the majority.

How about the tyranny of someone more powerful then you mistreating you/? or say your neighbor??? You act like government is the only thing that can ever mistreat you...Well, in most cases that simply isn't so.

Most would argue that if we are going to have a government, then its legitimate function is to protect life, liberty, and property. Protecting you from a stronger neighbor would fall under this mandate. Robbing you to distribute your money to others would not.

But what if the majority, legislatively, legally, and constitutionally wants to 'rob' you, say,

in the form of taxing those with higher incomes to pay for education and healthcare for lower incomes?

Are you advocating a return to some sort of oligarchical structure where a few people - who agree with you - can reign over the People's voice?

Nope. I'm not advocating for that. I'm saying that if the people do that then they are violating life, liberty, and property. And I don't think people ought to violate the life, liberty, or property of others.

How would government function then if all taxes were voluntary?

 

[Centinel]

That isn't liberty. That's the tyranny of the majority.

How about the tyranny of someone more powerful then you mistreating you/? or say your neighbor??? You act like government is the only thing that can ever mistreat you...Well, in most cases that simply isn't so.

Most would argue that if we are going to have a government, then its legitimate function is to protect life, liberty, and property. Protecting you from a stronger neighbor would fall under this mandate. Robbing you to distribute your money to others would not.

But what if the majority, legislatively, legally, and constitutionally wants to 'rob' you, say,

in the form of taxing those with higher incomes to pay for education and healthcare for lower incomes?

Are you advocating a return to some sort of oligarchical structure where a few people - who agree with you - can reign over the People's voice?

Nope. I'm not advocating for that. I'm saying that if the people do that then they are violating life, liberty, and property. And I don't think people ought to violate the life, liberty, or property of others.

How would government function then if all taxes were voluntary?

Could we have a system of governance in which there is no forced taxation? I'm not sure if we're ready for that yet.

However, it's certainly wrong for The People to take one person's property in order to provide (shitty) education and healthcare to someone else. That much is clear.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How about the tyranny of someone more powerful then you mistreating you/? or say your neighbor??? You act like government is the only thing that can ever mistreat you...Well, in most cases that simply isn't so.

Most would argue that if we are going to have a government, then its legitimate function is to protect life, liberty, and property. Protecting you from a stronger neighbor would fall under this mandate. Robbing you to distribute your money to others would not.

But what if the majority, legislatively, legally, and constitutionally wants to 'rob' you, say,

in the form of taxing those with higher incomes to pay for education and healthcare for lower incomes?

Are you advocating a return to some sort of oligarchical structure where a few people - who agree with you - can reign over the People's voice?

Nope. I'm not advocating for that. I'm saying that if the people do that then they are violating life, liberty, and property. And I don't think people ought to violate the life, liberty, or property of others.

How would government function then if all taxes were voluntary?

Could we have a system of governance in which there is no forced taxation? I'm not sure if we're ready for that yet.

However, it's certainly wrong for The People to take one person's property in order to provide (shitty) education and healthcare to someone else. That much is clear.

So the abolishment of the public education system, where the poor simply go without, and the abolition of socialized healthcare,

where the poor simply go without,

is supposed to make what better for whom?

 

[NYcarbineer]

How about the tyranny of someone more powerful then you mistreating you/? or say your neighbor??? You act like government is the only thing that can ever mistreat you...Well, in most cases that simply isn't so.

Most would argue that if we are going to have a government, then its legitimate function is to protect life, liberty, and property. Protecting you from a stronger neighbor would fall under this mandate. Robbing you to distribute your money to others would not.

But what if the majority, legislatively, legally, and constitutionally wants to 'rob' you, say,

in the form of taxing those with higher incomes to pay for education and healthcare for lower incomes?

Are you advocating a return to some sort of oligarchical structure where a few people - who agree with you - can reign over the People's voice?

Nope. I'm not advocating for that. I'm saying that if the people do that then they are violating life, liberty, and property. And I don't think people ought to violate the life, liberty, or property of others.

How would government function then if all taxes were voluntary?

Could we have a system of governance in which there is no forced taxation? I'm not sure if we're ready for that yet.

However, it's certainly wrong for The People to take one person's property in order to provide (shitty) education and healthcare to someone else. That much is clear.

So it's not the taking of a person's property you object to, it's the taking of that property for reasons you don't happen to like that you object to.

 

[Centinel]

Most would argue that if we are going to have a government, then its legitimate function is to protect life, liberty, and property. Protecting you from a stronger neighbor would fall under this mandate. Robbing you to distribute your money to others would not.

But what if the majority, legislatively, legally, and constitutionally wants to 'rob' you, say,

in the form of taxing those with higher incomes to pay for education and healthcare for lower incomes?

Are you advocating a return to some sort of oligarchical structure where a few people - who agree with you - can reign over the People's voice?

Nope. I'm not advocating for that. I'm saying that if the people do that then they are violating life, liberty, and property. And I don't think people ought to violate the life, liberty, or property of others.

How would government function then if all taxes were voluntary?

Could we have a system of governance in which there is no forced taxation? I'm not sure if we're ready for that yet.

However, it's certainly wrong for The People to take one person's property in order to provide (shitty) education and healthcare to someone else. That much is clear.

So it's not the taking of a person's property you object to, it's the taking of that property for reasons you don't happen to like that you object to.

Nope. It's taking a person's property when you have the option not to.

 

[Centinel]

Most would argue that if we are going to have a government, then its legitimate function is to protect life, liberty, and property. Protecting you from a stronger neighbor would fall under this mandate. Robbing you to distribute your money to others would not.

But what if the majority, legislatively, legally, and constitutionally wants to 'rob' you, say,

in the form of taxing those with higher incomes to pay for education and healthcare for lower incomes?

Are you advocating a return to some sort of oligarchical structure where a few people - who agree with you - can reign over the People's voice?

Nope. I'm not advocating for that. I'm saying that if the people do that then they are violating life, liberty, and property. And I don't think people ought to violate the life, liberty, or property of others.

How would government function then if all taxes were voluntary?

Could we have a system of governance in which there is no forced taxation? I'm not sure if we're ready for that yet.

However, it's certainly wrong for The People to take one person's property in order to provide (shitty) education and healthcare to someone else. That much is clear.

So the abolishment of the public education system, where the poor simply go without, and the abolition of socialized healthcare,

where the poor simply go without,

is supposed to make what better for whom?

It makes it better for everyone because the government isn't acting as a thief. You would also have a lot more money to educate and provide healthcare to whomever you wished.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"The Destructive Effects of Government"

The destructive effects of anti-government idiocy.

 

[bripat9643]

Or stay open. It's a free country.

We don't need slave labor, or wages.

Slavery is illegal.

That's the theory...

That's the law.

Yep, when it's obeyed.

Slavery only exists where the law enforces it.

 

[bripat9643]

"The Destructive Effects of Government"

The destructive effects of anti-government idiocy.

There are no ill effects from opposing government.

 

[bripat9643]

Is the government composed of dogs? Cat? Porpoises?

Composed of humans, not human as he said, dumbfuck.

So the government is composed of humans, humans that are simple creatures, especially the dumb ones. What a vote of confidence.

And these simple, dumb humans know what's best for the me and my family?

The government is not a human, dummy. Their shit gets examined, unlike you life more than likely.

Is the government aliens? Robots?

Dumbfuck, your quote: "But the government is human."

No, it isn't.

Sure it is. Government is a gang of men whose aims are hostile and destructive to the general population.

 

[Centinel]

"The Destructive Effects of Government"

The destructive effects of anti-government idiocy.

It's idiocy to oppose the unnecessary violation of life, liberty, and property?

 

[bripat9643]

The two things are mutually exclusive. You're a fascist.

Nope, dumbass.

Yes they are. Never heard a liberal name a single thing about capitalism that they approved of.

Capitalism is a wonder, dumbfuck. It also has a dark side, so we regulate it, and it needs what government provides so we tax it. Good luck finding a liberal who isn't a capitalist, some more and some less but none other.

Government doesn't provide anything that business can't provide for itself. If capitalism is such a wonder, then quote something you have posted that favors private control over government control.

 

[bripat9643]

The two things are mutually exclusive. You're a fascist.

Nope, dumbass.

Yes they are. Never heard a liberal name a single thing about capitalism that they approved of.

I love capitalism and the private sector! I approve of most of it as long as it's regulated and made into a system that works for us all. What has happened since Reagan is a system that shits on us.

By the time idiots like you are done regulating, there wouldn't be a private sector. Government is what shits on us. Private business can't force you to pay for anything. Only government can do that.